HG, you listed the inservice fighters for 43, suggesting that the P-39 was up to scratch with the best of them,["clearly the P-39 was one of the best planes of WW2"] it was nt…
…viz, compare another aircraft in USAAF service in `43, the Spitfire Mk 8, it climbed to 25,000ft in 6.6 min, much quicker than the best P-39…
Weight was a problem for the P-39, as an under-powered plane, - but cutting armament made them less effective, & made them lethally tumble/flat spin, as the Soviets found out…
The Typhoon’s initial climb rate was 3,840 ft/min , & it could whip the P-39 on dive & zoom-climb easily…& the Tempest… did even better…by `bout a thousand ft/min climb & +20mph in speed…
& Nickdf, “basic strawman” ah, now thatd be spurious P-86/F-4 Phantom references wouldnt it?
In fact, the P-38,P-39,F4U,Fw190 & Typhoon were all contemporary [late `30s] designs competing for ‘1st 400mph fighter’ kudos…
What evidence do you have that shows P-39/63s shot down more enemy aircraft than Typhoon/Tempests? Only Stalinist propaganda? P-63s werent even put up against the Luftwaffe…& How many Me 262s did the Bell-birds catch? Zero…[oops, - don`t mention the Zero, …they hacked down many a P-39/400…P-40 with a Zero on its tail…]
As for Typhoon performance vs FW 190, they were specifically tasked with that job, as per an example I posted earlier…& Typhoon anti-tank effectiveness? ,Well, a quick search of ‘friendly-fire’ incidents will show what the Allies did know…but suppressed…
Bell was very keen to score USAAF contracts for its designs, they just weren’t good enough…
P-38s did ok against obsolecent Nippon Oscars, & poorly trained/organised late war replacement Japanese pilots, but the USAAF didnt use them or P-47s to escort the B-29s, P-51s got that gig, just as in NWE.. P-38s couldnt cut it against top-line NWE opposition, & wasn’t it actually USN fighters that busted Nip airpower?..
P-39s were hacked down relentlessly by later developed German fighters, such as the longnose FW 190D [ the Soviets were so impressed by them, that they put those they captured into service!] & its probable that the 10 top eastern front aces alone shot down more Airacobras than all Soviet P-39/63s shot down German fighters combined…whereas, over on the other front, Tempests hunted those FWs just as relentlessly in turn…
As for impact, the Tempest units shot down 800+ Nazi V1 cruise missiles - that were speeding at low level - on course for London , so directly saving thousands of lives [& Tempests shot down more V1s than any other fighter] -if they`d been equipped with the Bell products, no chance…too slow, [& with lame armament to boot]…
Update your reading list. The P39N started coming off the production line in Dec 42 and by the next month Bell was producing 400/month. All the P39 models were the same except for different models of the Allison, different propellers and more/less radio gear. The best were the N and Q which had the V-1710-85 engine, same plane just different wing armament which the Russians wisely removed. The P39N would climb to 15k’ in 4 minutes, 20k’ in 6 minutes and 25k’ in 8 minutes. That was faster then any other contemporary mass produced plane in service except the Spitfire MkIX which would climb to 20k’ in 5.6 minutes in October 1942. The N outclimbed every Lightning, Warhawk, Thunderbolt, Mustang, Hellcat, Corsair, Wildcat, Typhoon, 109, 190, Zero, Oscar etc. And the Thunderbolt, Mustang, Corsair and Hellcat weren’t even in combat yet. Top speed of the N was a little over 390mph at 20k’, about the same as those other planes but its climb was what made it the terror of the skies in the Kuban against the Luftwaffe in 1943 and produced all those Russian P39 aces. And removing the 4x.30 caliber wing guns did little to reduce combat effectiveness. The .30 caliber gun was not used on any other contemporary American fighter, and the Russians referred to them as good for damaging German paint. That left the 37mm cannon and two .50 caliber guns which the Russians referred to as devastating armament.
