P-39 Airacobra -1 reply

Please wait...

Gauntlet

Dead rather than Red!

50 XP

25th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,346 Posts

0 Threads

#71 15 years ago
Lordbutter German pilots kill counts mainly slow transport, bombers? Common...Enrich Hartmann's Grouppe(maybe wrong title, thinking German) alonge accounted for something like 9,000 kills. All bombers? In his book he states that he himself shot down p-39's along with other aircraft.

You sure thats not the entire JG52, and not only only I/JG52? eekx.gif

Contrary to popular myth, the P-39 was not employed as a "tank-buster" for two very good reasons: the M4 37mm cannon was slow-firing and only had 30 rounds of ammunition, and the Soviets never received M80 Armor Piercing Shot ammunition for this cannon through Lend-Lease.

I dont think that "30 rounds of ammo" is a valid excuse, as the Ju 87G had 12 rounds in each gun, firing at the same time, and that was a decent tank-destroyer. But dont get me wrong, I totally get your point about the muzzle-velocity, and AP-shells. BTW, one little quick question, was the gun named T9 or M4? confusedx.gif




mondogenerator

Wolfgaming.net *****istrator

50 XP

24th September 2003

0 Uploads

568 Posts

0 Threads

#72 15 years ago

I always thought it was the T9 and not made by Browning.

Anlushac11Im getting tired of this crap. If the Germans win its because they were technically superior, if the Germans are losing then you've got a handy excuse for that too.[/QUOTE]

I said they had technically superior planes to the VVS planes. And there pilots late in the war were poorly trained. Thats 100% accurate. They had 3 frontline jet aircraft for instance, the British had 1 poor performing 1 and the US had a one that was ok but not in service until the last month and only in one unit and it was prone to mid air explosions due to a dodgy fuel cap. Thats how Dick Bong bought it.

Anlushac11 We can only wonder how untrained Soviet pilots in 1942 bumbled their way along with inferior planes that were no match for the German uberplanes yet they somehow managed to get losts of scores in crappy P-39's and gain air superiority. [/QUOTE]

Because there were good pilots, just bad tactics, there were some crack units but they were a majority because most of the best commanders were killed of in stalins purge. Did I say the P39 was crap in 1942, im one person here who says it is a good fighter in that period? The VVS also had numeric superiority which was there winning hand.

Anlushac11

Im sorry but I think the Bf109 is a overrated piece of shit. After the F models the handling went DOWN due to more and more weight being added to the airframes and the heavier engines. The increased horsepower made them faster but they didnt turn as well.

In your opinion only. Ok, since it seems you need someone, probably an American to tell you how well they handled ask Mark Hanna, a P51 and BF109G6 display pilot. He rate the 109 G6 above the P51D and Spitfire IX's he's flown.

Do you know the weight difference between the 109F4 and K4 (the heaviest 109)? Its actually marginal.

[QUOTE=Anlushac11] I give you account after account of Soviet pilots flying P-39's but that doesnt count because its not cinducted under labratory conditions. You no what? It doesnt fing matter. All that matters is who came home. There are no points for second best.

There were thousands of soviet P39 pilots, the testimonies of the ones that lived are all well and good, we don't here from the ones that didn't come home...the not so great or unlucky pilots;). I never said they don't count for nothing but hard technical data is the best way to assess something like a planes performance.

[QUOTE=Anlushac11] The truth is the Soviets flying La-5's, Yaks, and P-39 in 1942 and 1943 flew against Bf109's and Fw-190A's and regardless of what you day the facts are they were winning. This is not 1944 and later when there were no trained pilots so that excuse wont work.

Winning? The Luftwaffe sent units from France on R&R on the eastern front. The VVS were doing well by strength in numbers but they were shot down in droves during this period.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#73 15 years ago

IIRC the T-9 was the original 15 round drum feed that was prone to jamming. The M4 was the 30 round belt feed that was almost jam free.

What affect did the jets have on the outcome the war? what battles did they win? The jets were a nice but of technology but had no effect on the outcome of the war, especially with the crappy engines they had. In fact I will say the jets were a detriment to Germany war effort becuse no only did they consume valuable war material they tied up large numbers of piston engined fighters that had to guard the jets taking off and landing.

Everyone knows the German pilot experience was lacking by 1944. How did the Soviet pilots go from being German fighter bait from June-December 1941 to becoming a effective and aggressive air force able to at minimum negate the Germans and at best gain air superiority over the Germans at Kursk and Kuban pocket in 1943?

