P-39 vs. P-40...

P-39 vs. P-40... (Full Version)

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

Message

TheElf -> P-39 vs. P-40... (9/15/2007 1:45:58 PM)
In the interest of keeping things lively and satiating niceguys appetite for strife I thought I'd repost this bit from my old Air to Air discussion thread. It didn't get much traction there, but could be it was well camoflaged at the end of a long discussion...but the only 2 responders still managed to make it a Zero issue. Found something interesting in my research. Thought it would be a fresh turn from the usual P-40 vs. Zero vs. Wildcat thread. I found a quote from the P-39/P-63 issue of the WarbirdTECH Series. After decades of books and articles demeaning P-39s as dogfighters, a memo from Gen. Douglas MacArthur to Air Force chief Gen. Henry H. Arnold, dated 14 May 1942, bears notice. It contains a brief compendium of AAF pilot reports of engagements with Japanese fighters. It says: "In combat with the '0' it is the opinion from different pilots that [the] P-39 is from 5 to 10 percent superior over [the] P-40." (Later, as altitude became an issue, P-40s were sometimes favored.) The memo conceded that the Zero had better climb and manueverability than the P-39, but at low altitudes,"the P-39 is slightly faster at 325 mph speed. P-39 can out-dive '0'..." The memo does call for fighters with higher Altitude capabilitiesthan those of the P-39 or the P-40 If you want to debate this see my new post in the A2A combat thread. If you want to add data to this performance thread do so, but try to keep prolonged wrangling in the Discussion thread...enjoy.

Terminus -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/15/2007 1:55:04 PM)
Well, some of the best Russian fighter pilots became aces in P-39/P-63s. Pokryshin, for one...

Doggie -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 2:37:15 AM)
It's been my experience that anyone who dares to suggest that either the P-39 or the P-40 belonged in the same sky with the A6M gets set upon by "experts" who question his sexual preferences, IQ, moral integrity, and his parentage. Chuck Yeager thought the P-39 was a fine low altitude fighter, but then he was probably a moron.[8\|]

jwilkerson -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 2:57:01 AM)
In my current AAR'd PBEM with Moses, my carrier based A6M3a just took a "drubbing" from Moses' land based P40E, which were escorting some A20s on a strike against my carriers in the Aleutians. The numbers of fighters were roughly equal on both sides. My experience levels were high 70s, his were probably 5-10 points lower. And this result is not unusual in our game. In Burma his P40Es seem to more than hold their own against any flavor of A6M I've gotten to date (we are in late March 1943). That being said, in the game at least, his P39s don't do nearly as well in the fighter role. The P39's seem to be grouped in with the Beefalo and Hurri-Is as the "not so good" allied fighters. Not that game behavior and RL behavior are indicative of each other, but just to toss in a perspective of what the game seems to be showing us. In the game, the P-39s seem to be most profitably used on the "bomber" side of their F-B type.

AW1Steve -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 3:46:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Doggie It's been my experience that anyone who dares to suggest that either the P-39 or the P-40 belonged in the same sky with the A6M gets set upon by "experts" who question his sexual preferences, IQ, moral integrity, and his parentage. Chuck Yeager thought the P-39 was a fine low altitude fighter, but then he was probably a moron.[8\|] [:D]Sorry dude , Manfred Von Richoffen said it best , "It's not the crate , it's the man inside it". [:D]

bradfordkay -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 5:17:34 AM)
I wish the P39 had been given the turbocharger from the beginning. Maybe then it wouldn't have received the undeserved bad reputation it was saddled with. Of course, it's range still wouldn't have been good enough for most Pacific theater offensive needs...

Mike Scholl -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 5:47:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Doggie It's been my experience that anyone who dares to suggest that either the P-39 or the P-40 belonged in the same sky with the A6M gets set upon by "experts" who question his sexual preferences, IQ, moral integrity, and his parentage. Chuck Yeager thought the P-39 was a fine low altitude fighter, but then he was probably a moron.[8\|] [:D]Sorry dude , Manfred Von Richoffen said it best , "It's not the crate , it's the man inside it". [:D] Actually, WW II proved this attitude wrong. Hermann Goering held the same view, calling his fighter pilots "cowards" when they couldn't stop Allied Bombing raids. As long as both side's pilots have adequate training, "the crate" is going to have a big influence. And even more will the service, support, and an adequate flow of replacements (planes and pilots). In the end, the Air War is a war of attrition..., and the Axis Powers only realized this far too late.

