Me-109 or Spitfire?

I would never take a P-38,with the technology they had back then it was impossible to synch the engines. If I could choose only one I would take the 109.
 
General Specific said:
Interesting to note that the Russians also loved the Bell P-39, of which American pilots had a very low opinion. Shoot, they even liked the non-turbocharged versions. I remember thinking it was completely bizarre that Oldsmobile produced the original 37mm cannon for it and it had very little ammo capacity. Subsequent models were equipped with a 20mm with more ammo.
Click to expand...

The Hispano-armed variant was a British invention. They still hated it afterwards, as did everyone who ever used it -- except the VVS. Strange ones, those Russians...

Actually it makes perfect sense in retrospect, sort of. The P-39 (and P-63 for that matter) was a great performer below 20,000 feet or so. It was more maneuverable than what the Germans were using, was heavily armed and armored, and reportedly was very reliable and tolerant of rough use...exactly the sort of thing that the Russians wanted. (It also had an enclosed, heated cockpit and a radio, and they likely didn't mind this either.) Its altitude restriction wasn't a problem on the eastern front, as there were no worthwhile targets for strategic bombing and thus, no reason to fly high.

The lack of ammunition capacity for the M4 wasn't a problem as designed. The original concept was for a high altitude, high speed interceptor that would slide in behind a bomber formation half a kilometer out or so and knock down the bad guys with a shot or two a piece from a position of relative immunity to bomber defensive armaments. (Which were nearly always ~.30" or so, and wouldn't have done much to a P-39 from the front even at closer distances. Remember that odd mid-mounted engine and hidden radiator?) The problem was that mission never materialized, the prototype evaluated for performance wasn't actually armored, and the design had been altered enough that the result was quite the opposite of what was desired. It made no sense at all by the time it was built and was pretty much useless by American standards.

Even without the M4, the N and Q variants were acceptably armed for fighters of the day, at least where they operated. Notice that the Russians in some cases deleted the fifties from the wings, but they always kept the nose cannon. They liked that thing! (And the plane probably would've been unflyable without the weight up there regardless. :)) The Russians also had an aversion to wing-mounted guns but that's another topic entirely.
 
I'd like to revisit the Brewster for a moment(have the flu, first time in days I've checked the Cantina). I recall reading that a Buffalo flown in shifts by several Finn pilots has more aerial victories than any other individual aircraft. The Finns took the Buffalo, stripped off a lot of excess weight, upgunned & installed a better gunsight. They nicknamed them the "Flying Beer Bottle".
Uplander
 
Great information there Dave R. I imagine the position of the radiator would make it a pretty good candidate for ground attack if the pilot was protected sufficiently too! I do recall that the 37mm had a bad reputation for jamming after only one or two shots much of the time. And 30 rounds still seems a little thin. I wonder how effective it was against tanks, as I think I recall that the Russians liked it for that business as well...

The first big pictorial WWII book I got in 1972 had some Russian sketches illustrating ramming techniques, i.e. wing-tip snapping with underside of own aircraft, chopping the tail off with the prop, etc... using the p-39. Still have that book boxed up somewhere. Hope it isn't still at the ex's:thumbdn:

Regards,

Dave
 
The Stuka Pilot, Hans Rudel, destroyed 5oo Soviet tanks with the 37mm cannon. I would say the 37mm is quite effective against tanks!
 
Lycosa, I understand the Russians did some good work with the Sturmikov's as well, but I'm wondering if the P-39 specifically took out many tanks with that 37mm or if they suffered from the poor reliability reported by other Allied pilots. 500, damn, that's a lot of death from above!

Regards,

Dave
 
There's 37mm and then there's 37mm. The cannons Rudel used were BK 3,7's, which fired the 37x263 belted round. The M4 in comparison used the 37x145 rimmed. They were not in the same ballpark in terms of power. Even the BK was marginal for this task by the time it was brought into service as such. Rudel got away with it because he got very close before firing, knew the weak points to aim for, and was a very good shot. He also did not get all his tanks with cannon fire; divebombing was still the preferred way to do this and was much more successful overall. We remember him for the big guns today but it was his skill at bombing that earned him his fame back then.

