Best plane of WW2
 

what do u think it is,
I personally think the mustang was

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Mustang was often credited as the plane that won the war...

I still like the FW-190A series for its duribility and versitility. After that, I would probably say the LA-7, just for the sheer ownage I get while playing with in in IL2:FB.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

The P-51 Mustang with the Merlin engine was a jack of all trades, it had good speed, good climb, turned very well, and due to the rear fuselage mounted fuel tank excellent range. It was not the best.

Best fighter I would say would be a toss up between a Spitfire XIV, Tempest II/V, Yak-9, Ki-84 Hayate, and P-51H.

In the case of each aircraft the altitude of engagement will be a deciding factor.

My favorite aircraft would be a P-39 Airacobra as modified by the Riussians and flown by Aleksandr I. Pokryshkin, a pilot who I rate as one of the 3 best fighter pilots of WW2.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Would say the B-17 and Lancaster myself.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

I like the P-51, solely because she was a beaut, and well, kicked ass.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

The corsair was a mighty good plane, my second choice would be the LA-7 or the spitfire.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Just no foreward visibility...

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

FOr americans, I would say the Corsair. For russians, the p-39, yes, I know, american planes, but the russians made it into one of the best damn fighter planes ever. For brits, the Spitfire, for Germans, the Me262, and for japs, the George (forget offical title).

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Kawanishi N1K1-J Shinden and the later N1K2-J Shinden-Kai.
Allied Code name: George and George 21

The Shinden was a land based derivative of the Kawanishi Kyofu, Allied Code Name: Rex

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

the P-51? Did the 6x.50 cal damage planes enough?

Personally, I wouldnt have flown a plane unless it had atleast 1 cannon...

I would have prefered Heinz Bär's special Me 262 with 6xMK108 30mm cannons... ;)

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Considering that the Spitfire made due with 8 .303 Brownings, yeah, the 50s were fine. That of course is if your target is another aircraft. Couldn't tell you what a fifty would do to the top armour of your typical German heavy tank of that time.
But I also believe that the Me 262 was the apogee of aircraft design for 2 reasons.
First is speed. The ability to disengage is an important factor in dogfighting. That means that you have a greater chance to pick your fights than your slower adversary. Also as an interceptor, the sooner you engage, the farther your adversary is from his intended target. Therefore the more likely he is to turn back empty handed, so to speak.
Second is the nose mounted weaponry. Wing mounted weapons had to be calibrated to specific distances to maxmize their efficency. With the Me 262 there was a cone of death as far as the pilot could see. And the 30mm cannons kinda helped too.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

The best fighter was the Hawker Hurricane, not just because of it's flight characteristics and superb handling; but also because of the relative ease of maintenance when compared to other metal hulled warplanes.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Hmm...good question. My personal favorite aircraft would have to be the Hellcat. Fast, menoverable, hard hitting with 6 .50's, and bult using the good ol Grumman Iron Works. Plus, the Hellcat shot down 3/4 of all enemy aircraft in the pacific theater. They're pretty sweet looking too :)

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Wasnt it just the Spitfire Mk I and Mk II that had 8 MGs?
I thought the rest had 2x 20mm canons, and 2-4x MGs?http://forums.filefront.com/images/s.../confusedx.gif

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

There was none better than this magnificent machine! They phased it out way way too early! What a dogfighting beast she was!!:lol:


http://www.bluejacket.com/usn/images...lo__8-1942.jpg

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

The buffalo fighter ( I think it is that)

Me fave....P-38 Lightning, P-51 Mustang, Spitfire, FW-190, Zero.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Difficult question. I'd say Spitfire XIV or Focke Wulf 190 D9.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

You speak too soon. The Finnish used that fighter in WW2. Their tops aces with it? He had something like 50 kills on Russian planes with that beast. later got more with Me109s. But the Brewster was actually a gret fighter plane.

