Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

This aircraft was rejected by the RAF without reference to the Army because of an irrelevant lack of performance at altitude.
It was fitted with a cannon with a low muzzle velocity suitable for knocking down bombers but unsuitable for killing tanks.
The engine was mid-mounted and therefore less vulnerable to ground fire.
The Russians fell in love with it. The British Army never knew it. The USAAF were ambivalent.
What were the pluses and minuses of a unique design?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

The engine was still liquid cooled.

What the Brits thought they ordered was not what they got.

"Bell Aircraft executives later sheepishly admitted that their performance figures had been based on the unarmed and unequipped XP-39 prototype, which weighed a ton less than the armed and equipped P-39C."

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Ordered by the French and taken over by the UK, its initial shortcomings as a fighter are discused at some length in W. Wolf's '13th Fighter Command in WWII'. Many were later reclaimed by the AAC and being the only aircraft available were used as fighters during operations over New Guinea and Guadalcanal, during which they performed poorly. Later used in the ground attack role 'its low-altitude performance, good protective armor plate, and a heavy armament' made it a 'superlative attack aircraft' and it gained much praise.

However this was in the face of limited ground defences, whether its would have been able to survive any better than over Allied aircraft, with its liquid cooled engine, in the face of flak defences found in Western Europe is another question.

Regards,

Steve

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

2 TAF's CAS aircraft, Typhoon and Spitfire, were both liquid cooled with the engine in the most exposed position.
The only air-cooled CAS plane IIRC was the P-47 Thunderbolt.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Oh deary me. The A-36, with its engine stuck out the front, flew 23,373 missions and lost 177 a/c to all enemy causes. Gee, that is 132 missions per loss.

Now what is all this babbling about engines out front being most exposed?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Indeed, and this was their greatest weakness. The P-39 would have been no better, and of poorer performance. You are however forgetting the ground-attack missions carried out by the USN, USMC, and the Japanese Army and Navy. All used radial engines. As did the Russian Su 2, and the unsuccessful Su 6, regarded as superior to the Il 2 but by then there was no point in stopping production. The Italians also used radial engines for ground-attack missions, as did the French. And Swedish, Romanian...... The RAF used liquid-cooled engines in the role because they were the best engines it had available at the time of placing its wartime types into mass production. Had Fedden not spent so much time on the sleeve-valve, then perhaps a poppet-valve Hercules or Centaurus could have been available much sooner, and the story completely different.

You also say "This aircraft (P-39) was rejected by the RAF without reference to the Army because of an irrelevant lack of performance at altitude." But there as nothing irrelevant to the RAF about a lack of performance at high altitude. They already had two superior types with better low-altitude performance, the Typhoon and the Mustang. The RAF just didn't need the P-39, and at that stage wasn't desperate enough to take anything that could fly.

It is certainly interesting to consider just what it was about the Soviet operations that brought out the best points of the P-39. Partially it has to be a criticism of their own types, particularly their robustness and weak armament. One key point seems to be the lack of significant medium-altitude bomber operations, either as subjects of attack or requiring defense. If you only meet the enemy, or protect your friends, at low level then a lack of performance at higher levels becomes irrelevant. The agility of the P-39 would come into its own, and you don't need great speed to run down a Stuka or an Fw 189.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Both the Hurc and Centaurus were sleeve valves. Are you saying they could have been re-designed with poppets?

The Soviets did not leave the P-39s stock (as shipped from the USA).

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

P-400 ordered by French? I understand this was a purely British order. Also, it is worth to note the reason behind rejecting by the RAF. Hardly pressed by Soviet demands for Hurricanes and Spitfires,the latter being in short supply, the RAF decided to send Hurricanes to North Africa and then to supply Soviets with American aircraft available. There was a substantial fear of sending new types to North Africa because of critical situation there and a rather poor maintenance and recovery there. Otherwise P-400 would likely see a more active service.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

France was sufficiently interested that they ordered 200 Model 14s on October 8, 1939.

After these four missions, the RAF Airacobras were taken off operations because of difficulties encountered with the compass. The compass was too close to the guns in the nose, and when the guns were fired, the compass got thrown out of alignment. Deviations of anything from 7 degrees to 165 degrees were recorded. Without a reliable compass, pilots tend to get themselves lost.

