OT The P39 (Full Version)

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



Message


Scott_USN -> OT The P39 (3/18/2020 3:26:28 AM)

We all know well using the P39 in the early war in WITP AE.

A really nice look at the plane.

https://youtu.be/SpTmQU0nHuA




Leandros -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 8:45:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

We all know well using the P39 in the early war in WITP AE.

A really nice look at the plane.

https://youtu.be/SpTmQU0nHuA


Nice! Tks for posting. After the P-36 the P-39 is one of my favourite WW2 fighters.

Fred




LeeChard -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 12:16:16 PM)

I wonder how it would have performed with a Merlin stuffed in the back! [:'(] [;)]
A very cool looking plane.




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 2:09:14 PM)

some interesting pages:

https://www.chuckhawks.com/airacobra_iron_dog.htm

https://lend-lease.net/articles-en/early-versions-of-airacobra-aircraft-in-soviet-aviation-part-1/

https://lend-lease.net/articles-en/early-versions-of-airacobra-aircraft-in-soviet-aviation-part-2/





Bearcat2 -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 2:21:44 PM)

They made a version for the US Navy with tailwheel undercarriage in place of the P-39's tricycle gear, that was carrier capable; in July 1940. It had problems with the landing gear being strong enough for carrier landings. It was rejected by the Navy because it wasn't a material increase in performance over air-cooled engine which the Navy preferred at the time.




Scott_USN -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 2:49:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

We all know well using the P39 in the early war in WITP AE.

A really nice look at the plane.

https://youtu.be/SpTmQU0nHuA


Nice! Tks for posting. After the P-36 the P-39 is one of my favourite WW2 fighters.

Fred


Yep it is really one of a kind, awesome the Australians dug one up and rebuilding it.




Macclan5 -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 6:44:36 PM)

The P39 / P400 has to be one of the most enigmatic planes - perhaps the most - ever.

I consider myself fairly well read in historic matters, especially WW2.

I was very much guided by general consensus of all that I have read. The P39 is proof of concept in bad design. You cannot build a plane around the weapon ( the 37MM cannon ) and hope it will turn out. It was only ever useful for the Russians as ground attack and largely at that because they need the airframes.

--

This game - more importantly the forum members - have opened my eyes with very interesting factual details that contradict a lot of conventional wisdom.

Having reevaluated my opinions - I do not think one can classify it as a "great plane". It never was that. Certainly not given the direct comparison to its peers - F4F - F6F and even early Corsairs.

But it was probably more competent - especially in the right role with the right tactics - that consensus historical narratives give it credit for.





Scott_USN -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 6:59:22 PM)

I wonder what early war pilots in Port Morseby and Guadalcanal thought was the better plane, I imagine it would be biased a little to whichever fighter they were given, P-40 or P-39.

Good old Kittyhawks at PM, they said No.75 squadron only had 3 airplanes left when the battle of coral sea began.

[image]https://veteranssa.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/port-morseby.jpg[/image]




RangerJoe -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 7:08:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

The P39 / P400 has to be one of the most enigmatic planes - perhaps the most - ever.

I consider myself fairly well read in historic matters, especially WW2.

I was very much guided by general consensus of all that I have read. The P39 is proof of concept in bad design. You cannot build a plane around the weapon ( the 37MM cannon ) and hope it will turn out. It was only ever useful for the Russians as ground attack and largely at that because they need the airframes.

--

This game - more importantly the forum members - have opened my eyes with very interesting factual details that contradict a lot of conventional wisdom.

Having reevaluated my opinions - I do not think one can classify it as a "great plane". It never was that. Certainly not given the direct comparison to its peers - F4F - F6F and even early Corsairs.

But it was probably more competent - especially in the right role with the right tactics - that consensus historical narratives give it credit for.


You can build a plane around a weapon, just look at the A-10.

The plane was around a few years before the F6F and the F4U were even on the drawing boards.

The Soviets used them as fighters and liked them. They also fought at lower levels.




BBfanboy -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 7:24:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

The P39 / P400 has to be one of the most enigmatic planes - perhaps the most - ever.

I consider myself fairly well read in historic matters, especially WW2.

I was very much guided by general consensus of all that I have read. The P39 is proof of concept in bad design. You cannot build a plane around the weapon ( the 37MM cannon ) and hope it will turn out. It was only ever useful for the Russians as ground attack and largely at that because they need the airframes.

--

This game - more importantly the forum members - have opened my eyes with very interesting factual details that contradict a lot of conventional wisdom.

Having reevaluated my opinions - I do not think one can classify it as a "great plane". It never was that. Certainly not given the direct comparison to its peers - F4F - F6F and even early Corsairs.

But it was probably more competent - especially in the right role with the right tactics - that consensus historical narratives give it credit for.


You can build a plane around a weapon, just look at the A-10.

The plane was around a few years before the F6F and the F4U were even on the drawing boards.

The Soviets used them as fighters and liked them. They also fought at lower levels.

Removing the 37mm gun would make them much lighter and more maneuverable if the plane could be kept in aerodynamic balance after such a drastic change in weight. I am wondering if the P-400s with the 20mm cannons were the ones the Russians used as fighters and if they kept the P-39 for ground attack role only?
Against Japanese aircraft, the P-39s advantages were firepower and relatively rugged construction. Against the fragile Japanese fighters I think their best tactic was to go head to head with it and hope to flame it before it got behind them.




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 7:25:09 PM)

Yes
as per the link I shared, the Russians certainly like it; and it was equivalent to their Yaks and the 109s they fought against; at the low altitudes typical of the eastern front

the secondary armament (4 50 cal machine guns) was also more than enough to shoot down a fighter, and the 37mm was good against bombers or at point blank




jdsrae -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 7:34:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

I wonder what early war pilots in Port Morseby and Guadalcanal thought was the better plane,
I imagine it would be biased a little to whichever fighter they were given, P-40 or P-39.

Good old Kittyhawks at PM, they said No.75 squadron only had 3 airplanes left when the battle of coral sea began.



In my previous games as allies vs the AI, I couldn’t get the pilots out of both P39 and P40 quick enough, but when the alternative is nothing or a CAC Boomerang I’d go with the P40. My opinion no doubt biased by reading this book on 75 Sqn RAAF:

https://www.hachette.com.au/michael-veitch/44-days-75-squadron-and-the-fight-for-australia




Scott_USN -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 7:43:16 PM)

Interesting book. Think I will get that one, Amazon has it on kindle.




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 7:58:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

The P39 / P400 has to be one of the most enigmatic planes - perhaps the most - ever.

I consider myself fairly well read in historic matters, especially WW2.

I was very much guided by general consensus of all that I have read. The P39 is proof of concept in bad design. You cannot build a plane around the weapon ( the 37MM cannon ) and hope it will turn out. It was only ever useful for the Russians as ground attack and largely at that because they need the airframes.

--

This game - more importantly the forum members - have opened my eyes with very interesting factual details that contradict a lot of conventional wisdom.

Having reevaluated my opinions - I do not think one can classify it as a "great plane". It never was that. Certainly not given the direct comparison to its peers - F4F - F6F and even early Corsairs.

But it was probably more competent - especially in the right role with the right tactics - that consensus historical narratives give it credit for.


You can build a plane around a weapon, just look at the A-10.

The plane was around a few years before the F6F and the F4U were even on the drawing boards.

The Soviets used them as fighters and liked them. They also fought at lower levels.

Removing the 37mm gun would make them much lighter and more maneuverable if the plane could be kept in aerodynamic balance after such a drastic change in weight. I am wondering if the P-400s with the 20mm cannons were the ones the Russians used as fighters and if they kept the P-39 for ground attack role only?
Against Japanese aircraft, the P-39s advantages were firepower and relatively rugged construction. Against the fragile Japanese fighters I think their best tactic was to go head to head with it and hope to flame it before it got behind them.


