Author Topic: P39 & other info on russian front (Read 3214 times)

brady · « **Reply #15 on:** December 09, 2003, 11:40:53 AM »

It is queit obvious that it did contrubitue, I dont mean to downplay the contrabution that the men who flew it made to war, I just think over all that when viewed in it's entierty the VVS Fighter force would be better served by the adation at present of some indiginious Early War Fighter's somthing compleatly lacking in AH, we have nothing at present to represent anything Early war for the Russian front, the earlest planes we have that served their are not Russian but LL. My main point is I dont see why at present we realy nead to add the P39 it's not going to help in making set up's in any theater it would fit in already has ample allied fighters are modeled for most it would fit in, and as Batz mentioned depending on the model we got it might not even fit then.

humble · « **Reply #16 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:50:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tony Williams
Correction - they did get some Hurri IICs and kept the Hispanos (mainly for ground attack IIRC). However, they stripped the .303s from the other versions they received and replaced them with their own guns as you say.

I suspect that part of their unhappiness with the Hurri was that it was designed to run on higher-octane fuel than the Russians could provide, so its mediocre performance was further reduced in Russian service.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Tony,

I'm far from an "expert" on any of this stuff....

A. S. Did you ever have Hurricanes with English cannons?

N. G. No. They began to mount English cannons on Hurricanes some time later than we did, based upon our successful experience.

thats the Q&A I based my comment on, since he finished his career as a major general I assumed he's correct...obviously he could also be refering specifically to his wartime combat unit.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #17 on:** December 09, 2003, 04:36:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble
Tony,

I'm far from an "expert" on any of this stuff....

A. S. Did you ever have Hurricanes with English cannons?

N. G. No. They began to mount English cannons on Hurricanes some time later than we did, based upon our successful experience.

thats the Q&A I based my comment on, since he finished his career as a major general I assumed he's correct...obviously he could also be refering specifically to his wartime combat unit.

Well, nearly 3,000 Hurricanes were supplied, and given the scale of operations in the USSR even a major general can't have been expected toknow everything that was going on. This is from 'Flying Guns: World War 2': it was contributed by Emmanuel, so I don't know the source he used:

"The armament of Browning .303 guns installed in early Hurricanes was considered deficient, as having an effective range of only 100 to 150 meters. It was considered to install four ShVAK cannon, four UBTs, or two ShVAK and two UBT guns; although a preference existed for the second option the last one was chosen, because there were not enough UBT guns. So about a 1000 Hurricanes Mk.IIA and Mk.IIB were modified to have two ShVAK cannon and two UB machine guns, a quite powerful combination by Soviet standards. The Hurricane's armour protection also fell below Russian standards, and it was replaced. The Mk.IIC with its four Hispano Mk.II cannon retained its armament, and was used as a ground attack and anti-shipping aircraft. By 1941 the Hurricane was obsolescent as a fighter, and it was not highly regarded. "

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Halo · « **Reply #18 on:** December 09, 2003, 10:48:28 PM »

Thanks, Humble, very interesting article.

I'm glad to see the P-39 getting a little more credit. I've always considered it the most beautiful prop fighter ever made, perfect from all angles.

I'm a little biased, since my half-brother went off to war in a P-39 and later was killed by ack flying recon in a P-51.

Angus · « **Reply #19 on:** December 12, 2003, 06:57:49 AM »

P39 would be fine in AH, or maybe rather it's big brother, the Kingcobra (P63?)
Decently fast, nice roll rate and high speed handling, very rugged, good landing gear, tankbusting qualities, and LOTS of ammo.
What's wrong with that?

Batz · « **Reply #20 on:** December 12, 2003, 09:59:26 AM »

What would the p63 provide for AH? Another late war useless variant. Even in the main it wont get used more then the top 5.

What we need are planes that have use outside the main. For Ah2:ToD for instance, for events and the CT. Top speed was what 405-410? No big deal compared to the current speed demons. With its 37mm gun and small ammo load most folks will stay away from it. I mean a yak9t is more manuverable, the g10 is faster both have big guns. You would see it flown against gvs even though thats not its roll.

Plugging a P63 into the planeset doesn't do much overall. If you get a p63 the odds of seeing a p39 variant goes way down.

With out getting the necessary planes to fill the gaps in the plane set for Ah2:ToD then theres very few theaters that can be run.

TimRas · « **Reply #21 on:** December 13, 2003, 03:11:31 AM »

Quote from the abovementioned interview:

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, if you compare the Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon and the ShVAK, which was better in your opinion?

"N. G. Ours, without a doubt. The ShVAK was twice as reliable. The Hispano simply required an unbelievable amount of maintenance. The smallest exposure to dust, congealed lubricant, or any other kind of little thing, and the gun would not fire. Very unreliable.

The ballistics of our cannon were better. Our cannon had a flatter trajectory, which is significant for applying lead. When you talk about the Yaks, then one didn’t even need a sight. The tracers were almost straight, take aim and fire, and where the nose is pointing is where the rounds struck.

Our ShVAK had a higher rate of fire.

Regarding the target effect, these two cannons were about equal. In either case, there was no difference that I could see with the human eye."

Staga · « **Reply #22 on:** December 13, 2003, 09:14:47 AM »

2952 hurricanes were supplied to ussr:
mkIIa 210
mkIIb 1557
mkIIc 1009
mkIId 60 and
mkIV 30
These came from england and canada, missing numbers were flown from stocks held at middle-east.

Source Francis K.Mason: The Hawker Hurricane: An Illustrated History.
Book has also serialnumbers if needed.

Tilt · « **Reply #23 on:** December 14, 2003, 05:16:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TimRas

The ballistics of our cannon (ShVak) were better (than the Hispano). Our cannon had a flatter trajectory, which is significant for applying lead.

This certainly does not seem to be the common opinion.

Momentum figures per round at the muzzle would indicate otherwise...........there does not seem anything to favour the ShVak aerodynamically over the Hispano.

Angus · « **Reply #24 on:** December 14, 2003, 06:10:09 PM »

Tony Williams would know this stuff.
But I have never seen anything that indicates superior ballistics of the Shvak, - quite on the contrary.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #25 on:** December 15, 2003, 02:33:57 AM »

The Hispano was heavier (50 v 42 kg) and slower-firing (600 v 800 rpm) than the ShVAK, and I can well believe that it needed more careful maintenance, especially in dusty conditions. The Browning was noticeably more reliable.

However, the comments about ballistics and target effect are not supported by the facts. The Hiapano had a higher muzzle velocity (850-880 m/s v 750-790 m/s) and heavier shells (120-130 v 91-99g) which would have kept their velocity better, so it would have had a flatter trajectory. The shells also hit harder, and contained significantly more HE.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum