P-40 most underrated fighter
Drifter Bob
stats, I'm starting to think the P-40 was a seriously underrated fighter.
The P-39 obviously definately was, and is an excellent example of how the
conventional wisdom was way, way wrong. Maddox points out in Il2 that
contrary to every US or UK book I ever read, the Russians didn't use the
P-39 for ground attack, it was primarily an air superiority fighter. You
don't get aces with over 60 kills against the Luftwaffe by accident.
Seems some aircraft do well in some theaters and terrible in others, for a
vareity of reasons. The P40 did well in a bunch of places and badly in
some, but largely badly due to poor pilots and bad tactics, and / or being
used for missions for which is was unsuited. There were several notable P40
aces with high scores (by Allied standards). Kuznetsov (21 P-40 kills) in
Russia, Bob Scott (19 P-40 Kills) from the AVG (among others) and Clive
Caldwell (20 P-40 kills) and B Drake (13 P-40 kills) of the RAF /
Commonwealth stand out.
The kicker for me was when I read this (apparently new) article
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/
it reflected a theme I keep running into in historical accounts "the P40
was obsolete and terrible in general, but it seemed to somehow perform well
here..." the Soviets had tons of problems with engines and spare parts and
training in this foreign plane in the polar climate, but it evidently
performed remarkably well in combat, and according to another new russian
book I cant afford, played a pivotal role in shoring up the VVS in 1942.
It also did well for the AVG, for the US 325 fighter group, and for many
though not all of the Commonwealth squadrons in North Africa (the South
Africans did poorly) It also did well for the New Zealanders in the Pacific.
In every aircraft book, the P-40 is always described in nearly identical
cliche language, as 'unmaneverable, but rugged'. As if being rugged alone
would allow an aircraft to hold it's own in all these combat theaters. If
that was the case then the Il-2 Sturmovik would have been a top air
superiority fighter!
In every SIM I've played, (especially Il2, which is supposed to be the most
realistic), it can out-turn every other plane except a zero or an oscar (or
those early biplanes), zooms well, dives well, rolls well, and climbs,
well, ok it climbs like a brick. Still, I think it's pretty damn
maneuverable.
And it's also described as slow. Unless the numbers in those other books I
read were wrong it was pretty fast for it's era... faster or as fast as Spit
I, II and V, Bf 109E and F, Zero, Oscar, F4F, Hurricane, G.50, Mc202, and
all the early Russian planes (LaGG-3, Yak 1)...
My list of the best fighters in late 1941 / early 1942:
Bf 109G2
Spit V
P-40F
Bf 109F
A6M5
P-40E
A6M2
Fw 190A
P-38F
Spit I / II
P-39D
Bf 109E
F4F "Wildcat"
Ki-43 "Oscar"
Yak-1
Hurricane II
Mc202 (early)
P-40B / C "Tomahawk"
Hurricane I
Mc200
F2A / Buffalo
P-36 / Hawk 75
G.50
Me 110
I-16
I-153
Mig-3
Gloster Gladiator
Fiat Cr 42
Fiat Cr 32
I give the P-38F a low ranking because of all the serious problems it had,
such as with dive compressibility. As these bugs were worked out, and turn
rate increased with boosted controls, the P-38 became one of the worlds best
fighters.
I also belive the early FW 190A wasn't as great as it's reputation,
partially from my experiences in flight Sims, partially from historical
anecdotes and records. It had speed and firepower, but it turned poorly and
would easily go into a spin...
DB
--
Guy Alcala
> Based on flight sims I've played, and a bunch of historical anecdotes and
> stats, I'm starting to think the P-40 was a seriously underrated fighter.
> The P-39 obviously definately was, and is an excellent example of how the
> conventional wisdom was way, way wrong. Maddox points out in Il2 that
> contrary to every US or UK book I ever read, the Russians didn't use the
> P-39 for ground attack, it was primarily an air superiority fighter. You
> don't get aces with over 60 kills against the Luftwaffe by accident.
Minor nit. The top-scoring Soviet pilot in the P-39 was Grigoriy Rechkalov, with
50 kills while flying it. His total score was 56 plus 6 shared. You probably
want to read "Attack of the Airacobras", by Dimitri Loza, translated into
English and published by the University Press of Kansas.
> Seems some aircraft do well in some theaters and terrible in others, for a
> vareity of reasons. The P40 did well in a bunch of places and badly in
> some, but largely badly due to poor pilots and bad tactics, and / or being
> used for missions for which is was unsuited. There were several notable P40
> aces with high scores (by Allied standards). Kuznetsov (21 P-40 kills) in
> Russia, Bob Scott (19 P-40 Kills) from the AVG (among others) and Clive
> Caldwell (20 P-40 kills) and B Drake (13 P-40 kills) of the RAF /
> Commonwealth stand out.
>
> The kicker for me was when I read this (apparently new) article
>
> http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/
>
> it reflected a theme I keep running into in historical accounts "the P40
> was obsolete and terrible in general, but it seemed to somehow perform well
> here..." the Soviets had tons of problems with engines and spare parts and
> training in this foreign plane in the polar climate, but it evidently
> performed remarkably well in combat, and according to another new russian
> book I cant afford, played a pivotal role in shoring up the VVS in 1942.
OTOH, Stalin specifically complained that the allies were sending the Soviet
Union P-40s and Hurricanes instead of Spitfires and P-39s, and that the former
two were inferior to the German a/c they were facing. Later they specifically
requested that we send no more P-40s, but send them as many P-39s as we could.
In July 1943 Stalin asked for 500/month; considering that production peaked in
April 1943 with 511 P-39s delivered, he was essentially asking for the entire
production.
> It also did well for the AVG, for the US 325 fighter group, and for many
> though not all of the Commonwealth squadrons in North Africa (the South
> Africans did poorly) It also did well for the New Zealanders in the Pacific.
>
> In every aircraft book, the P-40 is always described in nearly identical
> cliche language, as 'unmaneverable, but rugged'. As if being rugged alone
> would allow an aircraft to hold it's own in all these combat theaters. If
> that was the case then the Il-2 Sturmovik would have been a top air
> superiority fighter!
>
> In every SIM I've played, (especially Il2, which is supposed to be the most
> realistic), it can out-turn every other plane except a zero or an oscar (or
> those early biplanes),
A Hurricane or Spit will out-turn it, but it could out-turn the109, at least
with a good pilot flying it.
> zooms well, dives well, rolls well, and climbs,
>
> well, ok it climbs like a brick. Still, I think it's pretty damn
> maneuverable.
> And it's also described as slow. Unless the numbers in those other books I
> read were wrong it was pretty fast for it's era... faster or as fast as Spit
> I, II and V, Bf 109E and F, Zero, Oscar, F4F, Hurricane, G.50, Mc202, and
> all the early Russian planes (LaGG-3, Yak 1)...
The 109F-3 and subsequent with the DB-601E were definitely faster at their
critical altitude, at least whenunburdened by the wing gunpods.
> My list of the best fighters in late 1941 / early 1942:
Many a/c on your list, such as the G2 (I think), P-40F, A6M5, P-38F weren't
around in that time frame.
Turn rate wasn't improved by the boosted ailerons, roll rate at high IAS was.
But the boost did nothing to decrease the roll inertia, which was the P-38's
biggest roll issue.
> I also belive the early FW 190A wasn't as great as it's reputation,
> partially from my experiences in flight Sims, partially from historical
> anecdotes and records. It had speed and firepower, but it turned poorly and
> would easily go into a spin...
Which shows thedifference between sims as opposed to real flight and combat.
The FW-190A had a poor turn rate owing to high wing-loading (and lack of stall
warning made the newbies wary of approaching the limits), but in the typical
combat that's irrelevant. Most fighters get shot down in the first pass by the
enemy they don't see; speed and acceleration, at least in a guns-only era, was
far more important. It's fantastic roll capability allowed it to track for long
enough to take a shot, and then evade until out of gun range. Turning was a
defensive move, and something that you don't want to do in the middle of a big
furball. The FW-190A was the supreme energy fighter in the world for a year or
two.
The other thing that Sims don't show is the control feel of the a/c; every pilot
I've ever read who's flown the FW-190 comments on the superb control harmony,
i.e. the way the three controls worked together.
Guy
Cub Driver
wrote:
>Based on flight sims I've played, and a bunch of historical anecdotes and
>stats, I'm starting to think the P-40 was a seriously underrated fighter.
>The P-39 obviously definately was, and is an excellent example of how the
>conventional wisdom was way, way wrong.
Or is the flight sim that is way, way wrong? I would be inclined to
take the word of a P-39 pilot over that of a lad sitting in front of a
computer manipulating those very approximate controls upon a digital
facsimile created by someone who'd never flown the aircraft in peace
or war.
I haven't flown any recent flight sims, but on the one occasion when I
did, I was astonished at how unlike real-world flying it was. Rather
like looking at nudes on a computer screen as opposed to having one in
bed with you.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net
old hoodoo
Flight sims are great fun, but they tend to view an aircraft in a micro
world, where you get to set up certain comfort zone to replaced 6 months
to a year of training in the real thing and you also get to set up such
things as unlimited ammo, the ability of your opposition and the like,
obviously, you don't want to participate in several hours of boring
flying and then a 1-2 minute engagement on a sim when in real life 2
minutes or less of sheer terror is more than enough. A lot of
characteristics of flying are in the Sim, which is really cool, but it
ain't real.
I think the P-40 might be a good sim aircraft and give an operator a lot
of confidence. No one ever said it wasn't stable and as such it was a
good gun platform. And some of the characteristics that historians
comment didn't really show up in combat scenarios that often.
To some extent, its unfortunate that a lot of young people will learn
their history on the Sim rather than research, but then again, at least
they will be learning "Semi-reality" rather than all the fantasy crap
that has NO comparison to reality.
In reality the P-40 was an aircraft that was designed to be highly
manuverable but with much less weight (P-36). The addition of the
Allison powerplant, while giving the P-40 a smaller front plate and
therefore more "usable" hp, but without an increase in wing area that
also had to contend with the additional weight of needed armor and
self-sealing tankage, turned that thoroughbred handling of the P-36, its
one great asset, to a plug, i.e. it could still fly OK, but combat
manuverability was considerably lessened, but no so much as other prewar
designs that did not have the surplus wing area that the P-36 had to
give.
In favor of the P-40 was its ability to still carry the weight stably
while it had a classic engine in terms of reliability, except that it
had to keep to lower altitudes. This made the P-40 an effective low
level fighter and strafer and interceptor against marginal performance
bombing aircraft. It was a durable airplane, surprizing so, and it may
have been a happy fact that the 40's
radiator was located where it was and not further to the rear where,
although there might have been more favorable placement in terms of
aerodynamics, at least it put the most vulnerable part of the plane up
front and in a small package, so that lighter mgs had difficultly
reaching those area in stern attacks.
The P-40 also had a very solid punch. The six 50 cal mgs of the E and
other variants, even 4, were more than adequate against the relatively
lighter aircraft they engaged.
Me-109's were effective against the P-40's, but part of the reason the
P-40's kept soldiering on was that even the 109 had to fly in the P-40's
envelope so the superiority of the 109F, the best 109 to take on the
P-40, was not totally overwhelming....and P-40's continued to chew up
Ju-52's and most other aircraft in the Luftwaffe inventory.
Not a great fighter but an adequate fighter as long as you didn't
stretch the envelope too far....sims don't do that. In real life,
depending the scenario, the P-40 could be effective, but out of its
envelope, it could be a dog....
Al
WaltBJ
because the War Production Board would not approve any modifications
to their engines. They both needed better supercharging. Neither,
combat-configured, could even get up to 30,000. They were essentially
all out of fight by 25,000. Sims generally have two birds meet
agreeing to fight in some arena acceptable to both. Combat isn't like
that at all. Combat is closer to a mugging. Do some research on Hans
Marseille and his feats in the Western Desert flying a Me109 against
the P40 and the Hurricane. He used his airplane's strong points
(height, speed, punch) to defeat both P40s and Hurricanes readily and
often. Plus he was a hell of a good pilot with great eyesight and had
analyzed the shooting problem to the point where he mastered very high
angle deflection shooting, up around 60-80 degrees angle off. He'd sit
out of reach above the Allied fighters as they were all tied up in a
Lufbery, analyze the situation, and then dive down to bounce some poor
sucker, shoot and zoom back up out of reach before the next guy coull
turn enough to get guns on him. Same thing with the AVG against Oscars
- the P40 had more speed and punch and would bounce and go, using
superior speed to evade the counter action. Trying to turn with an
Oscar or Zero was a losing game for the 40, et al. The ideal gun
combat pass is from deep six and the target never knows you're there
until his aircraft starts coming apart around him. (Research how the
Red Baron got his 80 kills - and how he met his end, as he ignored his
own rules) Meeting head on and breaking into each other to start the
action is a lot of fun but really dumb in combat - especially if your
oppo's got a second section a couple miles behind him you haven't seen
- yet.
Walt BJ
Cub Driver
<alf...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>I think the P-40 might be a good sim aircraft and give an operator a lot
>of confidence. No one ever said it wasn't stable and as such it was a
>good gun platform.
