Jump to content
6./ZG26_Emil

We are talking to a WW2 P-51 pilot today

Recommended Posts

Honestly, comparing the Allison powered P-51 with the later versions is like comparing apples and oranges. Pilot reports I've read make it sound like there was little to compare the two other than general appearance.

 

The Soviet Air Force brushed it off in 1942 after testing some P-51As delivered to them - probably because it had no cannon and the armament wasn't in the nose :biggrin:

The P-51A would have been the best performing aircraft in Soviet service in 1942 ,43 and 44. Interesting they opted for the P-39.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Venturi put it right though - relative capacity is what it's all about. In a P-51 you are likely to be flying long-range missions in support of strategic bombers, and it was perfect for that.

 

That's not exactly what I said. I said the P-51A was better than the D at anything other than high altitude. 

 

People forget that the P-51 was around for just as long, as an Allison-engined fighter (not the Merlin-engine P-51D) which was used in North Africa and Italy, before the long range bomber raids into Germany of 1944. 

 

The P-51 airframe has as much or more chronological time in WW2 being used as a pure air superiority fighter rather than bomber escort, and a significant proportion of that time was in the Mustang I or P-51/P-51A versions. Late war Europe was just what stuck in everyone's minds.

 

***I do understand where you're coming from.

Edited by Venturi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old Tempest V would do. Firepower, resistant, great speed and climb rate... The La-7 is just a comfortable, fast beast, which in its La-9 and -11 iterations did in fact make it to Korea :)

 

Venturi put it right though - relative capacity is what it's all about. In a P-51 you are likely to be flying long-range missions in support of strategic bombers, and it was perfect for that.

 

In a Tempest you are dropping the goodies yourself, and in an La-7 while you might drop a pair of bombs here and there you are mostly flying cover for tactical attack and bomber aviation, nearly always taking off from ill-prepared fields right by the front lines, shifting from airbase from airbase as the cavalry rolls through enemy territory. In that case, protecting an attack flight that is flying at 350km/h and at 800m, you won't get much done flying at 750km/h, whereas manoeuvrability and a decent cannon armament are very important.

Unfortunately, the " tactical " approach took the Soviets 5 years of war to make it to Berlin.

That's not exactly what I said. I said the P-51A was better than the D at anything other than high altitude. 

 

People forget that the P-51 was around for just as long, as an Allison-engined fighter (not the Merlin-engine P-51D) which was used in North Africa and Italy, before the long range bomber raids into Germany of 1944. 

 

People also don't realize the P-40 had similar range (1600mi). Both were used as air-to-air fighters.

 

The P-51 airframe has as much or more chronological time in WW2 being used as a pure air superiority fighter rather than bomber escort, and a significant proportion of that time was in the Mustang I or P-51/P-51A versions. Late war Europe was just what stuck in everyone's minds.

 

***I do understand where you're coming from.

Interestingly the early P-51's were very good dive bombers . Additionally, several of the early airframes were armed with 4 X 20mm cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like this one, on a test flight over Southern California?

 

P-51A_zps1wys0n1v.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure you can compare Mustang to Spitfire V.. ;)  Spit MkVIII had the comparable engine, and Spit Mk XIV entered service 5 months before P51D I think,  :) Griffon powered Spits were in planning as early as 39

 

"Eric Brown (RN test pilot and holder of the world record for number of types of aircraft flown): "I have flown both for many hours, and would choose the Spitfire [over the Mustang] if given a choice in a fight to the death." 


Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book JG 54: "The Jagdflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers." 

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice." 

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who se
rved mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, than Mustangs..." 



USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air." 

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..." 

The Mustang was a great fighter, but it was great because it had the range the Spitfire lacked, enabling it to take the fight to the enemy. 

But in a one-on-one dogfight, there's absolutely no comparison. The Spitfire would win decisively, 99 times out of 100..."
 
The greatest feature of the Mustang was its outstanding range as well as being a great fighter aircraft  :biggrin: 
 
Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not really sure you can compare Mustang to Spitfire V.. ;)  Spit MkVIII had the comparable engine, and Spit Mk XIV entered service 5 months before P51D I think,  :) Griffon powered Spits were in planning as early as 39

 

"Eric Brown (RN test pilot and holder of the world record for number of types of aircraft flown): "I have flown both for many hours, and would choose the Spitfire [over the Mustang] if given a choice in a fight to the death." 

Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book JG 54: "The Jagdflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers." 

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice." 

 

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, than Mustangs..." 

 

 

USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air." 

 

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..." 

 

The Mustang was a great fighter, but it was great because it had the range the Spitfire lacked, enabling it to take the fight to the enemy. 

But in a one-on-one dogfight, there's absolutely no comparison. The Spitfire would win decisively, 99 times out of 100..."
 
The greatest feature of the Mustang was its outstanding range as well as being a great fighter aircraft  :biggrin: 
 
Cheers Dakpilot

 

I recommend you read what the Polish pilots thought of the Mustang vs. Spitfire. No prejudicial or bias beliefs , they flew many aircraft from several different countries of origin. To a pilot they preferred the Mustang over the Spit to go to war in.

 

Neither the Mark V or VIII compare to the Mustang.

Like this one, on a test flight over Southern California?

 

P-51A_zps1wys0n1v.jpg

That would have been a fun ride to engage the enemy in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Neither the Mark V or VIII compare to the Mustang.

 

It is really relative, all depends on situation, time and place. In Burma where Spitfire VIII range was sufficient (though still did not allow for prolonged dogfights) and it was this fighter that gained the air superiority. Despite the American presence with P-38s and especially P-51A, the overall records indicate that British fighter did much better. And opinions coming from the other side tend to confirm that, Japanese in their Ki-43s and Ki-84s had much harder time with Spitfires than Mustangs. There were in fact numerous instances when Mustangs were shot down by Oscar pilots, despite their 80+ mph speed advantage.

 

On the other hand Spitfire VIII would fail miserably in any operations from Okinawa where range was crucial and so Mustangs and Thunderbolts carried the escort missions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am sure the Polish pilots were happy in 1945 to transition from 1941 era Spit MkV to Mustang, No-one is denigrating the Mustang here, I only got involved in this to correct the statement that Mustangs used same engine as Spit MkV which is certainly not correct and gives a very different spin on performance( Packard Merlin is based on 66 series Merlins)

 

The  pilots from USAAF Squadrons who transitioned directly from the Spit Mk VIII to the Mustang in 44 are probably the best people to listen to, they had good combat experience and success, mostly they felt it was a downgrade as a fighter,  notwithstanding it's range advantage

 

The Mustang is good enough as is, and has a record that does not need it to be compared with much earlier aircraft to justify its reputation. To be fair it must be compared to similar era aircraft, for example P-51D - 1944 Spitfire marks.

 

I fully agree that a Mustang (any variety) is better than a MkV, but a Mustang B or D  is also better than a Bf 109 E7 but it does not prove anything.

 

anyway sorry for dragging this off topic

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately Russians opted for P-39 for lend-lease aircraft. If the decision had been for example P-51A or C, the Finnish Airforce would had very lethal and formidable opponent against it (given ruskies learned to fly with it).
Now in retrospect I can safely say that it was good the Ruskies did not have any P-51s against Finns Me 109s. Otherwise we wouldn't have and had so many aces amongst our tiny population of Finns. :)

Edited by LLv32_Damixu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more about pilot quality than the aircraft, Damixu, The Soviets lost more aircraft than their opponents throughout the conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, about that P-51 pilot...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pilots from USAAF Squadrons who transitioned directly from the Spit Mk VIII to the Mustang in 44 are probably the best people to listen to, they had good combat experience and success, mostly they felt it was a downgrade as a fighter, notwithstanding it's

 

I just finished the book "Woodbine Red Leader", whose squadrons were one of the last to transition from the Spit to the 51's in Italy and said most preferred their P-51B's. Turn fighting became irrelevant after WWI. Edited by Y-29.Silky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished the book "Woodbine Red Leader", whose squadrons were one of the last to transition from the Spit to the 51's in Italy and said most preferred their P-51B's. Turn fighting became irrelevant after WWI.

