Yeah you are probbly right Firefly every army have friendly fire ,but thats strange to me ,i cannot imagine how anyone can shot own soldier.
Maybe i think like that becouse i am young i never been in war or military training .
4-0 to the Bf-109 with 24 hours of voting left - anyone else got an opinion?
Messerschmitt Bf-109 
It was teh Luftwaffe’s standard single seat fighter for the first 3 years of WWII and was able to outrun or outgun all opposition, dominating the Polish PZL fighters and outfighting the French Morane-Saulnier MS
So, it finished 5-0 to the Bf-109, the next one will be sorted when I get a chance - probably tomorrow.
Hello?
Is this thread deceased just as it gets interesting? 
No, sorry. Had to write an essay up for work yesterday, so I didn’t get chance to do one. I will try to get one done at dinner time today, if not tomorrow morning when I come off duty.
Apologies for not updating this before the weekend, work’s been mad. I’ll do it on monday instead.
No worries mate.
This seems to be the only actual ww2 related topic that is current. And it is also very interesting.
Unfortunatelly…
MiG-3 (USSR) v P-39 Aircobra (USA)
Engine: 1,350hp Mikulin AM-35A
Max Speed: 400mph (640km/h)
Rate of Climb: 2894ft (882m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 39360ft (12000m)
Range: 781 miles (1250km)
Armament: 1x 12.7mm (0.50in) MG
2x 7.62mm (0.3in) MG
2x 220lb (100kg) bombs or 6x 82mm rockets
The MiG-3 was an attempt to correct the handling problems of the MiG-1, which it was reasonably succesful at. Used in large numbers (1200 had been delivered by the start of Operation Barbarossa), the MiG-3 had claimed a pair of Ju-88 bombers even before the war against Germany had officially started. The MiG-1 was designed as a high altitude interceptor and the MiG-3 also performed well at high altitudes. Unfortunately, most of the combat against the Germans was at low level, where the MiG-3 was nothing special. The end of production of the AM-35 engine was the end of the MiG-3, and attempts to re-engine it with either an AM-37 (which was also taken out of production) or the ASh-82 radial engine were never that succesful. Although development of the MiG-3 continued throughout the war with various engines, none of them were ever particularly succesful, and devlopement was halted when the air war over Germany showed that the piston fighter’s day was over.
P-39 Aircobra (USA)
Engine: 1200hp Allison V-1710
Top Speed: 376mph (605km/h)
Rate of Climb: 3,750ft (1,140m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 35,000ft (10,700m)
Range: 1,098 miles (1,770km)
Armament: 1x 37mm Cannon and either 4x 12.7mm (0.50in) or 2x 12.7mm (0.50in) and 4x 7.62mm (0.30in) MGs
500lb (230kg) of bombs
One of the main fighters in US service at the outbreak of war, the heavy P-39 suffered from the poor high altitude performance of the Allison engine, and was markedly inferior to contemporary European fighters (meaning that the first USAAF fighter group deployed to Europe was equipped with Spitfire Vs). The weight distribution was also poor and often caused the P-39 to go into a spin. The P-39s performance dropped off drastically above 17,000 feet, which limited it’s usefulness as a traditional fighter, both in Europe and the Far East, where Japanese bombers often flew above the P-39’s maximum ceiling.
Not really sure what to do about that one - what did the Russians think? They were after all the only users of the MiG-3, and were IIRC the major wartime user of the Aircobra. I suspect they probably preferred the Aircobra, but am not at all sure. I’m not voting yet.
Since we’re debating one of the more obscure fighters (to the west) of the war, I’ll try and do some more research tonight and post up a bit more about the MiG.
The following comments from a German expert, Dr. Ing. Karl-Heinz Steinicke, as quoted in the book Horrido! by Trevor J. Constable and Col. Raymond F. Toliver, are worth repeating.
“In July and August 1941, during the first aerial combats over Kiev, elegant low-wing monoplanes with straight engines appeared next to the Rata. A few of them had been seen over Lemberg during the first few days, but this didn’t cause much of a surprise because they were held to be our own.”
“The reaction, of course, was devastating, but only because of poor intelligence work.”
“Noteworthy especially in this comparison (of German and Russian fighters most used in 1942) is the range of the MiG-3. In spite of greater speed the MiG-3 could fly 110 km farther than the worthy Bf 109F-4. Many times, this inferior range was a handicap to the German pilot, because it made a premature return flight necessary.”
