Airacobras in Tunisia

[Christer Bergström]

Some interesting statistics regarding the Airacobra in Soviet service:

Combat losses among Airacobras serving with VVS KA:

1941: 0
1942: 49
1943: 305
1944: 486
1945: 190

Combat losses among Airacobras serving with VVS VMF:

Through 21 June 1943: 17
22 June 43 - 21 June -44: 77
22 June - 44 - 4 Sept 1945: 30

(VVS KA = AF of Red Army; VVS VMF = AF of Soviet Navy)

It is interesting to note that while the Soviets recorded around 500 Airacobras lost in combat in 1944, the Luftwaffe meanwhile claimed to have shot down around 900 Airacobras on the Eastern Front. Let's assume that some 400 Airacobras were shot down by Luftwaffe fighters in 1944. I strongly doubt the Airacobras managed to shoot down 400 German fighters in 1944.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Christer Bergström

I'm not sure the Korean air war can provide us with many valuable conclusions regarding the efficiency of the Soviet air force in the defence of the motherland in 1941 - 1945. I think that those German airmen who faced both the VVS and the USAAF/RAF are the best to judge. My posting was not aimed at proving that either of the Allied air forces was better than the other; rather, I wrote that in early 1943 the differences were not that large as sometimes is assumed - "the Luftwaffe Eastern Front veterans repeated in Tunisia what they previously had accomplished on the Eastern Front against the same kind of fighters."

I must say it's seems to me a very selective assessment of what are accurate and inaccurate bases of comparison. Your argument seems to be that a very direct head to head, planes lost in reality each side, tells us little about AF effectivenes because of some abstract motivational factor that was supposedly different, but the numerous variables between east and west in WWII as far as exchange ratio's, timelines (of when operations started and when combat experience was gained) or even subjective quotations of particular pilots, provide a better comparison. With all respect to your knowledge of WWII air combat, I really doubt it.

Anyway I also doubt anyone has ever claimed, except at a pretty low level of familiarity with the topic, that USAAF performance v. the LW at the very start of their confrontations, as in late '42-mid '43 in MTO, was far more successful than VVS performance 2 years into their war. However not long ago you yourself kindly posted exchange numbers indicating on their face (that is, assuming the majority supposed "unknown" VVS combat losses were mainly in air combat, and making no assumptions about supposed LW loss understatement without specific fact) that seem to show the LW fighters achieved a few:1 ratio against VVS fighters even in 1944, when exchange ratio's had turned against them v. the USAAF. This is broadly in line with the Korean experience of several:1 against the VVS in more or less equal a/c and numbers and tactical situation (partial sanctuary, short range to bases) certainly not against the VVS. I'm not sure given the timelines of WWII that the early Med experience illuminates this comparison better, it's seems in fact much more obscure and indirect.

Joe

[Christer Bergström]

I also doubt anyone has ever claimed, except at a pretty low level of familiarity with the topic, that USAAF performance v. the LW at the very start of their confrontations, as in late '42-mid '43 in MTO, was far more successful than VVS performance 2 years into their war.

I have heard such an opinion more than once, hence my little remark in the Airacobra posting.

you yourself kindly posted exchange numbers indicating on their face (that is, assuming the majority supposed "unknown" VVS combat losses were mainly in air combat, and making no assumptions about supposed LW loss understatement without specific fact) that seem to show the LW fighters achieved a few:1 ratio against VVS fighters even in 1944, when exchange ratio's had turned against them v. the USAAF.

With all respect, Joe, but that is another topic. If you want to start a thread on that topic, please do so, and I will provide you with an answer which will explain what you now obviously regard as a contradiction. However, I have examined the reasons to this well-known fact quite recently on this board. In order to avoid straying from the topic (Airacobras in Tunisia), I will confine myself to giving you a hint by referring to my article on the effect of numerical superiority in the air over Normandy in 1944 on the website which is linked below in my post. You can also read this article: http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/text.html

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Christer Bergström

With all respect, Joe, but that is another topic. If you want to start a thread on that topic, please do so, and I will provide you with an answer which will explain what you now obviously regard as a contradiction. However, I have examined the reasons to this well-known fact quite recently on this board. In order to avoid straying from the topic (Airacobras in Tunisia), I will confine myself to giving you a hint by referring to my article on the effect of numerical superiority in the air over Normandy in 1944...

I guess that's part of the fun, we can always find an offsetting reason, numbers in Normandy (but also over the heart of Germany in any individual given encounter?, I don't think so, that requires a lot of revision, overall OOB numbers are not the major determinant of exchange ratio's anyway), something special about "defending the motherland" in 1941-45 that somehow didn't apply in 1950, etc. to counter the seemingly relatively clear basic fact: once the USAAF fighter force had gained significant combat experience, it seemed to be more effective than the VVS against the LW in WWII. And then this was further clarified when the two met head to head in Korea.

Joe

[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.