Interview with Juutilainen, top scoring Finnish ace, with 94 kills.
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/finace01.htm

All air victories scored by the Brewster
http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm

and here is a grea website on the Finnish airforce
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/history.htm

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Maybe so ...but against seasoned Japanese carrier pilots in their A6M2s ....it was about as useful as a bull in a china shop.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

on second thought I like the lightning
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...ges/p38-11.jpg

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

It should be noted that the Brewster Buffalo's flown in the PTO were mostly overweight and underpowered navalized versions flown by green pilots with no combat experience flying against veteran combat experienced Zero pilots. It was a shooting gallery.

The British and IIRC Netherlands versions were the B339 export version wich was much lighter. They had more expereienced pilots, In the Brits case some even having flown in the Battle of Britain. The export versions fared much better but were still outclassed by the Zero.

The Finnish Buffalo's, aka the Finnish "Zero's", were very highly modified from stock.

Everything not related to keeping the airframe airborne was removed.

The original about 900hp engine was pulled and rebuilt 1200hp Wright Cyclones were installed but moved about 4" forward to improve center of gravity.

The rudder area was increased in size to compensate for the increased torque and to give better directional stability.

The wing tanks were removed and fuel tanks installed in the fuselage. This lightenmed the wings and improved roll rate.

Larger ailerons were installed which increased responsiveness and increased roll rate further.

The wimpy 7.62mm (.30cal) guns were removed and 4 x .50cal guns were installed. IIRC all 4 guns were installed in the fuselage to keep the wings light and roll rate high.

The US ring and bead gunsight was removbed and a excellent Revi reflector gunsight was installed.

This modified Finnish Buffalo rolled, turned and climbed like a Zero and was even faster than a Zero and was well armed for the time with 4 x 12.7mm (.50CAL) mg's.

The .50 cal was good in air to air since it had a good muzzle velocity, good rate of fire, and was very capable against the aircraft of the time. Alot of that relates to most Axis aircraft being light and manuverable. Lightweight meant they didnt absorb damage well so a .50 cal would chew up enemy aircraft pretty well. The WW2 Soviet aircraft were built on same principle as the Germans in that they were lightweight and manuverable but were more rugged.

It wasnt til the US encountered MiG-15's over Korea that the .50 cal was finally too light. The MiG-15 was a very rugged strong design that the .50cal couldnt do damage to fast enough. US countered with F-86C with 4 x 20mm cannons.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

It may not be the best plane but...

I certainly love the Stuka!

Blitzkrieg would never become famous without our beloved Stukas.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Nonsense, THIS was quite the fighting machine!http://www.ww2guide.com/tbd.jpg
http://forums.filefront.com/images/smilies/pwned.gif

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Actually it wasn't a 'navalized' version. It was the original version. IIRC Brewster Aeronautical Corporation was awarded the contract over Grumman to build the Navy's first mono-wing all metal carrier borne fighter aircraft. It wasn't until they had completed a working carrier plane that it was 'de-navalized' for land based service.

So what your saying is the Finns and everyone else took a sub-standard naval fighter ..... modified it heavily, put their best and most seasoned pilots in it ...and had success ....wow whoda thunk that would happen.

And FYI ....Red Parks Marines were not all green boys that climbed into those death traps that fateful day in June of 42 ...some of them were highly skilled aviators who lacked only the genuine combat experience of their Japanese adversaries. And how could they have? They didn't have the luxury of a three to four year Chinese test bed to hone their skills while being shot at. But they were by no means the same lowly caliber of pilot that would be filling Japanese suicide planes in late 44 and 45.

I'm just so so glad that my grandfather ended up in a Scouting squadron back then flying SB2Us and then SBDs. They were about the only American birds that weren't dropping like flies thru the early months of 42. But they sure were doing a lot of 'dropping' of their own.

IMO ....if ya'll want to pinpoint one signifigant aircraft that really made the difference in the war .....it was the Douglas SBD Dauntless.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

I really like the p-51, its awsome.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

The Finns bought 44 Brewster model 239's Decemebr 16th 1939. The model 239's were the same as the US Navy's F2A's but with all the naval and carrier equipment removed.