AW1Steve -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 6:12:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Doggie It's been my experience that anyone who dares to suggest that either the P-39 or the P-40 belonged in the same sky with the A6M gets set upon by "experts" who question his sexual preferences, IQ, moral integrity, and his parentage. Chuck Yeager thought the P-39 was a fine low altitude fighter, but then he was probably a moron.[8\|] [:D]Sorry dude , Manfred Von Richoffen said it best , "It's not the crate , it's the man inside it". [:D] Actually, WW II proved this attitude wrong. Hermann Goering held the same view, calling his fighter pilots "cowards" when they couldn't stop Allied Bombing raids. As long as both side's pilots have adequate training, "the crate" is going to have a big influence. And even more will the service, support, and an adequate flow of replacements (planes and pilots). In the end, the Air War is a war of attrition..., and the Axis Powers only realized this far too late. [:)]While true , I think the point of the argument is that in a 1V1 fight , the more experinced aviator will win. As evidence I present Subro Saki's famous engagement whith nearly 30 F6F's. While he didn't shoot down any USN planes , they didn't get him. And of course at the USN TopGun school , F-14's were "knocked down" on a dailey basis by F-5's. While I agree with you that two equal , or nearly equal pilots in a fur ball , will generally result in the better plane gaining victory , pilot skill and experince will generally thriumph.[:)]

TheElf -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 1:40:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Doggie It's been my experience that anyone who dares to suggest that either the P-39 or the P-40 belonged in the same sky with the A6M gets set upon by "experts" who question his sexual preferences, IQ, moral integrity, and his parentage. Chuck Yeager thought the P-39 was a fine low altitude fighter, but then he was probably a moron.[8\|] [:D]Sorry dude , Manfred Von Richoffen said it best , "It's not the crate , it's the man inside it". [:D] Actually, WW II proved this attitude wrong. Hermann Goering held the same view, calling his fighter pilots "cowards" when they couldn't stop Allied Bombing raids. As long as both side's pilots have adequate training, "the crate" is going to have a big influence. And even more will the service, support, and an adequate flow of replacements (planes and pilots). In the end, the Air War is a war of attrition..., and the Axis Powers only realized this far too late. I think you are both right. If you take the Baron's wisdom in the context of the times, he is talking about WWI and the chivalric nature of one on one meetings over no man's land. Certainly he says "It's not the crate , it's the man inside it" without premonition of the future of Modern Air Combat and really war itself, and while we began to see the implications of the factors you espouse Mike even in 1918, I think they don't become fully evident until 1942 to early 1943. WWI Air Combat, with a few exceptions, was a more personal war...but in those anecdotal cases where the old "duel in the air" from WWI occurred in WWII, it could still ring true. just my opinion...

Mike Scholl -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 5:28:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Actually, WW II proved this attitude wrong. Hermann Goering held the same view, calling his fighter pilots "cowards" when they couldn't stop Allied Bombing raids. As long as both side's pilots have adequate training, "the crate" is going to have a big influence. And even more will the service, support, and an adequate flow of replacements (planes and pilots). In the end, the Air War is a war of attrition..., and the Axis Powers only realized this far too late. [:)]While true , I think the point of the argument is that in a 1V1 fight , the more experinced aviator will win. As evidence I present Subro Saki's famous engagement whith nearly 30 F6F's. While he didn't shoot down any USN planes , they didn't get him. And of course at the USN TopGun school , F-14's were "knocked down" on a dailey basis by F-5's. While I agree with you that two equal , or nearly equal pilots in a fur ball , will generally result in the better plane gaining victory , pilot skill and experince will generally thriumph.[:)] The problem with Richtoften's statement is that it refers to one-on-one "duels", not to the Air War overall. Sakai may have held his own in that engagement, but what about the rest of his flight? How did he end up facing such odds? That was the problem the Axis Powers had..., they were glorifying individual achievement and comforting themselves that skill and bravery were all that mattered. Meanwhile the Allies were gearing up to produce masses of pilots and aircraft and support services. It may be "glorious" to fight at 1:30 odds, but in the end it's also suicidal.

