Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kolya1
I had also read about the fact that a planned conversion on La-7 was cancelled after the accident, although the causal link between the two events remain unclear.
The times when the division was not at the front were "resting" time, while not engaged in strategic operations, the air units completed their staff and equipment and retrained for the next large scale operations...
P.S. : the success of the P-39 in soviet service must be linked to the different fighting conditions on the Eastern Front. At low-level, the P-39 was one of the best american fighters (in 1943, below 10,000 ft, it accelerated and climbed faster than any other american plane except the Corsair, according to comparative tests made in the US (in the context of the comparative testing of in service planes with a capteured A6M Zero)). And most of the operations were flown over short ranges...
|
Hello kolya1,
It is my opinion that the cancellation of the conversion due to Klubov's death is a myth, as even a thrice HSU had no such powers.
The 9 GIAD and numerous other units were held back in reserve even while "strategic operations" such as the battle of the Kamenets-Podolsky pocket and the battle of Debrecen, for periods far exceeding those needed for re-training. This indicates that Stalin had special reasons to maintain a large reserve, quite separate from force regeneration needs.
Pinning down exactly what made the P-39 a good fighter in the East is difficult, but I would strongly suggest that it was a better fighter than the Yak-9. The reasons are its superior diving performance and zoom climb, which meant it could be used as a "boom and zoom" fighter of sorts. Its aerodynamics also led to less energy loss, helping vertical manoeuvrability. If weight reduction is factored in, the superiority of the P-39Q over the Yak-9M or D becomes even clearer.
Yours sincerely,
Jack Sanders