I wonder how the Brewster Buffalo flies on a sim platform? Every pilot
who flew it remarked on how pleasant it was. A nimble plane,
evidently, and without vices unless you were unlucky enough to be sent
into combat with it.
Cub Driver
>Biggest problem on both P39 and P40 was lack of an altitude capability
>because the War Production Board would not approve any modifications
>to their engines.
As has been posted here, it seems that the problem with the P-40
(P-36) design is that it didn't provide room for the turbocharger,
which in the P-38 for example is fitted into the engine boom well
behind the engine (see the air scoops on the sides of the boom).
Since the P-39's engine was aft of the pilot, there may have been room
there, I suppose? Still, it was a very small plane.
All this stuff was in short supply, of course. And one of the good
features of the American approach to war production was that designs
were frozen in place in order that the thing could be produced fast
and in quantity. Arguably it was better to rush 10,000 P-40s to the
Pacific than to wait a year when 5,000 Mustangs might or might not be
available.
HR
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:AEypd.50621
>
> You could push things, too. Because you knew one thing: If you decided to
> go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. He
> couldn't leave the fight because you were faster. That left you in control
> of the fight. Mind you: The P-40 was a fine combat airplane.
>
> DB
They were mostly used as ground attack in China. My dad flew one most of the
war and the armor was helpful in ground attack.(hitting bridges etc on the
Burma Road) Of course the Jug would have been better. The P40 was a back
theatre fighter for the US.
Mike Williamson
> "Guy Alcala" <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
>>>I give the P-38F a low ranking because of all the serious problems it
>>
> had,
>
>>>such as with dive compressibility. As these bugs were worked out, and
>>
> turn
>
>>>rate increased with boosted controls, the P-38 became one of the worlds
>>
> best
>
>>>fighters.
>>
>>Turn rate wasn't improved by the boosted ailerons, roll rate at high IAS
>
> was.
>
>>But the boost did nothing to decrease the roll inertia, which was the
>
> P-38's
>
>>biggest roll issue.
>
>
> I understood they had boosted elevators as well...
>
The elevators were not boosted in the P-38 at any time. You could
pretty much always get enough authority out of the elevator do do
what you needed within the aerodynamic abilities of the aircraft.
The only place in which more elevator authority might be wished for
by the pilot was in a compressibility dive, but that wasn't going
to be fixed by powering the elevator either. The dive flap restored
controllability by moving the center of lift forward.
Mike
Mike Williamson
>
> Thats right, they added airbrakes or automatic flaps of some kind to control
> the dive and prevent the compressibility lockup they used to get in the
> early P-38 (where a split-S could often leave you smashed through the
> ground!) But I think in the Sims at least they use the airbrakes or
> maneuvering flaps for turning as well. I know other planes were designed
> this way intentionally, I remember reading that the Japanese N1K had
> automatic maneuvering flaps which made it a very tight turner in spite of
> being a big and heavy aircraft...
>
> DB
>
>
Most P-38s models had a "combat" or "maneuvering" position on the
flaps to provide more lift below about 200 indicated, which may be
what you are thinking of.
Many sims show the dive flap to be a brake, but its primary
purpose was to change the center of lift and restore elevator
authority, although I'm sure it provided some drag as well.
It actually allowed the aircraft to achieve a somewhat higher
speed in the dive before becoming prone to loss of elevator
authority. These were not automatic, but were activated by
the pilot via a switch, hopefully before entering the dive.
Mike
Drifter Bob
the
> war and the armor was helpful in ground attack.(hitting bridges etc on the
> Burma Road) Of course the Jug would have been better. The P40 was a back
> theatre fighter for the US.
Do you know what years your dad flew? Could you find out?
Because the P-40 was used in the CBI quite late, into 1944, by which time it
would have been very obsolete, and the Japanese had almost no effective
airforce in the theater...
DB
HR
Towards the end he was allowed to fly the P51B (no D for China:) P47 and
P38. I say allowed because as you know being a backwater theatre they only
got a taste of the good planes later on.
Like I said,he did mostly ground support for the chinese and interdiction on
the Burma road.
He did manage to smoke one zeke who probably never made it back.
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:GZMpd.64176$IQ.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
old hoodoo
in Il-2 FB, but not fight with it. To vulnerable. Also, it's hard to
find something that I can fight fairly with the B-239, either the
opposition is too fast (Lagg-3 and up) or too manuverable (I-16's and
I-153's)so classic dogfights are hard to engage in. I had a lot of
frustration with even taking on Sb-2's but that occured before I learned
how to control my throttle properly. But even against light machine guns
in the bombers you are taking your chances so you can't just bore in and
shoot. Of course I am no good so I get caught napping a lot and the
B-239 won't take many hits at all. (I like (need) speed, armor and
"guns, lots of guns"). However, I have gotten better with other a/c and
intend to get back with the B-239. Even the Lagg-3's outrrun
it....however the Lagg-3's I've flown are a bit too nimble and easy to
fly, at least from what I had been led to expect by historical reading.
Oddly, the I-16's, which I thought would be very handy, look for
an excuse to fall out of the sky, turn steeply, fire your guns, they
want to stop flying, unstable as heck. I would have thought they would
have been more easily handled but then again they are short little
things. The I-153's handle much better. I might do better in the I-16
with experience and maybe in a Spanish Civil War sim.
The P-39's have been delights to fly except that when I loose
concentration and get too caught up in trying to pull it through and
take deflection--spins come at the worse times, and it takes quite a bit
of altitude to get out of the spins which I normally can do but some
times I give up trying and bail. I am guessing, but I think that maybe
the 39's get into spins too easily...I know about the dreaded flat spin
but that was something different and it was not that common. However,
maybe the spins are there to make one concentrate on flying the P-39
properly...don't get caught into fights that drain your speed and don't
get over-aerobatic...it ain't an Oscar. That slow firing 37mm is cool
and really mauls bombers. I think I caught an Fw-190 with a cannon hit
cause it went all to pieces in one engagement after a short burst. In
all other engagements I couldn't touch 'em.
Hurricanes are stable aircraft, but even against Me-110C's I have
had trouble (how embarrassing), and I hoped that they would be easy
meat--not in a Hurricane at my skill level.
The La-5Fn I flew was quite competent but you had to get in close
to get those cannons to hit and I find myself lost almost after the
second stage of the engagement...everyone disappears, that is I fly off
from the fight without realizing it. The Yaks are good but you have to
shoot all day to bother a 109 or 190.
Not much good as a gunner either. Smoked a Finnnish Hurricane as an
Il-2 gunner which was fun but the line astern guy nailed me. Against
109F's got excited (scared) and shot my own tail off. Fortunately I had
not yet learned how to bail out so my secret stayed with me.
One think seems apparent in most of the Russian/US aircraft I have
flown in Il-2. They are not that efficient in killing the opposition, be
it their armament is too weak or unbalanced or the gunsights in the
Russian a/c are not very good. Makes one appreciate the concentrated
firepower of the P-38, P-51, and P-47 coupled with speed and toughness.
Also makes one appreciate the pilots a lot more, those who had to fight
in aircraft that were not fully warworthy from an individual pilot's
perspective.
AL
Krztalizer
>had trouble (how embarrassing), and I hoped that they would be easy
>meat--not in a Hurricane at my skill level.
Don't buy in to all the "Bf 110s are crap" stuff - they weren't *great*, but
during the first two years of the war, they destroyed plenty of Allied
aircraft, fighters included. You really SHOULD have difficulty with them -
they had an extra set of eyes (or two extra sets), a tremendous amount of
firepower, and plenty of energy. Roll rate of a 1998 Ford Explorer, but they
didn't need it for boom 'n zoom.
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR
Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.
dancho
> Based on flight sims I've played, and a bunch of historical anecdotes and
> stats, I'm starting to think the P-40 was a seriously underrated fighter.
> The P-39 obviously definately was, and is an excellent example of how the
> conventional wisdom was way, way wrong. Maddox points out in Il2 that
> contrary to every US or UK book I ever read, the Russians didn't use the
> P-39 for ground attack, it was primarily an air superiority fighter. You
> don't get aces with over 60 kills against the Luftwaffe by accident.
(snipped for brevity)
The P-39 and P-40 are very interesting aircraft from an historical point
of view. U.S. historians have a number of reasons for "underrating"
these planes. Wartime propaganda blamed the aircraft for Allied defeats
early in the war. Some historians (unfortunately) repeat that story as
"the truth." Also, the "doctrine" of high-altitude bombing was very
widely accepted, and this *required* turbo-supercharged aircraft (as
others have pointed out in this thread) and the P-39 and P-40 lacked
turbo-superchargers.
But the most interesting aspect of all this to me is the doctrine of the
U.S. Army and Navy -- the unspoken assumption that "everybody comes
back" from a mission. This meant that high speed was the most desired
characteristic of a fighter plane, since that meant that when
outnumbered or at a disadvantage, our guys could just out-run the
opposition. The P-40 and P-39 did not always have a clear speed
advantage, so they were quickly replaced with newer (or just faster)
designs.
It's interesting to me is that this is something that you can learn from
a sim (like IL-2) but you have to make survival the *number one*
priority in order to learn it. In any sim, a slow plane will get you
killed if things get "hairy." In reality, "getting killed" means being
still and cold forever and ever. Americans really try to avoid that
sort of thing (see Gen. Patton's speech at the start of the movie "Patton.")
Unfortunately, civilians just don't understand. There is going to be a
little "taint" associated with the idea of "running away" (an RAF
officer told Chenault that any British pilot who followed Chenault's
advice to "boom and zoom" should be "court martialed for cowardice.")
So, for many years, the P-39 and P-40 have had to do their duty, and
sacrifice their reputations for the common good and to uphold the image
of the genuinely brave flyers who traded them in for faster mounts.
On the other hand, the Soviets had a different view on the whole "coming
back alive" thing. "With your shield or on it" kind of sums it up, I
think. All in all, the attitude of the U.S. forces ultimately proved to
be a superior strategy.
James Calivar
history will all be rewritten to our liking.
"dancho" <simonba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o3Vpd.93105$V41.21587@attbi_s52...
Cub Driver
<williamso...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Most P-38s models had a "combat" or "maneuvering" position on the
>flaps to provide more lift below about 200 indicated, which may be
>what you are thinking of.
Is this the same idea as the so-called (by the Japanese) butterfly
flaps that were installed on the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) fighter in
order to bring it up to army standards for maneuverability?
Cub Driver
<alf...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>I might do better in the I-16
>with experience and maybe in a Spanish Civil War sim.
What's the smell like in those third-world airplanes? Pretty funky,
I'll bet. Stale cheese and salami!
Cub Driver
>Don't buy in to all the "Bf 110s are crap" stuff - they weren't *great*, but
>during the first two years of the war, they destroyed plenty of Allied
>aircraft, fighters included.
From what I read, pilots had a real fear of the rear gunner, on a
bomber no less than a two-man fighter. Previously I'd imagined that it
was no contest: six or eight guns against one, and that one generally
rifle-caliber. But of course a military rifle bullet can do a real
good job of killing one, and the rear gunner has the huge advantage
that he can swing the gun without swinging the airplane.
For example: the aptly named Sergeant McLuckie, who single-handed
stood off five (I think it was) Hayabusas over the Bay of Bengal. The
pilot, W/O Huggard, flew at wave-top level so the Hayabusas couldn't
get under him and had to deal with McLuckie. He winged the first two
that attacked, forcing them to retire, and shot down the third, who
was no less than Colonel Kato of the 64th Sentai, the most famous
Japanese army fighter pilot of the war. Seeing Kato go in, the last
two planes wisely went home and let the Hudson? Blenheim? return to
India unmolested.
McLuckie and Huggard got a citation, as well they deserved.
Cub Driver
> (an RAF
>officer told Chenault that any British pilot who followed Chenault's
>advice to "boom and zoom" should be "court martialed for cowardice.")
The RAF did indeed use boom & zoom in Burma, though to be sure it was
not official doctrine. It was explained to a new pilot thus: "Dive,
get any hit you can, and dive away."
And note that Chennault did train the AVGs in RAF fighter tactics, as
more useful than American.
Guy Alcala
<snip>
> Oddly, the I-16's, which I thought would be very handy, look for
> an excuse to fall out of the sky, turn steeply, fire your guns, they
> want to stop flying, unstable as heck. I would have thought they would
> have been more easily handled but then again they are short little
> things. The I-153's handle much better. I might do better in the I-16
> with experience and maybe in a Spanish Civil War sim.
Sounds like the sim got it about right. Here's Eric Brown on flying theI-16:
"Cruising at225 mph, the Rata had marginal longitudinal but neutral lateral
and directional stability. The controls were all sensitive, and its
featherlight ailerons gave a high rate of roll . . . Top speed was 283 mph at
10,000 ft, but accelearation was surprisingly poor in the dive, whenthe nose
showed a tendency to rise and a rigidly mounted engine caused the airplane to
shake and rattle through the whole flight envelope. This made the Rata a poor
gun platform."