The P-39 was one of the best planes of WWII, by virtue that it improved the Soviet Red Air Force and gave her pilots a chance against the Luftwaffe and some breathing room to improve their indigenous fighter force. The fact is that most Soviet pilots loved the plane and it was thought of highly enough that the Russians had a big part in developing the improved P-63 along Soviet spec’s. No plane was perfect, and even the mighty Spitfire suffered some flaws initially with armament that was ineffectual. And you keep contradicting yourself here. At first you said the .30 machine-guns mounted in the wings were essentially useless, now you say that ditching them made the aircraft punchless. Please cite any sources you like showing this to be a common complaint with Soviet pilots?
And again with the useless, unfair, and silly comparisons. Why would anyone compare an early war fighter that had minimal upgrades to the more advanced generations of the Spit? The Russians never liked the Spit or Hurricane, though I think perhaps they didn’t really give them much of a chance…
The Typhoon’s initial climb rate was 3,840 ft/min , & it could whip the P-39 on dive & zoom-climb easily…& the Tempest… did even better…by `bout a thousand ft/min climb & +20mph in speed…
& Nickdf, “basic strawman” ah, now thatd be spurious P-86/F-4 Phantom references wouldnt it?
No. My “reference” was referencing your silly comparisons between the P-39 and completely unrelated Allied aircraft it would never see in combat. Again, please explain how an underfunded prewar aircraft first flown in 1938 should compare to an aircraft developed during the war with all the experience entailed and first flown in 1942. Of course the Typhoon is going to have some more impressive statistics. So what!? How many German fighters did the Typhoon shoot down over Stalingrad? Or anywhere?
In fact, the P-38,P-39,F4U,Fw190 & Typhoon were all contemporary [late `30s] designs competing for ‘1st 400mph fighter’ kudos…
The Typhoon first flew in 1942, a full four years after the P-39. It was also developed with experiences gained with the benefit of combat.
The Typhoon also “failed” in its primary mission as an air superiority fighter designed to meet the Fw190 - still an excellent ground attack beast nonetheless…
What evidence do you have that shows P-39/63s shot down more enemy aircraft than Typhoon/Tempests? Only Stalinist propaganda? P-63s werent even put up against the Luftwaffe…& How many Me 262s did the Bell-birds catch? Zero…[oops, - don`t mention the Zero, …they hacked down many a P-39/400…P-40 with a Zero on its tail…]
I asked you first! Um, so everything is ‘Stalinist propaganda?’ What about when the Red Air Force was almost effectively destroyed by the end of 1941 and flying obsolete I-153’s? Are all the Luftwaffe pilot claims to large numbers of kills Hitlerian Propaganda then? The Soviets were actually judicious when handing out individual honors, propaganda aside. Their best pilots flew the P-39. Why would they aggrandize and aircraft produced in capitalist America? And the GI-humor anecdote you provide (from Wiki, while ignoring many of the kudos for the P-39) is still mixed, as the P-39/400 gave as good as it got.
The P-63 was indeed used against the Luftwaffe, even though it wasn’t supposed to be per contract. As far as how many Me262’s they took down, it would be hard to know because their missions were officially omitted and credited to Aircobras…
Here’s some Stalinist Propaganda by way of Wikipedia for you, since you’re selectively quoting it anyways. While no one should solely rely on Wiki, everything here is well cited:
As for Typhoon performance vs FW 190, they were specifically tasked with that job, as per an example I posted earlier…& Typhoon anti-tank effectiveness? ,Well, a quick search of ‘friendly-fire’ incidents will show what the Allies did know…but suppressed…
Bell was very keen to score USAAF contracts for its designs, they just weren’t good enough…
Um, they did actually score contracts and served as an early war fighter both with the USAAF and as a Lend Lease aircraft!
I’d actually would like to start a separate thread on the “Typhoons (and any other marquee ground attack aircraft’s) antitank effectiveness.” I have a couple pages of Anthony Beevor from D-Day that cites studies by both the RAF and USAAF/USAF on the ground attack effectiveness of tactical aircraft…
Firstly, “Nip” is a racist, outdated term. Please do not use it here.
