Why was the Soviet Union able to do so well with the Bell P-39 Airacobra? Why was its record with the USAAF relatively poor? Most say it's due to the plane's lack of high altitude performance. Does that answer by itself make sense? If so, why didn't we see the same comparative results with the P-40? The P-40 did relatively well for the USAAF and less so for the Soviets and with nearly identical altitude limitations as the Airacobra. The answers are complicated here, thus it's a long video.
Please support this channel: [ Ссылка ] Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
[ Ссылка ]
Direct Link to P-39 Mug: [ Ссылка ]
Answers to common questions and concerns:
1. Didn't the Soviets like it because of it's centrally mounted weapons? Probably, however this video is about why the plane was successful for the Soviet and less so for the US. As the plane had centrally mounted weapons in both cases, I don't think it had an effect on the comparative results the two air forces had with it.
2. People have pointed out that the Flying Tigers didn't see combat until after Pearl Harbor. That's true, and I worded that part of the video poorly. When you talk for 50 mins straight that can happen. Still what I said isn't technically incorrect. I said that the P-40 scored some kills right from the start at Pearl Harbor. I didn't say that the Flying Tigers flew combat or scored kills before that. I then said that the P-40 was having success in China earlier, that's true, just not combat success, that wouldn't come for another couple weeks after Pearl Harbor. Poorly worded on my part. I should have said Chennault was having success in China before Pearl and thus the Flying Tigers were ready to score kills and first did so shortly after Pearl Harbor. I hope that clears this up.