AW1Steve -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 5:31:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Doggie It's been my experience that anyone who dares to suggest that either the P-39 or the P-40 belonged in the same sky with the A6M gets set upon by "experts" who question his sexual preferences, IQ, moral integrity, and his parentage. Chuck Yeager thought the P-39 was a fine low altitude fighter, but then he was probably a moron.[8\|] [:D]Sorry dude , Manfred Von Richoffen said it best , "It's not the crate , it's the man inside it". [:D] Actually, WW II proved this attitude wrong. Hermann Goering held the same view, calling his fighter pilots "cowards" when they couldn't stop Allied Bombing raids. As long as both side's pilots have adequate training, "the crate" is going to have a big influence. And even more will the service, support, and an adequate flow of replacements (planes and pilots). In the end, the Air War is a war of attrition..., and the Axis Powers only realized this far too late. I think you are both right. If you take the Baron's wisdom in the context of the times, he is talking about WWI and the chivalric nature of one on one meetings over no man's land. Certainly he says "It's not the crate , it's the man inside it" without premonition of the future of Modern Air Combat and really war itself, and while we began to see the implications of the factors you espouse Mike even in 1918, I think they don't become fully evident until 1942 to early 1943. WWI Air Combat, with a few exceptions, was a more personal war...but in those anecdotal cases where the old "duel in the air" from WWI occurred in WWII, it could still ring true. just my opinion... [:)]OK , lets put the question into WITP format. A 99 experince P-40 vs. a 50 Zero. Or a 99 experince P-39 vs the same Zero. Who wants to bet on the Zero if all factors are equal? While allied planes definately improved, and Japanese planes largely stagnated , allied pilot training sinificantly increased while Japanese plunged. And we all know what happened to the IJN pilot pool at Midway. Sure allied aircraft production and quality soared , but so did pilot quality.At Midway Marine aviators had flight hours measured in the twenties. A year later , you needed 10 times that amount just to get out of flight training. Other , more recent examples of my point include Vietnam. Prior to the founding of Top Gun , the US had almost a 1;1 combat loss (air-to-air) ratio. After the widespread desimination of Top Gun graduates thru the fleet , the USN ratio rose to close to 10;1 (approaching the Korea ratio). The USAF would lag behind , causing them to create the "Red Flag" system. Other factors , which go hand in hand with experince include tactics and proper utilization of the aircrafts characteristics. Examples being the "Thach weave", which gave the Wildcat a fighting chance , or Chenneault's tactics that utilized the P-40's Diving like a brick attributes. Basically I'm saying that a plane is a weapon , and the finest gun does little for a man who can't hit anything with it. [:)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 6:19:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve [:)]OK , lets put the question into WITP format. Oh please, let's don't! Then we have to get into how well the WITP Air Combat System represents reality... Couldn't we just say that the Japanese "bet the farm" on the theory that a good weapon (the Zero or Oscar, in their minds) with a superior pilot would always win the day. And that the Americans decided that a whole lot of good weapons with a whole lot of good pilots was a better idea. And the Japs lost the bet. The truth was that statistically non-combat losses generally exceeded combat losses even during the war. And that to just maintain the strength of your air power it was necessary to replace all the planes and a lot of the pilots every year---even without any combat losses. Add in combat losses and it just gets worse. To keep a thousand planes active at the front, you may need to build 2,000 planes and train 1000+ pilots every year. And to increase the size of your force at the front requires even more production and training. The Allies realized this from the start, the Axis not until 1943.

AW1Steve -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 7:04:46 PM)
[:(]This thread has unfortunately migrated off subject and off track. If I contributed to this , please accept my apologies. I simply wanted to say that war is combat, and combat is fighting. I was trying to say that I felt "getting back to basics" is usually the key to victory. Not who keeps the better statistics. In the Vietnam air war it was the "Whiz kids" who argued sphisticated weapons were the answer. Missiles would replace dog fighting. "Spray and pray" would replace marksmanship. I feel in that war "getting back to basics" was the answer. In world war 2 the question is a little more muddled. No one will argue that the most basic basic is "Getting there firstus with the mostest". Yes , virtually everyone on the planet will acknowledge the allies eventual supeiority in production , etc...etc. But consider this ..is not pilot traing another form of production? And once again lets consider the "man vs. the Crate". Is the p-51 superior to the me-262? Yet after the first few surprise engagements the mustangs triumphed , by adjusting their tatics. They hit them when they were taking off and landing (and therefore vulnerable) or caught them on the ground. War is about using what you have in the most advantagous way. You might be a Japanese swordsman who defeats 80 opponets mostly using a wooden sword against a real one , a sherman tank platoon comander taking out a tiger by superior tactics , or Wild Bill Hickok defeating modern guns with a pre-civil war out dated black powder pistol. Yes numbers are great (but we have seen the results of human waves) yet usage of those numbers , or better weapons is what wins battle. Training, tactics and strategy , which often manifest themselves in the form of experince will win out. In other words , I feel that the p-39s and p-40's , early in the war , were not used to their fullest potential due to the inexpereince of the flyers who flew them. (Exept by isolated commands who developed approriate tactics and doctrine such as the AVG). I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree. Sorry if I've annoyed or offended anyone .[:(]