Absolutely, positively 110% correct- Speed and Range were the two most critical attributes for any aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more about pilot quality than the aircraft, Damixu, The Soviets lost more aircraft than their opponents throughout the conflict.

The numbers never have supported this erroneous assumption, it  usually is  brought up by someone champion the inferior aircraft. The vast majority of all confirmed kills from any of the WW II combatants were made by pilots who never came close to the unofficial, 5 kill Ace status. The Speed and range of the P-51 allowed the novice pilot to engage from superior altitude, with superior speed, no Luftwaffe or JAAF aircraft could keep up in a dive, zoom climb or straight line speed. When the Luftwaffe had to disengage because it was low on fuel, they couldn't do this safely either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed and range are useful within the operations performed by the USAAF, USN and USMC, but they are not one-size-fits-all specifications even today (JAS-39 for example). The MiG-3 was one of the fastest aircraft in 1941 (only 60km/h slower than the P-51D at the same altitude, in fact) and sported excellent range for the time, but within the operational realities of that year this meant nothing since there was no need for long-range operations and air combat happened at ranges where its maximum speed was denied.

 

The Mustang was the absolute best for the American strategic offensive, undeniably, due to its speed and range as you said.

 

For the 2nd TAF in 1945, speed was preferred over range because they were fighting a tactical war down close to the front lines. Getting in and out of the hot zone quick and intercepting fast-flying enemy aircraft were priorities. Here the Tempest and Spitfire fit the bill nicely.

 

For 216 IAD in 1943 both top speed and range were less important than firepower, sea level speed and manoeuvrability since they were defending very small patches of land from incoming well-escorted Ju-87 and Ju-88 formations, and escorting Il-2s and Pe-2s to the front lines and back. Hence the P-39 had its glory due to good low altitude performance and a very powerful armament. The reports of battles over Kuban usually go 'four of us went in through the enemy formation, fired the machine guns and cannons at all bombers that appeared ahead of us, three fell in the first pass, I got two. We fought with ten Messerschmitts afterwards'.

 

The Soviet Naval aviation in turn needed range badly to escort its bombers out at sea, and here the Yak-9 in its D and DD versions did a great job. Top speed was not in demand however since they were mostly covering Il-2s, Il-4s and Pe-2s laden with bombs.

 

In other words, every air force and theatre needs a fighter that can do its job well within the specific conditions presented there. Some times it's speed, some times it's range, some times it's firepower and some times it's a decent armament. The Luftwaffe called the Yak-9U "the Russian Mustang" upon its appearance, owning to its good performance at medium altitudes. The Yak-3 down low as also a world-beater. Yet some Soviet pilots were partial to the La-7 instead because it sported a pair of 20mm cannons intead of one cannon and two machine-guns (inadequate against the heavily armoured Bf-109s and Fw-190s of the period) and its damage resistance, an important feature when most sorties involved heavy German flak.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed and range are useful within the operations performed by the USAAF, USN and USMC, but they are not one-size-fits-all specifications even today (JAS-39 for example). The MiG-3 was one of the fastest aircraft in 1941 (only 60km/h slower than the P-51D at the same altitude, in fact) and sported excellent range for the time, but within the operational realities of that year this meant nothing since there was no need for long-range operations and air combat happened at ranges where its maximum speed was denied.

 

The Mustang was the absolute best for the American strategic offensive, undeniably, due to its speed and range as you said.

 

For the 2nd TAF in 1945, speed was preferred over range because they were fighting a tactical war down close to the front lines. Getting in and out of the hot zone quick and intercepting fast-flying enemy aircraft were priorities. Here the Tempest and Spitfire fit the bill nicely.

 

For 216 IAD in 1943 both top speed and range were less important than firepower, sea level speed and manoeuvrability since they were defending very small patches of land from incoming well-escorted Ju-87 and Ju-88 formations, and escorting Il-2s and Pe-2s to the front lines and back. Hence the P-39 had its glory due to good low altitude performance and a very powerful armament. The reports of battles over Kuban usually go 'four of us went in through the enemy formation, fired the machine guns and cannons at all bombers that appeared ahead of us, three fell in the first pass, I got two. We fought with ten Messerschmitts afterwards'.