“Couldn’t cut it?” The P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other Allied fighter. It was prized because of its ability to get the pilot back to base even in the even of engine failure as there were two. America’s top scoring ace, Richard Bong (40 confirmed, more probable), flew the P-38 and he certainly didn’t just shoot down “Oscars”. His first kills were A6M Zeros, and the Ki-43 Oscar was not “outdated” as it was highly agile and maneuverable. While the Lightening was not as maneuverable as the Zero or Oscar, it didn’t matter as it was more powerful (like it’s Navy counterparts in the Wildcat and Hellcat) and armored, so they simply avoided dogfights and used diving and “Thatch Weave” tactics.
And you’re misinformed, basing all of your critique on earlier models whereas the P-38J & L models (the most produced) were vastly improved in cooling, power ratings, and fuel economy with modifications made by “Lucky” Lindbergh among others. The P-38L’s were extensively used prior too and after Overlord as both ground attack and air superiority fighters and flew from Italy into Germany until the end of the war.
P-39s were hacked down relentlessly by later developed German fighters, such as the longnose FW 190D [ the Soviets were so impressed by them, that they put those they captured into service!] & its probable that the 10 top eastern front aces alone shot down more Airacobras than all Soviet P-39/63s shot down German fighters combined…whereas, over on the other front, Tempests hunted those FWs just as relentlessly in turn…
What are you talking about? The P-39 losses were hardly tantamount to being “hacked down.” And again, so what? By that time the Luftwaffe was buckling under a multiple-front air war and again, you’re disingenuously comparing apples and oranges as of course a late-war FW190 is going to outclass a P-39 with virtually no significant improvements. It should! That certainly didn’t make the P-39 a bad fighter aircraft. By then the Soviets had developed their own fighters such as the Yak-3 and the La-7 that matched the latest German fighters. That doesn’t mean the Aircobra was a bad aircraft or that it didn’t have quite a significant impact in 1942-44. It did!
As for impact, the Tempest units shot down 800+ Nazi V1 cruise missiles - that were speeding at low level - on course for London , so directly saving thousands of lives [& Tempests shot down more V1s than any other fighter] -if they`d been equipped with the Bell products, no chance…too slow, [& with lame armament to boot]…
“Bell products?” So what? What does that have to do with the P-39 on the Eastern Front?
Stay after JAW, he desperately needs educating. Regarding the P38 Lightning, it shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other ARMY fighter. Hellcat shot down the most Japanese Planes. Keep up the good work
Well, HG & Nickdf, looks as if you both need to keep after the learning, a word of caution may be of use,though…
Referencing wiki - do go a bit further & check out the primary sources, same with Beevor, he writes well, but accuracy-wise his views need checking too.
As for ‘Nip’ being racist… in fact, Allied P.o.W.s in Nip camps were severely punished for calling the guards ‘Japs’ - but ‘NIP’ was acceptable… being equivalent to Brit, Yank, Aussie, Kiwi, as a diminutive for Nippon, the ancient & respected name reverered by the Japanese for their island nation…
The Typhoon 1st flew in 1940, but since the British makers Hawker were fairly busy with their Hurricanes just then, [what with the Battle of Britain & all], development was delayed, some…
The point of comparison is valid in as much as the eastern front was a primitive slogging match compared to the technical sophistications & pace of scientific developments shown by both sides in the west…
& true the Soviets did dig the wee Bell-birds, for their own reasons [it helped that Bell/GM-Allison poured resources in to keeping them going-allowing them to burn through over-boosted V-1710s in 40hr TBOs…].