Mike Scholl -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 8:47:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve [:(]This thread has unfortunately migrated off subject and off track. If I contributed to this , please accept my apologies. I simply wanted to say that war is combat, and combat is fighting. I was trying to say that I felt "getting back to basics" is usually the key to victory. Not who keeps the better statistics. In the Vietnam air war it was the "Whiz kids" who argued sphisticated weapons were the answer. Missiles would replace dog fighting. "Spray and pray" would replace marksmanship. I feel in that war "getting back to basics" was the answer. In world war 2 the question is a little more muddled. No one will argue that the most basic basic is "Getting there firstus with the mostest". Yes , virtually everyone on the planet will acknowledge the allies eventual supeiority in production , etc...etc. But consider this ..is not pilot traing another form of production? And once again lets consider the "man vs. the Crate". Is the p-51 superior to the me-262? Yet after the first few surprise engagements the mustangs triumphed , by adjusting their tatics. They hit them when they were taking off and landing (and therefore vulnerable) or caught them on the ground. War is about using what you have in the most advantagous way. You might be a Japanese swordsman who defeats 80 opponets mostly using a wooden sword against a real one , a sherman tank platoon comander taking out a tiger by superior tactics , or Wild Bill Hickok defeating modern guns with a pre-civil war out dated black powder pistol. Yes numbers are great (but we have seen the results of human waves) yet usage of those numbers , or better weapons is what wins battle. Training, tactics and strategy , which often manifest themselves in the form of experince will win out. In other words , I feel that the p-39s and p-40's , early in the war , were not used to their fullest potential due to the inexpereince of the flyers who flew them. (Exept by isolated commands who developed approriate tactics and doctrine such as the AVG). I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree. Sorry if I've annoyed or offended anyone .[:(] Steve. You certainly weren't annoying or offending me. You provided a good opening for a discussion of the "forest vs. the trees" type thinking that occured during the war. You are focusing on the "trees" aspect..., best trained/equipped being able to deal with greater numbers of more poorly trained and equipped folks. And having a Saburo Sakai or a Michael Wittman in a Zero or a Tiger is certainly an advantage. I've been taking the "forest" approach...., or the "quantity has a quality all it's own" viewpoint. The Axis focused on extra high quality, the Allies focused more on "good enough..., and LOTS of it." Extra high quality is a wasting asset..., eventually your Sakai's get shot down or crack up or burn out---or your Wittman's get hammered by a fighter-bomber. And you just can't replace those people in the middle of a war...., especially as the hordes of "decent" pilots on the other side keep getting better (and getting better equipped as well). By the time the Axis powers came to grips with this fact, they simply couldn't catch up. To get the numbers they had to cut training to the bone, which left them with inferior pilots trying to deal with an overwhelming force of better trained ones. Even with some excellent equipment, they were novices facing veterans..., and well trained veterans as well. I'm not knocking your point of view..., having superior athletes on the playing field is always good. But War isn't a sporting event. You might be putting the 11 finest players in the world into play..., but if the other side can put 100 good players out there, you are in big trouble.

Nikademus -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 10:04:54 PM)
There was a series of books documenting the air war between the Luftwaffe and the Red Air Force during WWII. The name escapes me but I believe they are out of print and rather pricey IIRC. Anyone know?

Terminus -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/16/2007 11:21:34 PM)
Black Cross/Red Star, and yes, they're out of print and pricey...

Feinder -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 12:00:52 AM)
quote: You might be putting the 11 finest players in the world into play..., but if the other side can put 100 good players out there, you are in big trouble. Yeah, and it doesn't help when you don't get thrown out of the game for killing the other teams quarterback... [sm=fighting0043.gif] -F-

Mike Scholl -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 12:08:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder quote: You might be putting the 11 finest players in the world into play..., but if the other side can put 100 good players out there, you are in big trouble. Yeah, and it doesn't help when you don't get thrown out of the game for killing the other teams quarterback... -F- Fair is Fair..., they mugged your starting squad in the tunnel before the game started...