Why do you have a problem with someone taking a second rate fighter and turning it into a success? I applaud the Finns for their ingenuity and resourcefullness. And you cannot deny that the Finnish modified the Buffalo into a suprisingly good airplane.

I dont see this as being all that different than the mods that turned the Allison engined P-51A into the excellent Merlin engined P-51D.

Or when Japan modified the Kawasaki Ki-61-II-KAI-KO into the Ki-100 after their supply of Ha140 engines disappeard in a B-29 raid.

Im not pointing fingers, Im stating facts. I am saying that while the Buffalo was not as good as it should have been part of blame lies with pilots with no combat experience flying against veteran combat pilots. In other words it wouldnt have made a heck of a lot of difference if those pilots had been flying Wildcats.

And what does Japanese pilot experience in late war have to do with the comabt experience of the US pilots at Midway in 1942? It has nothing to do with it. Your throwing in irrelevant facts to detract from the reality of the US pilots inexperience. If the US had modified their Buffalo's even half as much as the Finns did would it have made a difference? with inexperienced pilots probably not.

Does it mean the US pilots were poorly trained and led? No it means the pilots were going against the best the IJN had to offer and they were cut to ribbons.

If experienced combat pilots had been flying the Buffalos could they have used tactics to counter the Zero? maybe keeping airspeed up to limit Zeros manuverability?, boom and zoom tactics?, Thatch weave? No one knows.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Essentially here you are just regurgitating what I said. They bought a de-navalized version of an aircraft that was originally requested as and designed as a naval fighter.


LOL! Sounds like you were insulted there. You made a mountain out of a mole hill with regards to my statement ...but then again ...for the short time I've been on this forum I've seen you do that often enough. I too offer Kudos to the Finns for what they did with an inferior aircraft. IIRC and I should seeing as how I own one ...they also did a fantastic job converting M91/31s over to their higher standards in the M39 Finnish Nagant. I had always heard amazing accounts of feats of incredible accuracy out of this rifle .....but I didn't believe them all until I obtained one myself and won match after match with it.


Well thats fine ...but it appeared that you were bashing US Marines for something that was completely out of their control. I was just coming to the rescue and when you do state facts ....state the complete fact. And I disagree ....I will never blame those brave and valiant Marine pilots for lack of anything. I blame their superiors for allowing it to come to that situation in the first place. And by that I don't mean Midway or the war ..I mean being unprepared 6 months after Pearl to properly defend that vital outpost on the frontier of the Empire. Usual bureacratic foot dragging before the war played a big part in our men being ill-equipped to get the job done early on.

Now this paragraph made me laugh. You don't ever seem to read enough into my statements and understand what I mean. I was simply using the low calibre of late war Japanese pilots as a comparision ...a yard stick, if you will, to show the less informed readers that our Marines on Midway were not just a gaggle of ill-trained greenhorns with less than 25 total hours of stick time. So it was far from irrelevent ...it reenforced my point. I like to use references and comparisons in my discussions ...so get used to it.

Which is what I said in my previous post and I'll say it again ....Our boys didn't have the leasurely luxury of three to four years of combat against a half-assed enemy to hone their skills whenever and where ever they chose too. Suppose all of Red Parks Marines were fresh from England after serving with the Eagle Squadrons and they too were finely tuned and combat hardened. They would have given a better account of themselves most assuradly. Could they have won the day with 15 Buffalos and half a dozen Wildcats? Probably not ....but they would have given Nagumo's boys a good scar to remember the occassion.

Ok ...go ahead and pick this one apart like you normally do and we'll just keep going round and round.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

hands down spitfire.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Agreed. Every simulation I try with a spitfire, it cant be f*cked with. I like the p-38 lightning for looks. The P-40 (forget nickname) because if its 50 cal MG.

