@knp7765:
Not sure about the B-25s, I don’t think the US exported a lot of bombers.
Well, some early bombers were seen abroad quite a bit (Lockheed Hudson, Martin Maryland, Douglass DB-7) And the British did get pretty much anything they wanted, including a fair # of B-17’s & B-24’s (mostly used for special missions, as they were producing quite a few of their own heavies) and they got quite a number of B-25’s. But that’s a different story than the Russians…
The P-40s however were shipped to quite a few places. The Russians got a lot of them, of course you know the Chinese got some and I think some were even shipped to England, although they were better equipped than most with planes. There were probably others that I just can’t think of at the moment.
Yeah the British used a lot more US planes (and tanks and pretty much anything) than is often realized. They loved the P-47, were the ones to give the P-51 its initial real-world testing and to finally get it “right” by switching into it the British Merlin engine, and they were the ones to give quite a few US vehicles the names by which they later became famous: I think they might have even named the “Tomahawk” although I know that they also called variations of it the “Kittyhawk” and “Warhawk.”
Interesting side note: you know the Brewster Buffalo fighter? It performed horribly for our boys in the Pacific in the early part of the war. It was kind of slow and clunky and the dang Zeros flew circles around them. However, some were sent to Finland, probably before they became officially allied with Germany, and the Finns added heavier armor and armament to them and did quite well against the Red Air Force. I just thought it was interesting that a fighter plane that was so bad for us with a few modifications ended up being very good for someone else
Yeah, I was familiar with that story. It just goes to show that combat effectiveness is always a relative thing, relative to the situation and the opponent, and there is enough subjectivity involved, too, that often repuations are developed that are better or worse than deserved. A great example is the M1/M2 carbine, which got a reputation in Korea for poor “stopping power.” At the same time, the same soldiers would often give high praise to the PPSh, with similar, but inferior, ballistics. Leroy Thompson, in his book on the M1 Carbine, gives evidence that alot of the criticisms of the M1 carbine were either myths or based on poor fire discipline or unrealistic range expectations.
Oh, and speaking of the M1 carbine, if Wikipedia can be believed, the Russians recieved a grand total of 7 of them. I guess having millions of PPSh’s on hand with their similar (ballistic) capabilities made getting short-ranged carbines a low priority for them.