Feinder -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 12:17:43 AM)
I remember there was some game for the Sega back in college (the early 90s), that was something like "War Football" or something. It was (loosely) football, except you could "find" machine guns on the field and hose-down the enemy team (and of course, points for the ensuing touch-down). Ahh... Good times... But back on topic... P-39 or P-40...? P-40. Everyone dogs the P-39 in air-to-air, and I can see why/how it would be severly disadvantaged. I was trying to Google to see if I could find a kill ratio for the P-39, specifically air-to-air, but couldn't find one. Anybody got any stats on P-39 losses in the Pacific? Just curious. -F-

Cathartes -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 1:11:06 AM)
This article mentions a kill ratio of 1:1 with the Med. and Pacific added together. Flight Journal Aug 2005 I don't know anything about the author or his stats, but some quotes are familiar. Nothing new but some interesting, specific accounts of combat in the Pacific.

niceguy2005 -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 1:38:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf In the interest of keeping things lively and satiating niceguys appetite for strife I thought I'd repost this bit from my old Air to Air discussion thread. I've been away and busy...thanks for tossing another log on the fire [:)] While I generally lend a good deal of credence to pilot stories it is worth noting that the Allied air forces struggled to some extent in the early days of the war to figure out what they had and how good it was. I will take the rest of my comments to the A2A thread if I have enough time to catch up... Thanks again TheElf.

niceguy2005 -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 1:52:39 AM)
Ok, I couldn't find an A2A thread so.... Regarding pilot reports, I have read reports from pilots praising some characteristics of the F2A over the Wildcat and P-40. iirc they liked certain aspects of its control during a dive. It's important to point out that they were only speaking to certain characterstics of the plane, not a preference for the F2A overall. Also I recall a debate going on between the RAF and USAAF in southeast asia as to whether the Buff or the P-40 was a beter plane. IMO the P-39 was a decent fighter within certain constraints, altitude, speed, etc. Problem is the enemy is ever so incosiderate about how and when they chose to fight.

Fishbed -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 3:48:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder P-39 or P-40...? P-40. Everyone dogs the P-39 in air-to-air, and I can see why/how it would be severly disadvantaged. I was trying to Google to see if I could find a kill ratio for the P-39, specifically air-to-air, but couldn't find one. Anybody got any stats on P-39 losses in the Pacific? Just curious. Again one might consider who's flying it and against who and what (and where). :) VVS pilots didn't like the P40 so much - they fought with it on the southern front if I remember well, but didn't adopt it on a large scale. But Pokryshin's boys loved the Cobra and turned the ugly duck into a deadly opponent. I mean Russian tankers commonly preferred the Sherman 76 over the T-34, while any WW2 buff would disagree with them today. But what matters to us now didn't matter to them back then: sure the T-34 had a better armor - but no radio, no leather seats, no cook-safe ammo (until a little later in the war), poor gun optics and no rubber tracks. And while it seems trivial to us today, it seemed good enough to them then, because they were driving them. That's the same with the snake - on the paper the P-40 would blast the Cobra to pieces. But the Bell bird had its advantages, particularly low-altitude performances and an appreciable roll-rate - and once Pokryshin's squadron put up their squad tactics and learned how to tame their beasts and get the maximum out of them, well I suppose they were worth any P40 squadron on earth - and history shows they were at least a clear match for the 109 boys they were fighting over the Kuban front. I tend to believe that Richtofen's statement, 30 years later, was still quite true, and still remains so today [:)]

Doggie -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 5:39:30 AM)
In "game terms" the American Volunteer Group in China, with zero combat experience and an allegedly obsolete aircraft humiliated the veteran Japanese Air Force and their "superior" technolgy. They were equipped with the P-40B because it was the only aircraft available to them at the time. Does anybody think things would have turned out differently had they received a boatload of P-39s?

bradfordkay -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 6:57:49 AM)
A quick read of Bloody Shambles account of the first couple of encounters between the AVG and and IJAAF finds that the Japanese tended to come in between 16,000 and 20,000 feet. Apparently the AVG had just enough time to reach 20k on that first day before the enemy arrived. It is possible that if they were in the P39 they would have been in worse shape as far as being able to reach altitude.

jwilkerson -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 7:19:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Doggie In "game terms" the American Volunteer Group in China, with zero combat experience and an allegedly obsolete aircraft humiliated the veteran Japanese Air Force and their "superior" technolgy. They were equipped with the P-40B because it was the only aircraft available to them at the time. Does anybody think things would have turned out differently had they received a boatload of P-39s? In stock WITP against historical types and numbers, I don't doubt that the game P-39, flown by the 72+ EXP AVG would more knock the game Nates and Oscars out of the sky. The P-39 might be a bit understated in the game, but probably so are the Oscars and Nates. But players would not use P-39s in the game for the AVG. The range of the P40-B makes the match up between the AVG and the Allies most effective "long range" figher irresistable, in game terms. In fact most Allied players, I suspect, horde the P40B for the AVG. And with PDU on may even convert P-40B units at Pearl or in the states to P-40E in order to make additional P-40B available to the AVG.

