The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

niceguy2005 -> The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 12:40:58 AM)

An interesting quote found on a website...sources are documented at the bottom of the site.

quote:

In the laconic words of the official AAF history: "The Airacobra, even in a good state of repair, was unable to meet the Japanese fighters on equal terms." Experienced Japanese pilots such as Saburo Sakai regarded the Airacobra as a relatively easy "kill". The P-39s were not as manauverable as the lighter and more nimble Japanese fighters, and enemy fighters could often avoid combat with the P-39s by outclimbing them. Nevertheless, the Airacobra was quite tough and was able to absorbing a great deal of battle damage and still keep on flying, and its armament was able to deliver lethal blows to many a lightly-armored Zero


Here is the webpage. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_17.html



BrucePowers -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 2:11:51 AM)

Well, when it's all you have.....



RUPD3658 -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 2:24:38 AM)

I would still wager that bird strikes downed more Zeros than P-39s[:'(]



BrucePowers -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 2:53:03 AM)

My P-39's flew in combat once and faired only so-so.



ctangus -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 2:59:11 AM)

P-39s are great at:

1. Ground attack
2. Naval attack

They can be useful at:

3. Escort, if your bombers are flying at 6K feet. They'll get chewed up but they'll generally get the bombers through.
4. CAP outside of zero range. (They deter or make painful raids by unescorted Betties.)

At times of desperation they can be used at:

5. CAP within zero range. The squadron will be toast but they might take a few planes down with them.



niceguy2005 -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 2:59:58 AM)

Mine got routinely slaughtered by zeros (granted my pilots also were inferior)...not as bad as a P-36, but almost...their one saving grace is the cannon. IF (big if) they can catch bombers they are deadly.

Edit: Once when completely bored out of my mind and given the choice of watching my toenails grow and playing the AI, I played some rounds of the GC campaign. I flew some about 50 Bettys into a large P-39 CAP...almost none came home.



RevRick -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 4:56:48 AM)

All thanks to one testicularly anesthetized colonel (I believe) who decided that a two stage blower was not necessary. Guy should have received a Darwin award.



niceguy2005 -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 5:52:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

All thanks to one testicularly anesthetized colonel (I believe) who decided that a two stage blower was not necessary. Guy should have received a Darwin award.

He should have been forced to fly the plane in combat...at altitude.

Even with the turbo-charger the P-39 would have been a slow and not as maneuverable, but at least it would have made a much better interceptor than it was.



m10bob -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 11:16:09 AM)

What have you guys got against this great piece of aerial machinery?
Can you think of another Allied plane which is
1.So mass-produced
2. So prolific in the early game
3. So diverse in perpetuation of the species by having different models of basically the same piece "o" machinery

which must surely be touted for forcing the Japanese to expend so many bullets and thereby assist in Japanese degradation by attrition?

(Yeah......sometimes I feel guilty just loading the things on the ships in Frisco, actually..Makes me hope they had a nice time at the local U.S.O. first.)



grumpyman -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 10:16:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

What have you guys got against this great piece of aerial machinery?
Can you think of another Allied plane which is
1.So mass-produced
2. So prolific in the early game
3. So diverse in perpetuation of the species by having different models of basically the same piece "o" machinery

which must surely be touted for forcing the Japanese to expend so many bullets and thereby assist in Japanese degradation by attrition?

(Yeah......sometimes I feel guilty just loading the things on the ships in Frisco, actually..Makes me hope they had a nice time at the local U.S.O. first.)


Below 15,000 ft the P-40 was not that awful. I am not saying it was good, just not awful. when there were enough of them they can disrupt attacks and there are enough of them. I am in late 42 in my campaign and they do not do badly against land based Zeroes. I think this is mostly because the quality of the land based zero pilots are lower and my p-40 squadrons are been till recently in the high 70s and low 80s in experience. I am in an intense campaign for buna right now and morale and fatigue is taking a toll now. Carrier based Zeroes pulverize my P-40s. I think the point I am trying to make is yes they are inferior, but not so inferior as to be useless.



