Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: macleod01 on January 16, 2010, 08:41:58 PM
-
I recently bought an old war documentary set called War In The Air. Very brief but good documentaries about air power in WW2. However during one episode it was discussing the Lend Lease program and how Britain and Maerica helped Russia by supplying her with planes.
I have always thought that it was mainly Hurricanes that were supplied by Britain, but in the video, it showed Spitfires with the red Star. They LOOKED like Mk V, but I'm terrible with identifying anything other than Mk Is. I'm just wondering if anyone has any further interest in this, as it has peaked an interest for me. When I see things that I don't roughly know, I have to alter that.
Any Information then guru's?
-
Britain supplied a large number of Spitfires to the USSR: at least 143 Mk.VBs and 1,188 Mk.IXs, delivered by sea as deck cargo and also flown via the Middle East, many being sent through Tehran. The 26th Guards Fighter Air Regiment of the Leningrad Air Defence (PVO) was operating clipped-wing low-level Spitfire L.F. Mk.IXs at the end of the war.
The best single-volume reference for the Spitfire is Spitfire: The History by Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady; 1987 and revised in 2000, Key Books Ltd, Stamford, ISBN 0 946219 48 6. It's a massive book and includes the history of every Spitfire (and Seafire, Spiteful and Seafang) ever built, where known.
Hope this helps - cheers!
:cool:
-
Thanks a lot Simba, that's just answered my question in a oner. It did make me wonder when I saw those Spitfires with the Red Stars.
:aok :aok
-
You might want to take a look at this link macleod01 , http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/spit/index.htm
There is also this Russian site (you will need a translator > http://translate.google.com/#), http://avia-hobby.ru/publ/soviaps/1_50iap.html
-
The numbers of some aircraft provided to the Soviets:
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_CIS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_Russia%2C_World_War_II
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html
P-39, 5007 (from US)
Hurricane, 2952 (from UK)
P-63, 2421 (from US)
Spitfire, 1331 (from UK)
A-20, 2700 (from US)
The US also provided P-40's, B-25's, and perhaps some smaller number of various other aircraft.
-
The numbers of some aircraft provided to the Soviets:
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_CIS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_Russia%2C_World_War_II
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html
P-39, 5007 (from US)
Hurricane, 2952 (from UK)
P-63, 2421 (from US)
Spitfire, 1331 (from UK)
A-20, 2700 (from US)
The US also provided P-40's, B-25's, and perhaps some smaller number of various other aircraft.
The Soviets also received 196 P-47D-22-RE & P-47D-27-RE Thunderbolts.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/ColJDLanders/RuskieP47.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Wish they had that decision to make over again.
-
Wish they had that decision to make over again.
Why is that?
-
The Soviets also received 196 P-47D-22-RE & P-47D-27-RE Thunderbolts.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/ColJDLanders/RuskieP47.jpg)
ack-ack
Aye, and used them as patrol bombers because a "fighter" doesn't weigh that much.
As a rule of thumb the aircraft the west loved (Spits, P47s, etc) the soviets would say "they have nice transparencies" and "the radio is good". Aircraft we didn't love (P-39, P-40) the soviets drooled all over. Just a different perspective on what qualifies as "good".
They had a P-38 that was used by a squadron for fun; my memory tells me it was a crashed bird they repaired or else it used a soviet field for emergency landing, but they didn't use it in combat. Pity, too, 'cuz I'd love a red star 38 skin for the game.
-
The Soviets also received 196 P-47D-22-RE & P-47D-27-RE Thunderbolts.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/ColJDLanders/RuskieP47.jpg)
ack-ack
I need to learn how to skin that plane is a beauty
-
Why is that?
I'm guessing its a reference to the recent unpleasantness which existed between the USA and USSR from 1946-1991 in concert with an implied suggestion that perhaps our decision to give aid to Stalin was ill considered.
-
<snip>
an implied suggestion that perhaps our decision to give aid to Stalin was ill considered.
Wow. That is a can of worms...
-
I need to learn how to skin that plane is a beauty
If you search the skins forum, I posted a thread awhile back with some examples of the Soviet Jugs. IIRC, they never saw any action though.
ack-ack
-
Wow, when I posted this I never imagined the wealth of knowledge that would be unearthed about it. So many thanks again guys, and Ack-Ack, its a pity none of those jugs saw combat, would be pretty sweet to have a soviet Jug.