> The P-39's have been delights to fly except that when I loose
> concentration and get too caught up in trying to pull it through and
> take deflection--spins come at the worse times, and it takes quite a bit
> of altitude to get out of the spins which I normally can do but some
> times I give up trying and bail. I am guessing, but I think that maybe
> the 39's get into spins too easily...I know about the dreaded flat spin
> but that was something different and it was not that common. However,
> maybe the spins are there to make one concentrate on flying the P-39
> properly...don't get caught into fights that drain your speed and don't
> get over-aerobatic...it ain't an Oscar.
<snip>
Again, sounds like the sim does a pretty good job (and I have heard lots of
good things about "IL-2's" flight modeling). From Dean:
"One pilot said 'the P-39 would do the most wicked stall of any airplane I
ever saw. That is why there were so many stall-spin accidents'. Another
noted 'Its controls were extremely delicate. The slightest hint of abruptness
on the pilot's part would instigate a high-speed stall; result, a snap roll'.
The P-39 at one g stall mushed considerably, and had a simultaneous mild roll
and downward pitch; it would then return to level flight, and a pitching
motion would start as the stall progressed. In high speed stalls this
pitching would be accompanied by yawing and rolling motions. Stall recovery
could be made promptly using down elevator; ailerons were ineffective, and
using the rudder only increased oscillatory motions, as would use of up
elevator. If the pilot did not get out of the stall, a spin which quickly
flattened out would result, particularly if the center of gravity was aft. A
wartime pilot in training related 'we bounced some P-39s. One of them stalled
in a tight turn and went into a flat spin. We received orders not to attack
P-39s as they were susceptible to flat spins after they had expended their
ammunition' . . . .
"Other comments denoted pilot's concerns 'It had a pronounced stalling
tendency in steep turns; a pilot entering a tight turn never knew whether he
would make it around or get into a high-speed stall. Notoriously tricky in
the hands of a careless operator', and 'It was very important to keep the nose
down in recovering from a stall or spin. If the nose was brought up too
quickly in recovering from a normal stall or spin, the P-39 could go into a
flat spin."
Guy
Mike Williamson
>
> Is this the same idea as the so-called (by the Japanese) butterfly
> flaps that were installed on the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) fighter in
> order to bring it up to army standards for maneuverability?
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog www.danford.net
Dan-
I'm not familiar with the Hayabusa's flap arrangement, but the
combat flap system on the P-38 was simply a partial extension of
the normal flap, which was a fowler type system. The partial
extension gave an increase in lift at combat speeds, giving
improved turn performance below corner speed. This was not
automatic, and was set by the pilot by moving the flap lever
to the appropriate detent position.
Mike
old hoodoo
bomber.
One can see why the pilots liked armored glass on the windscreen and why
it was probably considered very important, armored glass would give the
pilot a lot more confidence while boring in.
Of course, after sitting in the back seat of a sim Il-2 and Stuka, its
not that easy to hit a target, especially with that pilot doing all
sorts of aerobatics and the wings and or nose of the fighter attacking
you lighting up and you know you are unprotected. The approaching
fighters seem very small and those damn vertical and horizontal
stabilizers are a pain in the rear and that gun seems so clumsy to train
and I think the real ones were probably also difficult to move around.
You want to find a hole to crawl into...all those scary machines coming
after YOU PERSONALLY. Sometimes I think the pilot was better off in not
seeing what was following him.
To be a gunner in a SE bomber I think you needed a certain lack of
imagination and a very calm disposition...when you think of all the bad
things that could happen to you over which you had no control, it didn't
pay to think about it too much.
Peter Stickney
Cub Driver <war...@mailblocks.com> writes:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:13:20 GMT, Mike Williamson
> <williamso...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Most P-38s models had a "combat" or "maneuvering" position on the
>>flaps to provide more lift below about 200 indicated, which may be
>>what you are thinking of.
>
> Is this the same idea as the so-called (by the Japanese) butterfly
> flaps that were installed on the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) fighter in
> order to bring it up to army standards for maneuverability?
Yes - it's pretty much the same. Small flap deflections (Say 10-15
degrees) give a reasonable bump-up to the maximum Lift Coefficient
without incurring a big drag penalty. The idea of using a little bit
of flap to improve turn (As long as the wing was stiff enough - a wing
that flexed under G could damage the flaps or their actuators, to the
point where you could pull the flaps right off the airplane)
Many airplanes used a low-pressure actuator that would let the flaps
"bleed up" as IAS increased - the F4F Wildcat had such a setup.
--
Pete Stickney
p-sti...@nospam.adelphia.net
Without data, all you have are opinions
AM
"old hoodoo" <alf...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10qfmgv...@corp.supernews.com...
> One think seems apparent in most of the Russian/US aircraft I have
> flown in Il-2. They are not that efficient in killing the opposition, be
> it their armament is too weak or unbalanced or the gunsights in the
> Russian a/c are not very good. Makes one appreciate the concentrated
> firepower of the P-38, P-51, and P-47 coupled with speed and toughness.
> Also makes one appreciate the pilots a lot more, those who had to fight in
> aircraft that were not fully warworthy from an individual pilot's
> perspective.
Pretty good post there, ya should remember that most US A/C .50cal
weapons are enough for all fighters in IL 2. Accuracy is whats needed :)
And for it's time, the 4 .50's in the Buffalo are more than enough foir
the early war A/C, and it has excellent low speed handling.
For all these A/C you have to use your strengths vs your opponents
weakness.
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
Ian MacLure
news:r2pgq05k0nq1s7o8v...@4ax.com:
[snip]
> Japanese army fighter pilot of the war. Seeing Kato go in, the last
> two planes wisely went home and let the Hudson? Blenheim? return to
> India unmolested.
>
> McLuckie and Huggard got a citation, as well they deserved.
[snip]
Probably a Hudson I would guess as they were more usual in Coastal
Command type ops than Blenheims.
Another airplane with an effective sting in the tail was the
Douglas SBD. Apparently it had the highest exchange rate of the war
in terms of enemy aircraft shot down vs SBD losses at least for non-
fighter aircraft.
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Krztalizer
> Douglas SBD. Apparently it had the highest exchange rate of the war
> in terms of enemy aircraft shot down vs SBD losses at least for non-
> fighter aircraft.
Swede Vejtasa was nearly an SBD Ace and there were men that achieved that
status flying the "Slow But Deadly".
Swede was jumped by a formation of Rufes (Zero floatplanes) in the days before
Coral Sea. Swede had limited defences in the SBD, but he had an effective
gunner and excellent piloting skills. He smoked all three of the attacking
fighters by turning in to them as they approached - the gunner called his turns
and fired short discouraging bursts with his single .30. It was more than
enough and LT Vejtasa sent all three fighters down on fire.
Later, Captain Vejtasa commanded the USS Constellation in combat off Vietnam.
His undisputed combat abilities and leadership prowess brought him to be the
first commander of the world famous "Top Gun" fighter tactics school, at a
critical time in US Naval fighter aviation.
Swede is also a warm, gentle human being that has to be the finest man I have
known. Tells stories with the best of them; when he mentions Thach and O'Hare,
its because they used to yank and bank together. He knew all the great ones.
Swede is just a gem.
John Keeney
"James Calivar" <amheis...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:5lVpd.5297$Ua....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Don't worry - soon enough Oliver Stone will direct a Hollywood movie on
this and
> history will all be rewritten to our liking.
I don't know about that, Stone hasn't hit a point of agreement with me
yet.
Cub Driver
<alf...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>fighters seem very small and those damn vertical and horizontal
>stabilizers are a pain in the rear and that gun seems so clumsy to train
>and I think the real ones were probably also difficult to move around.
I see by Mikesh's new book "Japanese Aircraft Equipment" that the
greenhouse gunner on the Ki-21 "Sally" bomber had a vane front sight.
The idea evidently was that the slipstream would deflect the sight,
the amount of deflection depending on the speed of the bomber and the
angle of the gun. (Firing directly to the rear, if one could do it
without hitting the vertical stabilizer, would cause no deflection.)
So the problem of "lead" disappears.
This seems to me a brilliant conception! It's a computer, for all
practical purposes. Did it work? Did everyone use it?
>To be a gunner in a SE bomber I think you needed a certain lack of
>imagination and a very calm disposition...when you think of all the bad
>things that could happen to you over which you had no control, it didn't
>pay to think about it too much.
I was pretty impressed to look in the Grumman Avenger. I think I have
this right: a three-man aircraft, with the third man hunkered in the
belly of the beast. The easy part, it seems to me, would be the part
where he has to man the belly gun and fire away.
But then the plane has to land! He can't see anything, and he can't
get out if it goes squash on the deck or splashes overboard.
Drifter Bob
"old hoodoo" <alf...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
Try the P-40 in il2 and tell me what you think!
DB
Peter Stickney
Cub Driver <war...@mailblocks.com> writes:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:05:05 -0600, old hoodoo
> <alf...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>
>>fighters seem very small and those damn vertical and horizontal
>>stabilizers are a pain in the rear and that gun seems so clumsy to train
>>and I think the real ones were probably also difficult to move around.
>
> I see by Mikesh's new book "Japanese Aircraft Equipment" that the
> greenhouse gunner on the Ki-21 "Sally" bomber had a vane front sight.
> The idea evidently was that the slipstream would deflect the sight,
> the amount of deflection depending on the speed of the bomber and the
> angle of the gun. (Firing directly to the rear, if one could do it
> without hitting the vertical stabilizer, would cause no deflection.)
> So the problem of "lead" disappears.
>
> This seems to me a brilliant conception! It's a computer, for all
> practical purposes. Did it work? Did everyone use it?
It wasn't a lead computing sight - what it did, if it was set up
foght, was counter the effect of the deflection of the gun from the
effect of being oriented in the direction of the bomber's motion - a
sort of "Double-Whammy" for computing lead, since it changes as you
move the gun to track the target. It varies according to speed adn
deflection. If you're careful, you can design a spring that will give
a resistence that matches the compnent of the airflow of the airplane's
own motion and pretty uch cancel it out - for a single altitide, since
it's measuring IAS rather than TAS. I suppose that if you're careful
about what altitude you choose for the spring to be based on, it'll
give a "close enough" answer for the range of altitudes you usually
fly. (A system that can adjust the spring tension for an on-the-fly IAS
->TAS calculation is possible, I suppose, but it's kinda tough to put
that into the front sight of a .30 cal machine gun.)
Given the effects of jump. mount vibration, and, in general, the
dispersion that you get from a handheld gun (Something on teh order of
20 mils, IIRC), I suspect that the "Good enough" range was pretty
wide.
It'a a simple solution to the problem. Many nations used it. (The
Italias put a lot of effort into making manually operated guns easier
to use. For example, their manual turrets had a dummy gun barrel that
stuck out into the airstream 180 degrees from the gun itself,and which
elevated and depressed with the gun in order to counteract teh
slipstream force on the gunbarel, adn make the gunner's job easier.
The Brits, Germans, and U.S, had systems of cams & levers that biased
the rear sight (Necessary with reflector sights and powered turets) to
acheive the same effect. IIRC, these usually did have some form of
IAS->TAS compensation. The ultimate expression was, of course, the GE
Central Fire Control System used on the B-29. This system used IAS,
altitude, air temperature, target speed, range, azimuth, elevation,
range rate, bearing change, aand parrelax of the sight to the
computer, and the computer to the gun turret to develop a firing
solution. If it was working correctly, the Gunner/Scanner just had to
hold the sight's range ring on target, keep the target spanned for
the rangefinder. and hold down the action button when he had a good
track. The computer did the rest. (When it didn't work, though...)
>
>>To be a gunner in a SE bomber I think you needed a certain lack of
>>imagination and a very calm disposition...when you think of all the bad
>>things that could happen to you over which you had no control, it didn't
>>pay to think about it too much.
>
> I was pretty impressed to look in the Grumman Avenger. I think I have
> this right: a three-man aircraft, with the third man hunkered in the
> belly of the beast. The easy part, it seems to me, would be the part
> where he has to man the belly gun and fire away.
The lower guy was also the Bombardier, and for level bombing missions,
had a Norden bombsight. (As did the earlier TBD) He could be one
busy guy, indeed.
>
> But then the plane has to land! He can't see anything, and he can't
> get out if it goes squash on the deck or splashes overboard.
For takeoff and landing, I think they had a seat up under the canopy.
But, yeah, in combat, if something goes wrong, you're well & truly
hosed. The Turret Gunner wasn't much better off - That's a mighty
small space to pack a '50 cal, the actuators & controls & sights, and
the gunner. You had to worm you way in, and worming out doesn't look
like something you could do in a hurry.
One could almost say that it was a Navy tradition. I knew some RA-5
(Vigilante) backseaters. The only direct visibility for those guys
were a couple of windows roughly the size of a 5x7 index card.
Carrier landings were interesting, as in "The airplane flies down &
slams to a stop. If water isn't coming in, you've made it."
Of course, they did have ejection seats.
Drifter Bob
"dancho" <simonba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o3Vpd.93105$V41.21587@attbi_s52...
> be a superior strategy.\
Some interesting points, but I have to point out a few holes.
1) P-40 and P-39 were both significantly faster than their opposition in the
Pacific theater, but this didn't necessarily help much.
In the russian front and in the MTO, where they actually did a little better
statistically, they were about on par with most of their opponents in terms
of speed.
