P-39 vs Oscars

P-39 vs Oscars (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

Xxzard -> P-39 vs Oscars (10/14/2009 9:39:44 PM)
I'm fighting in NG area in my campaign, and have reinforced PM with more AV support. I would like to begin more offensive operations with DB's and B-26's, but so far I haven't been able to wrest air superiority from the Oscars and occasional zeros flying out of Lae or Finshafen. According to the statistics, the P-39 has considerable advantages over the P-40, and my P-39 pilots are more experienced than my P-40 pilots anyway. But, the results of trying to sweep or escort strikes with the P-39's have been quite dismal. I've lost about 10 P-39's and some DB's for maybe 2 or 3 oscars. Meanwhile the AVG and some buffalos and hurricanes are eating oscars for breakfast over Rangoon. Is it a matter of offensive vs defensive or is it a pilots/planes issue?

Mynok -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/14/2009 9:44:26 PM)
P-39 isn't better than the P40 above 10000'. It's a lot worse in fact. It is not an air superiority fighter. It works much better in the fighter-bomber type role or as low-level CAP.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/14/2009 9:51:05 PM)
P-39s have pretty good low level stats but if you're flying them on at low level on a sweep mission whatever cap there is will likely be in a position to get the bounce on them. Ditto w/ escorts. Imho from anecdotal evidence P-40s do better on sweeps and escorts. Oscars do poorly against B-17s and B-24s. All the issues are interelated. Between planes of similar capabilities and numbers w/ similar pilot xp the defense will have an advantage from radar intercepts. The generally heavier firepower of the allied fighters tends to exagerrate the effect.

Xxzard -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/15/2009 4:13:54 AM)
I would agree with the statement that P-40's were generally more suited in RL, because for whatever good characteristics the P-39 had, it had some unusual flight characteristics due to the rear engine configuration. It would do well enough defensively, with the typically low altitude the torpedo bombers have come in at, but I guess the oscar cap is at higher alt. In my situation, the P-39 pilots have a significant exp advantage, so I'll keep using them, but I will try to avoid attacking oscars or zeros over their base. I should have some better pilots coming in with P-40's within a week or two.

Chickenboy -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/15/2009 2:24:27 PM)
It was realized pretty early in the P-39 deployment lifecycle that they were inferior high altitude (or even medium altitude) interceptors. However, they were kept in theatre because of the dearth of replacement decent interceptor airframes. In short: they were used because that's all that the theatre commanders had-so they were thrown into the breach to do what they could. That's the way I use 'em too.

jwilkerson -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/17/2009 4:07:01 AM)
In the game, P-39s make great interceptors against unescorted bombers due to their heavy gun armament, but in air to air against AM6 and KI-43 they will do less well.

thegreatwent -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/17/2009 5:39:48 AM)
quote: In the game, P-39s make great interceptors against unescorted bombers due to their heavy gun armament, but in air to air against AM6 and KI-43 they will do less well. I grant this a vote of "Understatement of the day"![:)]

John Lansford -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/17/2009 2:11:27 PM)
I'm very grateful that the AI keeps sending unescorted Bettys, Nells and Lilys to bomb PM; I've got two squadrons of P-39's and two of P-40's there, with the P-39 altitude set for 10,000' and the P-40's at 15,000', and they've been racking up kills left and right. When my Marauder squadrons try to fly offensive missions at Lae or Finschafen, though, the Oscars chew up my P-40's.

crsutton -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/17/2009 4:50:56 PM)
Yep, I would expect Oscars with better aircrews would come out better vs p-39. IRL worst case scenarios for the P-39 is that they used them to escort bombing raids from PM to Buna, Lae and such. Problem was that the return trip required the P-39s to climb to clear the Owens Stanley mountains. One of the worst charicteristic of the P-39 was the climb rate making them incredibly vulnerable and slow targets for Japanese fighters pursuing them. P-39 pilots had no options if caught by Japanese fighters. Limited in fuel, they could not turn down slope as it would lead them away from their bases as they were already flying at long range. They were sitting ducks and about the only hope for them was to find cloud cover to slip into.