What about the other planes mantioned? I'm guessing the Spitfires saw action. Does anyone have any figures on kills for these crates?
-
These:
P-39, 5007 (from US)
Hurricane, 2952 (from UK)
P-63, 2421 (from US)
Spitfire, 1331 (from UK)
A-20, 2700 (from US)
and the P-40's and B-25's saw a lot of combat in Soviet hands.
I don't know the number of kills, but those aircraft are mentioned in many accounts of Soviet air battles. The P-39 is perhaps most prominent in the kills deparment as, for example, 3 of the top-5 Soviet aces flew the P-39, including the #2 ace (Pokryshkin).
-
These:
P-39, 5007 (from US)
Hurricane, 2952 (from UK)
P-63, 2421 (from US)
Spitfire, 1331 (from UK)
A-20, 2700 (from US)
and the P-40's and B-25's saw a lot of combat in Soviet hands.
I don't know the number of kills, but those aircraft are mentioned in many accounts of Soviet air battles. The P-39 is perhaps most prominent in the kills deparment as, for example, 3 of the top-5 Soviet aces flew the P-39, including the #2 ace (Pokryshkin).
I knew about the P-39, and I had heard that it was a killer in soviet hands.
Where's Snailman with his knowledge when you need him!
-
Wow, when I posted this I never imagined the wealth of knowledge that would be unearthed about it. So many thanks again guys, and Ack-Ack, its a pity none of those jugs saw combat, would be pretty sweet to have a soviet Jug.
What about the other planes mantioned? I'm guessing the Spitfires saw action. Does anyone have any figures on kills for these crates?
Spitfires over the Kuban
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/spit/index.htm
On another board there is a guy who states the P-39 was used exclusively as a ground attack a/c. His reference books are those one would find in an elementary school library and on coffee tables.
-
On another board there is a guy who states the P-39 was used exclusively as a ground attack a/c. His reference books are those one would find in an elementary school library and on coffee tables.
I was interested in "Attack of the Airacobras," by Loza because of the misconception about the P-39 being good only in ground attack. The book goes into great detail on the use of P-39's by the Soviets. It turns out that they used the P-39 primarily as an air-superiority fighter against German fighters and bombers and felt that it was a fine plane in that role.
http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Airacobras-American-Against-Germany/dp/0700611401
-
That book was mentioned in the thread Brooke. He sluffed it of as being only one unit and not representative of all P-39 units.
The guy appears intelligent but is naive and gullible to believe his reference books. I think he is being a troll being more interested in flowery prose and brownie points.
-
Just one unit here, though, is the whole 9th Guards Fighter Division. Anyway, the fact that the 9th Guards flew it as an air-superiority fighter and that there is a decent list of Soviet aces in the P-39 ( http://www.acepilots.com/planes/soviet_p39_airacobra.html ) prove that it was used in and good at air combat, regardless of whether or not it was also used in other ways.
-
They had a P-38 that was used by a squadron for fun; my memory tells me it was a crashed bird they repaired or else it used a soviet field for emergency landing, but they didn't use it in combat. Pity, too, 'cuz I'd love a red star 38 skin for the game.
The Soviets received 12 Lend Lease P-38Ls but there really isn't all that much known as to what happened to them after they received them. It is known that they did fly some evaluation sorties but I cannot find anything that tells what the results of those evaluations were. They did use one as a 'demonstrator' that would fly to the Soviet airfields on and would put on aerobatic displays but as for the other 11 or the others they recovered from crashes or emergency landings, I haven't been able to find anything.
ack-ack
-
Wow, when I posted this I never imagined the wealth of knowledge that would be unearthed about it. So many thanks again guys, and Ack-Ack, its a pity none of those jugs saw combat, would be pretty sweet to have a soviet Jug.
What about the other planes mantioned? I'm guessing the Spitfires saw action. Does anyone have any figures on kills for these crates?
As someone noted in another reply, the Soviets really didn't have a favorable impression of the Jug other than it had a good radio. As a fighter, they felt it was very lacking due to the lack of manueverability. I believe they were given to naval air units and were stationed up near Murmansk (sp?) or somewhere near the Baltic.
ack-ack
-
As someone noted in another reply, the Soviets really didn't have a favorable impression of the Jug other than it had a good radio. As a fighter, they felt it was very lacking due to the lack of manueverability. I believe they were given to naval air units and were stationed up near Murmansk (sp?) or somewhere near the Baltic.
ack-ack
Mostly Northern Fleet. 2 GIAP-SF, 225 IAP-SF (which used the -47 for some shipping strikes) and15 ORAB-KBF which used them for recon.