2) Russian fighters tended to be fast. Some of the fastest ones were the
least effective, like the Mig 3 which was one of the worlds first fighters
to top 400 mph in level flight. The excellent Yak3 was probably the fastest
low altitude fighter of the war, in a theater where the combat was normally
at very low altitude.
DB
Drifter Bob
> > One think seems apparent in most of the Russian/US aircraft I have
> > flown in Il-2. They are not that efficient in killing the opposition, be
> > it their armament is too weak or unbalanced or the gunsights in the
> > Russian a/c are not very good. Makes one appreciate the concentrated
> > firepower of the P-38, P-51, and P-47 coupled with speed and toughness.
> > Also makes one appreciate the pilots a lot more, those who had to fight
in
> > aircraft that were not fully warworthy from an individual pilot's
> > perspective.
>
>
> Pretty good post there, ya should remember that most US A/C .50cal
> weapons are enough for all fighters in IL 2. Accuracy is whats needed :)
> And for it's time, the 4 .50's in the Buffalo are more than enough foir
> the early war A/C, and it has excellent low speed handling.
>
> For all these A/C you have to use your strengths vs your opponents
> weakness.
>
middling by world war II standards. 20mm cannon are much more efficient at
destroying targets much more quickly. Yes, accuracy can make a huge
difference, you can shoot down planes with a Yak-1 and only one .50 cal mg
(or one .50 and one .30) but it's not easy. The cannon makes the difference
in being able to get kills with incidental shots, high angle shots etc.
Tow other important factors are rate of fire and the concentration of the
guns. Nose guns and guns through the prop hub are much easier to aim than
wing guns, and wing guns widely spaced apart are the worst. The Americans
are kind of in the middle on this, again, with wing guns but grouped
together tightly with a pretty high ROF. I think the british fighters are
the worst, guns are very widely spaced apart.
The amount of ammunition is important too. With the 250-300 rounds per gun
load on most US fighters, you can fire streams of bullets out and walk them
into your target. Not the most elegant type of marksmanship but it can save
your life in a difficult fight, especially if you are not totally dominating
your opponent in terms of maneuverability. The worst for this has to be the
russian planes, sometimes with as little as 60 or 70 rounds per gun. You
can only get kills if you are dead on target, and better not fire unless
certain of a hit.
DB
Drifter Bob
"Cub Driver" <war...@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:fgpgq0h11u75lk15l...@4ax.com...
>
> > (an RAF
> >officer told Chenault that any British pilot who followed Chenault's
> >advice to "boom and zoom" should be "court martialed for cowardice.")
>
> The RAF did indeed use boom & zoom in Burma, though to be sure it was
> not official doctrine. It was explained to a new pilot thus: "Dive,
> get any hit you can, and dive away."
>
> And note that Chennault did train the AVGs in RAF fighter tactics, as
> more useful than American.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
Uh, actually according to the 3 first hand accounts of the AVG that I read,
the RAF threatened to Court Martial any pilot using Chennaults "boom and
zoom" tactics. B&Z is also not as simple, incidentally, as just diving d
shooting. You can turn, just not so much that your speed falls below a
certain point, otherwise they would never have gotten any kills. It happens
that the Zero turned poorly at high speed. When your speed falls below
about 275 mph in the P-40, you dive away.
Another important factor of Chenaults strategy involved how wingmen were
assigned.
It's also worth pointing out that the RAF planes in the theater, the
Hurricanes and the Buffalo, were not nearly as suitible to boom and zoom
tactics, having low maximum dive speed, poor dive acceleration, and
realtively poor zoom climb.
DB
Drifter Bob
high speed dogfights. There are numerous recorded kills by SBD dauntlesses,
Stukas, and Val divebombers among others, done in the traditional method
like a fighter. They usually had light forward armament (often one or two
.30 cal guns, maybe one 12.7mm) but sometimes that was enough at close
range, in slow speed twisting dogfights.
For that matter, many fighters like the Oscar / Hayabusa and many of the
early Russian and Italian fighters were not much better armed...
DB
--
--
Check out The Primer of Practical Magic,
A new D20 supplement of subtle spells, new classes,
And curious magic artifacts from Jack Vance's
popular Dying Earth genre.
Available on Amazon.com and the Dying Earth website
http://www.dyingearth.com/products.htm
http://www.dyingearth.com/article5.htm
"Krztalizer" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
news:20041128003441...@mb-m20.aol.com...
Drifter Bob
> Dive bombers could turn well and as a result, could often hold their own
in
> high speed dogfights. There are numerous recorded kills by SBD
I should say low speed dogfights!
DB
Drifter Bob
"HR" <H...@horizon.net> wrote in message
news:cQNpd.90579$V41.1879@attbi_s52...
> Yes, he flew 133 combat missions from approx late 42 to mid 44.
>
> Towards the end he was allowed to fly the P51B (no D for China:) P47 and
> P38. I say allowed because as you know being a backwater theatre they only
> got a taste of the good planes later on.
>
> Like I said,he did mostly ground support for the chinese and interdiction
on
> the Burma road.
>
> He did manage to smoke one zeke who probably never made it back.
>
Interesting. So your dad felt that the P-40 was pretty much a dog then?
How does he compare the various planes he flew?
DB
dancho
> 1) P-40 and P-39 were both significantly faster than their opposition in the
> Pacific theater, but this didn't necessarily help much.
>
> In the russian front and in the MTO, where they actually did a little better
> statistically, they were about on par with most of their opponents in terms
> of speed.
I agree that the P-40 and P-39 were fast, and a good case could be made
that they were "faster" than the Zeroes. But they could not out-run a
20mm canon shell fired by a "marginally slower" plane on their tail. My
point is that significantly greater speed makes up for a multitude of
sins. If you have speed, you can just ignore the Zeroes and complete
the mission, thumbing your nose at them while you zoom past.
All I know is what I've done with simulations. That's not much, but
that's all I have. I haven't flown any WWII fighters in reality (LOL).
All I know is that in a sim like 1942: The Pacific Air War (one of the
best IMHO) the object of the game was to survive and complete a career.
No "do overs" if your virtual pilot died. I was relieved when my P-40
was upgraded to a P-38 or P-51. Why? Speed. Not just "an advantage"
but I mean a "for sure" speed advantage that would allow you to just
pull away from the enemy.
Speed is life.
I would like to know one thing. Since we agree that the P-39 and P-40
are badly maligned in history books, and you do not blame the lack of
speed, then what DO you think is behind this strange phenomenon? I'd
really like to hear your theory. We know that the RAF hated the P-38
because of the terrible lack of cockpit heating. Tidbits of information
like this are hard to find, but they are out there. Have you found the
answer to this riddle?
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> .30 cal guns, maybe one 12.7mm) but sometimes that was enough at close
> range, in slow speed twisting dogfights.
Later D model stukas were equipped with two 20 mm cannons, so they had
similar firepower to any first line fighter.
jok
Keith Willshaw
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:KBLqd.69300$IQ.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> in
> high speed dogfights. There are numerous recorded kills by SBD
> dauntlesses,
> Stukas, and Val divebombers among others, done in the traditional method
> like a fighter. They usually had light forward armament (often one or two
> .30 cal guns, maybe one 12.7mm) but sometimes that was enough at close
> range, in slow speed twisting dogfights.
>
I'll take your word for it but the Battle of Britain pilots
regarded the Stuka as an easy kill.
Keith
Drifter Bob
> Drifter Bob wrote:
> > 1) P-40 and P-39 were both significantly faster than their opposition in
the
> > Pacific theater, but this didn't necessarily help much.
> >
> > In the russian front and in the MTO, where they actually did a little
better
> > statistically, they were about on par with most of their opponents in
terms
> > of speed.
>
> I agree that the P-40 and P-39 were fast, and a good case could be made
> that they were "faster" than the Zeroes. But they could not out-run a
> 20mm canon shell fired by a "marginally slower" plane on their tail. My
> point is that significantly greater speed makes up for a multitude of
> sins. If you have speed, you can just ignore the Zeroes and complete
> the mission, thumbing your nose at them while you zoom past.
>
> All I know is what I've done with simulations. That's not much, but
> that's all I have. I haven't flown any WWII fighters in reality (LOL).
> All I know is that in a sim like 1942: The Pacific Air War (one of the
> best IMHO) the object of the game was to survive and complete a career.
> No "do overs" if your virtual pilot died. I was relieved when my P-40
> was upgraded to a P-38 or P-51. Why? Speed. Not just "an advantage"
> but I mean a "for sure" speed advantage that would allow you to just
> pull away from the enemy.
>
I think you can actually learn a lot from Sims, but Pacific Air war, while I
loved it personally and it had a great career path campaign mode, (making it
a great game) was not a very realistic Sim. I highly reccomend Il2, or if
you dont want to spend money, the 2.77 version of Warbirds is still
available for download, and the offline mode is quite challenging and fairly
realistic (miles ahead of 1942: PAW)
> Speed is life.
True, but that can be oversimplified. Again, if this was all there was to
it, the MiG3 would have been a world beater in 1941...
As for this margin you are talking about, I know what you mean, but I think
it did exist actally, at least at lower altitudes, (*below 16,000 ft)
particularly for the P-39. The P-39 was around 380 mph, the early Zero
(a6m2) was about 320 mph, and the Ki-43 about 300 ... thats a big
difference. Even the P 40 at 360 mph was a whole lot faster, and that is
not even considering both dive speed and performance in a dive. The P-40
actually handled better at high speed, while the A6M practically locked up
near 400 mph...
> I would like to know one thing. Since we agree that the P-39 and P-40
> are badly maligned in history books, and you do not blame the lack of
> speed, then what DO you think is behind this strange phenomenon? I'd
> really like to hear your theory. We know that the RAF hated the P-38
> because of the terrible lack of cockpit heating. Tidbits of information
> like this are hard to find, but they are out there. Have you found the
> answer to this riddle?
Well, I think you are on to one important aspect of a lot of historical
distortions, the British write most of the English language WW II history,
and their perspective on things, their blind spots, sometimes their agenda,
is reflected in this writing. They hated the P-39 as much or more than they
hated the P-38, even while they initally loved such stellar gems aas the
Defiant, the Fulmar, the Buffalo, etc. etc. I think their evaluation
system was badly flawed to say the least.
So once they declared a fighter substandard, it took a lot for them to
change their mind (like Richard Bongs record with the P-38, for example)
They also had to come up with an excuse for the sometimes poor performance
of UK and Commonwealth fighter squadrons, particularly in North Africa and
the Middle East. For example the South Africans in particular seemed to
have been poorly prepared for air combat, and suffered undue casualties.
Can't really blame the Commowealth nations though or their militaries, the
UK does want to emphasize the shoddy preparation of Colonian cannon fodder.
What better fall-guy than to fault a foreign supplied aircraft?
The P-40, and to a lesser extent P-39, also had the problem of being the
leading exampeles of the arsenal of democracy. They were in every theater
from Alaska to Burma, from Lybia to Leningrad. Needless to say, the plane
wasn't equally suited to all these enivronments.
In the US military, both P-40 and P-39 were in fact often deployed without
much consideration of their strengths and weaknesses, (like being used in
the Pacific to intercept high altitude Japanese bomber formations). With
foriegn nations, the same problem existed, often compounded with inadequate
training, spare parts, and lack of support equipment and personnell. The
Russians for example got no spare parts or even ammunition with their
P-40's. They had to figure out how to adapt them to cold weather by trial
and error, among other things learning to replace every single fluid or
liquid in the plane for some equivalent which wouldnt freeze...
And in all theaters, it was easier to blame the equipment than the training,
preparation, and skill of our own pilots and military systems. We can't
fault MaCarthur for flubbing the defense of the Philipines and losing that
huge air fleet in such a pathetic manner, it must be those crappy old planes
we have. Its the same dynamic that led to the mythical exxageration of the
prowess of the Zero, for example, for many of the same reasons. The P40
and P39 became associated with the early defeats of the war (unlike say, the
Spit, which was associated with early victory of the Battle of Britain)
I think these factors, compounded by the fact that modern writers, who lack
direct experience with these old aircraft, just repeated what was said
beforehand without much criticial examination, are why so many myths
remained for so long from WW II.
The two big factors changing now are the appearance of realistic flight
simulations and the opening up of the Russian records, and particuarly the
Russian perspective on the war, which has shed an important new light on
events.
DB
Drifter Bob
"Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cog4ok$bah$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Depends on the circumstances, the Stuka WAS often an easy kill, especially
flying in formation as normally in the BoB. In a dogfight, it could
sometimes score kills, though I'm not claiming it was a great dogfighter,
(it was a dog in many ways) it did turn well and a really good pilot could
make the difference. Read Hans Rudels "Stuka Pilot", an amazing true
autobiography of a Stuka Experten if there ever was one, to get an idea of
this. (or just google a review to get an idea...)
DB
dancho
> Well, I think you are on to one important aspect of a lot of historical
> distortions, the British write most of the English language WW II history,
> and their perspective on things, their blind spots, sometimes their agenda,
> is reflected in this writing. They hated the P-39 as much or more than they
> hated the P-38, even while they initally loved such stellar gems aas the
> Defiant, the Fulmar, the Buffalo, etc. etc. I think their evaluation
> system was badly flawed to say the least.