Apollo11 -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 10:18:14 AM)
Hi all, IIRC the AVG did not (contrary to all false reports) encounter Zero fighters of IJN at all - instead they foought fighters of IJA... BTW, and IMHO, the biggest problem in WitP game terms is that centerline weapons are not differentiated from wing mounted weapons! In other words for WitP game engine it simply doesn't matter if guns are centerline mounted or wing mounted - they are all forward firing. In Real Life (tm) this, of course, was not the case and, thus, even "light" centerline weapons could made a difference... Leo "Apollo11"

AW1Steve -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 3:55:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus There was a series of books documenting the air war between the Luftwaffe and the Red Air Force during WWII. The name escapes me but I believe they are out of print and rather pricey IIRC. Anyone know? [:)]You raise some good classic arguments. But isn't a forrest mostly trees. I've seen trees without forrests , but never a forrest without trees. Here is my point. I've heard on this thread 100 to 11 or that 1v1 is wwI thinking. But seriuosly, have we ever seen more than two aircraft firing at one at a time ?(And please understand that I mean fighter aircraft , not a formation of bombers). It always comes down to 1v1. Even when there are two attacking fighters , the wing man is supposed to cover the leaders (attacking fighter) rear. I suppose in modern times , 100 fighters could all launch missiles at the same prey , but I'm guessing that probably won't set too well with the people paying for said missiles. The AVG is probably my best case. The pilots had average skills when they arrived in theatre. Chennault imparted his several years of experimenting with tactics, theory and doctrine. He didn't let them fly combat for several months , drilling them in his doctrine , giving the a "post graduate " education as it were. At one point he thought he was getting Buffalos . I have to feel that had he received p-39s , or even p-400's he would have created approriate tactics , and today he would admire what he and the AVG did with those "Shark-nosed p-39's".[;)]

castor troy -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 5:11:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, IIRC the AVG did not (contrary to all false reports) encounter Zero fighters of IJN at all - instead they foought fighters of IJA... BTW, and IMHO, the biggest problem in WitP game terms is that centerline weapons are not differentiated from wing mounted weapons! In other words for WitP game engine it simply doesn't matter if guns are centerline mounted or wing mounted - they are all forward firing. In Real Life (tm) this, of course, was not the case and, thus, even "light" centerline weapons could made a difference... Leo "Apollo11" I think centerline and wing mounted weapons are treated differently - it´s displayed in the accuracy. Though in stock the accuracy rating seems not important enough at all, so in stock there is IMO nearly no difference between wing mounted and centerline armament.

AW1Steve -> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... (9/17/2007 5:21:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus There was a series of books documenting the air war between the Luftwaffe and the Red Air Force during WWII. The name escapes me but I believe they are out of print and rather pricey IIRC. Anyone know? [:)]You raise some good classic arguments. But isn't a forrest mostly trees. I've seen trees without forrests , but never a forrest without trees. Here is my point. I've heard on this thread 100 to 11 or that 1v1 is wwI thinking. But seriuosly, have we ever seen more than two aircraft firing at one at a time ?(And please understand that I mean fighter aircraft , not a formation of bombers). It always comes down to 1v1. Even when there are two attacking fighters , the wing man is supposed to cover the leaders (attacking fighter) rear. I suppose in modern times , 100 fighters could all launch missiles at the same prey , but I'm guessing that probably won't set too well with the people paying for said missiles. The AVG is probably my best case. The pilots had average skills when they arrived in theatre. Chennault imparted his several years of experimenting with tactics, theory and doctrine. He didn't let them fly combat for several months , drilling them in his doctrine , giving the a "post graduate " education as it were. At one point he thought he was getting Buffalos . I have to feel that had he received p-39s , or even p-400's he would have created approriate tactics , and today he would admire what he and the AVG did with those "Shark-nosed p-39's".[;)] [8\|]I'm sorry . I meant to refer to Mike. Sorry Nik.[8\|]

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.21875