The big problem is they didn't need the things the Jug was good at. Diving, long range...all useless below 3000 meters when your base was an inch from the front lines. The P-47 was bigger and heavier than the standard BOMBER (Pe-2).
-
Why is that?
Because there is some function that could be applied to move the furthest advance of the red army east X cm for every dollar of lend lease that was given to the soviets. How ever far that function would move back the red army it would be better for all concerned.
-
Because there is some function that could be applied to move the furthest advance of the red army east X cm for every dollar of lend lease that was given to the soviets. How ever far that function would move back the red army it would be better for all concerned.
Wow you horrible sweetheartbag, 30 million dead soviets not good enough for you or did you want Americans to fight Nazi's by themselves?
P.S Nothing was "given", words "Land" or "lease" should've given you a clue.
-
Wow you horrible sweetheartbag, 30 million dead soviets not good enough for you or did you want Americans to fight Nazi's by themselves?
P.S Nothing was "given", words "Land" or "lease" should've given you a clue.
"Lend" and "Lease" would have more meaning if anything was "Returned" or "Paid For". Actually IIRC the British pushed Corsairs off the side after the surrender of Japan; they had to pay for aircraft that survived, but not for aircraft that were lost. I'm going to have to go check my references now.
The war in the east was a completely different animal. It's kind of interesting walking through Russian towns and seeing where they intentionally didn't repair damage to preserve the effect; this was very apparent in St. Petersburg...generally they put up signs to tell you what and when. The Palaces had before and after pictures...the Germans didn't leave much standing.
-
I find it really funny that people are arguing about 'Those Nasty Russians' Or people keeping money. I bet in 1943-44, all the world leaders were really saying, It doesn't matter what's done, just beat Germany and Japan'
Wonder what their reactions would be if they saw us bickering now.
-
Wonder what their reactions would be if they saw us bickering now.
"Must be nice to have so few worries you can bicker about that..."
Just a thought.
My parents were there; all I have to do is ask. No internet, no TV, no satellite transmissions. You got news from the radio and news reels at the picture show, all of which was carefully controlled. Pretty sure nobody on this side of the pond really knew or cared about the man of steel.
-
For lend/lease, the UK did pay back the US. The final payment was made in 2006.
I don't know if the USSR or China did (both of whom got lend-lease assistance, I believe).
There was a lot of bickering back then, as well. Bickering over where to attack, who is in charge of what, which regions were to fall under which country's oversight afterwards, etc.
Chuchill and Patton (and a lot of others) felt that the US and UK would be enemies of the Soviet Union and vice versa shortly after WWII (which turned out to be correct) and had ideas on what to do at the end of the WWII with that in mind. There were a lot of people in the west who were deeply uncomfortable with communism and Stalin's purges, wherein a couple million Soviets were arrested and put in labor camps or executed.
The USSR didn't start off as a US and UK ally in WWII. At the start of WWII, Germany and the USSR had an alliance that included a specification of how to divide up Europe between them. Both invaded Poland at the start of WWII in 1939, each taking their specified half. Shortly thereafter, the USSR took over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and invaded Finland, while the Germans went for Scandanavia and France.
Only after Germany reneged upon the alliance and invaded the USSR in 1941 (Operation Barbarossa) did the USSR become a US and UK ally.
It's interesting to ponder what would have happened if the UK had declared war on the USSR like they did on Germany for invading Poland or if the Germans had not reneged on the initial German/USSR alliance.
-
You have to understand some of the Russian/Soviet history and the cultural past to understand US/UK aprehension over the Soviets taking over all of Europe... They weren't far behind the Germans in terms of expanionist aggression. They would easily (and happily) have occupied all of greater Europe and then kept looking further Westward.
The only reason they signed a treaty with Germany in the first place, was to buy time so they could conquer them later. Barbarrosa moved their timeline up and it wasn't until 1944/45 that they were ready, but when they were -- oooh boy, were they ever ready!
-
Great Britain............$31 billion which later was redused to 5.2 billion plus interest.
Soviet Union.............$11 billion
Three times as much for UK but Russians took most of the bullets, not praising him but i can understand Stallins frustration.