I think the Japanese Zero was the best.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

The point I was originally trying to make by using the term "Navalized" was that the USN, and USAAC for that matter, had a bad habit of testing the prototypes, then adding all their gear.

Thus you have Brewster model 239 or model 339 exports. You take a model 239 and add all the "Navalized" gear and you have a F2A naval fighter.

Same with a Widcat. You have a Gruman G-36 export version. Add the "navalized" gear and you have a F4F Wildcat.

The Buffalo prototypes and the export versions didnt have all the extra weight of the gear that made them "Navalized" such as liferafts, flotation gear, instruments, radios, carrier arresting hooks, etc.

As quoted in a interview with Pappy Boyington -
" I remember asking him about the Brewster Buffalo (Then, Now and Always, my favorite aircraft). I had no sooner finished saying the word 'Buffalo', when he slammed his beer can down on the table, and practicaly snarled, "It was a DOG!" (His emphasis). Then he slowly leaned back in his chair and after a moment quietly said, "But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other shit, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little f*** could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and f***** it up."

The lighter export versions flown by the British at Singapore and by the Netherlands East Indies and the lightweight modified versions flown by the Finns was not the same aircraft flown by the US in the PTO.

I was referring to your apparent dismissal of the hard work the Finns put into making the aircraft a worthy air combat fighter.

Im sure the Finnish Nagant is a very nice weapon.


Regardless of who you blame or dont blame the fact was the pilots had no combat experience, and were not well trained in air to air tactics.

You call the Bufflao a deathtrap. Seems the Netherlands and Brits made good use of them while they could, and the Finns certainly didnt think of theirs as deathtraps.

I fully agree with the problem of why the word was not passed around about the Zeros manuverability. Even with only two weeks warning pilots could have worked on ways to deny the Zero the use of its manuverability.

Your point was irrelevant. No one considered Kamilkaze pilots with 25 hours of stick time fighter pilots. Their job was to point a plane at a ship and fly into it. Nothing more.

And yes they were illtrained. They were not properly prepared and informed about the Zero's capabilities. Agreed it wasnt their fault but the fact remains they were illprepared and illtrained to deal with Zeros.


Which half assed enemy? The British and Netherlands pilots, some of who had combat experience in Europe and Battle of Britain? or Claire Chennaults flying Tigers?

The point Im trying to make which you dont seem to be able to understand is that it wasnt all the planes fault. Nobody is knocking the Marines efforts.

Im saying you and others have the attitude that if the pilots had been flying another aircraft such as Wildcats things would have been different. I think the word you used earlier to describe the Buffalo was "deathtrap". Doesnt sound like a impartial opinion to me.

So the US lost 13 out of 20 Buffalo's compared to 4 out of 6 Wildcats?

Not suprising when 75% of the fighters that went up were Bufflaos that they would take the most casulties.

That the Midway fighters lost 17 while shooting down roughly 14 enemy planes is a credit to their adaptability considering they were outnumbered.

There were a number of Battle of Britain vets who flew Spitfires against Zeros from Australia who thought that because they had combat experience and had what they considered the best fighter in the world and a aircraft considerably better than the Buffalo, that they could easily defeat the Zero.

Many of them died the hard way learning the Zero was not a aircraft to taken lightly. It required teamwork and tactics


PIC, PICK, PICK...your turn to pick it apart as you are prone to do as well Mr. Pot (we can assume that I am Mr. Kettle)

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Addendums:

) Most export models had a different engine due to the US declaring their superchargers to be classified technology.

2) I would add the Japanese Naval Aviators got their first combat experience with Zero's in China from August 19th 1940 when the type first saw combat there.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

I had a book based on the fighters of WW2. It was cool.Too bad there was nothing written about the bombers.Anyway,all fighter aircraft of WW2 seemed to have been plagued by numerous problems.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

My favorite fighterplane has to be the Spitfire.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk...I/spitfire.jpg
It was fast and not liked by the germans :p

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Like it too. I prefer the XIC. So damn fast!