Procrustes -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 10:43:51 PM)


They are fantastic ship-busters.  That cannon does some real damage to anything with little or no armor - I've managed to disrupt more than one early war landing in the Phillipines. 



grumpyman -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 10:48:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: grumpyman


Below 15,000 ft the P-40 was not that awful. I am not saying it was good, just not awful. when there were enough of them they can disrupt attacks and there are enough of them. I am in late 42 in my campaign and they do not do badly against land based Zeroes. I think this is mostly because the quality of the land based zero pilots are lower and my p-40 squadrons are been till recently in the high 70s and low 80s in experience. I am in an intense campaign for buna right now and morale and fatigue is taking a toll now. Carrier based Zeroes pulverize my P-40s. I think the point I am trying to make is yes they are inferior, but not so inferior as to be useless.



oops we're talking about P-39s. I'll just have another beer.



Mike Scholl -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/10/2007 10:51:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick
All thanks to one testicularly anesthetized colonel (I believe) who decided that a two stage blower was not necessary. Guy should have received a Darwin award.


He should have been forced to fly the plane in combat...at altitude.

Even with the turbo-charger the P-39 would have been a slow and not as maneuverable, but at least it would have made a much better interceptor than it was.



Actually the P-39 was faster than a Wildcat or a Zero even without the blower..., provided they would play at low altitudes. With one, it should have been able to zoom and boom and hold it's own pretty well. Wouldn't have been a world-beater, but neither were the P-40 or the F4f --- and they got the job done. Just as soon as they learned the "Cardinal Rule"..., Don't try to dogfight with a Zero or an Oscar.



mdiehl -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 12:17:31 AM)

quote:

Even with the turbo-charger the P-39 would have been a slow and not as maneuverable, but at least it would have made a much better interceptor than it was.


Well, it would not have been as maneuverable at low speed settings, but more maneuverable at high speed. More importantly, it WAS much faster than most Japanese planes, even without the 2-stage supercharger. The Japanese regarded the P-39 as an easy kill IF they could lure one to 20,000 feet. But Japanese pilots were notably reluctant to descend to the P-39's fighting altitude of <14K feet. Probably because the P-39 could make 375 mph roughly in the early, non 2-stage sc'd variants as compared with the A6M's 331 mph.

To get a good idea of what the P-39 *might have been* you need to consider it's close descendant the P-63. It was a complete redesign of the P-39 with the supercharger and a laminar wing. Despite being heavier, it's top speed was 410 mph and service ceiling was 43,000 feet.

Probably this means that the P-39J-Q with a supercharger would have been capable of a top speed around 380 mph with good performance to 35,000 feet. But we can never know.

Ironically, had the United States imagined that it could be bombed, it is likely that the production P-39s would have retained their superchargers, since the a.c. was intended, when originally designed, as an anti-bomber interceptor (hence the 37mm cannon).




TSCofield -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 1:34:09 AM)

What is sad about the P-39 was that the prototype was a worldbeater.  It was fast, hard hitting and maneuverable.  Unfortunately by the time the US Army Air Corps was done with the plane it was overweight and unreliable.

The Russians loved it though, that 37mm cannon could cause some serious damage.




wdolson -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 2:15:46 AM)

The Air Force was a branch of the Army throughout World War II.  During the war, the USAAF became more independent, but before the war, it's primary mission was ground support.  The B-17 program was one of the few projects that was independent of this role.  The P-39 wasn't given a super charger because it wasn't deemed to be needed in the ground attack role.  The 37mm was primarily intended as a strafing weapon.

When war came, the situation ended up being very different than expected.  Once the Allies had air superiority in most areas, the P-39 did soldier on as a ground attack plane. 

It's bad performance in combat early in the war left a cloud over it.  With high performance fighters also able to serve in the ground attack role, it's mission began to go away.  Most were relagated to training duty, but even there it was hated.  The P-39 had terrible spin characteristics.  Even an experienced pilot had a tough time getting one out of a spin.  Inexperienced pilots would either have to bail out or die.

Some USAAF senior officers tried to get all P-39s grounded due to the high attration from training accidents, but I believe some still served until the end of the war as transitional trainers.

In my game against the AI, I found that P-39s were deadly in China.  I transferred the 6th Philippine to China and it's now a squadron of aces.  They are my best unit by far.  They were the first P-39 unit to upgrade to P-38s.