-
well the U.S. supplied p-39 aircobras
-
well the U.S. supplied p-39 aircobras
Aircraft so horrendous Brits refused to fly it.
-
Aircraft so horrendous Brits refused to fly it.
The Soviets thought is was a great plane and used it effectively as an air-superiority fighter. Of course, they were typically flying at 15k or lower on the Eastern front. Several of their top aces (including 2nd ranking allied ace of WWII) flew it.
A good book on the P-39 from the Soviet perspective:
Attack of the Airacobras, by Loza
http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Airacobras-American-Against-Germany/dp/0700611401/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266448299&sr=8-1
-
The Soviets thought is was a great plane and used it effectively as an air-superiority fighter. Of course, they were typically flying at 15k or lower on the Eastern front. Several of their top aces (including 2nd ranking allied ace of WWII) flew it.
A good book on the P-39 from the Soviet perspective:
Attack of the Airacobras, by Loza
http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Airacobras-American-Against-Germany/dp/0700611401/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266448299&sr=8-1
Are you saying Soviets were better pilots than Brits or you'd like to get into flying characteristic of p39 dear:)?
Soviets used it because there was nothing else at the time.
-
Are you saying Soviets were better pilots than Brits or you'd like to get into flying characteristic of p39 dear:)?
Soviets used it because there was nothing else at the time.
Heh! ;)
Every nation had some great pilots. (Although in victories, no one comes close to the Germans, of course.)
What I mean is that the P-39, when used below about 15-20k or so, was a decent and effective fighter. It wasn't because they had nothing else. Here are the production numbers of fighters the Soviets had:
Yak-9, 16769
La-5, 9920
I-16, 9004
Yak-1, 8720
Yak-7, 6339
LaGG-3, 6258
La-7, 5753
P-39, 5007 (from US)
Yak-3, 4848
MiG-3, 3120
Hurricane, 2952 (from UK)
P-63, 2421 (from US)
Spitfire, 1331 (from UK)
As you can see, the P-39 is far from the most numerous. They had more Yak's and La's by far than P-39's. So if the P-39 were a horrible fighter, I doubt that you would have seen 3 of the top 5 aces having flown it (#2, 3, and 4 flew P-39's). They all would be Yak and La pilots (or maybe some Spitfire pilots, as the Russians had 1300 of those).
I flew the P-39 quite a bit in AH when it came out. I thought it was a decent plane below about 13k. It isn't the best turner, but it turns reasonably well (better than some), handles wonderfully at speed, and is reasonably fast down low. Not a bad plane at all. I looked back at my scoring in it from 2008-05-01 Late War and see I did 16 kills in it and 6 deaths, and I wasn't flying it in any particularly special way (fighting only when I had 3:1 odds in my favor or something like that).
-
Now try looking up what was available and in what quantities for Soviets when P39 was delivered. What a shocker, they preferred P-39 over I-16 or MIG-3 while moving factories away from the front line.
-
Now try looking up what was available and in what quantities for Soviets when P39 was delivered. What a shocker, they preferred P-39 over I-16 or MIG-3 while moving factories away from the front line.
From this link shows what fighters the Soviets were using, http://avia-hobby.ru/publ/soviaps/1_50iap.html, I can only find 3 Soviet units that exchanged their P-39s for other fighters. Only one converted to a Soviet design and the other 2 to Spitfires. :eek:
One would think that Guard units would prefer Soviet a/c.
The most delivered P-39 was the P-39Q which ended production in Aug 1944. How many I-16s and MiG-3s still in service with the Soviets then?
-
Now try looking up what was available and in what quantities for Soviets when P39 was delivered. What a shocker, they preferred P-39 over I-16 or MIG-3 while moving factories away from the front line.
That does not mean that the P-39 was crappy. The Soviets thought throughout the war that the P-39 was a good fighter, used them throughout the war, kept them in service even once they had a lot of Yaks and La's, and had several top aces who flew them throughout the war.
Also, in AH, the P-39 is a decent fighter. Not the best, but decent -- as long as you are at about 15k or less. That's where the Soviets fought.
If it is being used to fight at 20-30k, yes, it is going to suck up there.
-
You deflecting my question, how many domestic fighter were available when p39 was delivered? Listen i know its difficult to even imagine but that's how it was. Country was in ruins, in total war. Every male was sent to front line. 12-14 years old were working 18-20 hours a day, 200 grams of bread a day was the salary.