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Spitfire and Hurricane.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

LOL Anlushac. Your alright in my book!

I see many of your points but I still think some of mine were valid and I still think my comparison to late war Jap pilots was valid. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I find it entertaining how a lighhearted little comment of mine about the Buffalo could blow up into a full fledged debate about not just the Buffalo ....but what happened around it and to whom and by whom! Good stuff there.:lol:

One thing about that quote from Pappy. When did he formed this opinion about the Buffalo? IIRC, the Brewster was one of the very first monoplane all metal aircraft accepted for service. So if he went from flying transitional bi-planes to the Buffalo I can see how one would think it was a 'hot ship'. The problem with the Buffalo and the Devastator was that they were innovative and new in a time period where state-of-the-art seemed to change within a rolling three to six months timeframe. Accepted into the fleet and congratulations! ......its obsolete!

And by half-assed ...I meant the Chinese. Not our boys in the AVG ....they did a stellar job considering what they had to work with and where they were working from....but I was under the impression that there were too few of them to really make a deep impact on the ariel juggernaut of the Imperial armed forces.

Kettle and pot?? Hardly...I see us a two huge Rams that occasionaly butt heads and annoy the hell outta everyone else with that damned echoing banging noise! QUIET DOWN!! THE SQUIRRELS ARE TRYING TO SLEEP!!

Ok ...back to you .....Punt!:sillyme:

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

lol, Hohenzollern, we were to rams in the WW1 thread. ONly we were argueing the exact same point, yet somehow were fighting over it.... I still don't get how that worked....

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

LOL must be a common thing. Anshulac and I often either argue the same point, near the same point or we argue in two different directions! It's one of the endearing qualities that makes this particular board the most entertaining one that I visit.

:cheers: Cheers!

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

The Aircobra was not a terribly good aircraft. In terms of performance, it was average. While it's design allowed for a rather large gun to be installed within the propeller hub, the relocation of the engine to just behind the pilot made it a bear to work on, practically necessitating the need to tear the aircraft apart to do even routine maintenance. There's a reason the US sent almost all of them to the Soviet Union with Lend-lease.

I have to say one aircraft that really got my attention was the Dornier Do 335 Pfiel. It had better performance than the P-51, the fasted speed of any piston aircraft of the war, and carried a formidable arsenal of 3 30mm cannons and 2 12.7mm machine guns. Luckily for us, they only had 12 or so made before the factory was overrun.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

LOL, u know nothing of the p39, do you? IT WAS ONE OF THE BEST FIGHTER PLANES OF ALL TIME!!! THE RUSSIANS MOWED DOWN THE GERMANS WITH IT! THE TOP ALLIED ACE SCORED ALL BUT 6 OF HIS 63 KILLS IN THE P-39!!! Learn your stuff first man. We used against the Zero, it was no match. But, used against the 109, it had more armor, better turn radius, bout as fast, and better guns. THe P-39 could ranks in the top 10 fighters of WW2. And, the Pfiel? That never saw combat. Was a great plane, far superior to the P-51, as proven in US Airforce tests, but we are talking about combat planes, not ones that barely made it off the shelve.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

I was actually suprised you and I were in a heated argument, we usually get along with no real problems. I already know Im bullheaded so the Ram thing fits LOL

IIRC Pappy flew alot of different aircraft before he resigned his commision and went to fly for the AVG. He left teh AVG when WW2 started partly because he said he was having problems collecting on some Zero's he shot down.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Yes I remember that from a book I read about the history of VMF-214. I was just thinking that going from a bi-plane to any monowing fighter back then would have sparked a similar opinion in many a pilot regardless of how lackluster it was to become only a few short years later. And I agree with you about the P-39 Airacobra. It is definitely one of my top 5 favorite aircraft of all time. Tricycle gear, cool name, monster cannon ....whats not to love?