In spite of the problems with the compass and the need for flame dampers for the exhaust and flash suppressors for the nose guns, the RAF concluded that the Airacobra would make an excellent day fighter at altitudes below 20,000 feet and was well suited for the ground-attack role. However, before these plans could be implemented, a decision was made to divert the bulk of the British Airacobra contract to Russia.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Let’s not get caught up with the myth about the Airacobra being USED as a great ground attack aircraft – it wasn’t, though it may have had some potential.

In reality, the Russians used it as a fighter for interception, for fighter sweeps, etc at low to medium altitudes. Any ground attack role was purely incidental based on short term requirements for battlefield use, not as an intended full-time role. The 37mm cannon was not designed with anti-tank armour piercing ammunition in mind. The Russians found it marvellous as much for it’s relatively advanced (for them in 1942-43) radio gear as much as any firepower or flight-characteristics. It’s a big advantage to send your fighters off on an intercept mission, and then be able to redirect them mid-flight.

The USAAF in North Africa and Italy used them as tactical reconnaissance due to their relatively high low-level speed. The French and Italian Co-Belligerent Air Forces were given hand-me-downs and were used predominantly ground attack role in Italy due partly to the reduced level of air opposition, and because these now tired and run-down P-39s were probably not the best aircraft to take on Bf109s and Fw190s in air combat.

The RAF flew 4 (or was it 6) sorties in their Airacobras before “retiring” them. These were low-level intruder (Rhubarb) missions, which were fighter sweeps against targets of opportunity, not necessarily ground attack. However, 6 sorties is not really enough to make a judgement on any possible future use.

The USAAF in the Pacific used the P-39/P-400s for whatever use was required on the day – intercept, recce, troop support, bomber escort, strategic bombing. In the early days of the Pacific war, there was basically insufficient resources to designate any fighter capable aeroplane to a specific role. So the Airacobra was no more a ground support aircraft than was a USN/USMC Wildcat. In late 1943-1944, the P-39 squadrons retired their aircraft and replaced them directly with P-38s, P-47s, P-51, etc. There was no planned widescale redesignation of P-39 squadrons for the ground attack role.

Historically, the P-39/P-400/Airacobra was a fighter primarily and used as such where-ever deployed in large numbers. Any ground pounding was a secondary task.

This is not to say that it did not have some potential as a tactical support/assault aircraft. It’s load carrying capacity was reasonable, and it was reasonably fast down low. The 37mm cannon would have made mince-meat out of soft-skinned targets. It would have been easier to retrofit armour in the nose cavity without an engine to get in the way, but the centre of gravity shift with this modification may have effected flight characteristics. Fore-aft CG balance was always an issue under certain loadings. A weak point may have been the fuel tankage in the wings.

...geoff

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Kutscha wrote : France was sufficiently interested that they ordered 200 Model 14s on October 8, 1939.

Can you mention a US type that was not ordered by the French between 1939 and 1940? They even placed an order for LB-40s (Liberators) though they had no plans to use strategic bombers!

Chris

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

No: I am saying that if Fedden had not gone down the route of sleeve valves then powerful British radial engines could have been made available sooner. On the other hand, Napier could not have debugged the Sabre without the Bristol experience.

The Soviets did not make major changes to the P-39s, mainly removing wing-mounted weaponry. Where the P-39 did differ from other Lend-Lease types was that strenuous efforts were made to maintain the supply of fuel additives so that the P-39 units operated with 100 octane fuel. Perhaps somewhat higher opinions would have been held of the Hurricane had the higher boost usable with 100 octane been available.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Don't agree. The P-39 was superior to the Typhoon, Spitfire and P51 because although all their engines were liquid cooled, that of the P-39 was protected from ground fire. And protection of the aircraft's vitals from ground fire was the sine qua non of a CAS spec.

And was there any reason why the P-39's 20-mm low-velocity cannon could not have been replaced with a high-velocity cannon to make it suitable for tank-busting? Is there any evidence this role was even considered? Certainly the British Army was never consulted. And when the RAF cancelled the armour that had been ordered for fitment in North Africa to the successful Hurricane IID, which was equipped with a high-velocity 20-mm cannon, there should have been some thought given to its replacement - and not with an RP Typhoon which suffered from vulnerability and inaccuracy.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

The P-39 was of significantly poorer performance than the Typhoon and the Mustang, and no less vulnerable. Its engine was no more armoured, the central position making no difference to a flak gun, and it is mainly hits to the radiators and piping that make an inline-engine design vulnerable. It had no advantage to either of the other types, and considerable disadvantages. Not least the problems of introducing yet another type, for only a specialised role.

It may be possible to have developed the P-39 to take either the Vickers or RR gun as a replacement for the central cannon, but why? Half the firepower of alternatives, on a basic airframe nice enough perhaps, but that simply provided nothing not already available elsewhere in the inventory.

The Hurricane Mk.IId was replaced by the Hurricane Mk.IV, which did have armour. If you have knowledge that armour was prepared but not issued for the Mk.IId that saw action, please share it, otherwise this seems like pure invented slander. Despite the mixed results in service, the RAF continued to develop the big gun approach, testing it on both the Typhoon and the Mustang, and retaining Hurricane Mk.IV units in the UK until mid-1944. The problems always remained that it required a slow approach and overflight of the target area, with a low rate of fire, whilst permanently limiting the performance and agility of the platform. The actual guns available were seen as unable to penetrate the armour of the forthcoming generation of German tanks, which the rocket could and did, and the future operational environment deadly. (That the heavier German tanks only appeared in limited numbers was fortunate, but not clearly foreseeable.) The guns were retained on Mk.IVs in quieter theatres, remaining until the end of the war in Burma, where their specialised advantages could be used without their disadvantages.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Thanks for the clairification Graham.

I have read that the Soviets lightened the P-39. They also replaced the 37mm and .50" guns with the 20mm B-20 cannon and the 12.7mm Berezin UBS mgs.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

1. The Hurricane MkIV was not armoured in any meaningful sense. Your repeating it does not make it so.
2. The source about the Hurricane IID's armour is Shores' 'Ground Attack Aircraft of WWII', published in 1977, page 66. But what's the point of this discussion. It's going nowhere.

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

What was this protection on the P-39? Certainly you don't mean the thin aluminum fuselage skinning.

What cannon would that be?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

The Hurricane Mk.IV carried armour around the engine, radiator and cockpit. If this was not "meaningful" in comparison with the lack of same on the Mk.IId, then I suggest the difference is semantic not real.

Thanks for the Shores' reference, I shall look it up.

I would agree that the discussion seems to have moved away from its original intention, at least as I saw it. We are not discussing the real P-39 but some imaginary idealised version that might have embarrassed even Larry Bell.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

No, I don't mean the duraliminium skin. I mean the armoured bulkhead referred to by Shores below, and I believe there was armour protection to the oil cooler, but here I am out of my depth. I am referring to a design that could have been improved for CAS.
To quote Shores: "the engine was situated behind the pilot .... in this position it was considerably less vulnerable to ground fire than in the usual nose position, where instead armour plate had been installed.... It was its ability to double as an extremely effective ground attack aircraft which particularly endeared it to the Russians' hearts..."

How about the 40-mm fitted to the Hurricane IV?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Janes' gives a weight for the extra armour on the Hurricane IV as 350 lbs. The 8-mm seat back must have been responsible for most of that. Compare the weight of armour on the IL-2 at 2,092 lbs; the Ju87G-1 at 1,540 lbs; and the Hs129B at 2,370 lbs. Shores doesn't think the Hurricane IV's extra armour is even worth a mention, writing only of its 'universal wing'. I wonder if you are pulling my leg.

We are discussing a P-39 design that was inherently superior for CAS than the Typhoon, and given a tiny bit of good will on the part of the RAF could have been made into a good CAS machine.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

With all respect to Mr Shore, the P-39's role was:

1. Protect ground units from enemy aircraft
2. Escort bombers
3. Suppress AAA in the area of bombers
4. Reconnaissance
5. Free hunt
6. Attack soft targets (i.e. troops, convoys, supply dumps, railroads, airfields, barges or other small naval craft)
7. Protect high-value friendly targets (i.e. bridges, amphibious landing forces, reserves, command and control, major cities, etc).

Gee, that 350lbs of armour on the Hurrie is less than what the P-39Q had, being 231lb. So what was the worth of the P-39s armour?

