Bell P-39 Airacobra & P-63 Kingcobra.

World War II American Military
#141

Silly, overweeningly judgemental, hmmmm…

Best sticking to facts, eh?

1, The Mustang was not created to an AAF contract, but they sure jumped on it, & kept backing developments that made it America’s best…Bell tried to get the AAF to buy their planes, & pushed hard for the P-63D to be accepted, [as Curtiss did with the P-40Q]…but they just didn’t cut it…& while the US pilots who swapped their Spitfires for P-47s were initially disappointed, they soon learned how to get the best out of them, keeping those big jugs wound up, - with their 2000 hp mills…

2, “One or two raids on an oil refinery would cripple…” My point was - those raids ‘crippled’ the USAAF self-defending bomber ideal…it was the inability to maintain destructive attacks on those war machine choke point - bottle necks that let the Speer directed Nazi war effort off the hook for a year…

3, The German pilots themselves agree that NWE air-combat against the western Allies was tougher, the LW awards values [points earned towards iron cross]/kill-loss ratios/ace score totals all clearly show this.

4, J.Marseille was the exceptional 150 kill ace against the RAF, but he was killing Hurricanes, P-40s & lower performance Spitfires in Africa, not hi-po P-51s or Tempests in Europe…

5, The LW, from `43, had most of its fighter units engaged against the west, - but to the end of the war - the Jagdwaffe units on the ost-front kept taking a disproportionately heavy toll of Soviet VVS aircraft…

#142

Don’t understand your statements about the eastern front being less intense and less difficult. Full scale land war conducted from June of 1941 to May 1945. Pretty difficult/intense. The Soviets had a different philosophy, used the P-39 better than the US and Britain. Plain facts. P-39 was a much better plane than western history gives credit for.

#143

To be fair, the lower level of the tactical air war in the East allowed the Soviets to get the best out of the fighter. It was excellent at low level, and that’s where the vast majority of the fighting was. It was not a very good high altitude interceptor limiting it’s usefulness in the West and Pacific as the opposition could simply climb to higher altitudes (which is what the Japanese bombers did, unfortunately for the P-39, so did American bombers :slight_smile: ). I believe the Luftwaffe didn’t have this luxury on the Eastern Front as that meant abandoning the Heer and SS on the ground to Soviet tactical strikes, which was simply not an option.

I think the point being missed here in the current round of “my-aircraft-is-better-than-your-aircraft” is that there were reasons why all sides had multiple fighter designs - even prewar. No one fighter was ideal for every mission, and they needed to be either superseded with newer fighters, their range of missions limited, or they had to be upgraded. In the Pacific the Imperial Navy simply didn’t always provide proper, direct air support for the Imperial Japanese Army over the vast expanses of Pacific islands whereas the Luftwaffe was far more mission focused on combined arms and air support. The Japanese Army also had vast expanses to cover in China meaning and concurrent U.S. and Australian victories increasingly isolated garrisons and pushed their aerodromes back further…

#144

Where have you seen that Bell “pushed hard” for the P-63 to be accepted? And the P-47’s were gradually improved and tweaked through their teething pains making her a more effective aircraft. Yes pilots began to exploit the planes attributes, but most of the larger flaws were worked out as well…

2, “One or two raids on an oil refinery would cripple…” My point was - those raids ‘crippled’ the USAAF self-defending bomber ideal…it was the inability to maintain destructive attacks on those war machine choke point - bottle necks that let the Speer directed Nazi war effort off the hook for a year…

The “bomber ideal” was shared by the RAF as well. Speer was overrated as much of what he gets credit for was already in the pipeline.

3, The German pilots themselves agree that NWE air-combat against the western Allies was tougher, the LW awards values [points earned towards iron cross]/kill-loss ratios/ace score totals all clearly show this.

I’m sure that Luftwaffe pilots overall thought that their British and American adversaries were better trained overall. But they were fighting a largely defensive war strategically without initially having to support ground forces tactically, it was apples and oranges…

4, J.Marseille was the exceptional 150 kill ace against the RAF, but he was killing Hurricanes, P-40s & lower performance Spitfires in Africa, not hi-po P-51s or Tempests in Europe…

Yes, that’s him. Of course, he was killed by a Me109 ultimately. So his aircraft might not have been that spectacularly superior either…

5, The LW, from `43, had most of its fighter units engaged against the west, - but to the end of the war - the Jagdwaffe units on the ost-front kept taking a disproportionately heavy toll of Soviet VVS aircraft…

Assuming you’re correct, the Luftwaffe was fighting a concurrent strategic air campaign from both the RAF and USAAF hitting their cities, it’s pretty understandable since they could no longer achieve air superiority on the Eastern Front and were now settling into a two front, defensive war as they were used to doing at that point. By 1944, their fighter forces were almost completely absent from France, yet they still deployed a large number of tactical aircraft in the East…

#145

A couple more points…

The Soviet fighters [& the P-39] were small, [ the P-39 in particular due to its unusual engine location] & had limited utility for carrying fuel & armaments , forcing the use of Sturmovik which then had to be given a fighter escort , like all slow bombers. P-47s/Typhoons/Fw 190s all had much higher performance, & while all ground attack was dangerous work, did not suffer to the extent of slower types.

