P-39 vs. P-40...

[niceguy2005]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

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|]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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.

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".

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
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.

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".

Are you speaking of the GAME? Or of REALITY? The game necessarily runs a one on one sequence in it's programming and certainly favors your individual "tree". In reality, a "furball" has folks all over the place snapping off shots whenever they get the opportunity, which favors the "forest" (every time your ace gets on someone's tail, three other enemy planes start heading for his). The real problem for the Japanese was that in the time it took their system to turn out a "75", the Americans had turned out a dozen "60's"...., and were putting them in better aircraft.

[panda124c]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

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".[;)]

Chennault taught the AVG to "Hit the bombers" make one pass them leave the area climb to altitude the "Hit the bombers" again and above all "Don't dogfight the Japaness Fighter". This is a classic hit and run tactic, particularly useful when attacking bombers whose escort can not leave them or when you can out dive the escort. The Germans caught on latter when they strarted their 12 OClock high attacks against the B-17 bomber boxes. And if you are good it never comes down to 1v1. Oh yea the AVG thought they were slighted because they did not get the Buffalos until Rangoon.

[bradfordkay]

"Oh yea the AVG thought they were slighted because they did not get the Buffalos until Rangoon."


I'm not sure that I understand this comment. When did the AVG get Buffalos? Are you saying that they wanted Buffalos and were upset at getting P40s instead?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
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.

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".

Are you speaking of the GAME? Or of REALITY? The game necessarily runs a one on one sequence in it's programming and certainly favors your individual "tree". In reality, a "furball" has folks all over the place snapping off shots whenever they get the opportunity, which favors the "forest" (every time your ace gets on someone's tail, three other enemy planes start heading for his). The real problem for the Japanese was that in the time it took their system to turn out a "75", the Americans had turned out a dozen "60's"...., and were putting them in better aircraft.

[:)]Actually , I'm speaking of the game and reality. "60" and "75" are not that tremendously different, and yes the aircraft factor will make a difference. What I've said is an exceptional pilot in a crap air plane will generally find a way to defeat a crap pilot in an exceptional airplane. A furball consists of many dog fights. A individual fight may last only seconds , and may consist of a "snap shot", but at that precise moment , it's 1v1. Maybe the wing man may take a shot , but that's poaching , and won't win him any favor from his squadron mates. His job is to set up his leaders shot and cover his six. You might have sixteen planes hanging on hoping for their chance , BUT that is where the 1v1 comes in again.

At the time the p-39 (early 1942). was a major player (and the original subject of this thread) , the US wasn't producing "75"s (yet).. And Japan had lots of aviators who were considerably better than "60". What you had were "fair" pilots in a "fair" plane against really good pilots in a pretty good plane. Good pilots would look at the p-39 and use it's strong points- such as very heavy firepower (a 20mm or 37mm gun, plus 50 cals). Heavy weight like the p-40 , which would suggest diving hit and run tactics , and good low level manueverability. To me , the dream situation would be low level in mountain passes against fighters , or high altitute stooping hawk attacks against bombers. A better tactic would be to use p-40's to tangle with the escorts while p-39's clawed the bombers ( such as the spitefire -hurricane arrangements in the battle of Britan.) Instead , with the exception of the AVG , American fighter pilots used the tactics they learned as air cadets in flight school. They tried to turn with the Zero , and climb with the Zero. And they died.

By the time the US pilots were largely better than the Japanese , you had , with a few exceptions, pretty good pilots with really good planes. We really never had (again with a few exceptions) really good pilots with fair (or crappy planes). So my contention is that we don't know , and never really will ever know what the results of American p-39s with really good pilots and approriate tactics against the INJ pilots of 1942 would have been. All we can do is speculate. And here we are.[:)]

[AW1Steve]

No they were slated to get Buffalos. The Brits got them instead. And thought that they (the British) had the better plane. Until they engaged the Zero's.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Oh yea the AVG thought they were slighted because they did not get the Buffalos until Rangoon."


I'm not sure that I understand this comment. When did the AVG get Buffalos? Are you saying that they wanted Buffalos and were upset at getting P40s instead?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Until they engaged the Zero's.

Which they never actually engaged!
[:D]

[DuckofTindalos]

But then, every Japanese fighter with a radial engine and retractable landing gear was a "Zero" during the initial phase of the war.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Until they engaged the Zero's.

Which they never actually engaged!
[:D]

[:)]What are saying the IJN flew during the Guadacanal campagin? Claudes? Nates? Or that they only encountered IJA planes? [:)] Or that they were blown out of the sky while trying?

[bradfordkay]

No, he's saying that the AVG never engaged the Zeros... I'm not sure that USN F2As ever engaged Zeros either...