P-39 D Aircobra vs. Me-109

[renrich]

The P39 was very altitude limited as well as short ranged. It did pretty good work in the Pacific in ground support as it did on the Russian front. The P63 had better high altitude performance than the P39 but was still range limited.

[JoeB]

The P39 was very altitude limited as well as short ranged. It did pretty good work in the Pacific in ground support as it did on the Russian front.

P-39's typically operated at fairly low altitude on the East front, but were *not* mainly ground support planes there, they were mainly used as air superiority fighters. It's just that low altitude was where the action was, either intercepting German ground attack a/c or protecting their own. Soviet P-39's were sometimes used for ground attack, but so were P-51's by the USAAF, so was almost every other fighter in WWII; it was not their main mission.

well bf 109 was completely superior against the p 39 . at least it is what i read.

As was common in WWII the perception of this differed between sides. The Germans believed their fighters were successful against Soviet ones in most cases even pretty late in the war, certainly including P-39's. The Soviet view was quite different, and their more successful P-39 units in particular believed they had the advantage over German fighters. There were a large number of Soviet P-39 aces, some with official scores higher than any Western ace.

As always, the objective operational truth is a matter of accurately tallying actual German and Soviet fighter losses in P-39 v 109 combats, and discounting what either side claimed, but it's still hard to do. I doubt the P-39 really had an exchange ratio >1 against German fighters, since evidence of total German and Soviet losses in 1944 suggests Soviet fighters as a whole didn't achieve >1 ratio even by then. But comparatively among types the Soviets used, the P-39 had a good reputation as an air to air fighter among those who flew it, situation similar to USAAF where successful P-38, P-47 and P-51 pilots all insisted their type was best of the three. Successful Soviet P-39 units swore by the plane, only acknowledging the superiority of much more advanced late war indigenous types (La-5FN, late model Yak-9's etc).

Joe

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Pardon my asking, but is that plane a mosquito?

Edit: I think it is. It looked a lot like a P-38, or perhaps a doubled engined P-39?

That would have been interesting.....how about a triple engine.........

[Soren]

Yup, its a Mossie

[AL Schlageter]

Pardon my asking, but is that plane a mosquito?

Edit: I think it is. It looked a lot like a P-38, or perhaps a doubled engined P-39?

That would have been interesting.....how about a triple engine.........

No nose wheel, so not a P-38.

Side entrance door, leading edge radiators inlets, canopy, shrouded exhausts all say Mosquito.

[renrich]

Joe B, good post, and I agree. Kill-loss ratios are always suspect as well as # of kills. I have found that if one takes the number of claims by pilots in wartime reports and divides by two a more useful number is obtained. I would suspect that the Soviet claims should be divided at least by four. The best souce of realistic claims I have seen is by John Lundstrom in his books about the Pacific War where he reconciles claims by researching records on both sides.

[AL Schlageter]

Why should the Soviet claims be divided by at least 4? Their claim system was almost as strong as the LW.

[lesofprimus]

HA!

[renrich]

I believe that the veracity of the Soviets is in great question. My disbelief in the veracity of the Soviet government is not meant to denigrate the fighting qualities of the Russian people especially when they are well led.

[JoeB]

Why should the Soviet claims be divided by at least 4? Their claim system was almost as strong as the LW.

Even if so, the Luftwaffe's claim accuracy varied all over the map during WWII. Some LW nightfighter units over Germany made almost 100% accurate claims, but Me-262 claims against USAAF fighters appear to have been overstated by a factor of several, probably more than 4.

I don't think you can pick a particular factor by which to discount credited victories, without a fair size sample from the same air arm in the same period under similar conditions. As I mentioned above, I don't know what factor to apply to Soviet P-39 credits in WWII. The author Christer Bergstrom (Black Cross Red Star series of books) has said he has examples of Soviet WWII victory credits only around 3 times German losses. I've personally researched Soviet victory credits in Korea and those were much more overstated, [6-]8 times. Soviet credits in the Nomonhan War with Japan in 1939 were around 6 times overstated, that's pretty well documented (and Japanese ones about equally so). So I'm not sure I accept Bergstrom's result without more detail, but I don't think one can assume that 1939 or Korean War ratio's necessarily prevailed in the Great Patriotic War either.

Likewise LW claiming in the East was pretty accurate early on but apparently declined pretty markedly later in the war as it did elsewhere. 2:1 is probably reasonable for some periods for German day fighters in the East, but 4:1 ca. 1944 isn't out of the question AFAIK.