Bf109E-4 combat weight: 5874lbs. Wing area: 174 sq. ft. Bf109F-2 combat weight: 6173lbs. Wing Area: 173.3 sq.ft. Bf109G-6 combat weight: 6990lbs. Wing Area: 173.3 sq.ft. Bf109K-4 combat weight: 7745lbs. Wing Area: 173.3 sq.ft.

As you can see the weight went steadily up with no increase in wing area. This means the wing loading would have also gone up and this would have resulted in decreased manuverability.

Be hard to ask Mark Hanna anything since he died from injuries received while crashing a burning Buchon, a Hispano Suiza built Bf109 prior to a airshow in Spain in 1999. So Mark Hanna had how much combat experience in a Bf109? he had 2300 hours flight time in historic aircraft at the time of his death. How much of it in a Bf109?

BTW Mark Hanna was not an American, he was British and was born in Berkshire in 1959.

Ok, since it seems you need someone, probably an American to tell you...

There's somehting I dont see several times a day, Europeans making an issue of an Americans nationality. Fair enough, I think your so biased towards the Luftwaffe your about to choke on your own rhetoric.

I also think your opinion that scientific technical specs counts more than pilots is utter crap. Who am I gonna believe a test pilot who flies the plane occasionaly or the man who flew it everyday day after day and knew it better than his own wife.

I am accusing you of revisionist history. The VVS were getting slaughtered by the Germans on the Eastern front to the point that Luftwaffe sent pilots to R&R there yet they still managed to get enough experience to turn the tides of the air war.

Oh wait, are you gonna tell us its because the Germans pulled their experienced pilots off the Eatern front to reinforce the western front against Allied fighters and bombers? But wait now we have inexperienced US pilots flying aircraft that werent as good performers as the Bf109 or the Fw-190 and yet tehy miraculously were able to sweep the Luftwaffe from teh skies and gain and hold air superiority.

Allied tanks afraid to move in daytime in fear of German attacks? In Belton Coopers time with the 3rd Armored division from D-Day to Germany in 1945 he saw IIRC 2 Bf109s flying low and very fast, and 2 Fw-190's which went after the L-4 spotter planes. The rest were German bombers flying at night dropping butterfly bombs on anyhting that even looked suspicious.

The Bf109 was crap. It was nothing more than a single seat Bf108 Taifun fitted with the biggest engine they could graft onto the airframe.

How long did the Bf109 suffer from wing flutter when the guns were fired, to the point that pilots thought the wings were going to snal off?

How much role did the wing flutter and wing wing spars play in the decision to abandon the wing guns?

Was the Bf109 plagued with problems related to the wing spars in the later models when the weight went up resulting in additional bracing for strengthening which added weight ot the wings?

Was the narrow track landing gear of the Bf108 Taifun a liability on the Bf109, especially when the weights went up?

Even the P-40 could outturn the Bf109 E's and F's in North Africa. Clive "Killer" Caldwell when engaging Bf109's in Africa made every effort to draw the Bf109's to lower altitude where the P-40's performance was much more closely matched.

I say German tactics and pilot skill compensated for alot of the Bf109's weaknesses. It ws a good fighter for its day but there was a reason produciton was being shifted towards Fw-190's.




Gauntlet

Dead rather than Red!

50 XP

25th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,346 Posts

0 Threads

#74 15 years ago

hmmmm...I'm afraid to say anything at all but I'd do it anyway: DONT BAD-TALK MY SWEEEET, SWEEEET '109! :'( FRIEDRICH! BONTA DIDNT MEAN IT!

Anlushac11Everyone knows the German pilot experience was lacking by 1944. How did the Soviet pilots go from being German fighter bait from June-December 1941 to becoming a effective and aggressive air force able to at minimum negate the Germans and at best gain air superiority over the Germans at Kursk and Kuban pocket in 1943?

True, but I would also say that the VVS had gotten much better fighters since the rude awakening in june '41. You still had this insane pilots like Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall, Kittel, Nowotny, and other good pilots who mostly flew on the Eastern Front, who destroyed...like...several 1000s of the VVS planes, but aces alone cant hold back an such insane force like the soviet war machine. Yes, in '44-'45 the german experienced pilots was beginning to disapear one by one, and the Soviet pilots gained-more and more experience - and numbers... I think I've heard something like in the autumn '43, the total number of fighters on the eastern front was something like 20 Soviet, for every 1 german...now thats some overwhelming odds....