 

The Soviet Naval aviation in turn needed range badly to escort its bombers out at sea, and here the Yak-9 in its D and DD versions did a great job. Top speed was not in demand however since they were mostly covering Il-2s, Il-4s and Pe-2s laden with bombs.

 

In other words, every air force and theatre needs a fighter that can do its job well within the specific conditions presented there. Some times it's speed, some times it's range, some times it's firepower and some times it's a decent armament. The Luftwaffe called the Yak-9U "the Russian Mustang" upon its appearance, owning to its good performance at medium altitudes. The Yak-3 down low as also a world-beater. Yet some Soviet pilots were partial to the La-7 instead because it sported a pair of 20mm cannons intead of one cannon and two machine-guns (inadequate against the heavily armoured Bf-109s and Fw-190s of the period) and its damage resistance, an important feature when most sorties involved heavy German flak.

I will have to respectfully disagree . The Soviet engineers did as every combatant did with respect to improving an aircraft. They attempted to make the Yak and the LA lighter and equip it with a more powerful engine to engineer more speed and range from the airframe. For a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this post , the US understood future aerial  warfare well ahead of any other combatants with the possible exception of Japan. Consequently, the Soviets had the terms of the conflict dictated to them by the Germans. The Soviets had no modern  long distance strategic bomber capable executing massed  strategic air strikes at the industrial centers of Germany. They were forced to fight a tactical war. Conversely, if the  Germans had a four engine bomber capable of long distance strike the war in the East would have gone much differently. The Soviets also, turned their nose at the P-47, which would have been an ideal low level tactical aircraft  for there needs. Interestingly the USAAF stupidly made Bell remove the supercharger on the P-39. Had they accepted the P-39 with a supercharger , they may never had made there way to Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These were different wars though - Japan, the US, UK and Germany were fighting away from their borders.

 

The Soviet Union however was invaded, and every inch of its potential was invested into stopping the Axis advance, and later retaking territory.

 

Anyhow, happy to disagree and while this is a very interesting discussion, we've gone way off topic :)

 

Emil, how's the audio clean-up doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the " tactical " approach took the Soviets 5 years of war to make it to Berlin.

Don't know what exactly is the point here, but Germany and Soviet Union were at war with each other for less than 4 years. Out of that the first couple of years the Soviets were in defensive. Over 90% of total German casualties came on Eastern Front during last two years, when Soviets were attacking.

 

Also about your point, the British were at war with Germany for 5.5 years and the US for 3.5 years - and did not make it to Berlin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers never have supported this erroneous assumption, it usually is brought up by someone champion the inferior aircraft. The vast majority of all confirmed kills from any of the WW II combatants were made by pilots who never came close to the unofficial, 5 kill Ace status.

And you have numbers to support that? I highly doubt it. For Germany it was more like less than 20% of pilots were responsible for more that 80% of aerial victories. For US the numbers were obviously different as the pilots were rotated out faster, but am pretty sure that even for US the aces shot down majority of enemy planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know what exactly is the point here, but Germany and Soviet Union were at war with each other for less than 4 years. Out of that the first couple of years the Soviets were in defensive. Over 90% of total German casualties came on Eastern Front during last two years, when Soviets were attacking.

 

Also about your point, the British were at war with Germany for 5.5 years and the US for 3.5 years - and did not make it to Berlin.

The war started for the Soviet Union when they concomitantly invade Poland  with Germany in September of 1939, the war in Europe ended in 1945. I' am sure you are aware the Allies agreed at Potsdam to let the Soviets take Berlin.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know what exactly is the point here, but Germany and Soviet Union were at war with each other for less than 4 years. Out of that the first couple of years the Soviets were in defensive. Over 90% of total German casualties came on Eastern Front during last two years, when Soviets were attacking.

 

Also about your point, the British were at war with Germany for 5.5 years and the US for 3.5 years - and did not make it to Berlin.

The Germans were very ignorant and knew very little about successfully prosecuting  a war with meaningful military  objectives. There was no strategic military value for attacking Leningrad, Moscow nor Stalingrad, for that matter declaring war on the US .  Further exacerbated by the incompetence at  logistics management. For the record the Luftwaffe suffered greater number of losses to the Western allies vs. the Soviets. As you point out , in fewer years of fighting the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war started for the Soviet Union when they concomitantly invade Poland with Germany in September of 1939, the war in Europe ended in 1945. I' am sure you are aware the Allies agreed at Potsdam to let the Soviets take Berlin.