The formal process of claim verification on paper and in theory is one factor in all this, but only one factor, and not necessarily the key factor.

Joe

[AL Schlageter]

Is that Soviet or a communist claims in Korea Joe? The NK and Chinese certainly over claimed. The American Sabre certainly over claimed with the usual seen claiming of 10-14:1 being lowered to less than 5:1.

As the GPW went on, the German claim verification got worse but the Soviet claim verification got better. Iirc not only was another pilot required but also the wreckage of the shot down plane was required for the awarding of a kill.

[renrich]

The other factor which I believe comes into play when discussing claims by Soviet pilots flying P39s is that the P39 had a less than stellar record against the Japanese in the Pacific war and then we are supposed to believe they were effective against LW fighters in Russia. I don't believe the Soviet pilots were better trained than US pilots so how did that happen. It may be that the Soviets inflated the claims of their pilots as a morale boosting method. The British allowed obviously inflated claims to be published during the BOB and so did the US at times. I just believe the Soviets excelled in that behavior.

[drgondog]

The other factor which I believe comes into play when discussing claims by Soviet pilots flying P39s is that the P39 had a less than stellar record against the Japanese in the Pacific war and then we are supposed to believe they were effective against LW fighters in Russia. I don't believe the Soviet pilots were better trained than US pilots so how did that happen. It may be that the Soviets inflated the claims of their pilots as a morale boosting method. The British allowed obviously inflated claims to be published during the BOB and so did the US at times. I just believe the Soviets excelled in that behavior.

The iron dog in PTO was largely fighting a defensive battle right in the strike zone of one of the best WWII dogfighters at low altitude at that time. The Zero was whipping Spits that chose to fight in Horizontal as well as P-40s and P-39s and to lesser extent, the F4F. Until Midway the IJNAF pilot was also as good as there was

Even a Guadalcanal, the P-40s and F4Fs tried for altitude early and the P-39/P-400 were 'middle guard'.. we only had one p-39 ace in the war and that is where he 'survived'

Corsairs and Mustangs and Lightnings and P-47s and F6Fs that decided to fight in the horizontal at medium to low altitudes didn't have great days against equal Zero pilots either.

We achieved parity in the early days by using altitude and trading energy for speed then climbing back again.

[JoeB]

1. Is that Soviet or a communist claims in Korea Joe? The NK and Chinese certainly over claimed. The American Sabre certainly over claimed with the usual seen claiming of 10-14:1 being lowered to less than 5:1.

2. As the GPW went on, the German claim verification got worse but the Soviet claim verification got better. Iirc not only was another pilot required but also the wreckage of the shot down plane was required for the awarding of a kill.

1. ~3/4 of all MiG claims in Korea were Soviet so there's no major distinction there, and from Nov 1 '50 when the MiG's appeared until fall 1951 almost all the MiG's were Soviet AF, and we can study that subperiod without worrying much about non-Soviet claims.

For example Nov 1 1950-May 20 1951 (the day both US and Soviets, coincidentally, crowned the 'first jet ace') US fighters were credited with 34 MiG's and 27 were lost to them (a few were Chinese, 14 by F-86's); the Soviets were officially credited with 152 UN a/c of all types in that period and actually downed 20 (2 were F-86's). That's from analysis of each combat in the period in each side's records, with a bit of question remaining about a plane here and there, but it's not just playing with totals in books, is my point. But it's fairly consistent with the whole-war result (except that kills by and against F-86's were a larger % later on). Anyway US claim accuracy in Korea has no relevance to Soviet claim accuracy in GPW but Soviet claim accuracy in Korea might. See thread in 'postwar' for more on overall F-86/MiG ratio.

2. Do you have specific figures for Soviet claim accuracy in GPW verified in German sources? The verification methods you mention (other pilots, wrecks) were in theory enforced in Korea too, but didn't prevent a high overclaim ratio. That's my point, following a particular methodology in theory didn't necessarily result in accurate claiming in practice, for the Soviets or others.

Joe

[renrich]

Bill, of course you are right about trying to fight an "angles" fight against an A6M in any US fighter much less a P39, as altitude limited as it was, but would not it be true that a P39 would be at great disadvantage against a BF109 in both an "angles" as well "energy" fight and that disadvantage would increase above 12000 feet? My reference states that the P39 was slightly less maneuverable than a P40. Not a great formula for dogfighting a BF or A6M.