The LW got away with using Ju-87 Stukas during daylight , in the east, long after they were gone from the west, but eventually transitioned to Fw 190 jabos & the USAAF/RAF did like-wise, using bigger,faster & more powerful fighters in the strike role…

In the east, the German use of mobile panzer/LW ‘fire-brigades’ allowed concentration of force factors to neutralise particular Soviet threats using combined operations, but the Germans were never able to do this in the west after the invasion in `44…they tried, but the overwhelming USAAF/RAF tactical airpower was crushing - the Soviets could not emulate this…

#146

P39N had better performance than all three when climb is considered, would climb to 25,000’ in 8 minutes, a full 6 minutes faster than P47B. Much faster climb than Typhoon and FW190 also. Top speed of P39N was 393mph at 20,000’, comparable to those three planes. Removing wing guns (reduced weight) made the P39 a great dogfighter on the Eastern front.

#147

A stripped out/hot-rodded/short-fused P-39 may well have outclimbed [not in dive-zoom though]those 3 heavyweight fighters to 25,000ft, yet it was slower at most altitudes… & it didn’t outclimb opposition Bf 109s or contemporary Spitfires…So it remains an historical oddity, overlooked as a cast off/back-water/also-ran, & was in truth, hardly a contender for 1943 top-gun status…

The stripped P-39 armament was inadequate for fighter vs fighter, hard turning, high-angle deflection shot combat [only 2 slow firing synchronised .5s & a single low velocity cannon], & in a forced landing you’d likely get a V-1710 for a coffin lid…

True, the Soviets had a thing for dinky little planes, & they seemed to like their P-39s, just as the Luftwaffe aces liked adding strings of them to their tally of kills…

When the USAAF introduced P-47s to replace Spitfires in their British-based squadrons there was some concern initially expressed, -but if they`d tried to introduce P-39s, there would 've likely been a riot…

#148

Hardly stripped, had self sealing fuel tanks and armor protection. Did outclimb the 109G6. Spit IX was the ONLY production plane that would outclimb a P39N in 1943. Hardly a historical oddity, mount of three of the top four highest scoring Allied aces of WWII.

The “stripped” P39 armament was considered devastating by Russian pilots. One shell would normally down anything with two engines or less. Regarding a forced landing, see YouTube video “Flying the P39” training video for Army pilots, P39 lands on it’s belly on a concrete strip, later the same plane is shown being towed back to it’s hardstand on it’s own landing gear.

#149

LOL How was a 37mm cannon a “dinky” armament? Does anyone recall Korea where Sabre pilots would complain about the deadly tandem of Russian guns, with the killer being the 37mm autocannon on the Mig-15?

#150

Not many concrete strips for belly landings in Russia, Africa or New Guinea…

Although, the Russian 37mm cannon in the MiG 15 [fitted to kill B-29s] was a generation ahead of the Oldmobile fitted to the P-39, for fighter vs fighter, high G turning/high angle deflection shooting it was inadequate…

Low rate of fire, few rounds available, low velocity/poor trajectory, prone to jamming,[esp’ when under G], were the P-39 37mm issues, which is why they were replaced by by the 20mm in the P-38…

Bf 109G climb/dive combat performance was superior to P-39, so - do check the Kurfurst site for the relevant Luftwaffe technical centre test documentation…

#151

Of course it was a generation ahead. But a single 37mm shot from either could destroy an aircraft. With the twin .50’s what more did they need?

Low rate of fire, few rounds available, low velocity/poor trajectory, prone to jamming,[esp’ when under G], were the P-39 37mm issues, which is why they were replaced by by the 20mm in the P-38…

Bf 109G climb/dive combat performance was superior to P-39, so - do check the Kurfurst site for the relevant Luftwaffe technical centre test documentation…

Few rounds available? There weren’t even all that many produced and the problem with the P-38 was the small ammo capacity and feed mechanism didn’t work as well. There were several versions of the Me109G, and the later war versions should have had superior performance characteristics…

#152

What more did they need? Well, the USAAF regarded 4 free-firing .50s as a minimum for its fighters, & preferred 6 or even 8…but they’d already rejected the P-39, [& the 37mm] as inadequate…

#153

We’re not talking about the USAAF, it was the Soviet (Red) Air Forces. They developed tweaks in which all three guns would fire simultaneously and the 37mm was more than enough to hunt Stukas, twin engined bombers, and Ju52’s. As for the USAAF they had a love affair with .50 caliber machine-guns. Not that that was a bad thing, but few planes used anything else including the successful 20mm Hispano aside from your beloved Lightening. It was also clear that the USAAF would face less of a bomber threat since the Luftwaffe tactical bomber force was already waning and they were probably more worried about achieving multiple hits on the more nimble Jadgwaffe…

#154

Well, the USAAF did specify the 4 20mm fit for the P-61…, & putting them in the P-38 would 've doubled its firepower too.