Bill



BrucePowers -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 2:19:29 AM)

Hmmm, use them in China. That's an idea worth trying.



niceguy2005 -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 3:13:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: grumpyman
I think the point I am trying to make is yes they are inferior, but not so inferior as to be useless.


I think the USAAF would have exactly agreed with this statement. i.e. it beat standing on the ground and shouting foul language at the enemy as they dropped bombs. [:D]



docpaul -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 3:14:31 AM)

They weren't a 1941 design either...You have to think that if they had a clue about the Zero they wouldn't have ruined the engine



niceguy2005 -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 3:14:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Procrustes


They are fantastic ship-busters.  That cannon does some real damage to anything with little or no armor - I've managed to disrupt more than one early war landing in the Phillipines. 


How did you get P-39s to the Philipines early in the war??? [&:]



niceguy2005 -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 3:34:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick
All thanks to one testicularly anesthetized colonel (I believe) who decided that a two stage blower was not necessary. Guy should have received a Darwin award.


He should have been forced to fly the plane in combat...at altitude.

Even with the turbo-charger the P-39 would have been a slow and not as maneuverable, but at least it would have made a much better interceptor than it was.



Actually the P-39 was faster than a Wildcat or a Zero even without the blower..., provided they would play at low altitudes. With one, it should have been able to zoom and boom and hold it's own pretty well. Wouldn't have been a world-beater, but neither were the P-40 or the F4f --- and they got the job done. Just as soon as they learned the "Cardinal Rule"..., Don't try to dogfight with a Zero or an Oscar.


Yes the P-39 is faster in horizontal flight...wasn't really what I meant...but you're right, I should have chosen my words better. What I was referring to was its overall closing ability, which was poor because of the pathetic climbing rate. A zero wants to get away all it has to do is climb.



niceguy2005 -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 3:39:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Even with the turbo-charger the P-39 would have been a slow and not as maneuverable, but at least it would have made a much better interceptor than it was.


Well, it would not have been as maneuverable at low speed settings, but more maneuverable at high speed. More importantly, it WAS much faster than most Japanese planes, even without the 2-stage supercharger. The Japanese regarded the P-39 as an easy kill IF they could lure one to 20,000 feet. But Japanese pilots were notably reluctant to descend to the P-39's fighting altitude of <14K feet. Probably because the P-39 could make 375 mph roughly in the early, non 2-stage sc'd variants as compared with the A6M's 331 mph.

See above post.

quote:


Ironically, had the United States imagined that it could be bombed, it is likely that the production P-39s would have retained their superchargers, since the a.c. was intended, when originally designed, as an anti-bomber interceptor (hence the 37mm cannon).

In peacetime or in war why on earth would anyone build an interceptor that had poor climbing speed, above or below 15,000 feet? [&:]

I have read through the development of the P-39 a couple of times and the design decisions made by the USAAC is one of the most baffling of all time. I wouldn't fault Bell with this, it was the USAAC that screwed the pooch on that one.



docpaul -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 3:50:41 AM)

It is amazing that despite it's drawbacks, the US STILL produced so many..The Brits weren't so stupid! 
In July 1941, the Royal Air Force took delivery of the first of 675 P-39Ds (called the Model 14 by the RAF) which they had ordered the year before. Shortly after delivery, however, the RAF realized that the aircraft had minimal performance characteristics without a turbocharger, an accessory that had been deleted early in the aircraft's development. It was too late to cancel the order, and only one RAF squadron (No. 601) ever flew it operationally. Over 250 of the others were sent to Russia, about 200 more were transferred to the US Army Air Force in Britain, and another 200 or so were sent back to America and designated as P-400s.



grumpyman -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 5:27:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


In peacetime or in war why on earth would anyone build an interceptor that had poor climbing speed, above or below 15,000 feet? [&:]



Politics



Mike Scholl -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 9:01:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: grumpyman

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
In peacetime or in war why on earth would anyone build an interceptor that had poor climbing speed, above or below 15,000 feet? [&:]


Politics



Don't forget stupidity..., though in this case a projected shortage of super-chargers may have had something to do with it as well. The decision seems to have been made while the US was still "gearing up" by someone who thought "any airplane now" was better than a "good airplane later". They should have sent this fool to the South Pacific to explain his thinking to the folks who had to fly them. At least they could have had the satisfaction of beating him to a pulp.