Heres a 'what if' for everyone to knaw on .....What if they went ahead and made the decision to supercharge the Allisons on all the P-39s produced. Would the Airacobra have gone down in history as one of our most successful air superiority fighters of the war? Would there have even been a need for the P-51 series? Would the history books have shown massive formations of B-17s and B-24s under escort from swarms of P-39s ( and P-63s later on ) over Europe instead?

What do you all think?

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

P-39 versus Zero:

Actually the P-39 though much maligned as a dog actually had a 1.1:1 kill ratio in the Pacific. That means the P-39 pilots were giving slighty better than they got.

The Pilots who first got their P-39's in New Guineau at 17 mile strip basically saw a bunch of crates arrived. They had no groundcrews and no manuals and had to borrow tools but spent the next two weeks assembling and testing their P-39's. After they felt comfortable they started flying combat air patrols.

Another problem encountered mostly on Guadalcanal were most of the P-39's were actually Brit P-400's with Brit oxygen equipment. US oxygen equipment was not compatible so pilots could not fly over about 15,000ft without oxygen. The 20mm cannon was loved as a much superior weapon to the very low velocity 37mm gun. I have heard a story that crashed P-39's on Guadalcanal and New Guineau had to have a guard on them immediately lest the P-39 pilots scavenge the 20mm guns out of them to install in their P-39's in place of the 37mm gun.

I have read in multiple sources that many P-39 pilots removed the .30cal wing guns as they were considered worthless and the weight removed improved the performance.

When you consider the pilots had no prior training in P-39's and had to teach themselves the aircraft, and started performing CAP's within two weeks is amazing. The US P-39 pilots did suffer bad casulties but came up to speed very quickly on how to engage in combat with a Zero.

With both aircraft taking off from a stop the P-39 left the ground first and arrived at 5000ft as the Zero was arriving at 4000ft.

Below 10,000ft and from a cruising speed of 230knots the P-39D had a very obvious acceleration from the Zero.

From 5000ft ot 10,000ft the P-39 climbed to altitude 6 seconds before the Zero. From 10,000ft to 14,800ft the P-39 and Zero were almost equal. From 14,800ft to 20,000ft the P-39 arrived 5 min after the Zero.

From rollout to 14,800ft the P-39 maintained a climbing advantage but over 14,800ft ran out of power very rapidly.

Max Speed P-39D: 360mph

Max Speed A6M model 21 Zero: 330mph

Above 200mph the Zero also suffered a noticeable reduction in manuverability due to airflow over the large ailerons and rudder causing the stick to become harder to move. All Allied pilots quickly learned to keep airspeed over 200mph and not to get into a turning fight with the Zero.


P-39 versus Bf109:

The Soviets first P-39's were actually ex-British P-400's. They differed by havng a Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon in place of the M-4 37mm cannon, Brit .303 MG's, British oxygen system, Brit radios, British fire extinguisher, etc. This was not as much a problem for the Soviets as they were already operating British equipment such as Hurricanes, and Spitfires.

The first thing the Soviets did was strip everything including oxygen and all but pilot armor out of the P-39's. The Soviets even stripped out the 4 x 7.62mm MG's, ammo boxes and firing gear out fo the wings. Pokryshkin insisted the radios stay as they were vital to his new air combat tactics. The Soviets were able to remove almost 1800lbs out of each aircraft. The Soviets then added between 300-500lbs of weight to the nose to balance out the plane to be more nose heavy.

This left a 37mm or 20mm cannon in the nose and 2 x 12.7mm MG's. This was considered adequate firepower on the Eastern front and was actaully heavier than the Bf109's.

Bf109F usually had 1 x 20mm cannon and 2 x 7.92mm MG's. Bf109G's had 1 x 30mm or 1 x 20mm cannon and 2 x 13mm MG's.

The Bf109F and the Soviet modified P-39D/P-400's top speed and power to weight ratio was almost even. Due to its slippery aerodynamic shape the P-39 had better initial climb because it did not bleed off energy very fast but in a sustained climb the Bf109F was better. The P-39 turned much better than the Bf109's and dove better. Against the Bf109G the P-39 was still a better turner but didnt climb as well.