He was also quite aggressive, which must have played a role in his numbers. It's been a while since I've read his book but IIRC he rarely came home without a shot-up aircraft and was actually brought down a number of times, losing at least one tailgunner in the process. I do remember him mentioning firing from inside 100 meters for maximum effect -- not an activity for the faint of heart.

Interestingly enough, Rudel did report that the Stuka G's were fantastic for screwing up water crossings. The Russians tended to use a lot of crude barges built on site; most aircraft weapons would simply drill a lot of holes in them and cause some swearing, but the boats themselves would often stay afloat and if they sank, the crew could get out and swim. The BK's were directly descended from Flak 18's and used the same ammunition, which was still in the inventory; loaded with HE projectiles, such boats (and presumably their contents) could be completely demolished in a single hit.

As far as anyone can tell, the Russians never used the M4 in an antitank role. With the proper M80 AP loads contemporary tanks would've only been annoyed by it, and the US never sent them any AP ammunition. The HE loading would've been ineffective against even most prewar tanks. There's some confusion about what role they played in attacking softer ground targets as reports differ, but it's generally agreed that if they were used as such, it was secondary to dealing with other aircraft. It should have performed adequately at this role though -- heavy armor, good low speed maneuverability, plenty of firepower and no exposed cooling system. I suppose that it would take a certain kind of pilot to roll like that without an engine between himself and incoming fire, though. :) There is a reason that radials are remembered as the engine of choice for mud movers.

If 30 rounds was light, the Stuka's BK magazines held a mere twelve rounds. That's not a lot of shooting, but compared to a bomb-armed Stuka acting as a divebomber there was the potential to destroy more tanks at less cost. It made sense from a commander's standpoint, I guess. Remember that both of these guns were originally designed to perform a very specific role, and that even one success would justify the expenditure of the entire ammunition loadout. Lots of ammunition was not required -- was not even possible, really.

As for the Finns, BW-393 is the plane thought to be the most "winningest" airframe of WWII, with 40 victories achieved in it. The Brewster is one of those odd planes (like the P-39) that is remembered today as being inadequate, when in reality it was simply used incorrectly. As has already been stated, the Finns did great with it and loved it. The Allies considered it to be a widowmaker and did not do well with it. Why?

Simple -- the Americans had wanted a carrier plane and set it up as such. It was not a good choice for this. When the Finns received theirs they had no preconceptions about what it was supposed to do and simply fixed it: excess armor and baggage was removed, the weapon loadout was changed slightly to something that made more sense, and the maintenance issues with the engines were figured out and corrected. (Rather simply, at that.) The underpowered dog became a fast, agile fighter, and then the Finns (with a little help from Hans Wind) figured out how best to fly it, instead of figuring out how best to make it fly like they wanted to fly as the USN did. Between this and the very different nature of the air war over Finland from the Pacific theater, they wound up with one of the most successful aircraft of the war.
 
When it comes to things that go BANG! Dave, indeed, is a cornucopia of encyclopedic information!

Thanks Dave!

This was a good old timey Cantina thread, in my opinion, at least as far as my experience goes!

Well done!

:thumbup:

:D

Tom
 
That alone should give the edge to the Spitfire. Our P-51 was a pig when it was tested with the orignial Allison engine. It really didn't shine until we popped the Rolls-Royce into it.
I'll attest to the puny size of the BF-109. I've seen two in warbird museums(one was a spanish copy dating from the late 50's!).
I'm another proponent of the P-47. Built like a tank and an amazing aircraft.

Of the heavy bombers I'd opt for the B-24. Little known variant was the VLR version that was stripped of armor, superchargers and crew to allow it to close the Atlantic Air gap which was a notorious ambush point for U-boats to decimate our convoys in the mid-atlantic. One Liberator assigned to this duty was far more effective than ten assigned to Bomber Command.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top