The Soviets didn’t really put a heavy armament into their fighters til post-war, when the need for punching big holes in the likes of B-36s was seen as a factor…

#155

Correct, forgot about the nightfighters…

…putting them in the P-38 would 've doubled its firepower too.

The P-38 never lacked for firepower and the fire concentration out of the nose mounted combo was enough to saw anything in half…

The Soviets didn’t really put a heavy armament into their fighters til post-war, when the need for punching big holes in the likes of B-36s was seen as a factor…

Most of their aircraft had 20mm cannons…

#156

Soviet wartime fighters generally only had a one or two cannon plus a m.g. or two, none had a 4 cannon fit [standard in `42 on Typhoon] 'til post war…

P-38 armament might have ‘sawed’ lightly built Nippon airframes…but had only 1/2 the punch of the Typhoon/Tempest 4 cannon set-up.

P-39 was also too small/underpowered to carry such a potent armament…

#157

Correct. “Perfection is the enemy of good enough.” –Soviet/Russian adage…

P-38 armament might have ‘sawed’ lightly built Nippon airframes…but had only 1/2 the punch of the Typhoon/Tempest 4 cannon set-up.

Who cares? They weren’t going up against British tactical ground attack fighters nor were they in a ****-contest with them over who had bigger cannons or more machine-guns. The configuration was more than enough to saw open anything Germany had as well…

P-39 was also too small/underpowered to carry such a potent armament…

The P-39 wasn’t underpowered, it’s engine didn’t work as well at medium or high level --there’s a difference. The armament was enough for the Soviets and comparable to their other fighters and by 1942 (if not earlier) .30/.303 machine-guns were pretty much useless on fighters anyways. You just keep making the same points over and over…

#158

Funny, I wonder why it was that the USN [who rated the 20mm Hispano cannon to be worth 3 .50 Brownings] - went to the 4 20mm set-up postwar…

& obviously the the P-61 specification required more than twice the P-38s hitting power…maybe they figured ‘sawing’ an He177 in 1/2 would take too long?

The P-39 was one of the late `30s 2nd generation monoplane fighters [ P-38, F4U,MiG 3, Fw 190,He 100,Tornado/Typhoon] that were designed to beat 400mph in level flight.

The He 100 & Airacobra were the only ones with power in the 1,100hp range, the others had closer to 2,000hp…& the Soviets were given He 100s by Hitler as tech support…

#159

I have no idea what that has to do with anything, but probably they were going to jets with completely new designs. The USAF kept the .50’s in the Sabres, although I think this was a mistake and even a single 20mm or 37mm cannon would have saved lives over Korea…

& obviously the the P-61 specification required more than twice the P-38s hitting power…maybe they figured ‘sawing’ an He177 in 1/2 would take too long?

The P-61 was a larger aircraft with little need for turning-and-burning performance with enemy fighters. Just like the Typhoons weren’t all that effective at high level and were used mainly for ground attack…

The P-39 was one of the late `30s 2nd generation monoplane fighters [ P-38, F4U,MiG 3, Fw 190,He 100,Tornado/Typhoon] that were designed to beat 400mph in level flight.

The He 100 & Airacobra were the only ones with power in the 1,100hp range, the others had closer to 2,000hp…& the Soviets were given He 100s by Hitler as tech support…

Apples and oranges. You have a very interesting interpretation of “second gen” fighters. The Typhoon didn’t fly until 1942, after advances in aviation and wartime funding. None of the other fighters save for the P-38 even flew in the 1930’s! None were ready for the beginning of the war, the Aircobra was! The engine was rated closer to 1200-hp. Again, you’re just recycling false equivalency comparisons…

#160

Typhoon first flew in Feb `40… & this is what US historian D. Caldwell wrote about their effectiveness vs Fw 190…

“Spitfires were unable to catch the Focke-Wulf at low altitude…The new Hawker Typhoon which began entering service in late 1942, proved to have excellent speed & acceleration at ground level, & was assigned the anti-Jabo role. By mid-1943, the Typhoons had made low-level daylight operations over England unprofitable for the Germans, & the Jabos were transfered to other, less well defended theatres.”[Russia & MTO].

But the Soviet P-39s & Italy based P-38s did not have the ability to do like-wise…

All the other late 30s 2nd gen monoplane fighters listed flew in 39-40 too…& ~1200-hp is a long way from ~2000-hp…

The USAF was still using a 4-20mm cannon armed, piston engined, ground attack plane in Vietnam, the Skyraider…

“False equivalency”- I dont think so… proven - efficacy - actually…