But the Soviets themselves tested all available aircraft, & their tests showed that both their own Yakovlev 9 -series & Lavochkin 5 -series fighters as well as foreign Spitfire 9 & Bf 109 aircraft had superior climb/dive performance characteristics to the P-39…& some of their tests proved to Bell that their mid-engined planes would indeed show dangerous/fatal tumble/flat spin dynamics…
Soviet fighter aircraft being small, had trouble carrying a decent armament fit, the '42 in service Typhoon standard fit of 4 20mm cannon was never matched by WW2 Soviet fighters [or USAAF/USN either]…
So
‘Apples & oranges’…? That the Soviets continued to pit outdated & outclassed P-39/63s against the likes of longnose Fw 190s [something the USAAF would not do…] clearly shows the cruel disregard the Stalin regime had for its own people…
Oddly… too - they kept back their P-47s from the front & rejected P-38s [as did the British], but wanted & [were denied-unlike the British] Merlin P-51s…
“Referencing Wiki?” Sir, you done nothing but “reference” Wiki by pulling off negative information whilst ignoring the generally favorable info in regards to both planes. Almost verbatim in fact I would say. I’m not here to defend Wiki nor are they always reliable, but pages that are well sourced and cited can be a valuable overview and starting point. I would say you’re a bit guilty in engaging in internet sophistry in order to “win an argument” rather than seek the truth…
…do go a bit further & check out the primary sources, same with Beevor, he writes well, but accuracy-wise his views need checking too.
Thank you for the lecture, but nobody’s perfect. He does cite the actual sources and the RAF study. Maybe you can contest the validity of that? But I feel confident in saying that most historians now believe that tactical aircraft versus panzers was a bit over-hyped and the majority of destroyed tanks was the result of Allied tanks, TD’s, antitank guns, mines, and infantry employing weapons…
As for ‘Nip’ being racist… in fact, Allied P.o.W.s in Nip camps were severely punished for calling the guards ‘Japs’ - but ‘NIP’ was acceptable… being equivalent to Brit, Yank, Aussie, Kiwi, as a diminutive for Nippon, the ancient & respected name reverered by the Japanese for their island nation…
There’s an infamous WB Bugs Bunny cartoon that is called “Bug Bunny Nips the Nips” here that is considered racist and is no longer shown as a result due to protests of Japanese rights groups. And even if it were acceptable in the 1940s, which I’m not so sure about, it is considered racist here today…
The point of comparison is valid in as much as the eastern front was a primitive slogging match compared to the technical sophistications & pace of scientific developments shown by both sides in the west…
What? But one of the sides in the West was fighting in the East. You mentioned the advanced versions of the FW190 being used there. And no one can deny that the later Soviet fighters were as formidable as their Western counterparts…
& true the Soviets did dig the wee Bell-birds, for their own reasons [it helped that Bell/GM-Allison poured resources in to keeping them going-allowing them to burn through over-boosted V-1710s in 40hr TBOs…].
But the Soviets themselves tested all available aircraft, & their tests showed that both their own Yakovlev 9 -series & Lavochkin 5 -series fighters as well as foreign Spitfire 9 & Bf 109 aircraft had superior climb/dive performance characteristics to the P-39…& some of their tests proved to Bell that their mid-engined planes would indeed show dangerous/fatal tumble/flat spin dynamics…
SO WHAT?! Soviet tests also showed the P-39 was either the equal, and perhaps “superior” in some respects to the Me109 up until the last versions of it. The Yak 9 and La5 were later war fighters. Again, a Mig-15 was superior to a Spitfire V. Does that make the Spitfire a bad aircraft? That seems to be your reasoning here.
You’re comparing improved versions of those aircraft at altitudes the P-39 was not suited. And you should perhaps know that the Soviets found the “dangerous/fatal tumble/flat spin dynamics” a big improvement over the early war machines they were flying, and it was never really a serious issue…
Soviet fighter aircraft being small, had trouble carrying a decent armament fit, the '42 in service Typhoon standard fit of 4 20mm cannon was never matched by WW2 Soviet fighters [or USAAF/USN either]…
Who cares? They didn’t need them. Again, what does this have to do with whether the Aircobra was an effective aircraft or not? What’s the price of tea in China?