Good points. I posted some stuff like this a few years ago and got the
hell flamed out of me by some Brits. Wonder where they went? LOL!
Keith Willshaw
>
>
> Depends on the circumstances, the Stuka WAS often an easy kill, especially
> flying in formation as normally in the BoB. In a dogfight, it could
> sometimes score kills, though I'm not claiming it was a great dogfighter,
> (it was a dog in many ways) it did turn well and a really good pilot could
> make the difference. Read Hans Rudels "Stuka Pilot", an amazing true
> autobiography of a Stuka Experten if there ever was one, to get an idea of
> this. (or just google a review to get an idea...)
>
Against the lightly built soviet aircraft with relatively
inexperienced and untrained pilots I can imagine
the odd success but I'd hate to take on a Hurricane
or Spitfire in one.
Keith
Drifter Bob
Me too!!!
DB
Keith Willshaw
>
>
>> I would like to know one thing. Since we agree that the P-39 and P-40
>> are badly maligned in history books, and you do not blame the lack of
>> speed, then what DO you think is behind this strange phenomenon? I'd
>> really like to hear your theory. We know that the RAF hated the P-38
>> because of the terrible lack of cockpit heating. Tidbits of information
>> like this are hard to find, but they are out there. Have you found the
>> answer to this riddle?
>
> Well, I think you are on to one important aspect of a lot of historical
> distortions, the British write most of the English language WW II history,
> and their perspective on things, their blind spots, sometimes their
> agenda,
> is reflected in this writing. They hated the P-39 as much or more than
> they
> hated the P-38, even while they initally loved such stellar gems aas the
> Defiant, the Fulmar, the Buffalo, etc. etc. I think their evaluation
> system was badly flawed to say the least.
>
I think your evaluation is equally badly flawed. The British purchasing
commission bought every P-40 they could get their hands on.
Indeed the order for the P-51 came about as a result of
the British contacting North American with a view to getting
them to build P-40's under license.
I'd hardly say they hated the aircraft, they bought over 3000
when all is said and done and ordered 560 P-40D's in
May 1940. This was 5 months BEFORE the USAAF
placed its first order for that model.
The P-38 was rejected because the export model
came without the turbosupercharger and the aircraft
quite simply failed to meet the manufacturers promised
performance.
The Fulmar was a carrier plane, the FAA much preferred the
Martlet (Wildcat) and indeed operated them before the
USN but simply couldnt get enough when the USN preempted
production. The Defiant had some initial success but was
withdrawn from front line service in 1940. The P-40 on
the other hand remained in service until 1945
> So once they declared a fighter substandard, it took a lot for them to
> change their mind (like Richard Bongs record with the P-38, for example)
> They also had to come up with an excuse for the sometimes poor performance
> of UK and Commonwealth fighter squadrons, particularly in North Africa and
> the Middle East. For example the South Africans in particular seemed to
> have been poorly prepared for air combat, and suffered undue casualties.
They were facing Bf-109G's which quite simply were a better
aircraft and were also operating as ground attack aircraft
which is rather dangerous, especially in an aircraft with a
liquid cooled engine.
> Can't really blame the Commowealth nations though or their militaries, the
> UK does want to emphasize the shoddy preparation of Colonian cannon
> fodder.
> What better fall-guy than to fault a foreign supplied aircraft?
>
Trouble with that argument is that they did no such thing and
in fact kept buying all they could get their hands on. Indeed
as late as 1943 they ordered 580 P-40N's and in 1945
Nos 112, 250, and 450 squadrons were still operating the
Kittyhawk
Here's what the RAF museum says about the type
<Quote>
The Kittyhawk was the final development of the monoplane Curtiss Hawk
fighters and during the Second World War provided the RAF with valuable
reinforcements in the Middle East at a time when British resources were
overstretched.
Over three-thousand Kittyhawks were delivered to Commonwealth Air Forces.
First introduced into service in January 1942 a conversion programme began
six months later to allow them to carry bombs.
The Royal Air Force continued to operate Kittyhawks in Italy until the
summer of 1944 when they were finally replaced with North American Mustangs.
</Quote>
Not much sign of hatred there.
Keith
Sunny
http://www.dropbears.com/av/KFXart/articles/Truscot.htm
http://www.awm.gov.au/units/subject_1966.asp
http://www.3squadron.org.au/indexpages/aircraft.htm
"dancho" <simonba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:VWNqd.586389$mD.180755@attbi_s02...
Drifter Bob
> Against the lightly built soviet aircraft with relatively
> inexperienced and untrained pilots I can imagine
> the odd success but I'd hate to take on a Hurricane
> or Spitfire in one.
>
> Keith
I should also point out that mid-to late war soviet aircraft were very
sturdy, and many if not most of their pilots were quite good, they had much
higher scoring aces than the US did.
DB
Orval Fairbairn
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
I used to know an old CBI fighter pilot, Chuck Goff, who told me thet
there wasn't a man alive who could keep a P-40 upright above 400 mph IAS
-- it simply wanted to roll to the right, because of fin deflection and
high control forces at that speed. Chuck also got to fly some of the
captured Japanese aircraft and really liked the Oscar.
Keith Willshaw
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:7uPqd.190$Dm2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cogau0$hv1$1$
>> Against the lightly built soviet aircraft with relatively
>> inexperienced and untrained pilots I can imagine
>> the odd success but I'd hate to take on a Hurricane
>> or Spitfire in one.
>>
>> Keith
>
> I should also point out that mid-to late war soviet aircraft were very
> sturdy,
>
>
The La-7 was a great imporvement on earlier models
especially at low level but was considered inferior
in most respects to contemporary marks of Spitfire and P-51
> and many if not most of their pilots were quite good, they had much
> higher scoring aces than the US did.
>
> DB
By the end of the war they were probably better than
the average German pilot but you have to recall that
the Soviets, like the Germans, didnt rotate pilots out
of combat into operational training units as the RAF
and USAAF did. As a result their aces that survived
naturally racked up higher scores but the average level
of pilot training was lower.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:7uPqd.190$Dm2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> news:cogau0$hv1$1$
>> Against the lightly built soviet aircraft with relatively
>> inexperienced and untrained pilots I can imagine
>> the odd success but I'd hate to take on a Hurricane
>> or Spitfire in one.
>>
>> Keith
>
> I should also point out that mid-to late war soviet aircraft were very
> sturdy,
>
>
The La-7 was a great imporvement on earlier models
especially at low level but was considered inferior
in most respects to contemporary marks of Spitfire and P-51
> and many if not most of their pilots were quite good, they had much
> higher scoring aces than the US did.
>
> DB
By the end of the war they were probably better than
Cub Driver
Stickney) wrote:
>
>It'a a simple solution to the problem. Many nations used it. (The
>Italias put a lot of effort into making manually operated guns easier
>to use. For example, their manual turrets had a dummy gun barrel that
>stuck out into the airstream 180 degrees from the gun itself,and which
>elevated and depressed with the gun in order to counteract teh
>slipstream force on the gunbarel, adn make the gunner's job easier.
Fascinating stuff.
One of the pleasures of studying (you don't actually read it!)
Mikesh's Japanese Aircraft Equipment is to discover how complicated
these WWII devices were.
Interesting too that the vane sight measures Indicated, not True,
airspeed. It wouldn't have occurred to me that because the air at
altitude being thinner, it deflects the vane less.
Cub Driver
wrote:
>The traditional six .50 cal arrangement of most US fighters is about
>middling by world war II standards. 20mm cannon are much more efficient at
>destroying targets much more quickly.
Yet the record demonstrates that the Wildcat, flown by inexperienced
pilots at the start, was as deadly a fighter as the Zero, flown by
very experienced pilots at the start. Air to air in the first six
months of the war, the score as I recall from The First Team was 42
Wildcats lost to Zeros, 41 Zeroes lost to Wildcats.
And that was four fifties for the most part, wasn't it?
Presidente Alcazar
<keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well, I think you are on to one important aspect of a lot of historical
>> distortions, the British write most of the English language WW II history,
>> and their perspective on things, their blind spots, sometimes their
>> agenda,
>> is reflected in this writing. They hated the P-39 as much or more than
>> they
>> hated the P-38, even while they initally loved such stellar gems aas the
>> Defiant, the Fulmar, the Buffalo, etc. etc. I think their evaluation
>> system was badly flawed to say the least.
>>
>
>I think your evaluation is equally badly flawed.
I liked the idea of the Defiant and Buffalo being "loved" as "stellar
gems", an appreciation nobody who has ever read a British account of
them could possibly entertain.
>The British purchasing
>commission bought every P-40 they could get their hands on.
Err, bizarrely, they didn't. They really weren't much interested in
the first P-40's they got, delivered in October 1940, which were USAC
specification machines and which were kicked to Army Co-Operation
Command to replace Lysanders because nobody wanted them as Spitfire of
Hurricane replacements. I actually have seen records of senior
British airmen turning down P-40's offered in late 1940, and the
AOC-in-C of Armt Co-Operation Command rejecting the offer of more in
1941 due to their serviceability problems.
They did want the P-40 (Tomahawk II) produced to British modification
specifications, and which went on to perform very useful service in
North Africa despite some chronic serviceability issues,
>I'd hardly say they hated the aircraft, they bought over 3000
>when all is said and done and ordered 560 P-40D's in
>May 1940. This was 5 months BEFORE the USAAF
>placed its first order for that model.
Well, they ordered loads of stuff in 1940, mostly as an insurance
policy.
>The P-38 was rejected because the export model
>came without the turbosupercharger
The turbo-less P-38 was specified because the British (rightfully, as
it turned out) didn't believe Allison would be producing useable
turbo-charged V-1710 engines until mid-1942, and wanted to use engines
which would be available to expedite delivery. They ordered four
times as many with turbochargers to be delivered when available.
>> So once they declared a fighter substandard, it took a lot for them to
>> change their mind (like Richard Bongs record with the P-38, for example)
>> They also had to come up with an excuse for the sometimes poor performance
>> of UK and Commonwealth fighter squadrons, particularly in North Africa and
>> the Middle East. For example the South Africans in particular seemed to
>> have been poorly prepared for air combat, and suffered undue casualties.
>
>They were facing Bf-109G's which quite simply were a better
>aircraft and were also operating as ground attack aircraft
>which is rather dangerous, especially in an aircraft with a
>liquid cooled engine.
They also had to do things like tactical recconaisance escort and
bomber escort, which exposed them to combat at a tactical disadvantage
to the 109's. What tends to be forgotten in the Experten mythology is
that the P-40's achieved their mission in the tactical battle while
the 109's didn't.
>Trouble with that argument is that they did no such thing and
>in fact kept buying all they could get their hands on. Indeed
>as late as 1943 they ordered 580 P-40N's and in 1945
>Nos 112, 250, and 450 squadrons were still operating the
>Kittyhawk
Only just, though. 112 converted to Mustang IVs in late 1944 IIRC.
And if the poster really believes that the P-40 was blamed infairly by
the British on nationalist grounds, he should see what the Americans
were saying about it when they used it in combat.
Gavin Bailey
--
WinXP great improvement. Now take less time than ever before
for PC to say 'Registry corrupt. System halted.' - Bart Kwan En
Cub Driver
wrote:
>Uh, actually according to the 3 first hand accounts of the AVG that I read,
>the RAF threatened to Court Martial any pilot using Chennaults "boom and
>zoom" tactics.
Nonsense. Show me a first-hand account by an RAF pilot who was so
threatened!
Indeed, show me a first-hand account by an AVG pilot who is making
such a claim from first-hand knowledge.
all the best -- Dan Ford
rottenberg
to one degree or another, but that degree will vary according to the
specific game.
Cub Driver <war...@mailblocks.com> wrote in message news:<plgbq0d91d872ceef...@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:03:49 -0600, "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
> Or is the flight sim that is way, way wrong? I would be inclined to
> take the word of a P-39 pilot over that of a lad sitting in front of a
> computer manipulating those very approximate controls upon a digital
> facsimile created by someone who'd never flown the aircraft in peace
> or war.
>
> I haven't flown any recent flight sims, but on the one occasion when I
> did, I was astonished at how unlike real-world flying it was. Rather
> like looking at nudes on a computer screen as opposed to having one in
> bed with you.
rottenberg
Doubtless the Japanese pilots were agressive and did well in training.
The only question remains is whether the training itself was of any
use i.e. applied to the situations confronted by them by USN and
allied pilots. On the flip side, they were flying planes posessing
few if any qualities of survivability, while USN pilots made great use
of team tactics that negated the superior agility of their IJN
adversaries.
MikeG
roby...@juno.com says...
> Doubtless the Japanese pilots were agressive and did well in training.
> The only question remains is whether the training itself was of any
> use i.e. applied to the situations confronted by them by USN and
> allied pilots.
>
Funny you should mention training. I've been following the thread with
interest and am supervised it, along with the Axis's failure to
introduce new planes to meet the changing Allied threat, hasn't been
mentioned.