“It is also astonishing that the absolute maximum speed of the MiG-3 was higher than that of the Bf 109F-3. Since the Russian MiG-3 was more maneuverable than the Bf 109, it is really remarkable in retrospect that the German fighter pilots were so successful on the Russian Front. There were, of course, Soviet fighter planes that were not as efficient.”
Since, in the West, the Bf 109F was considered to be the best, or at least one of the best, air superiority fighters in the world at that time, the MiG-3 is clearly worth examining more closely. “MiG,” incidentally, is the acronym of the Mikoyan-Gurevich Experimental Construction Bureau design team.
Im with pdf, Im looking through my books for references to both ac.
Will vote soon.
Right here goes. I vote for the Aircobra.
It was considered a failure by both the US and UK. However several Soviet pilots loved it and there were many Aces in it.
It was an extremely proficient aircraft at under 15000 feet where as the Mig 3 was designed as a high level interceptor and did not handle so well at lower altitudes.
As almost all the air combat in the East took place at these lower altitudes the Cobra outperformed the Mig in this respect.
I found a couple of decent sources:
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html#top
http://www.answers.com/topic/mikoyan-gurevich-mig-3
However, Im sure if the battle altitudes had been reversed the Mig would have done a lot better.
So its the Aircobra for me in this particular tricky match up.
Sorry if I’m late to this one - over the weekend I moved into new accomodation at the other end of the country, and on Monday started my suuuuuuuuuper new job - only got internet working last night, when I first read this.
Since then, I’ve been agonizing. The MiG-3 is quite the sports car whereas the P-39 is the 1.0 litre hatchback. Underpowered and hence much unloved.
But looking at the MiG-3, it seems it’s all performance and no teeth. The armament is, well, pitiful. AFAIK they are contemporary in terms of time so I won’t apologise for docking the MiG-3 points for being underarmed… whereas if we were comparing an early mark Spitfire with 0.303" machine guns only with a cannon armed Tempest, say, I would count it as far less of a factor.
As well as poor armament, I’m not even convinced it really was “all that” in performance terms either given some of the things I’ve read.
I refer you to:
http://www.mmpbooks.biz/books/8373000658/mig-3.html
MiG-3, compared with MiG-1, had engine moved about 10 cm forward, enlarged fuel tanks and bigger radiator under the fuselage. Wheels and undercarriage covers were also changed. In spite of all these changes the aircraft still was very difficult to fly and had very low manoeuvrability.
I do wonder if claims that it was some sort of underrated Soviet superfighter which just missed the boat because the combat was at low level aren’t just clutching at straws. It’s easy for web sources to claim it was great but couldn’t prove it because the combat was at low altitude… well if the combat wasn’t where it was good, how do we even know if it was all that good there? Does that make sense?
So that’s been enough to sow the seeds of doubt in my mind.
Now, the P-39. Not as fast, has one of those woeful Allison power plants in, and let’s face it, is a bit of a misfit design in many respects - not all of them bad. I’ve read that the meaty 37mm cannon is no accident - whereas most aircraft are of the time were designed around an engine, the P-39 was designed around that monster cannon.
(ref: http://www.aviation-history.com/bell/p39.html).
Apparently the prototypes had a supercharger but this was removed to improve performance but limiting altitude… How removing the supercharger IMPROVES performance I don’t know, since pistons aren’t my thing.
So yeah, we all know that as a fighter it wasn’t up to the dogfighting game… but that armament made it quite handy for beating up ground targets - which on the Eastern front where both of these types were used most, the P-39 was the better aeroplane. Therefore, it gets my vote.
Fest’s vote using dodgy reasoning: P-39
So that’s 2-0 to the American fighter up to now. I’ll leave this one going until the weekend, give people a chance to get some research done.
A little bit late :oops: …
Found this:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/Spit2Manual.pdf
A little bit late :oops: …
Found this:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/Spit2Manual.pdf :D[/quote]
Nice find that Dani, thanks.
Just to add a bit of competition, I’m going for the MiG, although it is inferior at lower level, it was far superior to the P-39 at high level and although it wasn’t as well armed as the P-39, it was more manouverable and the P-39 did have the tendancy to go into a spin thanks to the poor weight distribution.
2-1 to the P-39.