Women fought along with men in the air and on the ground. Do you really believe they would refuse any aid available? Why scrap squadrons of aircobras if you can use them.
-
By the way in AH the only chance to score a kill in p39 is only if your opponent is newb:)
-
KgB, you should try flying it before knocking it.
P-39Q is quite a nimble dogfighter as modeled in AH. A bit too docile in stalls and instability IMO (lacks some vices the real deal had) but it is fast, has a small turn radius, and can dive like nobody's business. You get behind somebody, you're there to stay (unless they're a spit5 or a zeke!).
Only problem is you'll stay there till you run out of taters, if you can't aim! As soon as you try to disengage they come around and bite (shoot) you in the butt!
The flaws are not so much in the plane as in the weapons and how well individual pilots fly them.
I've landed numerous 7-10 kill sorties in a P-39Q in a late war arena, and a number of 4-5 kill sorties in a P-39D in the late ware arena (using the 37mm, not the 20mm -- I consider that EZ mode!).
-
KgB, you should try flying it before knocking it.
P-39Q is quite a nimble dogfighter as modeled in AH. A bit too docile in stalls and instability IMO (lacks some vices the real deal had) but it is fast, has a small turn radius, and can dive like nobody's business. You get behind somebody, you're there to stay (unless they're a spit5 or a zeke!).
Only problem is you'll stay there till you run out of taters, if you can't aim! As soon as you try to disengage they come around and bite (shoot) you in the butt!
The flaws are not so much in the plane as in the weapons and how well individual pilots fly them.
I've landed numerous 7-10 kill sorties in a P-39Q in a late war arena, and a number of 4-5 kill sorties in a P-39D in the late ware arena (using the 37mm, not the 20mm -- I consider that EZ mode!).
Krusty you'd land multiple kills in p39 even if it had hub mounted sling shooter. But then again you wont stand a chance with equally skilled opponent in lets say historical enemy of aircobra 109, any model.
-
By the way in AH the only chance to score a kill in p39 is only if your opponent is newb:)
I disagree. I think the P-39 is a decent plane. Not the greatest -- but decent.
-
You deflecting my question, how many domestic fighter were available when p39 was delivered? Listen i know its difficult to even imagine but that's how it was. Country was in ruins, in total war. Every male was sent to front line. 12-14 years old were working 18-20 hours a day, 200 grams of bread a day was the salary.
Women fought along with men in the air and on the ground. Do you really believe they would refuse any aid available? Why scrap squadrons of aircobras if you can use them.
No, I'm not deflecting anything. I'm saying that the Soviets thought that the P-39 was a good fighter, which is true, and that several of their top aces flew the P-39, which is true.
You are trying to imply that the P-39 is crappy because the Soviets wanted all of the fighters they could get. That is incorrect logic. You could substitute the word "Spitfire" for the word "P-39" in those same points.
-
No, I'm not deflecting anything. I'm saying that the Soviets thought that the P-39 was a good fighter, which is true, and that several of their top aces flew the P-39, which is true.
You are trying to imply that the P-39 is crappy because the Soviets wanted all of the fighters they could get.* That is incorrect logic. You could substitute the word "Spitfire" for the word "P-39" in those same points.
I'll say it again
1)P39 is crappy because of its flying characteristics (reason why Brits refused to fly it).
2)Compaired to what Soviets had, yes it was a better fighter.
3)Soviets used it because they needed every aircraft they could get.
How you managed to come up with that highlighted abomination of what i said is beyond my comprehension.
-
I'll say it again
1)P39 is crappy because of its flying characteristics (reason why Brits refused to fly it).
I disagree that is crappy -- as long as you are below about 15k. There are people who didn't like it, but there are people who did (like many Soviets, including some Soviet aces). The same is true of P-38's and P-47's, by the way, that some people didn't like them (such as the British) while some people did (including many aces).
2)Compaired to what Soviets had, yes it was a better fighter.
From 1943 onward, they had lots of Yaks and La's.
3)Soviets used it because they needed every aircraft they could get.
If they thought the P-39 sucked, they would have relegated it to other uses, like they did with numerous other aircraft.
Also, your statements of what the Soviets did or did not think of the P-39 are at odds with the research and interviews reported in Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, American P-39s, and the Air War Against Germany, by Dmitriy F. Loza.