The Russians use them multipurpose, no distinction between British 20mm vs 37mm; other than early vs late versions, with early versions depleted by the time of new arrived
and they had vastly superior tactical bombers like Il-2, so no need to use them exclusively on that role

"Drawing conclusions, it can be said that the debut of the Airacobra in the Soviet VVS was singularly successful. In skilled hands it was a powerful weapon, fully on a par with the enemy equipment. There was no “special” operational environment for the Airacobras-they were employed as normal multi-purpose fighters that fulfilled the same roles as Lavochkins and Yakovlevs: they contested with fighters, escorted bombers, flew on reconnaissance, and protected our ground forces. They differed from Soviet-produced fighters in having a more powerful armament, survivability, and a good radio, and fell behind our fighters in vertical maneuverability, capability to withstand excessive G-forces, and to execute acute maneuvers."




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 8:01:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

I wonder what early war pilots in Port Morseby and Guadalcanal thought was the better plane,
I imagine it would be biased a little to whichever fighter they were given, P-40 or P-39.

Good old Kittyhawks at PM, they said No.75 squadron only had 3 airplanes left when the battle of coral sea began.



In my previous games as allies vs the AI, I couldn’t get the pilots out of both P39 and P40 quick enough, but when the alternative is nothing or a CAC Boomerang I’d go with the P40. My opinion no doubt biased by reading this book on 75 Sqn RAAF:

https://www.hachette.com.au/michael-veitch/44-days-75-squadron-and-the-fight-for-australia



In my current game (Apr-42), I am in love with the P-40E.. basically the fact they have the longest ferry range (no drop tanks yet for P38 or Wildcat); which means I can deploy them where they are needed while the other fighters can't or need an AKV.
Against Zeroes, doing CAP, they would inflict and receive heavy losses




RangerJoe -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 9:16:56 PM)

I remember reading about a P-39 on Guadalcanal shooting and hitting an A6M2 with the cannon. The Japanese plane disintegrated. Not flaming, just disintegrated.




Scott_USN -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 9:28:05 PM)

Were the Kittyhawks manufactured under licensed or just crate assembly?




RangerJoe -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 9:33:40 PM)

I think that they were made in the US, disassembled, and then shipped over. I don't think that the Australian aircraft industry could have made them. The did make an armed version of the AT-6.




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 10:02:06 PM)

The Australian had the capability and license to make P&W 1830 Twin Wasp engines; so they could had made P-36s but not P-40s

with foreign engines, they could had built anything, they actually built Mustangs later on. But the catch was that they couldn't buy or build modern engines, not until much later, and by the time they could get engines, they could also get the entire plane so it was no longer a critical need

that is why they brought the Boomerang, a subpar design with an old engine, only built because of their desperate need of any fighter in the early 42




alanschu -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 11:01:32 PM)

How is the Boomerang in the game? It has the advantage of being a stock of planes which AUS doesn't have a lot of but right now still using Kittyhawks and now Spitfires (early 1943).




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 11:34:50 PM)

it is not that bad actually (as a fighter bomber)

but slower than a Ki-43 I
can't maneuver
climbs slowly

so not wise to use it for air-to-air

[image]local://upfiles/41287/4E90BD8009954CA48C2BECE503F88B3F.jpg[/image]




Scott_USN -> RE: OT The P39 (3/18/2020 11:44:17 PM)

Cool stuff, just better stuff around when the Boomerang came out.




Scott_USN -> RE: OT The P39 (3/19/2020 4:49:41 AM)

Totally off topic but run up the sound to hear that power in the first shot 14 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDeglorsv_8




Scott_USN -> RE: OT The P39 (3/19/2020 4:50:36 AM)

Man I love those engines. Something special.




