XP-39 II - The Groundhog Day Thread

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, take a look at the electronics under the canopy and above the engine and then also in the regular radio compartment just ahead of the tail. CG would not be a problem. As for guns. the four .30 cal in the wings would have to do the job - but then again the Blenheim fighter had that same armament.

They did build a two seat radar equipped P-51D and tried it out in the ETO - but not for night fighting.
 
Response to 1640

Attached are 2 files, Ray Wagner's ETO/MTO numbers and a revised set of victories that was posted on the net.

Eagledad
 

Attachments

  • US European Fighter Stats.xls
    15 KB · Views: 65
  • World War II US Aircraft Air to Air Victories.doc
    61 KB · Views: 61
XBe02Drvr said:
...straddling the engine, with the electronics in his lap to keep his essential bits warm!
Click to expand...
If you put the engines in the wings, have the crew side by side but slightly offset, swap the engines for Merlins and make it out of wood you will have a great P-39 night fighter, I am now glad I thought about it, why didn't anyone else? Hardly any work involved, it took less than a minute to type.
 
On the use of 7.62 mm (0.300) mgs in the Soviet Airacobras

On June 4, 1944, the famous 16 GvIAP, one of the most famous VVS KA Fighter Regiments and definitely the most famous P-39 unit

Mission #2 between 16:25-17:30 (Moscow time), 10 Aerocobras in the Larga area between 1500-2500 m. (Klubov, Ivankov, Trofimov, Ketov, Ivashko, Berezhkin, Sukhov, Dushanin, Glinka, Vahnenko) Combat with 15 Ju 88, 14 Me 109, 12 Fw 190. Capt. Klubov downed an Me 109 at Redich (Dedich?), while Ivashko at Bogonos. 1 Ju 88 and 3 Fw 190s (by Glinka, Trofimov, …) were also claimed. Consumed ammo: 129 37mm, 940 12.7mm, 6529 7.62mm rounds. On the other hand 3 soviet Aerocobras were damaged:

Mission #3 between 18:20-19:15 (Moscow time), 8 Aerocobras in the Larga area. (Starchikov, Novikov, Torbeev, Statsenko, Ivanov, Onishenkov, Nikitin, Belozerov) Combat with 6 Fw 190, 4 Bf 109 at 2500 m. St.Lt. Nikolaii Alexeevich Starchikov downed a Fw 190, which fell at Movileni(?)–SE, 3 km. St.Lt. Grigorii Grigorevich Statsenko got damaged, but hit another one. Consumed ammo: 95 37mm, 950 12.7mm and 1400 7.62mm rounds. No soviet losses!

So they still had their .300 mgs installed. Klubov (31+3 victories) was still flying P-39N-1 at that time, Glinka is either Dmitri (50+0) or his brother Boris (27+2). Probably at least one of those flying Mission #3 and who had fired flew in a P-39Q with 0.5 gun gondolas installed because of the difference in the ratio of 37 mm ammo used to .5 ammo used
between Mission #2 and Mission #3.

Suorce:
Hartmann: claims vs. victories - Page 14 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
HGabor 13th November 2020 02:55 Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories

PS. Looking the ammo consumption data more carefully, it seems that at least a couple P-39s participating the Mission#3 did not have their wing mgs installed.
 
Last edited:
GregP said:
I always wondered where the numbers from the internet came from since I can find the internet numbers, but not any documents that support those numbers.
Click to expand...

The attachments Eagledad posted are from Ray Wagner's American Combat Aircraft and the other I believe is from William Wolf's Victory Roll. It would be interesting where the authors got there statistics.
 
Hi Stig1207.

I have Ray Wagner's book and have come across the other numbers on the net, but never knew where they came from.

Seems to me that if someone is going to go to all the trouble to accumulate the numbers shown, they'd include other numbers, too, such as sorties, losses, etc ... not just victories. Maybe I'm too much an engineer.
 

Which raises the question: where did Wagner get those stats? I have taken the liberty of adding the total stats for fighters in the ETO and MTO from USAAF Statistical Digest, to the attachment provided by Eagledad. The numbers are so close that they suggest a common source, but the breakdown by type of fighter is not in the Digest.
 

Attachments

  • US European Fighter Stats_StatDigest.xls
    44 KB · Views: 59
Hi Stig. I've been chasing the numbers like these for some 40+ years, and it's tough to find data. Well, at least for me.

Some have pointed mne at sources that, for the life of me, I can't find, no matter how I look for them.

Almost seems like a deliberate attempt at NOT saving any reliable data by governments. They have data about bullets expended. Why not about kills, losses, sorties, etc by airplane model? It HAS to be in the combat reports when they save ANY data.
 

The problem is that, in certain theatres, the information was simply lost. Any campaigns where friendly airfields were overrun would result in lost records (e.g. France in 1940, Greece in 1940-41, Malaya/Singapore/NEI/Burma/Philippines in 1941-42 etc.). Also, the further forward the operating base, the more likely it is that record-keeping fell down the priority list of "things to do". Even high-intensity operations from relatively safe operating bases could lead to records being kept in a rather haphazard manner.
 
Granted what you said above. But the existing records don't seem to track things that every commander would want to know, other than gasoline, ammunition, and airplanes on hand. Seems to me any self-respecting commander would want to know how his people are fairing at their jobs, and would track losses, accidents, victories, ran out of fuel, etc. How else can you create a "report card" for your unit and keep track of who is doing well versus who is not doing so well?

As a supervisor of electronic test, I needed to know how my department was doing and had to report on it at least 3 times per year and anytime something expensive happened. In the USAF in the mid-1970's I was a sergeant and had to report on things regularly. Included in these reports was data. There is nothing remotely so disturbing as systematic lack of information to someone in charge, expecially since they are responsible.

Ask the Captain of the Exxon Valdiz, who was running his ship quite shorthanded, his radar had been out for over a year (Exxon would not repair it), the coast guard failed to report to ships that they were no longer tracking ships in the channel, and it was very widely reported that Capatain Hazelwood had been drinking even though it was established in the trial clearly that he had not. Think he wanted more information? I'd say. His career has never recovered even though he still has a Master's license.

A WWII commander would have known everything about his unit, and the records that DO exist should be pretty clear.
 
And exactly how long was a commanding officer in charge of a squadron during WW2? Months, maybe? He would see how the unit operated based on observation during combat and would make adjustments to training and leadership as he saw fit, or as forced upon him by circumstances (e.g. receiving a batch of sub-standard new pilots or losing a key flight leader due to death, injury or posting).

Most squadron commanders weren't in place long enough to focus on long-term trends. They simply made decisions necessary to get the job done based on what they observed. Frankly, they didn't have time to pore over statistical charts. They were too busy fighting a war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
533
spicmart
S
M
Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
5K
Jugman
J
M
P-39 Turbo - Here We Go Again
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregP
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
8K
Admiral Beez
A
P-39-style fighter by other people?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register