HansenII -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 6:17:43 PM)

HI!

In a game against the Jap AI, my P-39's actually have achieved more kills than they have losses (end of May 42). Fact is, against the KB's high-experience Zero's plus bonus early on no allied fighter fairs well. Later, with some accumulated experience of the P-39 units and less experience on the opposing side, its about equal.
Just bring in huge numbers, throw in some decent fighters as F4 or P40, and lets roll.

In the same game, my experience with P-36's are not bad, but I am facing huge numbers of Nates and such, nearly no more Zero's except in Rabaul. I Even have some P-35 and Brewster 339 - aces.


Anyway, I 'am looking forward to more advanced aircraft.

Have fun, everybody



niceguy2005 -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 7:01:28 PM)

HansenII - the AI is very good at putting itself in bad situations...this will make the P-39 appear to perform better, against a human who will manage his AC better it is a different story. Still as has been said its better than nothing and certainly better than Wirraway which are worse than nothing.

Docpaul, regarding the RAF, I'm not so sure it's that they were smarter as it is that they had less of a need. They had Hurris, Spits and a host of other fighters and had flown them and proven them in battle. I think like everyone else they were attracted to the promise of the aircobra, but had alternatives they could turn to when it was proven to under perform.

The US was in a different situation, not having been at war for two years, production lines and fighter designs had not yet been proven. I think by the time the P-39 was ready for deployment its development was too far along and the alternatives were not far enough along. Basically the P-39 became a stop gap. IMO the army knew even as they were getting the first squadrons operational that its time as a front line fighter would be limited.



mdiehl -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 7:39:44 PM)

quote:

In peacetime or in war why on earth would anyone build an interceptor that had poor climbing speed, above or below 15,000 feet?


In peacetime the YP variants with superchargers had good performance up to around 38,000 feet. I think the reasons why the superchargers were stripped out were the folliwing:

1. The USAAF assessed that there was no strategic bomber threat to the United States (in which assessment they were correct), so there was no need for a high-altitude interceptor.

2. There weren't enough superchargers to equip both new P-39s and new P-40s.

3. Therefore the P-40 was designated as the air superiority weapon (and equipped with superchargers) and the P-39 relegated to close support and low altitude ops. In fairness to the interceptor choice, most Axis bombers couldn't accurately hit anything at altitudes greater than the ones that the neutered P-39s could reach.

quote:

I have read through the development of the P-39 a couple of times and the design decisions made by the USAAC is one of the most baffling of all time. I wouldn't fault Bell with this, it was the USAAC that screwed the pooch on that one.


I completely agree. Although I do fault Bell for going with the 37mm cannon. It wasn't a particularly reliable weapon and had a fairly brief ammo load. Of course, if one *anticipated* having to shoot down the Axis equivalent of a B-17 then I suppose the choice for 37mm makes sense.



Mike Scholl -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 10:25:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
In peacetime the YP variants with superchargers had good performance up to around 38,000 feet. I think the reasons why the superchargers were stripped out were the folliwing:

1. The USAAF assessed that there was no strategic bomber threat to the United States (in which assessment they were correct), so there was no need for a high-altitude interceptor.

2. There weren't enough superchargers to equip both new P-39s and new P-40s.

3. Therefore the P-40 was designated as the air superiority weapon (and equipped with superchargers) and the P-39 relegated to close support and low altitude ops. In fairness to the interceptor choice, most Axis bombers couldn't accurately hit anything at altitudes greater than the ones that the neutered P-39s could reach.

quote:

I have read through the development of the P-39 a couple of times and the design decisions made by the USAAC is one of the most baffling of all time. I wouldn't fault Bell with this, it was the USAAC that screwed the pooch on that one.


I completely agree. Although I do fault Bell for going with the 37mm cannon. It wasn't a particularly reliable weapon and had a fairly brief ammo load. Of course, if one *anticipated* having to shoot down the Axis equivalent of a B-17 then I suppose the choice for 37mm makes sense.



Agree on all points..., the decisions were made for what seemed like good reasons at the time. The problems came when the situation didn't develope as forseen --- which made the decisions "stupid" in retrospect.



witpqs -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/11/2007 10:29:41 PM)

It's one of those facts of nature - reality is brutal, but hindsight is downright vicious.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.4375