-
I'll say it again
1)P39 is crappy because of its flying characteristics (reason why Brits refused to fly it).
2)Compaired to what Soviets had, yes it was a better fighter.
3)Soviets used it because they needed every aircraft they could get.
How you managed to come up with that highlighted abomination of what i said is beyond my comprehension.
The Brits did fly the P-39Cs in combat but pulled them from front line duty due to mechanical problems.
"The Air Fighting Development Unit received a British Airacobra I on July 30. They subjected it to tests and completed their report on September 22. They found the aircraft to be pleasant to fly and easy to takeoff and land. Controls were well balanced and although heavier than those of the Spitfire at normal speeds, did not increase appreciably in weight at high speeds as they did in the Spitfire. It was difficult to hold the aircraft in a dive at high speeds unless the aircraft was trimmed nose-heavy. During a turn, the Airacobra would give ample warning of a high-speed stall by severe vibration of the whole airframe. Handling in formation and formation attacks was good, although deceleration was poor because of the plane's aerodynamic cleanliness. Take-offs and landings in close formation were not considered safe, since there was considerable difficulty in bringing the aircraft back to its original path after a swing."
So the P-39 was a better fighter than the Yak-3/7/9s and La-5/7s. Reveling that is. This would seem to be confirmed, iirc, whenPokryshkin refused to convert his unit to the La-5.
So in 1944 and 1945 the Soviets still didn't have enough fighters.
-
Krusty you'd land multiple kills in p39 even if it had hub mounted sling shooter. But then again you wont stand a chance with equally skilled opponent in lets say historical enemy of aircobra 109, any model.
First, you don't know me. I'm average at best (to be realistic, below average most times). I'm not a crack shot. I'm not Levi. I don't play for kills or for score. I just play one sortie at a time and try to make it back to base whenever possible.
Second, a P-39D or Q against a 109 is a damn good fight. The P-39 has a VERY small turning radius. Compared to 109s, it's more than a match. The later the mark of 109, the better the P-39 becomes in a turn fight. The earlier the mark of 109, the more even the footing is between the two. The only problem is managing E.
You don't seem to realize the specs of the P-39s... The reason they were "poor" for the brits is the RAF was engaging the LW at alts between 25k and 30k in their fighter sweeps. The reason they were bad for the US Army was because they had no supercharger, and the A6Ms would fly circles around them, at much longer ranges. Same could be said for the F4F, when you think about it (Thatch Weave and teamwork/massive-numbers is the only reason the F4F persevered against the A6M!).
You put it on the Soviet front, and all of a sudden no fights are above the "low alt" band, and you've got 109s/190s being easily out-turned by lighter aircraft. Meanwhile the LW has to build heavier and heavier armament, bogging down their fighters, just for a chance to down IL2s and bombers. That gives the edge more and more to the P-39.
Suck? Maybe. Depends on the context. War-winner? Definitely not. Lethal? Yes.
I don't think you're really compared it to all the planes you claim can wipe the floor with it....
P-39D vs 109E-4 (1940 matchup): Airacobra is 20mph faster up to 16k+, dives at least twice as well, convertes E to nice tight turns, and is no slouch in regards to turning circle.
P-39Q vs 109G-6 (1943 matchup): The P-39Q is almost as fast as the G6 (and matches the G6 at 12k), and almost matches it (pretty close, actually) in climb rate with WEP. And that's WITH the weight-inducing, speed-eating gondolas, fly it "light" like I and many soviet aces of WW2 like to do, and it's even better. It will turn with one really well, and can use the vertical with its powerful WEP settings.
But how about some other comparisons? 39Q v 190a5: 39Q almost matches the speeds of the A5 (a little slower down low, then catches up as the 190 power curve drops), matches the climb rate, and can out-turn it six ways from sunday. A 190A with a 39Q on its butt is dead (unless the 39Q blows all its ammo and has to run away).
Maybe you fly allied planes more, and don't have a frame of reference for them.. Okay them.
P-39D vs Spit1 (1940 colleagues): P-39D without WEP (it has none) is 10mph faster than the 5-minute WEP of a Spit1A. It's firepower is significantly better (if just for the 50cals in the nose, and the 1000rpg for the 30cals, not counting a hispano or a 37mm in the nose!). It's turn rate is not as tight, but it's not like much out-turns a spit1a anyways. P-39D matches the spit non-wep climb rate as well. Handles high speed much better. Only problem is fighting above 15k, which the RAF had to do.
