[SKUNKY]

Originally Posted by TopHat

No, that was me. I was trying to scare away the fleas.

Thanks,Top...I can always count on you to cover my six!!....

[TopHat]

Me and MoMo think that's just duckie!

[Shawn 507]

On the C-46. I agree its a sharp looking bird, performed well in the CBI / PTO. But as a platform for jumping out of while under fire, no thanks. After the severe losses during Operation Varsity, the 82nd and 101st vowed never to use for troop transport/jumping. No self sealing tanks caused many to burn or explode when a C-47 could keep going.
Now for most underrated. How about the Stearman bi-plane. You know the trainer before the AT-6.
- Shawn

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

On the C-46. I agree its a sharp looking bird, performed well in the CBI / PTO. But as a platform for jumping out of while under fire, no thanks. After the severe losses during Operation Varsity, the 82nd and 101st vowed never to use for troop transport/jumping. No self sealing tanks caused many to burn or explode when a C-47 could keep going.
Now for most underrated. How about the Stearman bi-plane. You know the trainer before the AT-6.
- Shawn

According to various reports the C-46 was requested by commanders of the India-China airlift in preference to the C-47 and its post WW II exploits also speak to its often unsung effectiveness. Used extensively in the Korean War, the C-46 hauled supplies from Japan to Korea and also was used in paratrooper drops when the UN forces moved into North Korea. The CIA used C-46s for many risky assignments in Indochina and other Asian hot spots and hundreds of these aircraft were in use by many air forces many years after they came off the production lines. I'm not suggesting that the C-46 was better than the C-47 in all aspects, however we are talking about underrated planes of WW II and in this regard, the C-46 is a prime candidate while the much lauded C-47 isn't.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by TopHat

No, that was me. I was trying to scare away the fleas.

Who was the guy that threw the can of gas on the cigarette to put it out, I don't think that helped really.

[planenutsfrog]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

It's tempting to cite much maligned planes like the Brewster Buffalo, which was a dud for the U.S. Marines at Midway but a big success for the Finns against the Russians or the P-39, which was a flying coffin for U.S. airmen but did well for the Russkies. However, in both cases these were not very good planes and their late-blooming successes were probably due to weak opposition ( the Finns often faced second line Russian planes and pilots with their Buffalos ) or changed roles ( the Russians tended to employ their P-39s in the ground attack rather than the interceptor role, as we also did ).

But I am afraid you are wrong my friend : the Russians indeed used the P39 mainly as an air superiority fighter !

Quite a number of VVS pilots became aces while flying one.

Some, who had won most of their victories aboard Bell fighters, even declared they would never have changed their beloved Airacobra, for any Soviet designed fighter, including later ones !!!

Personnaly, I tend to believe the P39 would have generally performed at least as well as the P40.

The P63 was a fine plane, but too late...

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by planenutsfrog

But I am afraid you are wrong my friend : the Russians indeed used the P39 mainly as an air superiority fighter !

Quite a number of VVS pilots became aces while flying one.

Some, who had won most of their victories aboard Bell fighters, even declared they would never have changed their beloved Airacobra, for any Soviet designed fighter, including later ones !!!

Personnaly, I tend to believe the P39 would have generally performed at least as well as the P40.

The P63 was a fine plane, but too late...

You have a point regarding the Russian's employment of the P-39. Although one must always be skeptical of victory claims made by fighter pilots and especially the Russians, P-39 aces such as Pokryshkin ( 59 kills), Rechkalov ( 55 kills), Chepinoga (24 kills), Sirotin ( 21 kills) and Bilyukin ( 20) kills testify in favor of this plane, which was used extensively by the Red air arm on secondary fronts like the Baltic and the extreme south. The post-war writings of various German aces indicate that they had few problems in contests with Russian P-39s, however this may be a function of poor pilot training on the Russkie side. Who knows? The real issue with the P-39s was the idiotic decision by the U.S.Army Air Force in 1939 that high altitude interception capabilities weren't needed for this plane, which meant that turbo superchargers were not fitted. As a result, the P-39 could not stand up to enemy fighters at altitudes over 15,000-20,000 feet and only had a chance in low level combat, which the Russians favored.

[Berkut76]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

You have a point regarding the Russian's employment of the P-39. Although one must always be skeptical of victory claims made by fighter pilots and especially the Russians

It's actually the other way around. It was notoriously difficult for the Soviet pilot to get a kill confirmed due to lack of battlefield control in 1941 through 1943. One needs to remember that unlike Nazis, the Commies kept double books, that is to say that the press got the exaggerated picture, while the Stavka had an accurate one.


Regards,

Sergey

[leeG]

The Soviets used the P-39 as an air superiority fighter. Keep the battle below 10,000 feet and the Cobra rocks.

For an account of the P-39 in Soviet Service I would recommend:

"Attack of the Airacobras - Soviet Aces, American P-39s, and The Air War Against Germany," by Dmitriy Loza ISBN 0-7006-1140-1

[djjeffhall]

Berkut76,
Hey there.

If the Soviets kept two sets of books, which are the books most often quoted in relation to kills? I'm presuming you will say the real books (Please note, I'm not questioning your expertise.) what were the numbers quoted in the "press books?"

Also, are the top Soviet aces considered to be the real top Soviet aces? Since it was more difficult to confirm kills before 1943, what are considered the "real numbers" for the top aces and are their other top aces whose confirmed kill numbers kept them off the top lists, but whose believed, but unconfirmed numbers would have ranked them much higher.