At least with an engine in front, some protection is given to the pilot, unlike the engine behind the pilot in the P-39.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Gents
I am afraid this discussion leads to complete misunderstanding.
I have never claimed that the Airacobra was a ground attack aircraft or prepared for such duties. It is not true that it was not used for ground attack, perhaps the most interesting case being the one when Airacobras successfully bombed German targets in Jabłonna area - they were send there because Il-2s were unable to get through defences! It was also quite common for Soviet fighters to fly supporting ground attack missions, anti-Flak or shooting up targets of opportunity. There is still a lot of discussions in Russia if 37mm armed Yak-9T was intended as a bomber destroyer or a ground attack aircraft, so there was something about it.
Now, considering various options for a successfull CAS aircraft we must consider several factors and possible modifications. Airacobra (and do not forget Kingcobra) was fast enough for a ground-attack aircraft (it was not going to intercept anything), it was agile enough, definetelly had superior visibility forward and below, had smooth undersurfaces which is very important in expected force landings (Mustang was a killer in this regard, and I suppose Typhoon was not better), armament compartment, apart of being in line of aircraft which is generally considered a better sollution, especially for varying distance of fire, allowed some significant modifications (Oldsmobile vs Hispano), engine and cooling system were hidden in the structure and not exposed, thus protected by some mean and much easier to increase the protection.
I see Airacobra an interesting alternative for Allies that did not materialise. I am wondering if it was ever considered, but I doubt. Anyway, it did not happen.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Graham, the sleeve valves are the very one feature that made the Hercules and Centaurus so excellent engines. With poppet valves they would have been mediocre engines with much shorter TBO, higher fuel consumption and substantially increased diameter for the same capacity. The same applies for the Sabre. The sleeve valve is vastly superior to the poppet valve. Now you ask why it hasn´t been adopted universally. The answer is the same as why the significantly inferior VHS system won over the Beta system: whims of commercialism.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Well it happened in the MTO to some extent, go to http://www.ghostbombers.com/JG2/jg2frame.html and click on "2–6 April".

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Re Hurricanes: the armour plate behind the pilot was there on the standard aircraft, so would not be counted in any deltas. If you seriously doubt the presence of any other armour, just look at the different shape of the radiator on the Mk.IV. In all fairness the Mk.IV is certainly the least well described of all the Hurricane variants, but if you do some more research you will track down details. There never was, however, any suggestion that its armour matched the amount present on the Il 2. Armoured and unarmoured is not a simple yes/no switch, but covers a wide spectrum of possibilities.

I have checked against Shore's description on the desert Hurricane Mk.IId. Nowhere does it state that the the armour was in existence and deliberately taken out because of RAF instructions, as you suggest. He states that the design did not have it, which is well known. I suggest it is ambiguities in the word "omission" that has mislead you. It was omitted for the same reason as a cigar lighter - because it was not specified and not available. I grant you that it would have been more useful than a cigar lighter, but as Shores points out it would also have penalised the already poor performance of the tropicalised Mk.IId. Life is full of compromises, and combat aircraft design has many.

I believe that the P-39 could have been turned into a reasonable GA aircraft - as good as the Spitfire, say. Why anyone should bother, given the alternatives, is more difficult to imagine. Despite dubious unproven claims of survivability, I still see no good reason why this slower less-powerful type, with its inadequate payload and limited firepower, should be preferred to the more rugged and capable Typhoon for the GA role.

The forward radiator does not seem to have been any penalty in belly landing, though it was in ditching. The Typhoon was very tough, with a rigid cockpit and pilots survived very heavy landings. One drawback was in the event of overturning, where the bubble-hood version lacked a roll-over bar or pylon and several pilots suffered severe spinal injuries or broken necks. I am very surprised that this point was not picked up early in service.

Jukka: your comments are entirely true from the viewpoint of interesting and exciting engineering. Wonderful engines. However, Fedden's efforts in that direction meant that an 1300hp radial (the Hercules) was not available in the same timescale as the Merlin, and the 2000hp Centaurus missed the war altogether (apart from a few Warwicks). With all the benefits od hindsight, I suggest that the RAF, particularly its ground-attack units, could have been better served with clumsier draggier engines of similar power available two years or more sooner. Other nations managed perfectly successful power units without the theoretical attractions (but very severe development problems and delays) of the sleeve valve. It is that horribly depressing situation of compromises again. The war came just too soon for the sleeve valve.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Please study the development of the R-3350 to see that poppet valves quaranteed no easy time. In fact, according to Kevin Cameron who has studied the R-3350 very thoroughly, not until the TC18 were the final problems of the R-3350 eradicated.

It may also be argued that had Bristol´s board´s and Fedden´s relations been better, he would have got more funds to speed up the problem solving. I.e. e.g. the R-2800 benefitted from the complete support of the management and thus the resources of the company.

And if you study the development of the Bristol Jupiter, neither was that so easy path.