Or a 1943 comparison: P-39Q is a few mph faster than the Spit9 is at all alts up til the 39 drops off. The spit9 drops off just above the P-39, but it has a supercharger which kicks in a few thousand feet above that. Otherwise it'd be in the same boat as the Airacobra. 39Q can give a spit9 a run for its money in a dogfight, but the spit is a tighter turner again (but note, that's not the only thing that determines a winner). Spit9 does have more climbing ability (better engine than spit1) but the 39Q with WEP will break 3400 fpm at low level, not too far behind the spitty's 3600+ fpm.
How about other US planes? P-39Q is 20mph slower than P-38L on the deck but just about matches it at 12k (it catches up) and matches the 38's climb rate. It's about 40mph slower than a P-51B, but matches the climb rate, exceeds the turn rate by a mile, and dives just as well. It's noticably faster than an F6F and out-climbs one too. It outclimbs a D-hog and isn't too far behind one in speed either.
So I'm not a total P-39 fanatic. I enjoy flying it in-game because it's a bit more challenging. I don't have all this stuff memorized (I had to look it up to post this). I just don't like folks trashing a plane on the grounds that it sucks when they don't bother to actually look at the info available and actually fly it.
Curse the gun all you want, but don't blame the plane's performance for not getting any kills in it.
-
Krusty, don't you mean turbocharger? All Allison's had a supercharger.
-
So the P-39 was a better fighter than the Yak-3/7/9s and La-5/7s. Reveling that is. This would seem to be confirmed, iirc, whenPokryshkin refused to convert his unit to the La-5.
Well maybe he shouldnt have, in last two years he scored only 6 kills.
-
First, you don't know me. I'm average at best (to be realistic, below average most times)........
I think i do know you.
I've landed numerous 7-10 kill sorties in a P-39Q in a late war arena, and a number of 4-5 kill sorties in a P-39D in the late ware arena
Nobody "average" lands numerous 7-10 kills in P39, i know it because i am average. So you gotta uber or you not telling the truth.
I was shot down by p39 tonight, Soulys didn't even use tater gun.
-
Brooke i think on this note we should stop this. Its like I'm asking you for directions and you telling me what time it is.
Forgive me dear, but this thread is beat to death.
-
Brooke i think on this note we should stop this. Its like I'm asking you for directions and you telling me what time it is.
No, it's like I'm saying "The P-39 doesn't suck below 15k" and "The soviets liked the P-39" and you keep arguing with that. My point of view is based on a thorough book on the topic, the fact that the Soviets flew the P-39 throughout the war (while they retired many other types of aircraft), the fact that several top Soviet aces flew the P-39, and AH performance of the P-39 (thoroughly detailed by Krusty).
Forgive me dear, but this thread is beat to death.
I do think that we have fully covered the P-39.
-
Well maybe he shouldnt have, in last two years he scored only 6 kills.
Hard to score when one is flying a desk. ;)
In February 1944, Pokryshkin was offered a promotion and an easy desk job managing new pilot training. He immediately rejected the offer, and stayed at his old regiment and his old rank. He however did not fly nearly as much. Pokryshkin had been made a famous hero by the propaganda machine, and he was not allowed to fly as often because of fear of him being killed. Instead, Pokryshkin spent a lot of time in the radio bunker, directing his regiment's fights over the radio.
-
Also, "only 6 kills"?
-
Nobody "average" lands numerous 7-10 kills in P39, i know it because i am average. So you gotta uber or you not telling the truth.
I disagree. I've got the film to prove it (so I am telling the truth), have posted screenshots to my squaddies before, etc.
On the other hand, I'm not a great pilot. I'm okay in the best of circumstances. Once or twice I've been complimented on my C2 piloting, but that's only because I spend nearly 60% of all my flight time in them since I started the game! (and in 10 years of playing this game can only remember 1 or 2 compliments on the subject)
Again, you're really confusing "killing" with "flying" -- it can be really hard to kill with P-39s, but very very easy to fly you into a position you can GET kills with.
Not really the airframe's fault. Many factors are at play.
You know how sometimes a pilot just pulls in front of you, and you get a sweet shot?
Sometimes it happens in P-39s. Sometimes it happens a lot. Folks underestimate the E-retention and speed of this plane when it has some downhill to work with.