With the Allied policy of pulling experienced combat pilots combined
with the Axis "fly till you die" approach and losses incurred,
especially after Midway, not to mention the Mariana's debacle, added up
too highly trained pilots who, even in mediocre planes, were flying
against green half trained pilots in aging designs. Then, in the Pacific
there was the waste of pilots, who could have had great potential, in
Kamikaze attacks.
Further, as good a plane as the 109's and Zero's were, and not to take
anything away from the Japanese and German pilots, neither Germany or
Japan actually opposed any well organized and equipped force unit the
Battle of Britain and Midway respectively. Even before Dec.7 the AVG met
with great success against the Japanese in early model P 40's. For
Germany after the Battle of Britain and for the Japanese after Midway
the air war was a losing proposition no matter what the Allies were
flying. A fact I would attribute a great deal to the difference in
rotation and training policies of the opposing forces.
There is more going on then just the flight characteristics and weaponry
of the planes involved.
Just a thought to add to the fire.
--
MikeG
Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
mi...@heirloom-woods.net
Drifter Bob
"Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in \
> > I should also point out that mid-to late war soviet aircraft were very
> > sturdy,
> >
Most Soviet types after the very early Polikarpov machines (I-15, I-153, and
I-16) were very strong, many being made largely out of wood as most of the
Lavochkin series were. These were much, much more sturdy than say, the
fabric covered Hurricanes.
>
> The La-7 was a great imporvement on earlier models
> especially at low level but was considered inferior
> in most respects to contemporary marks of Spitfire and P-51
>
By whom?
The La-7 was hardly the only good Soviet aircraft. It's predeccessor the
La-5 and La-5FN were excellent fighters. The later variants of theYak -3
was so good that German pilots were ordered in 1944 not to engage the type
(idientified by the position of the air intake scoop) below 5,000 meters.
No U.S. or British plane struck this kind of fear in the heart of the
Luftwaffe. The various versions of the Yak 9 were also excellent fighters
in this family, with long range capability far outdistancing most allied
fighters (except the P-51)
>
> > and many if not most of their pilots were quite good, they had much
> > higher scoring aces than the US did.
> >
> > DB
>
> By the end of the war they were probably better than
> the average German pilot but you have to recall that
> the Soviets, like the Germans, didnt rotate pilots out
> of combat into operational training units as the RAF
> and USAAF did. As a result their aces that survived
> naturally racked up higher scores but the average level
> of pilot training was lower.
>
> Keith
By the end of the War the soviets probably had more very good pilots than
the British had pilots...
DB
Drifter Bob
> wrote:
>
> >The traditional six .50 cal arrangement of most US fighters is about
> >middling by world war II standards. 20mm cannon are much more efficient
at
> >destroying targets much more quickly.
>
> Yet the record demonstrates that the Wildcat, flown by inexperienced
> pilots at the start, was as deadly a fighter as the Zero, flown by
> very experienced pilots at the start. Air to air in the first six
> months of the war, the score as I recall from The First Team was 42
> Wildcats lost to Zeros, 41 Zeroes lost to Wildcats.
>
> And that was four fifties for the most part, wasn't it?
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
The US navy pilots flying the F4F's may have been inexperienced in combat,
but they were obviously well trained: any pilot who regularly lands a plane
on an aircraft carrier can hardly be considered a novice. A lot of their
victories were attributed to their very quick adaptation to the Japanese
weapons and tactics, like the Thach weave.
But four .50 cals is good armament in the very beginning of the war,
especially against early Japanese fighters which lacked both armor and self
sealing fuel tanks. These were not added to the Zero until the A6M5, I
believe the variant faced in Coral Sea and Midway was the A6M2.
In Europe however, or against the very late war Japanese fighters, four
fifites aren't that powerful. It sounds crazy, having fired a .50 cal
before, it's hard to imagine anything being able to withstand even one, but
there is a reason why most aircraft by the end of the war had 2-4 cannons of
20mm or higher...
DB
Drifter Bob
That is a very good point. The German airforce didn't seem to collapse
quite as quickly as the Japanese in terms of pilot quality, perhaps because
German pilots were much more likely to survive being shot down, but this is
definately a key point.
The question here though is how much did the actual quality of the aircraft
matter? I think the training issue is one of many which cloud the aircraft
quality one.
DB
Drifter Bob
read,
> >the RAF threatened to Court Martial any pilot using Chennaults "boom >
>
> Nonsense. Show me a first-hand account by an RAF pilot who was so
> threatened!
>
> Indeed, show me a first-hand account by an AVG pilot who is making
> such a claim from first-hand knowledge.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
You think I'm a liar? Pappy Boyington mentions it in his autobiography and
in several interviews for starters. It was also mentioned in Ava Greenlaw's
"The Lady and the Tigers", and Chennault mentioned it in several
intereviews.
Googling quickly I find that it is mentioned here:
http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-25.pdf
DB
Keith Willshaw
>
> "Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in \
>> > I should also point out that mid-to late war soviet aircraft were very
>> > sturdy,
>> >
>
> Most Soviet types after the very early Polikarpov machines (I-15, I-153,
> and
> I-16) were very strong, many being made largely out of wood as most of the
> Lavochkin series were. These were much, much more sturdy than say, the
> fabric covered Hurricanes.
>
The Hurricane used essentially the same construction
techniques, wooden longerons with stringers and
fabric covering and was known as a very robust
aircraft.
Take a look at a picture of an I-16 and its
similarity is clear enough
http://www.aviation-history.com/polikarpov/i16.html
The difference is the Hurricane had an armoured windshield
back armour for the pilot and a heavier armament
>>
>> The La-7 was a great imporvement on earlier models
>> especially at low level but was considered inferior
>> in most respects to contemporary marks of Spitfire and P-51
>>
> By whom?
>
Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown one of the leading test pilots
of the era.
From his book 'Testing for Combat'
<Quote>
The La-7 was a complete revelation to me with regard to
its handling characteristics and performance which were
quite superb. It had the aerodynamic capabilities to be
a great fighter *but not the equipment*
(*Added for emphasis)
Its firepower and sighting arrangements were below par, its wooden
construction would have withstood little punishment, the pilot
was poorly protected and the blind flying and navigation
instrumentation was appallingly basic.
Having flown nine contemporary Russian front line aircraft
I began to understand how the Luftwaffe fighter pilots on
the eastern front clocked up such huge scores, but in the
case of the La-7 they would at least have to work for
their success.
</Quote>
> The La-7 was hardly the only good Soviet aircraft. It's predeccessor the
> La-5 and La-5FN were excellent fighters. The later variants of theYak -3
> was so good that German pilots were ordered in 1944 not to engage the type
> (idientified by the position of the air intake scoop) below 5,000 meters.
> No U.S. or British plane struck this kind of fear in the heart of the
> Luftwaffe. The various versions of the Yak 9 were also excellent fighters
> in this family, with long range capability far outdistancing most allied
> fighters (except the P-51)
>
The Yak-9 hmm , one German pilot commented
"The Yak was no match for the ME-109 but there were always so many.they
swarmed like bees whenever we showed up."
Its max range was around 1400km , pretty good but hardly
anything special compared to the P-38 or P-47 never mind
the P-51
>>
>> > and many if not most of their pilots were quite good, they had much
>> > higher scoring aces than the US did.
>> >
>> > DB
>>
>> By the end of the war they were probably better than
>> the average German pilot but you have to recall that
>> the Soviets, like the Germans, didnt rotate pilots out
>> of combat into operational training units as the RAF
>> and USAAF did. As a result their aces that survived
>> naturally racked up higher scores but the average level
>> of pilot training was lower.
>>
>> Keith
>
> By the end of the War the soviets probably had more very good pilots than
> the British had pilots...
>
I kinda doubt that, the RAF reached a maximum strength of 1,208,843 men and
women.
Of these, 185,595, were aircrew, in total the RAF trained around 130,000
pilots
Keith
MikeG
nob...@nowhere.net says...
> The question here though is how much did the actual quality of the aircraft
> matter? I think the training issue is one of many which cloud the aircraft
> quality one.
>
> DB
>
>
I'm not at all sure it does cloud that issue, it may but I can't help
wondering what the results would be if, say, Richard Bong had been
flying Zero's against Japanese flown P38's or Gregory Boyington was
flying them against Corsairs. I do have to admit though that the
disparity between the two planes may have made that that last one a very
challenging proposition.
Drifter Bob
> Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown one of the leading test pilots
> of the era.
>
> From his book 'Testing for Combat'
>
> <Quote>
> The La-7 was a complete revelation to me with regard to
> its handling characteristics and performance which were
> quite superb. It had the aerodynamic capabilities to be
> a great fighter *but not the equipment*
>
> (*Added for emphasis)
>
> Its firepower and sighting arrangements were below par, its wooden
> construction would have withstood little punishment, the pilot
> was poorly protected and the blind flying and navigation
> instrumentation was appallingly basic.
>
> Having flown nine contemporary Russian front line aircraft
> I began to understand how the Luftwaffe fighter pilots on
> the eastern front clocked up such huge scores, but in the
> case of the La-7 they would at least have to work for
> their success.
> </Quote>
This is interesting but subjective, I have read many anecdotal accounts
which say the opposite about the strength and sturdiness of the La-7, that
it was extremely strong and well protected. Certainly Spits and Hurricanes
were fairly flimsy by late-war standards, and succeptible to damage.
As for equipment, Russian planes in WW II definately lagged behind in terms
of avionics, radios gunsights and etc., but a lot of that is window dressing
compared to basic issues of maneuverability and speed.
DB
Keith Willshaw
Which says they were threatened with cout martial if
seen diving away from a fight, not quite the same thing.
Keith
Drifter Bob
"Sunny" <womba...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> Aussie slant on a few :
> http://www.dropbears.com/av/KFXart/articles/Truscot.htm
> http://www.awm.gov.au/units/subject_1966.asp
> http://www.3squadron.org.au/indexpages/aircraft.htm
>
Thanks for posting these, very interesting. Seems like they didn't like
their "tomorrowhawks" in New Guinea, but given the conditions, and the early
record of the Spit against the zero, (see my other post in this thread) I
wonder what other existing aircraft might have fared better for them.
DB
MikeG
nob...@nowhere.net says...
>
> Thanks for posting these, very interesting. Seems like they didn't like
> their "tomorrowhawks" in New Guinea, but given the conditions, and the early
> record of the Spit against the zero, (see my other post in this thread) I
> wonder what other existing aircraft might have fared better for them.
>
> DB
>
>
>
I'm afraid I don't have the same take on that article.
The way I read it in context is that it was a "grunts on the ground"
expression for non existent air cover rather then an observation on the
qualities of the P40.
dancho
>
>>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:03:49 -0600, "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Based on flight sims I've played, and a bunch of historical anecdotes and
>>>stats, I'm starting to think the P-40 was a seriously underrated fighter.
>>>The P-39 obviously definately was, and is an excellent example of how the
>>>conventional wisdom was way, way wrong.
>>
>>Or is the flight sim that is way, way wrong? I would be inclined to
>>take the word of a P-39 pilot over that of a lad sitting in front of a
>>computer manipulating those very approximate controls upon a digital
>>facsimile created by someone who'd never flown the aircraft in peace
>>or war.
>
>
> good, it's that the Russians who wrote one of those flight sims pointed out
> that from the Russian side of the pond, in their history, the P-39 was a
> fantastic aircraft, in which they had dozens of aces who slaughtered the
> best German planes and the best German pilots. They had one ace who had 50
> kills (thanks for the correction) in the P-39, flying against Germans, and
> thats higher than our best ace of the entire war who got a lot of his kills
> at the very end of the fighting in the Pacific theater when most of the good
> Japanese pilots were already dead.
>
> The Russian experience proves that the P-39 was a great low altitude fighter
> if you knew how to fly it, which apparently they did. This buggars the
> MISTAKEN summary of the type in nearly every US or UK history book.
>
> DB
>
>
> at leas to ne of
>
>
Flight sims CAN teach SOME good lessons-- but the severe limitations os
"simulated combat" are obvious. As far as the "Russsian Experience" is
concerned-- it's all about strategy and tactics. The "Western" planners
wanted to avoid low altitude missions and use strategic forces and high
alitiude bombing to win the war. This plan turned out to be rather, um,
unrealistic-- but that did not stop the strategic bombing campaign. If
you want to get into "revisionist" history-- that's a whole 'nother
chapter in the book. Should the resources that went into strategic
bombing have gone into tactical air forces? Good question.
The fact is that the Russians used tactical air forces to win their war.
So the P-39 was the right plane for the job. In the west, the P-47
and Typhoon became the tactical weapons. But USAAF strategy called for
high altitude bombing and the P-40 and P-39 have no place in that at
all. (The P-38 couldn't hack it either due to poor cockpit heating).
If you have aircraft that a made to fly high and fast, and you use them
in a strategic bombing campaign, then you're going to have effective
aircraft (like the P-51), yes?
Drifter Bob
"dancho" <simonba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UF6rd.124345$5K2.91591@attbi_s03...
Dont forget that they used the P-39 as an air superiority fighter, not for
ground support as is often incorrectly alleged.
> and Typhoon became the tactical weapons. But USAAF strategy called for
> high altitude bombing and the P-40 and P-39 have no place in that at
> all. (The P-38 couldn't hack it either due to poor cockpit heating).