And I do believe that if properly designed, a liquid cooled installation can have at least equal protection against enemy fire, probably greater than that of air cooled radials by using two widely separated buried radiators and providing the possibility of completely isolating the damaged one allowing some power to return to base.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

I never claimed that any engine design was easy: however Fedden's relations with his management might have been better had he taken a more conventional route requiring less investment in research and development. But then he was a genius: my single advantage is hindsight.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

1. It is not clear 350 lbs is a delta although that is how it's described in Jane's, which calls it "additional" armour. But "additional" to what? The MkI was issued without any armour and the armoured seatback was retrofitted, IIRC, during the Battle of Britain. So was armour, and if so how much, ever part of the MkI specification? Has anyone got the absolute weight of armour fitted to the Hurricane IV, please?

2. I don't know what edition of Shores you have. But mine has the following; "Efforts were made to provide armour for the Hurricane IID in England, but this was never to reach units in the Mediterranean, and the 'tank-buster' disappeared from Allied service during May 1943". Shores is here referring obliquely to events that I have read about in some other tome that I cannot recall, which stated that the armour was designed and built in Britain before being cancelled by RAF bigwigs who did not want to go down that route, for the reasons we know - ffing bloodymindedness and refusal to cooperate with the army.
And did you read Shores' understatement of the year at the end of the paragraph on the Hurricane IID's armour question; "However the Hurricane IID was to prove the most accurate aerial anti-tank weapon of the war for the RAF, and the failure of the Anglo-American aviation industry to produce an equivalent of the IL-2 or Hs129B was to be a matter of some regret to a fair proportion of high-ranking army opinion". Cor, not arf! But it wasn't the industry that failed the army, but rather RAF tunnel-thinking and obstructionism prevented the army from getting effective CAS.

You may have gathered I feel heated about this question. Damned right. I know the graves in the Reichswald where the results of RAF bigotry lie buried. It was one thing for the RAF to allow Butcher Harris free rein to butcher his aircrew in something called The Battle of Berlin ("it will cost the Germans the war", Harris predicted), but another for bastards like Coningham and Tedder to prevent the army from looking after its own by providing half decent equipment.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Tony
living in Finland and knowing what forests are alike and having been in a army I really wonder how P-39s of Il-2s could have significantly reduce casualties of an army attacking through thick forest against dug-in fanatical enemy. So can you enlight me?
Have you ever advances through thick forest in attack formation or have you ever laid in ambush position waiting for attacking force appearing to your hidden killing zone, or in middle of firefight trying to figure out what was the right moment to disengage and withdraw your men to next ambush position?

Juha

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Well, the R-3350 is a perfect example of "a more conventional route requiring less investment in research and development." At least so did Wright´s purse string holders believe...

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Cherrypicking Jukka: the equivalents of the Hercules and the Centaurus are the R2340 and R2800. Neither had particularly difficult or extended development histories, both had exemplary war records. The R3350 was a 4-row radial "corncob" of double the power and later in concept - although earlier than the Centaurus into service. Which I think supports my point not yours. Did Fedden ever propose a massive 4-row radial?

Tom: Shores does not support emotive and slanderous comments such as you produce. Not getting the armour to the Mediterranean operations does not imply any deliberate obstructionism. I find it difficult to conceive of RAF officers on their tour of staff duty at the Ministry deliberately cancelling deliveries of armour to Hurricane units - on the grounds presumably that they enjoyed the idea of extra casualties, or perhaps just because they never did like old Bloggs since that rugger match at Cranfield..........

I suggest that the additional weight of armour was additional to that concurrently in production on the Mk.II. This would exclude the rear pilot's armour and for that matter the armoured windscreen. Taking the differences back to prewar Mk.1s is just fatuous.

As is comparing the finest of German 1945 types with an aircraft that had already been in service for three years, with a replacement in service alongside it and production running down. In any war, airforces will have a mix of the latest and earlier types. Compare like with like.

Few have doubted the accuracy of the Hurricane IId. Some have suggested that the claims were overinflated, but that is true of all areas of combat. What was clearly in doubt was its survivability and hence overall efficacy. You are repeating arguments that have been countered, and continue to misrepresent officers who dedicated their careers to close partnership between the Army and the RAF.