But they didn’t “just fly” the P-39, they had several other fighters after 1944 that were more than adequate. You know. the ones you just mentioned as better than the P-39? Stalin’s disregard for his own people had little to do with the air war. They really didn’t need the above fighters after a while. And while you’re nitpicking here, then can you explain why Soviet pilots didn’t like the Hurricanes and Spits, but loved the Aircobra? Here’s a hint, it had little to do with the mighty Stalin meddling in air ministry planning. Stalin committed many evils, but he also pushed his aerospace people to develop newer, better aircraft and to increase production quotas of existing ones such as the IL-2…
Technically, the P-51’s were powered by Packard versions of the Merlin engine. The USAAF needed them as the primary fighter to escort bombers and had already given the Soviets significant assistance. And the P-63 wasn’t “outdated.”
OK, some corrections here…
P-63s were outperformed by the the best aircraft available to the western allies & rejected by the western airforces for combat on that basis…as outdated…like-wise the USAAF & RAF would`ve had little difficulty in smashing Soviet airpower if it had come to that, being markedly superior in every aspect including aircraft performance…Stalin’s disregard for his own people certainly extended to the Red Army /VVS…
Soviets had P-47s…which did out-perform their own fighters & were the USAAF tactical strike fighter of choice, but didn’t use them…too costly perhaps…who knows?
The Soviets & US flyers would haved loved to use a 4 20mm cannon aramament fit, since it was so superor to what they did have, but couldn’t , & so didn’t…why not?
Yak 9 , La 5, & Bf 109G fighters, all with performance dynamics superior to the P-39 WERE in service in `43…
& I retiterate, if you check the F/F -Blue on Blue incidents involving the Typhoon, you`ll see that they were just as effective in destroying Allied armour & etc…As the Germans themselves stated…
The P-63 wasn’t “rejected” because it was never considered. It was created largely at behest of the Soviets. Stalin’s “disregard” for the people was shared by his able, ruthless combat commanders such as Marshal Zhukov. It was something more or less ingrained in Russo-Soviet military thinking due to the immense population available…
Soviets had P-47s…which did out-perform their own fighters & were the USAAF tactical strike fighter of choice, but didn’t use them…too costly perhaps…who knows?
But they didn’t “outperform” anything at low level, being ungainly and heavy. I think we’ve discussed the air war over Russia was primarily low level and tac support. The Soviets had the Sturmovik for gound attack. They didn’t need the Thunderbolt and that was only another logistical stream they could live without.
The Soviets & US flyers would haved loved to use a 4 20mm cannon aramament fit, since it was so superor to what they did have, but couldn’t , & so didn’t…why not?
They didn’t need them? The 37mm and twin .50’s would splatter any Luftwaffe aircraft in range? Wouldn’t all Spitfire pilots also love to have four 20mm’s instead of just two?
Yak 9 , La 5, & Bf 109G fighters, all with performance dynamics superior to the P-39 WERE in service in `43…
So? The Spitfire Mk VII was available and in service in 43’. Why didn’t all British fighter pilots fly those? They were superior to the previous versions and the Typhoon at altitudes. The newer fighters were coming online as the Yak had only first flown in the summer of 42’, and wasn’t available in sufficient numbers to take the Aircobras out of service. It was only available in large numbers after teething problems were overcome in 1944. But aren’t you now contradicting your earlier point regarding the evil, blood thirsty Stalin who didn’t care about his pilots he loved to toss into meat-grinders (even though they were very expensive to train and develop)?
In any case, the P-39 continued to be effective until the end of the war and were still useful against a withering Luftwaffe pinned down by 1943…
No contemporary Spitfire had a low level speed or zoom/dive performance superior to the Typhoon/Tempest series…& yes Spitfire pilots were envious of that, & the 4 cannon…
… the USN evaluated the 20mm Hispano as being equivalent to 3 .50 Brownings, & while the US planes could carry them [the 1st British Mustangs did…] but the US could not get them to work as well as the British did…the Whirlwind/Mosquito/Beaufighter/[& even P-61] twins all had 4 20mm, so why not the P-38? The British prefered the 20mm in the P-39, too…
The P-47, being turbocharged, naturally had a fine high altitude performance, but with a high diving speed boom & zoom, 8 .50s & generous lift capacity for external pylon stores [rockets,bombs napalm] they made a superior ground attack plane to the Sturmovik…not used for political, or $ grounds? … & the P-39/63 was more expensive than the P-51.
The aircraft loss statistics show that application of brutal force in numbers by the Soviets was - while grossly effective - also a crudely inefficient & needlessly wasteful callously disregarding of lives[Not even the USAAF was so awful, even they had to stop the massacre of the heavy bombers after 2 unbearably costly Schweinfurt/Ploesti raids] & continued use of the P-39/63 was a clear illustration of this flawed policy…Maybe it was 'cause they didn’t have 1st amendment casualty public opinion to consider…
I think a few Spits had four 20mm’s, and the war in the West was at high level. The cannons were nice, but overkill unless targeting the bombers the Luftwaffe no longer had or ground targets…
… the USN evaluated the 20mm Hispano as being equivalent to 3 .50 Brownings, & while the US planes could carry them [the 1st British Mustangs did…] but the US could not get them to work as well as the British did…the Whirlwind/Mosquito/Beaufighter/[& even P-61] twins all had 4 20mm, so why not the P-38? The British prefered the 20mm in the P-39, too…
The U.S. decided the .50 was enough, it had its drawbacks in destructive power and some advantages as far as firepower…
The P-47, being turbocharged, naturally had a fine high altitude performance, but with a high diving speed boom & zoom, 8 .50s & generous lift capacity for external pylon stores [rockets,bombs napalm] they made a superior ground attack plane to the Sturmovik…not used for political, or $ grounds? … & the P-39/63 was more expensive than the P-51.
Um, how would the Soviets bother adopting small numbers of an aircraft they had to rely on another country to provide spares and production? That makes no sense. And who says the Thunderbolt was necessarily any “better” than the Sturmovik? Both were highly thought of “jabos” by their enemy. And you just mentioned that the U.S. didn’t want the Soviets to have Mustangs, so what choices did they have?
The aircraft loss statistics show that application of brutal force in numbers by the Soviets was - while grossly effective - also a crudely inefficient & needlessly wasteful callously disregarding of lives[Not even the USAAF was so awful, even they had to stop the massacre of the heavy bombers after 2 unbearably costly Schweinfurt/Ploesti raids] & continued use of the P-39/63 was a clear illustration of this flawed policy…Maybe it was 'cause they didn’t have 1st amendment casualty public opinion to consider…
What statistics? The Red Air Force was largely destroyed then rose from the ashes and many of its initial losses were obsolete biplanes. The Soviets didn’t have a choice as they lacked the training, equipment, and organization of the Luftwaffe initially; but yet they became a rather effective air force that helped bludgeon down the Luftwaffe. The continued use of the P-39/63 was because the planes were reliable with good radios and they worked and were still effective against the majority of aircraft they flew against. An experienced, veteran Soviet pilot probably was more effective in a P-39 than a Luftwaffe greenhorn flying an FW190 - a pilot whose flight training hours were severally restricted due to fuel shortages by 1944. They also flew in conjunction with newer fighters designed to counter the later gen Me109’s and FW190. You act as if the P-39 was the only fighter the Soviets had, but it was a fraction of their fighter force yet was flown by half of the Soviet aces. Just about any historian I can think of would think your points insane.
