Airacobras in Tunisia

[Juha]

Christer
I recommended that You (and why not everybody else) buy a copy of both Osprey A/c of the Aces Specials, the "Long Reach" (VIII FC aces answers in 1944 to a questioner on fighter tactics) and the "Twelve to One" (V FC fighter leaders notes on fighter tactics in 1945). They give an interesting insight on the thinking of several well known USAAF aces and of several less well known fighter leaders, even if they don't handle Your speciality the Eastern Front.
The 3rd Special "Down to Earth" is on straffing tactics.

On Parsons, he have had rather difficult time in P-39D but he had found out that N model was better and that they could handle Japanese with it if they kept the speed up. P-47 meant more range and so more combat opportunity and also better high altitude performance. He probably had liked P-39N but admits that with P-47 they could reach more Japanese.

the 14 kill is from Osprey's P-39 Aces, but I'm not absolutely sure was it for NA only or for the whole MTO, too tired to climb to attic to check that out, sorry. And thanks for the extra info on 350FG.


JeffK
Yes, later model P-39s got better versions of Allison and so hold up their performance better at altitude. They also had ability to use WEP (War emergency or combat power) which meant an opportunity to use 1420hp power for 5 minutes (the normal military power was still 1200hp for 15 minutes). Also their 37mm gun (M6?) was modified and so less prone to malfunction than the original M6? in P-39Ds.

Juha

[Christer Bergström]

Thanks a lot, Nick! Very interesting! So apparently all those five or six claims made by the 350th FG on 6 April 1944 were unsubstantiated?

Juha, thanks again! I looked up George Mellinger's and John Stanaway's "P-39 Airacobra Aces" and found that "some 107 P-39s were lost in the MTO . . . sources quote up to 20 confirmed claims in the air."

Not even 0.2 victories per loss - that must be the worst victory-to-loss ratio for any Allied fighter in WW II, and ought to be quite revealing as far as the Airacobra's quality is concerned.

The same source says that "USAAF P-40s claimed about 500 enemy aircraft in the air and on the ground for about 550 losses." Even if we assume that only half the P-40 claims were in air combat, it still gives a ratio of 0.5 victories per loss, which is much better than the Airacobra's relation.

The P-47 Thunderbolt is said to have attained around 6,000 aerial victories in the ETO and MTO against 5,200 own losses - i.e. 1.2 victories per loss.

The P-51 Mustang attained 4,950 aerial victories in the ETO. I don't know how many Mustangs were lost in the ETO, but 4th FG (which flew P-47s March '43 - Feb 1944, and P-51s after that) was credited with 583.5 air victories against 241 own aircraft MIA, a ratio of 2.4 victories per loss.

I don't either have any total figures for the P-38 Lightning, but 20th FG scored 82 air victories against 86 own aircraft MIA while flying the Lightning - a ratio of 0.95 victories per loss.

(Yes, losses above are to more causes than just air combat; nevertheless, the comparison of the victory-to-loss ratios for various US fighter types in combat with the Luftwaffe still are quite telling.)

In "P-39 Airacobra Aces", John Stanaway writes what also is quite telling:

"With two kills to his credit, Hugh Dow was one of the highest scoring P-39 pilots in the MTO." (Dow claimed his second victory in that combat on 6 April 1944, against a Bf 109; his first victory was claimed against a Bf 109 on 15 Feb 1943, but according to the German report, the Bf 109 lost on that occasion was shot down by the Spitfires which escorted the Airacobras.)

[Juha]

Thanks a lot Nick! I interpreted the text so that one Bf 109 was lost over the place where the 350FG's claims were made.

Juha

[Nick Beale]

I certainly couldn't find anything to back up the scale of American claims.

(Information from Ultra KV 474) Luftlotte 2 total effort was 140 sorties. No ground attack a/c took off; scrambles from Northern and Central Italy; partial offshore reconnaissance, Ischia-Tiber Estuary; sea Recce west coast of Italy to east coast of Sardinia, no important sightings.

Ulta KV 470 attests to one more loss from an Italian-based unit (but over Croatia): "German fighter shot down near Brinje. Pilot unhurt. I./JG 77., 2. Staffel in Lavariano to be informed. (Information, evening)"

[Jim Oxley]

Originally Posted by Christer Bergström

Anyway, to return to the Airacobra, I don't think that there is any other WW II fighter plane which has been so critisised by its pilots as the Airacobra. Is there any other WW II fighter plane which is so broadly rejected by the men who had to fly it?

There is one aircraft that perhaps would rival Bell's P-39 in universal dislike stakes by it's pilots.

And that would be Brewsters F2A Buffalo.

It was detested by both the USMC pilots who were unfortunate enough to be equipped with it in the defence of Midway Island in 1942 and the RAF/RAAF/RNZAF pilots who sadly had to face the Japanese over Malaya.

Surprisingly the Finn's found it to be quite an adequate fighter - but then they had the earlier B-239 version.

[Christer Bergström]

I agree. However, the poor Buffalo pilots still were lucky that the fighter they most commonly were up against was the rotten old Nakajima Ki-27 Nate. And that also was in late 1941 and early 1942. When the far more modern Hayabusa later appeared, almost all Buffalo fighters had been shot out of the sky.

I have always had the impression that the Finnish fighter pilots were some of the best fighter pilots in the whole war. What they managed to achieve with their outmoded equipment is highly impressive.

[Jukka Juutinen]

The worst aspect of the Brewster Buffalo was the Brewster. By that I mean the Buffalo would have benefitted tremendously from a more experienced "parents". I have never understood the praise the F4F is given considering it didn´t have significantly better performance, armament (since the F2A had two of the guns in fuselage I think it in fact better) and had relatively heavy control forces. On the other hand, the Buffalo´s handling was praised by all FAF pilot accounts I have seen. The weakish undercarriage did cause some problems in FAF service as well, but surely it could have been improved, had there been the will to do so (here a more experienced "parents" would have been beneficial.