Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

Adolf Galland wrote alot about this. Most German fighter aces preferred the 109 because above 20K or so it was a much better plane. So much so that Galland proposed to use 109s solely against Allied fighters and FW190 against the bombers. Hitler was not keen on any thing other than everbody attack the bombers.


Anyway Galland preferred the 109 and flew it until the me262. It was not quite as good as the opposition by 1944, but the late war G10, G14 and K were getting close to the capabilities of the P51. Many say that with the same octane fuel the US had had, they might have been equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

OK, I think Eubannana, Q-Ball and I are all asking the same thing, and we've yet to get an answer.

The original question was: Why is the P-40E a better plane in the game than the P-39, even though the P-39 has all around better stats???

There is no arguing with the stats, (unless something else is coming into play here) They say the P-39 is more manuverable than the P-40 at all altitudes.

I get it that maybe no one knows the answer here, but if that is the case, I think we ought to find someone who knows, or perhaps discuss why this is. While historical discussions are valuable, and usually fairly relevant with this game, this is an in-game issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
As for Historical, I think it was the P-40K version that was better ... they built in the 'improvements' that Chennault told them they needed after they lost a bunch of good airmen in the E's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Some minor points: The superior version of the P-39 was the one equipped with a 20mm, not the 37mm gun -faster firing and lighter - I believe this was the brand that could be called a 'bomber-killer'. The wretched Allison engine (or to be fair the strange inability to fit any form of booster, whether turbo or not) was the problem - one that also dogged the P-36. This probably explains why the plane was popular with the Russian airforce but not with the RAF. Fighting on the west was normally at a much higher altitude than in the east (25,000 feet versus 5,000!)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk


However yes I do concede that the russians loved it (and the larger P-63) mainly for its ground attack capabilities (once they ironed out the problems iwht the canon), however it sucks as a medium/high level dogfighter or interceptor,  which is what it tended to be used for at least initially in the Pacific campaigns - only later was it discovered that it made a very good barge buster,  although the poor range somewhat limited this type of attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

Odd you should say that, cause I've recenly been looking at the air war in Europe in WWII and it looks more and more like only the 8th AF really fought regularly at high altitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

in the BofB the Me's would often come over cruising high above 25,000, watching and waiting for the Hurricanne's and Spitfires to take off and come up to the levels of the German bombers (anywhere between 12-18k feet, although sometimes higher particularly if reconissance mission). The early Merlin engines with their gravity carburettors would often miss beats, leading to the British formation becoming more & more strung out & the Me ace's would be on the look-out for any stragglers struggling and skidding in the freezing cold air - many British pilots died this way trying desperately to gain altitude, in many cases not even seeing the Me that got them.
At least, this is what the German fighter pilots were doing, quite successfully in fact, until Herman Goering had a better idea & decided to tie them in closely with the bomber formations. In doing so he seemed to forget everything he'd learned as a fighter pilot in WWI - that a fighter is a hunter, and needs its own space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Early war USAAF fighter comparison......the P-39 looks better to me, hands down. Am I missing something?

P-39 is 6 mph faster, has a better climb rate, is more durable (29 v 32), has better manueverability at every altitude, and has more guns. The range is the same. The only advantage it seems is that the P-40 has a better transfer range.

Historically, P-39 performance suffered at higher altitudes, but this doesn't seem reflected in the maneuver bands.

Am I missing something, or is P-39 the better plane?

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

The problem with the Luftwaffe was Herman Goering, period.
The idea was actually to destroy the RAF, either in the air or on the ground.  Goering forgot about that pretty quickly and tried to keep his bomber losses to a minimum.  The result of which was that the bomber losses went down (so did the RAF fighter ones) and the Me's went up quite considerably.  Talk about an 'own goal'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

All of Germany's efforts were hindered by Hitler's promise to his military chiefs that no war would start in Europe before 1943. So they began rebuilding all of Germany's military services with that belief. So navy had some battleships and cruisers but virtually no desrtoyers or subs as these could be built closer to 1943 ( and be more modern). Army made training tanks with MKI and II. Barely any MK III or IV were made prior to war. And the Luftwaffe was making its first generation of planes (in numbers) Do17, He111, Me109. But when the war started in 1939 the entire re-armament program was caught off balance. And Germany was forced to go to war with barely adequate forces- and in many instances hopelessly obsolete or worse still none existant. So the navy had 37 subs at war's begininng when the plan was for 200 in 1943. The airforce was not equipped for its role. The early victories only covered up deeper problems within the German war machine. The biggest problem, of course, was the total lack of planning for a long war and having virtually no reserves or replacements.
Germany was lucky that its enemies for even less prepared for war than itself. But reckless leadership ensured that Germany's defeat would be utter when it came.
Who knows how the war would have played out if started in 1943 as Hitler promised? Or even in 1939 but at least with some minamum of proper pre-war planning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
On paper the FW109 looks much better, but most of the GER aces flew ME109's.  Reason was that the ME109 had better rollrate and tighter turn circle.  FW109 was faster and tougher, but not as nimble.  Further, data on roll rates and turn rates doesn't exist for most of the planes of the era.  So, instead, gamers have to quantify what they can and some planes get reputations in game that are not consistent with how they actually performed in the war.  P-39 is one of those that generally gets pretty slammed.  Oh well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

I thought the Army Air Force's problem with the P-39D was on a maintenance level. There were maintenance problems with the power-train, and the complicated landing-gear. Whereas the P-40 compared with the P-39D required less maintenance hours to keep airworthy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
On paper the FW109 looks much better, but most of the GER aces flew ME109's.  Reason was that the ME109 had better rollrate and tighter turn circle.  FW109 was faster and tougher, but not as nimble.  Further, data on roll rates and turn rates doesn't exist for most of the planes of the era.  So, instead, gamers have to quantify what they can and some planes get reputations in game that are not consistent with how they actually performed in the war.  P-39 is one of those that generally gets pretty slammed.  Oh well.

Sorry but this is simply wrong.

The 190 was famous for having the best rollrate in the whole european theatre. The standard evasive maneuvre in a 190 was to roll it on its back and split-S away
which worked perfectly against the lower wing-loaded british aircraft - until the arrival of the first P-47 squads that were able to outdive the 190.

The reason for most German aces choosing to remain with the 109 airframe, which was from design outdated in late ´42, was simply that they got used to handle
this aircraft to its absolute limit. they all had 1000´s of hours flight experience on the 109 and knew it better than anything else.

to quote RAF Air Marshall Sholto Douglas in 1942:
"We are now in a position of inferiority. There is no doubt in my mind, or in the mind of my fighter pilots that the FW190 is the best fighter in the world today."

they were, simply put, two different approaches to fighter design.
the 109 being a good overall dogfighter while the 190 was a class A energy fighter.

the differences between P39s and P40s are much smaller in these aspects.