So when Germany and Soviet Union attacked Poland together, were kind of allies, that started the war between them in your mind? I have to say that I have difficulties following that logic.

 

And about Potsdam Conference, which was held more than two months AFTER the Soviets has taken Berlin, don't you think it was a bit late to agree on such things?

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans were very ignorant and knew very little about successfully prosecuting a war with meaningful military objectives. There was no strategic military value for attacking Leningrad, Moscow nor Stalingrad, for that matter declaring war on the US . Further exacerbated by the incompetence at logistics management. For the record the Luftwaffe suffered greater number of losses to the Western allies vs. the Soviets. As you point out , in fewer years of fighting the US.

Germans knew very little about successfully prosecuting a war? Let me remind you that Germany was the most militarily successful country in the world during 1939 to 1942. Super effective and certainly showed that they knew how take care of business on battleground. Also, Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad were clearly the most important targets militarily.

 

I agree though that Corporal Adolf did some crucial and stupid mistakes there and declaring was to the US was absolutely idiotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when Germany and Soviet Union attacked Poland together, were kind of allies, that started the war between them in your mind? I have to say that I have difficulties following that logic.

 

And about Potsdam Conference, which was held more than two months AFTER the Soviets has taken Berlin, don't you think it was a bit late to agree on such things?

I stand corrected it was at  the Yalta conference. Poland was meant to be a buffer between Germany and the Soviet union for the foreseeable future . When Germany invaded, ,the Soviets  as a defensive maneuver had to use it as an excuse to move forces closer to the border .Ostensible the Soviets and the Germans appeared to be allies. Much the same way the Soviets  appeared to be Britain's and the US allies when Germany attacked the Soviet Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germans knew very little about successfully prosecuting a war? Let me remind you that Germany was the most militarily successful country in the world during 1939 to 1942. Super effective and certainly showed that they knew how take care of business on battleground. Also, Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad were clearly the most important targets militarily.

 

I agree though that Corporal Adolf did some crucial and stupid mistakes there and declaring was to the US was absolutely idiotic.

This discussion should be taken to another thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect the Soviets immensely for their sacrifices and achievements against the German invasion. Let us not forget, the stakes here were genocidal in nature. If you are in doubt, read Mein Kampf.

The Soviets were hampered by political tyranny at all levels, "disappearance" of their professional military leadership prior to the beginning of the war by Stalin et al, by an antiquated industrial infrastructure and manufacturing which was just beginning to emerge from the 19th century (in 1939), and by the surprise nature of the attack by a veteran, well-trained, well-armed enemy, led by tactical experts who were pioneers in mobile warfare. As a result they lost a huge amount of lives and most of their heavy equipment.

Despite this they endured and in the process developed some of the best aircraft of WW2, some of the best armored vehicles of WW2, adopted the German mobile warfare tactics and turned them against the Germans successfully and were the primary national force responsible for defeat of the Wehrmacht. You cannot convince me, given all the handicaps they labored under, that this is anything but a result of the fighting spirit of the nation and of the capabilities of its individual citizens.

Now on the other hand, the air war was primarily won by the Western allied forces. They had the luxury of not being invaded and could devote resources to aluminum production, high-grade fuel, advanced pilot training, and all the other labor and resource intensive requirements for large-scale air war. This started in the Battle of Britain and North Africa as a defensive fight, and turned offensive in the Mediterranean theatre, draining huge amounts of Luftwaffe resources, the same sorts which the Allies were devoting and which the Germans could ill afford, from the Soviet front and therefore decisively weakening the Germans there in all respects.

The success of this strategy prompted the Allies' direction of the air war over Europe until April 1945.

 

So yes, the P-51 is an important plane. And it started to turn around in the Med.

 

Edited by Venturi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a great chat with Joe....it's probably better if people take their unrelated discussions else where :)

 

 

Just working on a new cinematic at the moment and also got my hands full with building co-ops, the server and squad admit etc but as soon as I get a chance I'll transcribe more.

 

We are planning to talk to Joe again in a month or so so we can ask more questions and it would be nice to keep this thread on topic

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a great chat with Joe....it's probably better if people take their unrelated discussions else where :)

 

We are planning to talk to Joe again in a month or so so we can ask more questions and it would be nice to keep this thread on topic

 

Cheers!

Touche and +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Joe's answers were very interesting. Obviously he has a lot to say about the P-51 with so many hours in the type. I'd like to hear more of the day-to-day of how he operated his aircraft and if there was anything that really jumped out at him about the characteristics of the P-40 and P-51.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the " tactical " approach took the Soviets 5 years of war to make it to Berlin.

Interestingly the early P-51's were very good dive bombers . Additionally, several of the early airframes were armed with 4 X 20mm cannons.

That would be the A-36 Apache then....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-36_Apache

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Interestingly the USAAF stupidly made Bell remove the supercharger on the P-39. Had they accepted the P-39 with a supercharger , they may never had made there way to Russia.

You mean Turbocharger?

P-39 had a engine driven supercharger, original design was supposed to have a turbocharger, but this was denied due to limited of production capacity to produce them (Bombers and P-38 were seen as higher priority)

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very right, which is why it was wrong of you to initiate such dialogue in this thread.

Obviously English is not your first language if you misunderstood me' initiating such dialogue in this thread ', try to add content or don't post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously English is not your first language if you misunderstood me' initiating such dialogue in this thread ', try to add content or don't post.

I ask that you do the same. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask that you do the same. ;)

If English was your first language, you would noticed- mission accomplished. Nice of you to take a break from listening to your Prince collection and  add nothing to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If English was your first language, you would noticed- mission accomplished. Nice of you to take a break from listening to your Prince collection and add nothing to this thread.

What are you rambling on about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed and range are useful within the operations performed by the USAAF, USN and USMC, but they are not one-size-fits-all specifications even today (JAS-39 for example). The MiG-3 was one of the fastest aircraft in 1941 (only 60km/h slower than the P-51D at the same altitude, in fact) and sported excellent range for the time, but within the operational realities of that year this meant nothing since there was no need for long-range operations and air combat happened at ranges where its maximum speed was denied.

 

The Mustang was the absolute best for the American strategic offensive, undeniably, due to its speed and range as you said.

 

For the 2nd TAF in 1945, speed was preferred over range because they were fighting a tactical war down close to the front lines. Getting in and out of the hot zone quick and intercepting fast-flying enemy aircraft were priorities. Here the Tempest and Spitfire fit the bill nicely.

 

For 216 IAD in 1943 both top speed and range were less important than firepower, sea level speed and manoeuvrability since they were defending very small patches of land from incoming well-escorted Ju-87 and Ju-88 formations, and escorting Il-2s and Pe-2s to the front lines and back. Hence the P-39 had its glory due to good low altitude performance and a very powerful armament. The reports of battles over Kuban usually go 'four of us went in through the enemy formation, fired the machine guns and cannons at all bombers that appeared ahead of us, three fell in the first pass, I got two. We fought with ten Messerschmitts afterwards'.

 

The Soviet Naval aviation in turn needed range badly to escort its bombers out at sea, and here the Yak-9 in its D and DD versions did a great job. Top speed was not in demand however since they were mostly covering Il-2s, Il-4s and Pe-2s laden with bombs.

 

In other words, every air force and theatre needs a fighter that can do its job well within the specific conditions presented there. Some times it's speed, some times it's range, some times it's firepower and some times it's a decent armament. The Luftwaffe called the Yak-9U "the Russian Mustang" upon its appearance, owning to its good performance at medium altitudes. The Yak-3 down low as also a world-beater. Yet some Soviet pilots were partial to the La-7 instead because it sported a pair of 20mm cannons intead of one cannon and two machine-guns (inadequate against the heavily armoured Bf-109s and Fw-190s of the period) and its damage resistance, an important feature when most sorties involved heavy German flak.

 

Totally agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... except for the offtopic. Has anything moved with the transcription? :) Will it be public on some site? Or are you going to post it in this topic?

Thx again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...