Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

No, I have not heard about it. Any source?
It does not change the fact it was virtually impossible to quickly put it into series, if only because of metric system. Otherwise, Beaverbrook as a politician and journalist had several very bright ideas which were pure nonsense. Otherwise British aircraft production output had little to his work.
You should read my article. Also, would you be so kind to read loss data I have provided in one of your threads?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Kutscha
I think it's waste of time argue with Tony, he has his fixations. Facts which are contrary to his beliefs don't sink in. I'm not even have asked how his beloved Vengeances could have worked in that pouring rain which so much hampered at least the fist days of attack through Reichswald.

Juha

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Oh I know Juha.;) He is selective in what he wants to see and what he doesn't want to see, like Irving. Agendas (the more extemist/radical the worse it is) tend to make ppl myoptic and have blinkered tunnel vision for they have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

And to original question.
IMHO P-39 was a decent low- and mid-level fighter but not one of the greatest fighters.
As a ground attack plane it had too low carrying capacity. Tony is right that it wasn’t very vulnerable to head-on fire but when it began to pull up its nose the radiator and oil cooler became more and more vulnerable and a bit later the engine also. And to AA weapons on both sides of its flight path its engine was as vulnerable than say that of P-40.
If it would have been possible to squeeze say Vickers S gun (40mm) in place of 37mm M4, it would have been capable but vulnerable “tin-opener”, capable to knock out all other German tanks but Tigers.

Il-2, a good ground attack plane, well armoured but with rather limited load carrying capacity. Invulnerable to infantry weapons, probably .5in Browning was marginally dangerous. Rear gunner a plus in strafing attacks. So not at all a bad choice for CAS if own fighters could keep enemy fighters away even if Il-2 formations could be dangerous to attacking fighters.

Typhoon had decent carrying capacity, could look after itself after delivering its weapon load. A good weapon platform. But with a inline engine vulnerable to ground fire. And even in 1944 a depressing number of engine failures.

P-47, even if a ground attack plane with turbocharged engine sound odd, a good choice to CAS work. It had decent carrying capacity and all those ductings gave some sort of armour protection. Radial engine was good for CAS a/c and it also could look after itself after delivering its weapon load. 8 .5mgs gave a good firepower against soft targets and against lightly armoured vehicles like armoured cars and armoured half-tracks.

Juha

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Ask the crew of this one;
http://www.detektorweb.cz/index.4me?...2988&mm=1&vd=1

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Franek.

a) Where can I find your article? I will go back to your loss data. Sorry.

b) I can't remember the source, but it sounds likely because;
Beaverbrook and Stalin had a lot in common;
- neither believed strategic air power could win wars
- both bought from Vultee; Stalin bought a fighter production plant from the Vultee Aircraft Division of Aviation Manufacturing Corporation of Downey, California which was built in Moscow in 1937-38. Beaverbrook bought the Vengeance in 1940
- Beaverbrook was looking for sources of supply for aircraft
- Beaverbrook was also a great campaigner for a 'second front now' to help 'Uncle Joe'. You know Beaverbrook had responsibility for all British aircraft production?
In fact on second thoughts I would say it's almost certain IL-2 production under license was discussed. That was after all one of the reasons Beaverbrook was there with Averill Harriman.

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

One out some 9300 produced :rolleyes: and you do not give the circumstances of how it ended up where it did.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Juha, what makes an aircraft great? What made Il-2 so great? At its time Airacobra was the fastest low(?)-level aircraft and was still in the average when the war ended. Of course performing such profiled missions they should have been covered by high altitude fighters, but they were not. Should we blame the aircraft or the system?
It is correct that Airacobra had a quite low bombload of 500 lbs. The questions why? There were no wing shackles and it is not clear for me if there was a clearance for take off on the centre line rack. I suppose it should go with 1000 lbs with ease. Of course Typhoon and especially Thunderbolt with 2000 lbs or more are in a different league, but it is noticeable Typhoon could originally get 1000 lbs. For a comparison, Il-2 could take some 800 lbs but usually was able to take off with 600 lbs and sometimes flew with less - I have seen documents with complaints about that!
Concerning protection, I disagree, Airacobra had no exposed radiators and they were easy to protect if necessary. Doubtless P-47 was better in this regard being radial powered. Typhoon was a bitch in force-landing and especially ditching. Il-2 was controversial, some pilots liked it due to protection, some hated due to poor handling. Optimised for a mere 1000 m altitude, Il-2 was prone for any fire, and suffered heavilly.

Tony, I was not very fair with the article. Nonetheless it is fully explainable why Il-2 was built in quantities. It was simply available.
Concerning Kremlin talks. How do you know Stalin was against strategic bombers? They had their own strategic air arm, although decimated and obsolete, they begged for B-17s, they have used everything they found and they copied B-29s. Quite a contradictory, is not it?
Concerning other guys, Harriman was responsible for Lend-Lease (so they were likely discussing deliveries to Soviet Union) and later was presidential adviser for Eastern Europe. In the meantime he was on a Soviet payroll, being a spy or an agent.
Beaverbrook was a successfull media owner who in 1930s lobbied for a pro-Soviet option and then, in 1942, for a second front in Europe (when Allies were not yet capable for it). I would not write more, I have no proofs and I will not risk legal action with his descendants.
It must be stressed, however, that increase of British aircraft production was due to pre-dating Beaverbrook's nomination plan of increase production, which resulted, among others with CBAF. Beaverbrook would achieve nothing without that, and his policy of reducing spares' stocks within units seems weird to say the least.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

The driver was day-dreaming of a ženská as he drove alongside a winding stream, and not paying attention when the bank collapsed and his right Ostfrontkette went into the stream. The bottom plate contacted the soil, unweighting both Ostfrontketten which continued to churn the mud without getting a purchase. The driver said; "Scheiss. Verzeihung, Chef". The tank commander replied; "Verdammte Idiot. Wenn nur wir ein Churchill haben, den wuerden wir Schwein haben. Rauss. Marschieren. Heil Hitler". So they got out and walked, while the StuG slowly vanished into the swamp.
It was noisy on the battlefield, so the German phrasing may be a little garbled.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Nice story. Did you get that from the Grimm's?