Slitherine

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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".

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.