Why do some Americans believe they single handedly won WW2?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Until the Yak 9 EVERY Russian fighter was inferior to western fighters. They loved the P-39 which the WAllies classed as a dog unfit for combat.

Who came up with that term? Never heard of it.

 

[westwall]

Until the Yak 9 EVERY Russian fighter was inferior to western fighters. They loved the P-39 which the WAllies classed as a dog unfit for combat.

They liked the P-39 for low level ground attack. The Mig 3 was a very good airplane, the LaGG-3 was inferior, but then was developed into the LaGG 5 which German test pilots determined were equal to, or slightly better, than the Me-109 and FW-190 at 3000m and below. The recommended counter was to try and get them to come up to where the 190 was superior.

The LaGG5FN was a further development, that was able to compete at altitude, and finally the LaGG-7 was far superior to the 109, and superior to all but the Dora variant of the 190.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They liked the P-39 for low level ground attack. The Mig 3 was a very good airplane, the LaGG-3 was inferior, but then was developed into the LaGG 5 which German test pilots determined were equal to, or slightly better, than the Me-109 and FW-190 at 3000m and below. The recommended counter was to try and get them to come up to where the 190 was superior.

The LaGG5FN was a further development, that was able to compete at altitude, and finally the LaGG-7 was far superior to the 109, and superior to all but the Dora variant of the 190.

The MiG 3 was inferior to the 109 at all altitudes and had the highest per capita loss rate of any fighter operated by the Red Air Force. The LaGG 3 was disliked by its pilots being underpowered and overweight. The LaGG 5 was only competitive with German fighters at very low altitude and had the highest loss rate of any Soviet fighter. The Soviets used the P-39 as a air to air fighter, not as a ground attack machine having the Il-2, a world class ground attack aircraft already.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Who came up with that term? Never heard of it.

It’s pretty common when separating the Western Allies from the allies as a whole.

 

[toobfreak]

The MiG 3 was inferior to the 109 at all altitudes and had the highest per capita loss rate of any fighter operated by the Red Air Force.

I believe a large part of the reason for that is because the Mig-3 was designed as a high altitude fighter against the Luftwaffe but in actual combat, ended up not being used that way.

 

[AZrailwhale]

in the west the p-39 was an excellent fighter bomber

I disagree, it was an ADEQUATE fighter bomber with a bomb load restricted to one 500 pound bomb.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It’s pretty common when separating the Western Allies from the allies as a whole.

Like I said, never seen it! Wall-E was a character in a movie I once saw.

 

[westwall]

The MiG 3 was inferior to the 109 at all altitudes and had the highest per capita loss rate of any fighter operated by the Red Air Force. The LaGG 3 was disliked by its pilots being underpowered and overweight. The LaGG 5 was only competitive with German fighters at very low altitude and had the highest loss rate of any Soviet fighter. The Soviets used the P-39 as a air to air fighter, not as a ground attack machine having the Il-2, a world class ground attack aircraft already.

Had the highest loss rate because it was the most used at that stage of the war. And 3000 meters isn't "very low altitude". Yeah, they used the P-39 for ground attack as well. The 37mm cannon being particularly effective against SPA, and soft skinned vehicles.

The Soviets could never get enough ground attack aircraft. The allied aircraft used the most for air to air were the Hurricanes, and early on the P-40s. I talked with Hub Zemke a lot about his experiences in Russia prior to the US entry into the war. He flew 19 combat sorties with the Soviets, mainly in the P-40's but also in the LaGG-3.

He told me that while it was indeed very heavy, it was extremely stable as a gun platform, dove far better than the German planes, had a roll rate better than the 109, and had superior weapons early on. His experience with the LaGG helped him develop tactics for the P-47 later in the war.

 

[Kruska]

The MiG 3 was inferior to the 109 at all altitudes and had the highest per capita loss rate of any fighter operated by the Red Air Force. The LaGG 3 was disliked by its pilots being underpowered and overweight. The LaGG 5 was only competitive with German fighters at very low altitude and had the highest loss rate of any Soviet fighter. The Soviets used the P-39 as a air to air fighter, not as a ground attack machine having the Il-2, a world class ground attack aircraft already.

Yes the MiG 3 was factually a disaster for the Soviets.

The Jak1B - was a worthy match for the Luftwaffe, the Jak3 ended Luftwaffe fighter superiority of the Me-109G and Fw-190 A4

 

[AZrailwhale]

Had the highest loss rate because it was the most used at that stage of the war. And 3000 meters isn't "very low altitude". Yeah, they used the P-39 for ground attack as well. The 37mm cannon being particularly effective against SPA, and soft skinned vehicles.