The FW-190A was considered a more dangerous advesary. The Soviet P-39 could outturn and out zoom climb the Fw-190A but the Fw-190A rolled much better, and had a better top speed. Dive speed was about even.

The main thing in the Soviets P-39's favour was that both the Soviet VVS and the German Luftwaffe were both primarily tactical air forces whose main purpose was direct battlefield close air support or behind the battlefield in support of the troops. As such combat very rarely took place over 5000m and usually was under 3000m. At this altitude the P-39 thrived.

Alexander Pokryshkin who finished the war as Soviets second highest ace liked hte P-39 so much that on early 1945 when his squadrom transferred to La-7 fighters Pokryshkin refused his La-7 and flew his P-39 til the end of the war, flying the La-7 only occasionally.

Another myth is that P-39's were used by the Soviets primarily as tank busters. FALSE!

The US sent the Soviets almost exclusively M54 HE shells which were worthless against tanks but lethal to bombers and fighters. The muzzle velocity was only about 600ms

Soviets used the P-39 as they would any other fighter. It mostly did fighter escort, strafing, flak suppresion, and free hunt.

There were a number of Soviet aces who had more kills in P-39's than most other Allied pilots in better aircraft types.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Biggest Achilles heel to the P-39 which is one of the main reasons it was pulled from service was that it had fairly short legs. Not a big deal over Russia where your squadron may be only 20miles behind the front, but its a big deal when you have to fly from Guadalcanal to say Bougainville or Rabaul.

P-51B and P-38J.L pilots could squeeze over 2000miles range out of their aircraft. P-39 was lucky if it could do half that.

Pilots flying out of New Guineau had range problems since they had to climb over the Owen Stanley mountains to get to Lae or Buna on the north and northeast coast where the Japs were.

Now add a fuel miserly Merlin to a P-39? Yeah I think that would have been sweet.

Also a note of interest, The P-63 Kingcobra did not have a supercharger but had many aerodynamic improvements. Performance was said to be almost equal to the P-51A but the USAAF did not want to adopt another fighter design, they wanted to concentrate on one model. If the P-63 had gotten the Merlin of Griffon engine and the 20mm camnnon it would have been a heck of a nasty air combat fighter. I am partial to the P-63D Kingcobra with the actual bibble canopy.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Yeah. If I am correct, the reason that the Army/Airforce forced the removal of the superchargers was that the big intake ducts weren't "areodynamically effecient.":lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Want a good laugh?

NACA (National Advisory Council for Aeronautics), the forerunner of NASA, advised the Army that superchragers were not needed.

In the P-39's case NACA advised on redesigning the radiator intakes and exhausts, nose landing gear door covers, and the carburetor air intake scoop behind the cockpit, these mods did increase the top speed and reduced buffeting. Then NACA recommended removing the superchrager system.

Back then NACA reasoned that supercharger systems were so large, bulky, and heavy that removing the supercharger would make the plane light enough to negate the downside of removing the supercharger. This was fine until air combat moved to over 15,000ft and suddenly the P-39 and P-40 were crippled at altitude. Below 15,000ft where the supercharger was not as important the P-39 and P-40 kicked butt.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

Okey. I ask this out of stupidity (because I dont know shit about the P-39), but could the M-4(?) 37mm be fitted with armor-piercing shells? :confused:

And you said something about the regular 37mm HE shells, those must have been HIGHLY effective against troop concentrations and soft targets, true?

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

The P-39 was absolutely devestating strafing soft targets and soft targets. Would have been even deadlier if the M4 cannon didnt have such a slow rate of fire. Thats why the 20mm cannon was preferred, its much better trajectory made it easier to hit targts and still fired explosive rounds.

There was a AP shell for the M4 37mm cannon but the US never sent any AP ammo for the M4 37mm gun to the Soviets.

Re: Best plane of WW2
 

But did the USAF use the AP-firing ammo?