Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 7/20/2004 2:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: "Nele VII" AP
Date: 7/19/2004 9:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



ArtKramr wrote in message
...
ubject: Night bombers interception....
From: "Keith Willshaw"

hat single aircraft ended up over targets was a result of
the extremely poor reliability of the aircraft, it was not
uncommon for half the dispatched aircraft to have to
return to base. Indeed the USAAC described the B-17C
as being unsuitable for combat use.


Why do you think we gave them to the Brits? Same reason we gave
P-39's
to
the
Russians.

Pokrishkin was grateful for P-39 achieving "only" 59 victories! So much
for
an "Iron Dog" in the hands of an ace )))))



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


How a plane performs in the hands of an ace is meningless. There were
too
few
of them to matter. Its flat spin problems killed too many average pilots
to be
acceptable to us. We had better planes so why suffer a dog? THe Russians
were
not so fortunate


The USAAF operated over 2000 P-39's at peak in early 1944.
Most of these were in the PTO and MTO as the type suffered
heavy losses against the Luftwaffe over France and was replaced by the
Spitfire V in the 31st Fighter Group based in southern England.

They were heavily used in the Med however and post war analysis
showed that they had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any USAAF
fighter used in the European theatre.

The P-39 worked fine for us when it was used as intended, at low/medium
altitudes, which is how the soviets used it. It certainly outperformed the
P-40
in that part of the envelope. The US's biggest problem with the a/c was its
lack of range, something that couldn't be improved owing to the lack of space
forward and aft-mounted engine; there was just no room to put fuel where it
wouldn't screw the Cg. Where that wasn't an issue, and the a/c was used well
forward (as the Russians did), it was fine. And the Soviets had their share
of
excellent a/c.

IIRR it was only used by one or two groups in the Med, but still managed to
fly
30,547 combat sorties (mostly strafing missions) while only losing 107 a/c in
combat, a loss rate of just 0.4%. US P-40s flew about twice as many combat
sorties in the MTO, 67,059, but lost 553 in combat, or 0.8%. They claimed a
lot
more A-A kills, though, 481 vs. 14, which represents their different tasking,
and also dropped a lot more bombs than the P-39 (same Cg/range problem). The
P-63 eliminated the P-39's handling quirks and improved its performance, but
range was still limited and by the time it entered service the USAAF was
using
the P-47 as its prime fighter-bomber. But the Russians certainly liked both
the
P-39 and P-63, because its range wasn't an issue for them. It's interesting
to
speculate how the P-63 would have done in the 9th AF after the invasion, as a
fighter-bomber in lieu of the P-47 or especially the P-51. The Soviets did
like
the 37mm cannon, and the engine was certanly better protected against flak
during strafing attacks than was a P-51's.

Guy


Every WW II pilot I knew who flew the P-39 was glad ot be rid if it.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer