GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Wait, this isn't p39aircraft.net??
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wait, this isn't p39aircraft.net??
The use of high cover might have surprised the Luftwaffe the first time it was used, because they had little respect for the soviet's tactical thinking.
But after that do you think they wouldn't send it some aircraft at higher altitude to keep the high cover busy while other aircraft took care of the ground attack aircraft?
It's a simple concept, both sides were using high cover aircraft to cover other aircraft doing ground attack in late WW1, so the counter to that wasn't rocket science.
You seem to think people lose the ability to think when they're fighting a war.
I keep picturing squadrons of BiffF15's P-39's taxiing into battle. Post 18, Best Fixed Landing Gear Fighter.Did the VVS routinely attack targets behind the front line at altitudes above ground level?
The altitude is for the attacking aircraft not the target.I keep picturing squadrons of BiffF15's P-39's taxiing into battle. Post 18, Best Fixed Landing Gear Fighter.
I keep picturing squadrons of BiffF15's P-39's taxiing into battle. Post 18, Best Fixed Landing Gear Fighter.
See what I did there?
I understand that it had stalling characteristics that were worse than most other aircraft.Another possible reason is that the P39 was supposed to be the latest greatest wholly uncompromised land fighter and yet had barely any superiority over a warmed-up re-engined previous generation design and an almost contemporary (but older) design labouring under the necessary compromises of carrier operation.
If the P39 had been a successful design it should have comfortably bested the P-40 and F4F at all heights on every performance metric, and had a decisive edge in combat. It didn't, as far as I am aware.
P-40E in green, A6M2 in red vs P-39K. F4F vs P-39K.Another possible reason is that the P39 was supposed to be the latest greatest wholly uncompromised land fighter and yet had barely any superiority over a warmed-up re-engined previous generation design and an almost contemporary (but older) design labouring under the necessary compromises of carrier operation.
If the P39 had been a successful design it should have comfortably bested the P-40 and F4F at all heights on every performance metric, and had a decisive edge in combat. It didn't, as far as I am aware.
I understand that it had stalling characteristics that were worse than most other aircraft.
Good stalling characteristics, just not much warning.I understand that it had stalling characteristics that were worse than most other aircraft.
Not exactly an earful.Oh boy...
I think there's a joke there, but I totally missed it.If you take all the armour and guns out of the nose you can give the pilot a written warning a week before take off.
Good stalling characteristics, just not much warning.