The Soviets could never get enough ground attack aircraft. The allied aircraft used the most for air to air were the Hurricanes, and early on the P-40s. I talked with Hub Zemke a lot about his experiences in Russia prior to the US entry into the war. He flew 19 combat sorties with the Soviets, mainly in the P-40's but also in the LaGG-3.

He told me that while it was indeed very heavy, it was extremely stable as a gun platform, dove far better than the German planes, had a roll rate better than the 109, and had superior weapons early on. His experience with the LaGG helped him develop tactics for the P-47 later in the war.

"In mid-1944, 200 P-47D-22-REs and P-47D-27-REs<a href="Republic P-47 Thunderbolt - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>35<span>]</span></a> were ferried to the USSR via Iraq and Iran. Many were sent to training units. Less than half reached operational units, and they were rarely used in combat.<a href="Republic P-47 Thunderbolt - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a> The fighters were assigned to high-altitude air defense over major cities in rear areas."
From Wikki. The Soviets had almost no P-47s to use.

 

[westwall]

"In mid-1944, 200 P-47D-22-REs and P-47D-27-REs<a href="Republic P-47 Thunderbolt - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>35<span>]</span></a> were ferried to the USSR via Iraq and Iran. Many were sent to training units. Less than half reached operational units, and they were rarely used in combat.<a href="Republic P-47 Thunderbolt - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a> The fighters were assigned to high-altitude air defense over major cities in rear areas."
From Wikki. The Soviets had almost no P-47s to use.

Zemke was commander of the 56th Fighter Group, the most successful fighter group in the history of the US military.

You should read about him, he was an amazing man.

Zemke's Wolfpack by Freeman is an excellent starting point.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Zemke was commander of the 56th Fighter Group, the most successful fighter group in the history of the US military.

You should read about him, he was an amazing man.

Zemke's Wolfpack by Freeman is an excellent starting point.

I know who Hub Zemke was. What has he to do with your erroneous post?

 

[westwall]

I know who Hub Zemke was. What has he to do with your erroneous post?

My post isn't erroneous

 

[AZrailwhale]

My post isn't erroneous

Claiming the Soviets had a doctrine to use the tiny number of Thunderbolts they had is erroneous.

 

[westwall]

Claiming the Soviets had a doctrine to use the tiny number of Thunderbolts they had is erroneous.

I never made that claim. Read what I wrote again. I said that Hubs experience in Russia with the LaGG 3 helped him develop the tactics he used later with the P-47 as CO of the 56th. Both were heavy, and underpowered compared to their opponents. And, they both were then further developed into winning fighters. Hub and Allison had been sent to Russia to do the check flights on the lend lease P-40's. This was in 1940. Both were good friends of mine so I was able to spends days at a time listening to them.

Hub is the man who taught me aerobatics. The man was an amazing pilot, and instructor.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I never made that claim. Read what I wrote again. I said that Hubs experience in Russia with the LaGG 3 helped him develop the tactics he used later with the P-47 as CO of the 56th. Both were heavy, and underpowered compared to their opponents. And, they both were then further developed into winning fighters. Hub and Allison had been sent to Russia to do the check flights on the lend lease P-40's. This was in 1940. Both were good friends of mine so I was able to spends days at a time listening to them.

Hub is the man who taught me aerobatics. The man was an amazing pilot, and instructor.

The ‘47 wasn’t underpowered. At altitude it was superior to both German fighters. It was less maneuverable and under propellered. Once the paddle blade props were installed, a P-47 C could outclimb a Spitfire IX. Bob Johnson related an impromptu test of that in the book Thunderbolt. He also said that he could snap roll inside the turn radius of a Bf-109 and got several kills that way.

 

[westwall]

The ‘47 wasn’t underpowered. At altitude it was superior to both German fighters. It was less maneuverable and under propellered. Once the paddle blade props were installed, a P-47 C could outclimb a Spitfire IX. Bob Johnson related an impromptu test of that in the book Thunderbolt. He also said that he could snap roll inside the turn radius of a Bf-109 and got several kills that way.

Yeah, it was. The Me 109G weighed 7500lbs fully loaded, and had a 1500HP DB605, (.2 HP per pound)that was later uprated to 1800HP (.24 HP per pound).