Macclan5 -> RE: OT The P39 (3/19/2020 1:07:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You can build a plane around a weapon, just look at the A-10.

The plane was around a few years before the F6F and the F4U were even on the drawing boards.

The Soviets used them as fighters and liked them. They also fought at lower levels.


Agreed

The "you cant build around a weapon" is the conventional wisdom I have learned to ignore [8D]




Macclan5 -> RE: OT The P39 (3/19/2020 1:13:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

The Australian had the capability and license to make P&W 1830 Twin Wasp engines; so they could had made P-36s but not P-40s

with foreign engines, they could had built anything, they actually built Mustangs later on. But the catch was that they couldn't buy or build modern engines, not until much later, and by the time they could get engines, they could also get the entire plane so it was no longer a critical need

that is why they brought the Boomerang, a subpar design with an old engine, only built because of their desperate need of any fighter in the early 42



Agreed

According to Wikipedia - and I do believe it to be accurate - as I had read this in other books and other sources:

" by November 1944, when production of the P-40 ceased, 13,738 had been built,all at Curtiss-Wright Corporation's main production facilities at Buffalo, New York."

Canada produced Hurricanes under lisc. but actually flew more of first generation P40s.

Canadian P40s flew in the North Pacific with American airframes.

The P40 is another story of 'under appreciated' being the 3rd most produced fighter and competent. However it does not seem as enigmatic as the P39

I suspect that reported pilot discomfort and reported dislike sully the reputation of the P39 more than any other factor in "conventional wisdom".









BBfanboy -> RE: OT The P39 (3/19/2020 4:19:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

The Australian had the capability and license to make P&W 1830 Twin Wasp engines; so they could had made P-36s but not P-40s

with foreign engines, they could had built anything, they actually built Mustangs later on. But the catch was that they couldn't buy or build modern engines, not until much later, and by the time they could get engines, they could also get the entire plane so it was no longer a critical need

that is why they brought the Boomerang, a subpar design with an old engine, only built because of their desperate need of any fighter in the early 42



Agreed

According to Wikipedia - and I do believe it to be accurate - as I had read this in other books and other sources:

" by November 1944, when production of the P-40 ceased, 13,738 had been built,all at Curtiss-Wright Corporation's main production facilities at Buffalo, New York."

Canada produced Hurricanes under lisc. but actually flew more of first generation P40s.

Canadian P40s flew in the North Pacific with American airframes.

The P40 is another story of 'under appreciated' being the 3rd most produced fighter and competent. However it does not seem as enigmatic as the P39

I suspect that reported pilot discomfort and reported dislike sully the reputation of the P39 more than any other factor in "conventional wisdom".


When Robert Hampton Gray won his Victoria Cross in 1945 he was flying a Corsair. A don't know if he was operating from one of the Canadian-manned CVLs/CVEs or from a British one.

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/memorials/canadian-virtual-war-memorial/detail/2558303




Scott_USN -> RE: OT The P39 (3/20/2020 2:26:58 AM)

Since you guys seem to be well versed on these warbirds how did Hurricanes perform when it got the 4 cannons not sure how that effected nimbleness. Could it turn with the Japanese planes or was it forced into the zoom and boom tactics of US fighters? It just looks nimble to me.




Leandros -> RE: OT The P39 (3/20/2020 11:14:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

Since you guys seem to be well versed on these warbirds how did Hurricanes perform when it got the 4 cannons not sure how that effected nimbleness. Could it turn with the Japanese planes or was it forced into the zoom and boom tactics of US fighters? It just looks nimble to me.


Generally, Hurricanes could never turn with the Japanese fighters due to its higher wing loading. As the 4 20 mm cannons probably weighed more than 8 .30 calibre mg (they did) its "nimbleness" would actually decrease. Roll rate is affected, too.

Fred




RangerJoe -> RE: OT The P39 (3/20/2020 1:27:08 PM)

Not just the weight of the weapons but the total of the weight of the weapons and ammunition.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.953125