Xxzard -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/17/2009 11:10:59 PM)
It sounds like John's situation is almost exactly the same as mine. P-39's destroy the Japanese bombers, but oscars hold off any offensive operations vs Finshafen and Lae. The only difference is that I have been using DBs. The odd thing for me is the difference in the stats of the aircraft according to the aircraft comparison in witp tracker. We know that in reality, the P-39 had its flaws, and the P-40 was generally a better choice against Japanese fighters. But the stats don't indicate that. Versus the P 40, the P 39 has a 6mph faster top speed, 600ft/min better climb rate, and superior manuverability at all altitudes. The differences are + 3, 1, 2, 3, 3 and the max altitude is higher. It also has slightly higher durability and firepower. The only disadvantage it has is a little less endurance. Thats it! Therefore, some of my original confusion, because in this game, on paper, the P-39 is a better plane.

Cathartes -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/17/2009 11:23:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Xxzard I'm fighting in NG area in my campaign, and have reinforced PM with more AV support. I would like to begin more offensive operations with DB's and B-26's, but so far I haven't been able to wrest air superiority from the Oscars and occasional zeros flying out of Lae or Finshafen. According to the statistics, the P-39 has considerable advantages over the P-40, and my P-39 pilots are more experienced than my P-40 pilots anyway. But, the results of trying to sweep or escort strikes with the P-39's have been quite dismal. I've lost about 10 P-39's and some DB's for maybe 2 or 3 oscars. Meanwhile the AVG and some buffalos and hurricanes are eating oscars for breakfast over Rangoon. Is it a matter of offensive vs defensive or is it a pilots/planes issue? quote: Ac What altitude are you sweeping at? What altitude are you escorting bombers? What is your pilot exp. relative to the Oscars you're facing (if you have an idea)? Some have found P-39s to be a bit better than WITP, but you must be mindful of their altitude performance (or lack of it), and they are a bit better on the offensive, for hitting ground targets, holding areas just beyond the front lines against unescorted bombers.

Xxzard -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/18/2009 12:07:51 AM)
Well, since the quite poor results of the first attempts to sweep and escort, I have held them on defensive missions for about 20 days. Sweeps and escort were at about 10k, not sure of oscar's altitude, so they may have gotten the jump. Pilot experience was relatively good for early war, about 50-55 overall. I understand most Japanese groups are of the same or slightly higher exp than this. I have enjoyed their performance vs bombers, I can attest to the fact that they are quite deadly in this role, I even saw a good LR CAP performance at Milne Bay, but they were unable to protect bombers on sweeps or gain control of the airspace. The main escorting group lost 12 of 25 pilots within a few days, and 4 DB's were lost in the process. After that, I decided to cease offensive operations in that area. I'm still wondering about the stats though.

mariandavid -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/18/2009 10:32:04 PM)
Remember that the RAF rejected the P-39 family. Its sole advantage (the adequate gun value) was still much inferior to the standard the RAF were adapting. Considering that they did adopt the Buffalo that says something! Of course the problem was not the airframe but the engine. Mind you I have wondered why the RAAF did not accept the P-39 as a short term substitution for the Wirraway - both were only useful as low-level light attack aircraft.

crsutton -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/19/2009 8:27:45 PM)
I am not sure it was offered to the Aussies as there really was a limited supply.

Bradley7735 -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/22/2009 4:45:09 AM)
Didn't the US lend lease over 60k of them to Russia? I thought I read that a long time ago. Something about German Ace claims being close to reality because the Russians lost tens of thousands of aircraft in the war. quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton I am not sure it was offered to the Aussies as there really was a limited supply.

Mike Scholl -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/22/2009 4:51:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Didn't the US lend lease over 60k of them to Russia? I thought I read that a long time ago. Something about German Ace claims being close to reality because the Russians lost tens of thousands of aircraft in the war. I think it was closer to 6,000 than 60,000..., but the Russians really liked the P-39/P-63. As the air was on the Eastern front was fought primarily below 10,000 feet, the lack of a super-charger wasn't a big problem. And at low altitude the Bell A/C were pretty maneuverable and packed a large punch.

Sardaukar -> RE: P-39 vs Oscars (10/22/2009 6:59:14 AM)
And P-39's lack of range made it suitable only as point defense interceptor and ground attack plane in Pacific. In former role it was failure because of bad climb rate and lack of superchargers. As ground attack plane and "barge buster", it was quite successful, but in naval role, also hampered by lack of range.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.828125