The first raids by the USAAF Eighth Air Forces were actually unmitigated successes because the Germans were completely caught off guard by daytime raids; this helped foster as sense of naive optimism and grandiose coup de main-style air war planning that Operation Tidal Wave represented. The Luftwaffe got a lot better, integrated their air defenses and casualties increased but these were learning experiences and tempered the unrealistic aspirations by early USAAF generals who were equally delusional as their RAF counterparts. I’m not a fan of the way strategic bombing was conducted, but the main problems were solved by simply having a fighter to escort the bombers all the way to the target and by aggressively suppressing the Luftwaffe later in the war. It’s also worth noting that the RAF Bomber Command suffered far greater casualties and loss rates overall than the American bombers did…
No unescorted daylight raids on German targets were ‘unmitigated successes’ - from the `39 decimation of [the fantasy that ‘self-defending’] British Wellington bombers could destroy the German navy…through to Schweinfurt…true the radar directed French-based Jagdwaffe units would react only on a percieved threat basis, & might well ignore fighter sweeps or token bombing raids, but any kind of deep penetration was dealt with harshly…As for night raiding, well, just like every other type, unless the defense is inadequate [ 1940/41 London Blitz] or suppressed [ late 1944/45 Germany] bombing is untenable attrition-wise.
As for usage of such terms as ‘delusional’ & ‘insane’ in posting discussion points, are such emotionally loaded terms in any way helpful to presenting a cogent point - or are they indicative of [a judgemental & subjective] ’ losing the plot’, - something that historians seem to avoid…
Anyhow, here in a nutshell, is a summary…
If the Soviets found continued use of P-39/63 aircraft militarily viable when the western allies had discarded them as obsolescent, then it is clearly due to 2 things…
1, Soviet VVS was callously heedless of losses that the west would not accept…
2, The actual fighting in the east was of a much lower level of intensity/difficulty - as born out by both the testimony of the Germans themselves & the fact that the victory/loss ratios reflect this, no 300 victory German aces or 60 victory USAAF/RAF aces in the west…
Agreed, except for your first sentence. I can’t find anything on it now, but the 8th conducted some very early, preliminary raids in which they caught the Germans napping and imbued them with a sense of inflated optimism that would soon be crushed against better coordinated defenses during the Schweinfurt raids.
As for usage of such terms as ‘delusional’ & ‘insane’ in posting discussion points, are such emotionally loaded terms in any way helpful to presenting a cogent point - or are they indicative of [a judgemental & subjective] ’ losing the plot’, - something that historians seem to avoid…
I’m not a historian, if I was I would be more measured. But it is hard to say anything other than the thought of one or two raids at an oil refinery would essentially cripple Germany’s war effort as delusional…
Anyhow, here in a nutshell, is a summary…
If the Soviets found continued use of P-39/63 aircraft militarily viable when the western allies had discarded them as obsolescent, then it is clearly due to 2 things…
That’s a silly overweening judgement that is very simplistic and fails to take into account many, many factors and contravenes all evidence and the historical record. I’m not even sure you believe this anymore…
1, Soviet VVS was callously heedless of losses that the west would not accept…
That’s been discussed, that was typical Russo-Soviet mode of attritional warfare. Certainly not my first choice, but understandable given the circumstances of fighting a vastly more organized and operationally effective enemy…
2, The actual fighting in the east was of a much lower level of intensity/difficulty - as born out by both the testimony of the Germans themselves & the fact that the victory/loss ratios reflect this, no 300 victory German aces or 60 victory USAAF/RAF aces in the west…
There was a German ace that impressively scored a tally of nearly 150 planes against mostly the RAF along with some Free French and American air forces in the Mediterranean. His name escapes me, but he actually a Franco-German last name. I doubt very much that Luftwaffe pilots on the Ost Front would in anyway characterize their very target rich environment as a “lower level of intensity.” The war was just different and perhaps a bit less technically sophisticated and more tactical. But the German pilots were eventually heavily outnumbered and flying against vastly inferior machines and pilots initially. Of course they were going to have ever greater kill tallies. Later Soviet aircraft were every bit as sophisticated as their Luftwaffe counterparts and the pilots probably become better as a whole as Germany’s aces were increasingly shot from the air and replaced by ill-trained aircrews…