>
> If you have aircraft that a made to fly high and fast, and you use them
> in a strategic bombing campaign, then you're going to have effective
> aircraft (like the P-51), yes?
True, but you are talking about only one campaign, the US and UK /
Commonwealth had plenty of use for tactical fighters in North Africa, in
the Pacific, in South Asia, for example.
The P-47 had some features which made it a good Fighter bomber, (sturdiness,
firepower and a radial engine) but it was really a high altitude fighter and
was vulnerable at low altitude. The Typhoon and Tempest of course had all
kinds of problems..
The question ultimately is, which was a "good" airplane and which wasn't.
I'm trying to debunk the mythology that the P-40 was obsolete before it was
built, that it was unmaneuverable, that it was grossly inferior to all the
enemy aircraft it faced, that it was only good for fighter bomber missions,
etc. and etc.
The P-40 was a great front line fighter. It was extremely manueverable,
rugged, heavily armed and fast for the early part of the war. It was a
very, very dangerous high powered thoroughbread airplane, not some chugging
half assed second line clunker. It happened to not be a high altitude
aircraft, and didn't climb well. Nearly every aircraft has a vice of some
kind or some kind of tactical or strategic limitation. The poor high
altitude performance (hardly unique to the P-40) was a strategic limitation,
but so for that matter was the short range of the Spitfire. The poor climb
rate was a tactical weakness, but few if any aircraft of this period had
every desirable trait.
The P-40 had superb roll rate, among the best in the world
It had an excellent turn rate, comparable to the Spitfire.
It had excellent high speed performance an a fast dive rate
It was incredibly tough, known to survive numerous air-to air collisions and
intentonal rammings, among other things.
It had a good though not fantastic operational range.
Another major deficiency of the P-40 is that it did not turn out to be a
good platform for steady improvement and modernization, unlike the Spit or
the Bf109. By 1943, the P-40 was largely out-classed in terms of speed,
climb rate, and increasingly firepower. So was the zero, but nobody will
tell you the zero was a lousy fighter!
DB
DB
Keith Willshaw
>
>
>> Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown one of the leading test pilots
>> of the era.
>>
>> From his book 'Testing for Combat'
>>
>> <Quote>
>> The La-7 was a complete revelation to me with regard to
>> its handling characteristics and performance which were
>> quite superb. It had the aerodynamic capabilities to be
>> a great fighter *but not the equipment*
>>
>> (*Added for emphasis)
>>
>> Its firepower and sighting arrangements were below par, its wooden
>> construction would have withstood little punishment, the pilot
>> was poorly protected and the blind flying and navigation
>> instrumentation was appallingly basic.
>>
>> Having flown nine contemporary Russian front line aircraft
>> I began to understand how the Luftwaffe fighter pilots on
>> the eastern front clocked up such huge scores, but in the
>> case of the La-7 they would at least have to work for
>> their success.
>> </Quote>
>
> This is interesting but subjective, I have read many anecdotal accounts
> which say the opposite about the strength and sturdiness of the La-7, that
> it was extremely strong and well protected. Certainly Spits and
> Hurricanes
> were fairly flimsy by late-war standards, and succeptible to damage.
>
All tests are by definition subjective BUT Eric Brown is an
extremely experienced test pilot who flew almost all
allied and axis aircraft in a long and distinguised carreer.
> As for equipment, Russian planes in WW II definately lagged behind in
> terms
> of avionics, radios gunsights and etc., but a lot of that is window
> dressing
> compared to basic issues of maneuverability and speed.
>
If you cant find the enemy or hit him you can't achieve your mission
Keith
rob
> good platform for steady improvement and modernization, unlike the Spit or
> the Bf109. By 1943, the P-40 was largely out-classed in terms of speed,
> climb rate, and increasingly firepower. So was the zero, but nobody will
> tell you the zero was a lousy fighter!
>
> DB
I may be wrong, but wasn't a P40 prototype built later in the war that had
comparable performance to the P51? IIRC it was never put into production
tho.
Dave Kearton
news:Euard.19098$9A.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p60.htm
Hi Rob
You have a couple of choices here - I suggest the P-60 most closely matches
what you're looking for.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Steve Hix
"rob" <rob...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
The P-40Q was cleaned up a bit, and probably the best of the line...but
even then, not up to the P-51 or P-47, so production was never
authorized. It probably would have been interesting, if it had appeared
in early '42.
Gregory W Shaw
<rob...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Yes, some P-40Q prototypes with the new two-stage/variable-speed Allisons.
About 50 mph faster than earlier variants, and at 10,000 ft higher altitude.
Of course by that time the P-47M/N were doing 470+ mph and the P-51H was in
the 480-490 mph range.
Greg Shaw
--
Ozman's Laws:
(1) If someone says he will do something "without fail," he won't.
(2) The more people talk on the phone, the less money they make.
(3) People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn't.
(4) Pizza always burns the roof of your mouth.
Krztalizer
>The P-47 had some features which made it a good Fighter bomber, (sturdiness,
>firepower and a radial engine) but it was really a high altitude fighter and
>was vulnerable at low altitude.
I've read quite a bit on this subject and your comment is the first I have seen
that would suggest the P-47 Jabos were any more susceptible to ground fire than
anything else. The Jug was the equivalent of a flying locomotive, sturdy and
capable of absorbing tremendous punishment that would, with certainty, have
brought down most other combat aircraft of WWII. It didn't have an Achilles
heal like the Sturmovik's oil cooler or the Mustang's radiator. Although quite
a large fighter for its day, it was still respectably fast and could quicly
devastate its targets and be on its way. I think you do the rugged Republic
fighter wrong. Examples returned to base with entire engine cylinders shot off
by flak and enemy fighters. Robert Johnson returned to base in a P-47 that had
been struck by literally hundreds of enemy bullets and dozens of cannon shells.
Try that in whatever you are suggesting would make a better WWII CAS aircraft -
I'd stick with a Thunderbolt.
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR
Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.
AM
>
> In Europe however, or against the very late war Japanese fighters, four
> fifites aren't that powerful. It sounds crazy, having fired a .50 cal
> before, it's hard to imagine anything being able to withstand even one,
> but
> there is a reason why most aircraft by the end of the war had 2-4 cannons
> of
> 20mm or higher...
Axis A/C that is, the USA stuck with .50s till the end of the war for the
most part.
I talked with an Englishman who was an aviation engineer in WW II, and
he put it like this. You yanks only had to really worry about shooting down
fighters, and for that a .50 cal armed A/C was enough. You never had to
face bombers and thus never saw the need for cannon armed A/C.
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
AM
"rottenberg" <roby...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:cbc39661.04113...@posting.google.com...
>
> Doubtless the Japanese pilots were agressive and did well in training.
> The only question remains is whether the training itself was of any
> use i.e. applied to the situations confronted by them by USN and
> allied pilots.
The pilot training of the prewar, and early war Japanese pilots
was some of the best in the world at the time. (this mostly applies
to IJN pilots) Problem they (and the Germans) had was they
never "grew" their pilot training systems till it was too late in the war.
BTW the P 40 makes a great A/C to vulch with in IL2 FB+ACE+PF
Get some altitude (angles 10 for starters) come in over their field with
a 500 pounder, and dive on them while taking off, and let fly. Done right
you can come off the pass after nailing at least someone, and still have
the airspeed to either get away, or make another pass. The six .50's
also do a wonderfull job on people trying to take off also :)
Can ya tell I'm an incorragable vulcher ? :-)
Keith Willshaw
"AM" <SCT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hrWdnRyH0In...@comcast.com...
The RAF were equipped with .303 calibre machine guns
at the beginning of the war and the Germans used a similar
rifle calibre (7.62 mm IRC). These had severe limitations in
hitting power and so the move to 20 mm was an obvious one.
The .50 calibre however was pretty good and could certainly
do a number on most fighters and bombers. Certainly no
german or japanese bomber could withstand the fire
of 4 or 6 such guns so there was much less incentive
for them to make the change which would complicate
ammunition storage and the armourers task.
Keith
rottenberg
I confess I've never heard that term before, though by your
description, it sounds like the merciless destruction of parked
aircraft.
Mike Williamson
> Further, as good a plane as the 109's and Zero's were, and not to take
> anything away from the Japanese and German pilots, neither Germany or
> Japan actually opposed any well organized and equipped force unit the
> Battle of Britain and Midway respectively. Even before Dec.7 the AVG met
> with great success against the Japanese in early model P 40's.
Just to make a slight correction- the AVG did not enter into combat
until after Pearl Harbor. According to flyingtigersavg.com, the first
combat for the group actually took placd on the 20th of December.
Mike Williamson
Peter Stickney
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> writes:
>> >> Most P-38s models had a "combat" or "maneuvering" position on the
>> >>flaps to provide more lift below about 200 indicated, which may be
>> >>what you are thinking of.
>> >
>> > Is this the same idea as the so-called (by the Japanese) butterfly
>> > flaps that were installed on the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) fighter in
>> > order to bring it up to army standards for maneuverability?
>>
>> Yes - it's pretty much the same. Small flap deflections (Say 10-15
>> degrees) give a reasonable bump-up to the maximum Lift Coefficient
>> without incurring a big drag penalty. The idea of using a little bit
>> of flap to improve turn (As long as the wing was stiff enough - a wing
>> that flexed under G could damage the flaps or their actuators, to the
>> point where you could pull the flaps right off the airplane)
>>
>> Many airplanes used a low-pressure actuator that would let the flaps
>> "bleed up" as IAS increased - the F4F Wildcat had such a setup.
>
> Except IIRC the Japanese planes had automatic maneuvering flaps which would
> deploy when the aircraft was turning...
Essentially the same deal - the pilot elected flaps to "Down" or
"Combat" when turning - as the Qbar (Dynamic pressure) increased - the
flaps would come up, and, of course, lower again when the speed bled
off. (You won't need any extra Lift Coefficient from the flaps at
high Q - the limits on teh airplane will be structural and excess
power to sustain speed in the turn.)
It's an elegant and sinple solution to the problem. The
implementation of this, was on the Ki 43 Hyabusa) (Oscar). The
Japanese Army was obsessed with getting the absolute last bit of
maneuverability ot of the airplane - even forgoing a constant speed
propeller for a 2-pitch prop, in the early versions. (An error in
jusdgement, btw - a 2-pitch prop gives you 2 discrete, and very peaky,
curves for efficiency, and the most efficient points only occur at
particualr speed/altitude points. This means that you aren't getting
efficient use of your power. A constant speed prop gives its best
efficeincy over a wide range of speeds and altitudes, giving the best
performance throughout the flight envelope. It's well worth the extra
50-100 lbs.
--
Pete Stickney
p-sti...@nospam.adelphia.net
Without data, all you have are opinions
AM
> "AM" <SCT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<hrWdnR2H0In...@comcast.com>...
>> "rottenberg" <roby...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:cbc39661.04113...@posting.google.com...
>> Can ya tell I'm an incorragable vulcher ? :-)
>
> I confess I've never heard that term before, though by your
> description, it sounds like the merciless destruction of parked
> aircraft.
Basically yes :)
Shooting people on the ground can be seen as fair or not, nost
dont like it...
I personally love it, and even when there is severe AAA, I never
pass up an opperunity to whack someone trying to take off, or
even better nail someone who is landing after a successfull flight !
A LOT of rooms dont allow it, but the ones that do are the
roooms that I play in. Like what is posted in some briefings,
vulching was allowed in real life............................
Cub Driver
Stickney) wrote:
>Essentially the same deal - the pilot elected flaps to "Down" or
>"Combat" when turning - as the Qbar (Dynamic pressure) increased - the
>flaps would come up, and, of course, lower again when the speed bled
>off. (You won't need any extra Lift Coefficient from the flaps at
>high Q - the limits on teh airplane will be structural and excess
>power to sustain speed in the turn.)
>It's an elegant and sinple solution to the problem. The
>implementation of this, was on the Ki 43 Hyabusa) (Oscar). The
>Japanese Army was obsessed with getting the absolute last bit of
>maneuverability ot of the airplane -
Thanks for explaining that (to the degree that I can understand it!).
The prototype Ki-43 evidently wasn't much of a dog-fighter, and it was
rejected by the army. That made the Nakajima engine available to the
Zero, and it was the engine that made the Zero acceptable to the navy,
and it went into serivce in 1940.
It was a year later, when the decision was made to move south--which
of course required the army to have a long-range fighter--that Major
Kato of the 64th Sentai was brought back from China to take part in a
program to reseurrect the Ki-43.
I would love to know who came up with the "butterfly flaps" (that's a
translation from the Japanese, not my own term). But apparently when
they were installed, the Ki-43 could actually turn inside a Zero, and
the army adopted it as its Type 1 Fighter. I forget the actual number
available when the war broke out, but it was about 100, divided
equally between the 64th Sentai and the 50th, both operating in
Southeast Asia.
It was the 64th that the AVG Flying Tigers encountered in Burma,
identifying the Japanese aircraft of course as the Zero.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net
Cub Driver
>Doubtless the Japanese pilots were agressive and did well in training.