Do you really think that Tedder, in his position as head of the Desert Air Force in 1942, was in a position to call for the specification, design, development, placing into production and then service, of some wonderful aircraft combining the precision of the Ju 87, the armour of the Il 2, and the performance of the Ta 152? All in less than two years? Such a chimera would be impossible in any timescale: any decent compromise impossible in that one. Tedder, much more so than Coningham in his lower position, could have been one of the influences on the production schedules that led to the 1944 order of battle, but he could not start with a clean sheet and had to deal with the options available.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

What the hell is "R-2340"? This is a completely new design to me. When did the 18-cylinder R-3350 transform into a 4-row radial? BTW, Centaurus´s capacity is 3270 cu.in. BTW, an R2800 is a 2800 cc small radial, an R-2800 is something else.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

I blame increasing arthritis in my fingers - which this series of postings sin't helping? I meant of course the Twin Wasp R-1340 and the R-2800. I don't see that the other errors affect my point.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

And when did the Twin Wasp become an R-1340??? And comparing even the R-1830 (=Twin Wasp) and the Hercules is absurd at best since the fomer topped at around 1350 hp, the latter at over 2000 hp. The closests realistic comparison are the the R-2600/the Hercules and the R-3350/the Centaurus. Even the larger R-4360 (=Wasp Major, poppet valves) topped at about 3000 hp with 100/130 fuel (3500 hp and over ratings required higher PN fuel) while the Centaurus achieved the same on the same fuel from over 1000 cu.in smaller displacement with at least double the TBO.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

You are stepping outside the point of the original comment. Both the Hercules and the Twin Wasp were in the 1300-1500hp class in 1941: that the Hercules was later developed beyond that is a measure of its quality rather than relevant to a discussion on entry-into-service dates. In 1943, both the Double Wasp and the Centaurus were in the 2000hp class (as indeed was the Sabre). Postwar power outputs are irrelevant here.

That the US chose to make bigger engines rather than developing their earlier designs to the utmost is an interesting engineering option: it does not make the long-delayed Centaurus an equivalent to the 3350.

I stand by my initial premise: that British engine production policy in WW2 was biased towards the in-line engine because of a failure of British radial manufacturers to produce competitive engines in the requisite timescale, and that this was because the sleeve-valve approach ran into problems that extended development times.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

"....but another for bastards like Coningham and Tedder to prevent the army from looking after its own by providing half decent equipment."

...would this be the same army that fought an enemy that was almost bereft of their own CAS, and was plagued by continual dispruption/harrassment/attrition from the air? One wonders how this same army would've performed in a European environment of shifting/disputed air supremacy, facing strong enemy CAS, against ground forces that were on a completely equal footing...

As far as I am concerned, the Allied (Western) air forces ultimately performed their roles in Western Europe well (that is to say not without failure/error, but then what military is ever perfect in time of war?) - there is overwelming evidence in this regard. It doesn't take a schlolar (but takes more than a bigot) to imagine what might have been the army's lot if the role of Allied air power is removed from the equation.

Tony, while aspects of what you have put forward certainly merit discussion; a bigoted, ill-informed argument that relies on inaccurate information, and picks and chooses evidence that only supports a pre-supposed hypothesis, will not gain too much wider currency (in much the same way that Irving is marginalised; see http://www.hdot.org/).

While many refutations, based on evidence, have been presented in these threads to counter the evidentual basis of your claims, most remain conveniently unanswered, while the same claims continue to be made...


Cheers

Rod

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

I have seen only one refutation - Shores' statement that the P-39 was used by the Soviets for ground attack. I won't make that mistake again. And questions about Clostermann's reliability; things like that whcih I have taken onboard. Thanks.

Otherwise I have bene hearing the same statements - such as a Vengeance with a crew of two would suffer twice the aircrew losses of a Typhoon. Someone saying that does not understand the CAS environment, where specific threats have to be answered by a specific weapon, and these need coordinating in all-arms.

For the rest, you believe 2TAF supplied effective CAS, RPs were good enough, and 2TAF was better than nothing.

I think fatigue has taken over. But its always interesting to discuss these matters, although its unpleasant to be compared with David Irving.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

The Twin Wasp was mostly a 1200 hp engine during the war (and a 1065 hp engine with 87-octane fuel). You simply cannot consider it to be in any way equivalent to the Hercules which was producing 1600 hp+ by that time. And the same applies to the R-2800 vs. Centaurus situation. With 100/130 fuel and no ADI, the wartime ratings of the latter are considerably higher (by several hundred hp in single stage versions)). That is a fact.