That's why water injection was introduced with the D model which raised the HP to 2300 from the base 2000HP in an aircraft weighing 13,360 pounds (.17HP per pound at 2300HP, or .149 HP per pound at 2000 HP). Additionally they redesigned the turbo supercharger venting systems and added cowl flaps to improve the engine cooling.

The FW-190 was even better, with the Dora weighing under 10,000 pounds fully loaded, but with 2240HP with the methanol water injection it was almost as powerful as the injected 2800, but in an aircraft weighing 3000 pounds less.

That's why Hub developed the tactics that he did.

 

[Jarlaxle]

They liked the P-39 for low level ground attack. The Mig 3 was a very good airplane, the LaGG-3 was inferior, but then was developed into the LaGG 5 which German test pilots determined were equal to, or slightly better, than the Me-109 and FW-190 at 3000m and below. The recommended counter was to try and get them to come up to where the 190 was superior.

The LaGG5FN was a further development, that was able to compete at altitude, and finally the LaGG-7 was far superior to the 109, and superior to all but the Dora variant of the 190.

The Soviets used the P-39 as a FIGHTER. Indeed-their second-leading ace (Grigory Rechkalov) flew one.

The MiG 3 was inferior to the 109 at all altitudes and had the highest per capita loss rate of any fighter operated by the Red Air Force. The LaGG 3 was disliked by its pilots being underpowered and overweight. The LaGG 5 was only competitive with German fighters at very low altitude and had the highest loss rate of any Soviet fighter. The Soviets used the P-39 as a air to air fighter, not as a ground attack machine having the Il-2, a world class ground attack aircraft already.

The Il-2 is quite overrated.

The ‘47 wasn’t underpowered. At altitude it was superior to both German fighters. It was less maneuverable and under propellered. Once the paddle blade props were installed, a P-47 C could outclimb a Spitfire IX. Bob Johnson related an impromptu test of that in the book Thunderbolt. He also said that he could snap roll inside the turn radius of a Bf-109 and got several kills that way.

Yes. The P-47 would roll amazingly well considering its enormous size.

Yeah, it was. The Me 109G weighed 7500lbs fully loaded, and had a 1500HP DB605, (.2 HP per pound)that was later uprated to 1800HP (.24 HP per pound).

That's why water injection was introduced with the D model which raised the HP to 2300 from the base 2000HP in an aircraft weighing 13,360 pounds (.17HP per pound at 2300HP, or .149 HP per pound at 2000 HP). Additionally they redesigned the turbo supercharger venting systems and added cowl flaps to improve the engine cooling.

The FW-190 was even better, with the Dora weighing under 10,000 pounds fully loaded, but with 2240HP with the methanol water injection it was almost as powerful as the injected 2800, but in an aircraft weighing 3000 pounds less.

That's why Hub developed the tactics that he did.

The Fw-190 lost performance quickly at high altitude, while the P-47 was best there. With the uprated R-2800 and paddle prop, the Thunderbolt climbed quite well.

 

[westwall]

The Soviets used the P-39 as a FIGHTER. Indeed-their second-leading ace (Grigory Rechkalov) flew one.



The Il-2 is quite overrated.



Yes. The P-47 would roll amazingly well considering its enormous size.



The Fw-190 lost performance quickly at high altitude, while the P-47 was best there. With the uprated R-2800 and paddle prop, the Thunderbolt climbed quite well.

The Dora didn't. The P-47N was almost comparable to the Dora, but not quite. The extra 3000 pounds hurts in every aspect except for the dive. The P-47 blew every other aircraft away in the dive. It wasn't even close. Two aircraft in the war could survive compressability dives, the 47 and the 38. The 38 had a tendency to tuck under at the beginning so required more altitude to recover.

As good as the 51 was, it couldn't take the pressure of that type of dive with the left wing folding at the fuselage, and wrapping over the cockpit, trapping the pilot. I know of 4 instances of that happening in the Pacific theater.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The Dora didn't. The P-47N was almost comparable to the Dora, but not quite. The extra 3000 pounds hurts in every aspect except for the dive. The P-47 blew every other aircraft away in the dive. It wasn't even close. Two aircraft in the war could survive compressability dives, the 47 and the 38. The 38 had a tendency to tuck under at the beginning so required more altitude to recover.

As good as the 51 was, it couldn't take the pressure of that type of dive with the left wing folding at the fuselage, and wrapping over the cockpit, trapping the pilot. I know of 4 instances of that happening in the Pacific theater.

And yet...Robert Johnson CAUGHT an Fw190d (he explicitly mentioned an "inline engine", making it either a Dora or a Ta-152) in a climb.