> The only question remains is whether the training itself was of any
>use i.e. applied to the situations confronted by them by USN and
I think the important difference between the American and Japanese
pilots in the first six months of the war was that the latter were
almost all combat-experienced. Training, at least as practiced in
1941, just didn't prepare a man for combat. (It's like the difference
between airplanes and Flight Sim, as I have posted elsewhere!)
The combination of the Zero's manueverability and the Japanese pilots'
combat experience proved deadly to most American pilots in their first
encounters. The two exceptions seem to be the AVG Flying Tigers in
Burma (who of course did not meet the Zero) and the U.S. Navy carrier
pilots in the early-model Wildcat.
Beginning at Midway, the Japanese had lost many of their combat
veterans, and the Americans themselves were combat-experienced.
In addition to the Wildcat's pilot armor and four fifty-caliber guns,
of course, the U.S. navy pilots did have one huge advantage over the
USAAF in Hawaii and the Philippines: they had leisure to prepare for
combat, and to a certain extent their commanders were able to pick the
time and place of combat.
Cub Driver
>Just wondering what sim that was. Admittedly, they're all unrealistic
>to one degree or another, but that degree will vary according to the
>specific game.
It was the then-latest version of Microsoft Flight Sim. Not a game! As
posted elsewhere, I am willing to agree that the Piper Cub "skin" may
not have been a very accurate one. But the other features (the feel
and feedback of flying; the appearance of the ground below you) would
have carried over to the specific campaign simulations.
Sitting in a friend's living room, looking at a PC monitor, and
feeling those little twitches in the joystick does not in any way
resemble the act of piloting an airplane. I mean--how do you check six
on Flight Sim? All you see is the ceiling fan, or your friend's wife
looking tolerant.
And the earth is unreal.
Presidente Alcazar
<war...@mailblocks.com> wrote:
>>Err, bizarrely, they didn't. They really weren't much interested in
>>the first P-40's they got,
>
>Well, those are two very different statements! The British did indeed
>buy all the early P-40s that were available to them,
I'm referring to an offer made to Slessor by an administration
official via the British Purchasing Commission in the autumn of 1940
for an additional 200 P-40's. It wasn't stated where these were
coming from, but they could only have come from the USAAC allocation
at that point, as the British were already getting deliveries of the
French P-40s while Tomahawk II production hadn't begun yet.
>The P-40s (Tomahawk Mark I, in effect) that the British took over from
>French orders were of course relegated to training aircraft.
Well, they did equip 4 - 5 squadrons in Army Co-operation Command in
1941 at a low establishment scale, but this effectively was training
as they weren't employed on operations until the end of the year, and
then rarely on low-altitude coastal recconaisance and Rhubarbs.
>They had
>no fuel-tank armor, among other lacks. The P-40B (Tomahawk II) and
>P-40C (Tomahawk IIB) were modified to British requests, and were
>bought and deployed in quantity in North Africa.
Yes. But this was subsequent to the offer I'm talking about, even if
the British (quite rightly, in my view) were sceptical of them ever
appearing.
>The U.S. Army took deliveries on these aircraft *after* the British
>orders were filled.
My understanding was that they split production deliveries
approximately 50/50, although there were periods in 1940 when the
British were getting all of the production.
> But the British did indeed buy every one that
>Curtiss could build and that the U.S. Army would let them have.
They certainly wanted them, at least at the highest official
procurement contacts (e.g. Churchill specifically asking for them in
May). However I have a contemporary historical account referring to
them turning down an offer of P-40's in 1940. I've given a rationale
which would explain this, and is based on my reading of the original
sources concerned.
Gavin Bailey
--
WinXP great improvement. Now take less time than ever before
for PC to say 'Registry corrupt. System halted.' - Bart Kwan En
AM
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:40:55 -0500, "AM" <SCT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You yanks only had to really worry about shooting down
>>fighters, and for that a .50 cal armed A/C was enough. You never had to
>>face bombers and thus never saw the need for cannon armed A/C.
>
> fifties was not merely good enough against most Axis fighters, it was
> likely the preferred armament.
>
The real advantage of a MG armed A/C is the high velocity of
the multiple MG's With the exception of the rifle caliber weapons,
only the German 13 mm, and the MK 103 had the around 3,000 fps
like the .50 cal. Even the very very good MG 151 20 mm was a tad
behind. (the 88 mm AT gun did far better :)
Higher velocity = shorter time of flight = less lead problems for an
attacker.
Also the the mass of lead gave more of a chance of a hit, and an AP .50
round could ventillate almost any part of any fighter at the time.
A good book that analyzes this is called;
Air Warefare In The Missle Age
Lon O. Nordeen Jr.
Smithsonian Press Wash DC
ISBN 0-87474-680-9
Even though it is about jet A/C, it has very good coverage of
MG, vs cannon armed A/C ie; ammount of rounds, vs weight on target.
Cub Driver
wrote:
>You think I'm a liar? Pappy Boyington mentions it in his autobiography and
>in several interviews for starters. It was also mentioned in Ava Greenlaw's
>"The Lady and the Tigers", and Chennault mentioned it in several
>intereviews.
You're not lying; you're mistaken. Neither Boyington, Greenlaw, nor
Chennault had any first-hand knowledge of what RAF commanders were
saying to their pilots.
There are many instances of AVG legends of this sort, in which an
American relates what a Brit or a Japanese was doing or saying. The
British and the Japanese accounts are very different, and those are
the accounts that matter!
Not incidentally, the edition of Olga Greenlaw's "The Lady and the
Tigers" that is now in print was edited by me:
www.warbirdforum.com/greenlaw.htm
AM
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:03:05 -0500, "AM" <SCT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I personally love it, and even when there is severe AAA, I never
>>pass up an opperunity to whack someone trying to take off, or
>>even better nail someone who is landing after a successfull flight !
>
>
No, but boy does the enemy team get angry, and out to get you
at all costs when you are a habitual vulcher like me ;)
Last time, I rocketed two people, one taking off, one landing,
all in a B&Z w/reversal. Wound up with four bad guys after me,
and eventually shot down. At least I filled a couple of them with
holes before I went...................
Cub Driver
>I personally love it, and even when there is severe AAA, I never
>pass up an opperunity to whack someone trying to take off, or
>even better nail someone who is landing after a successfull flight !
Have you ever pissed your pants in terror at these moments?
all the best -- Dan Ford
Cub Driver
<Gavin....@whackme.gavnem.fslife.co.uk> wrote:
>>The British purchasing
>>commission bought every P-40 they could get their hands on.
>
>Err, bizarrely, they didn't. They really weren't much interested in
>the first P-40's they got,
Well, those are two very different statements! The British did indeed
buy all the early P-40s that were available to them, with the
exception of the 100 P-40B/Cs that they released to China--and that
was because they were promised P-40D/Es in exchange, and those of
course would be free because the Lend Lease program was then going
into effect.
The P-40s (Tomahawk Mark I, in effect) that the British took over from
French orders were of course relegated to training aircraft. They had
no fuel-tank armor, among other lacks. The P-40B (Tomahawk II) and
P-40C (Tomahawk IIB) were modified to British requests, and were
bought and deployed in quantity in North Africa.
The U.S. Army took deliveries on these aircraft *after* the British
orders were filled. But the British did indeed buy every one that
Curtiss could build and that the U.S. Army would let them have.
Jeff Crowell
> I think the important difference between the American and Japanese
> pilots in the first six months of the war was that the latter were
> almost all combat-experienced. Training, at least as practiced in
> 1941, just didn't prepare a man for combat. (It's like the difference
> between airplanes and Flight Sim, as I have posted elsewhere!)
I'd point out two other major differences:
The Americans (Navy, at least) trained in deflection shooting, and
mutual support was always emphasized.
The Japanese never did seem to figure out that mutual support thing.
Jeff
Cub Driver
>I may be wrong, but wasn't a P40 prototype built later in the war that had
>comparable performance to the P51?
Not really, Even when powered by the same engine, the P-40 was
outclassed by the Mustang. The P-51, plain and simple, moved faster
than any other aircraft with the same engine. That included the
Spitfire; it wasn't only the P-40.
Cub Driver
> You yanks only had to really worry about shooting down
>fighters, and for that a .50 cal armed A/C was enough. You never had to
>face bombers and thus never saw the need for cannon armed A/C.
I think this is the key point. I would go further, however: multiple
fifties was not merely good enough against most Axis fighters, it was
likely the preferred armament.
That probably was especially true of American pilots, who would be
less inclined than most to conserve ammunition.
Cub Driver
wrote:
>Even before Dec.7 the AVG met
>with great success against the Japanese in early model P 40's.
The AVG's first combat was 20 December 1941, and that was against
bombers.
It was not until 23 December that the AVGs met a Japanese fighter, and
that was the fixed-gear, two-gun Nakajima Ki-27.
Chris Mark
>The combination of the Zero's manueverability and the Japanese pilots'
>combat experience proved deadly to most American pilots in their first
>encounters.
Really? Can you provide evidence of this?
Let's see, take the Philippines with 165 AAF fighter pilots on Dec. 8, 1941,
dozens of whom got airborne to combat the Japanese. How many were killed that
day--from all causes? If I haven't miscounted, 9 were killed on that
day--eight of them on the ground. Two more were killed on the 9th and three on
the 10th.
Initial air combats? Two pilots from 3rd ps flying
>The two exceptions seem to be the AVG Flying Tigers in
>Burma (who of course did not meet the Zero)
And who did not enter air combat with the Japanese until weeks after other AAF
fighter units did (and were _not_ wiped out)
>and the U.S. Navy carrier
>pilots in the early-model Wildcat.
The situation with the earliest Wildcat squadron (on Wake Island) was the same
as with the AAF fighters--destroyed on the ground due to lack of sufficient
early warning. Once in the air, they gave a good account of themselves.
Chris Mark
Drifter Bob
>
> > You yanks only had to really worry about shooting down
> >fighters, and for that a .50 cal armed A/C was enough. You never had >
> I think this is the key point. I would go further, however: multiple
Except, US pilots often DID have to go against bombers, as in North Africa,
and Italy especially. It's not a matter at that point of whether four or
six .50's can take down a bomber, it's how quickly it can do so while you
are being shot at
attacking a bomber is dangerous, if you approach from behind the way you
would a fighter, you are slowly closing with an enemy who is shooting at
you, and while you are trying to fly and line up your aircraft to shoot,
their gunner(s) are shooting at you. All they need to do is line up a
swivel gun or a turret, which is a little eaier. This is even more
excaserbated when you are facing several bombers flying in formation, all
shooting at you.
That is why the preferred methods of attacking even moderately well defended
bombers (such as G4M, Ju-88, He 111 etc) is to attack from below, from the
side, or from head on. In this case however you have even less time to
shoot, a fraction of a second.
The key point is that you need to destroy or cripple that bomber in a very,
very short time, often with a very few number of bullets hitting. if you
are coming in head on or swooping up from below, this might actually mean
literally less than half a second of shooting time. A 20mm cannon can blow
off a wing, blow up a cockpit, or blow out an enemy with 2 or 3 rounds. A
.50 cal isn't going to do that, it penetrates very well and punches holes
through anything but very heavy armor, but it doesn't damage the structure
as much as an exploding cannon shell.
> fifties was not merely good enough against most Axis fighters, it was
> likely the preferred armament.
Ha! Try going head to head with a Fw 190, BF 109K, a N1K1, or a K-84 armed
with the standard 6 x .50's on the Mustang, Corsair, or Hellcat. For that
matter, try shooting a heavily armored fighter like a Fw190 from dead astern
and see how long it takes to knock it down... precious seconds which could
lead to your death...
> That probably was especially true of American pilots, who would be
> less inclined than most to conserve ammunition.
The extra ammo in the .50's IS a nice advantage. Most other nations
compramise by having .30 cal MG with a lot of ammo, and 20mm or 30mm cannon
with less. That way you can line up your target with the MG's, and get the
killing shots with just a few cannon shells.
There is no doubt however that cannons kill quicker, and quick kills are the
name of the game in air combat.
Frankly, Cub Driver, I think you could benefit from a little time on a good
flight Sim. If they weren't effective simulations, why else would the
military use them? There are some things you just dont learn about the
reality of air combat any other way (short of the real thing)
DB
DB
Drifter Bob
"David CL Francis" <no.spa...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> I cannot understand why the widely spaced guns are hard to aim. They may
> or may not be more difficult to score hits but why more difficult to
> aim?
> --
> David CL Francis
I'm not sure of the physics of it, but you really see this in a good flight
SIM like Il2. The bullet stream just isn't as concentrated, so yeah, you
don't get as many hits. That is what I mean, not necessarily aiming I
guess. But it's hard to get the same percentage of hits on target as when,
for example, you are firing through the propellor hub. It's just a matter
of less bullets in a wider cone of space, or so it seems anyway.
DB
Ian MacLure
Wing guns were generally harmonized ( ie: adjusted so their bullet
trajectories converged at some chosen point in space ISTR a figure
of 400 yds for RAF fighters ).
If your battery was situated in the nose of the fuselage you merely
arranged them so they fired parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
aircraft and (within reason) you didn't need to worry about the range
at which you opened fire.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>