Besides, the other major British radial maker, Armstrong-Siddeley, was not involved in sleeve valves in any way and could have designed a Boak-valved engine, had they wished.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Hi Tony,

I am referring to contrary evidence that has been presented on three different threads.

"For the rest, you believe 2TAF supplied effective CAS, RPs were good enough, and 2TAF was better than nothing."

While I suspect that many would concede that CAS could have been better, it was just a component of the whole combined force. I will repeat that in the West, the German ground forces had comparatively very little air support, while facing constant air attack from the front lines to the industrial heartland. I will challenge anyone to find proof that overall, this aspect of Allied air power did not have a major effect on the ability of the Germans to wage war (quoting of a minor isolated incident or incidents, outside of the wider context, does not constitute proof).

Also, as has been pointed out, the decisions against the dive bomber and for the fighter bomber over Europe were not made with hindsight, they were made at a time when it was expected that such aircraft would have to survive in the face of enemy fighters and Flak.

Am I to understand that your view is that 2TAF was NOT better than nothing? That would be a mighty statement, and I, for one, have seen nothing of substance in these threads that would convince me that this is true.

The reasons for the lack of progress by the British and Commonwealth armies does not rest solely on 2TAF, the Typhoon, or the existence of Bomber Command.

The argument about the suitability of actual alternate types to the Typhoon is, at best, extremely hypothetical. It has been shown (at least no contrary evidence has been presented) that the IL-2 suffered very high combat losses (and hence it remains to be seen how you could justify such a type being employed in the west if it were to have sustained the same level of attrition), and there is no proof that the likes of the Vengence would not also have suffered high losses or been substantially more effective in the face of intense ground fire. Comparing the success of the Vengence in another completely different theatre of war is, in effect, about as relevant under the circumstances as comparing to successes achieved on a testing ground or fighter performance in a clean configuration.

The reason to use RPs, probably goes beyond what has so far been presented in these threads - overall projected requirements versus projected supply of bombs (the RAF did suffer shortages post-D-Day - saying that this could have been solved by not having Bomber Command in 1944/45 is not a rational position, if causality is taken into account); logistical considerations of supplying munitions to front line units. Also what not has been considered because the RP has so conveniencely been totally written off, is what actions could have been taken to improve the accuracy of delivery of the weapon on the platform upon which it was mounted.

As to the reference to that other historian, I only mean that in the way I perceive certain views/arguments/statements have been presented. If you collate facts 1, 2, 3, x, y, z and form a hypothesis, but then find that facts 1. 3. and z are either false or doubtful, and that you haven't considered 4, 5, 6, then the hyphothesis needs to be revised. This is what I meant by silence after the refutation of several of the conclusions expressed/supporting facts given. Then again, there is the hyphothesis that is formed with an agenda, where selective evidence that only supports the hyphothesis is gathered after the fact (something that has become more and more common in sponser-driven research). The other point with that other historian is an inability to review or conceed certain views in the face of refuting evidence.

I back what you have said only as far as there were various deficiencies with CAS that could, even should, have been better (but then army performance wasn't entirely up to stratch either, was it?), and that a dive bomber may have been a good option beside the various other CAS aircraft. Beyond that, I haven't seen anything convincing as to most of the broader accusations/rationalisations/generalisations (2TAF useless / Typhoon useless / RP totally useless / Bomber Command unless / Bomber Command only attacked cities / various RAF commanders mostly to blame for lack of army progress / certain alternate aircraft would have been more successful in CAS role in western Europe), and, IMHO, some of these unsupported accusations have lowered the quality of a series of really interesting threads.

Cheers

Rod

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Jukka, the Twin Wasp and the Hercules were both used to power the Wellington, and were also considered as alternative types for a number of other aircraft projects. The Twin Wasp sucessfully replaced the temperamental sleeve-valve Taurus on the Beaufort. The Hercules was not a 1600hp engine when it entered service on the Beaufighter and Stirling in 1940, whatever it may have been providing in 1944, and the Twin Wasp was providing considerably more than 1000hp (or 1200hp) on the B-24. The R-2800 and the Centaurus were both used to power the Warwick.

No the Twin Wasp wasn't as powerful as the Hercules was in the end, I never suggested it was, nor the R-2800 as the Centaurus (eventually). But they were in 1940 and 1943, when the powerful British radials were needed in huge numbers and not there. My argument, such as it may be, has always been aimed at the needs of the wartime years, not comparing the worst of certain US engines with non-contemporary best of certain British.

I think this corresponence has exhausted its usefulness.