P-39 vs. P-40...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

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...

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.

In stock there is no difference.

In mods this was tackled (more or less) with creation of "new weapons" (i.e. the mods distiguished same real historic weapon if it was mounted in wind or centerline by creating two weapons with different characteristics - one for wing and one for centerline although they were same weapons in real world)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

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

Ah , now I understand. Yes the USMC F2a's had the misfortune to meet them at Midway. I had thought that the the British Buff's had encountered Zero's when the KB attacked the Indian ocean forces.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Forgive my misunderstanding. Since you didn't use a full quotation , I thought you were quoting my earlier comments about P-39's. Yes , you are quite right , I don't think I've heard of the AVG facing Zero's. The British Buffalo's on the other hand , I believe did.

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?

[Speedysteve]

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?

Black Cross vs Red Star series I believe you're referring too.....yup pricey and i've never managed to get my hands on them.

[DuckofTindalos]

You're more than a day late, Wienie-boy...[:'(]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: 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?

This is true...excpet perhaps actually engaging the zeros.

To settle the debate they actaully had a mock dogfight. A pilot from the RAF and AVG each was selected and they took off from the same airfield (at Mandalay IIRC) and engaged in several mock dogfights. The P-40 thoroughly trounced the Buff.

This happened very early on in the war....I'm not sure in retrospect it was a very good idea. It can't have done much for the confidence of the RAF pilots in their plane. Pointing out their vulnerability would not necessarily have helped the pilots unless you could teach them tactics to overcome them.

[mdiehl]

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.

That isn't a very accurate or adequate description. American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero, and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve. What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle. At high energy states, American a.c. were often capable of outmaneuvering the Zero. At low energy states, they could not hope to do it.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.

[mdiehl]

The P-40 thoroughly trounced the Buff.

That incident is recalled in Bond's diary. Erik Shilling was flying the P-40. As I recall, the reason why this demonstration occurred was because some AVG and UK/C'wealth pilots were grousing about being "stuck with" the P-40, rather than getting one of the relatively rare F2s in the theater. The demonstration was intended, as I recall, to show that the P-40 had marvelous properties when properly used.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You're more than a day late, Wienie-boy...[:'(]

Sh*t didn't see your reply[:D]

[DuckofTindalos]

Too bad I saw yours...[:'(]

[Speedysteve]

[:D]

[AW1Steve]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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.

That isn't a very accurate or adequate description. American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero, and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve. What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle. At high energy states, American a.c. were often capable of outmaneuvering the Zero. At low energy states, they could not hope to do it.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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.

That isn't a very accurate or adequate description. American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero, and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve. What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle. At high energy states, American a.c. were often capable of outmaneuvering the Zero. At low energy states, they could not hope to do it.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.

[:(] At this point I think I'll just concede . Before it gets any more personal. [:(]

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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.

That isn't a very accurate or adequate description. American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero, and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve. What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle. At high energy states, American a.c. were often capable of outmaneuvering the Zero. At low energy states, they could not hope to do it.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.

[:(] At this point I think I'll just concede . Before it gets any more personal. [:(]

No need to take that personal - it doesn't read that way.

There is simply a project underway by Mdiehl to accurately as possible determine just what the actual kill rates were in 1941/1942, to verify or lay to rest some myths/legends that have developed over the years.

[mdiehl]

AW1Steve -- nothing personal meant there. Really.

Thanks Demosthenes.

For the record, AW1, the original study that I did on this may be found here:

tm.asp?m=84229&mpage=2&key=

Where I wrote (edited for brevity) the following:

In the interest of full disclosure here are some stats. ... Here are the facts as researched by Richard Frank in *Guadalcanal* (1990, Penguin Books). ... From August 7 1942 through January 1943 land based (not carrier) aircraft lost in combat (not non-combat losses) at Guadalcanal and its surrounds (up approximately to Rendova.. the air units were stationed at Henderson and, mostly for the Japanese, Rabaul) were as follows (Frank 1990:645-646). US: F4F-70, SBD-24, TBF-2, P400/P39-13, B17-7, PBY-7. IJN (25th Air Flotilla): Zero-72, Val-11, Betty-95, Flying boats-12, Irving-1. ... MAG 23 (VMF223 and VMF224) for example was comprised of pilots recently out of flight school and veterans reassigned from Midway, and the air groups were formed on May 1, 1942 (see p.139). The 25th air flotlla was an elite IJNAF unit. Of 24 Zekes available on 7 August, the pilots included Saburo Sakai, Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, and Toshio Ota... ... Best to all.

The new version of this study is an attempt to count actual matchups between fighters by type, number, and results, in order to valuate the degree to which either side's pilots or a.c. manifest an "edge" in the historical record, and to id some of the reasons why that "edge," if any, existed. So although I've run down the crude stats from Lundstrom before, I'm doing it again, and will also endeavor to track down combats between allied Army type a.c. and Japanese aviation. It's a big project....

But as it stands the crude loss ratios at least for USN aviation vs Japanese aviation don't indicate any general Japanese superiority. Caveat: at least that's how I see it given the quantitative data.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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.

That isn't a very accurate or adequate description. American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero, and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve. What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle. At high energy states, American a.c. were often capable of outmaneuvering the Zero. At low energy states, they could not hope to do it.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.

You have just experienced the Boom n Zoom first hand. [:D]

[DuckofTindalos]

Looked more like the Bait and Flee to me...

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero

While this is true overall it is important to distinguish what part of the war we are talking about here. In the very early days of the war the USAAC pilots used the tactics they were trained in. As each individual pilot and unit gained experience with the enemy they adapted...sometimes in mid-air. The USAAC pilots certainly were not as thoroughly trained as the USN pilots, but they weren't dumb either. They learned...but they also got shot down far more frequently in the early part of the war. The lessons and tactics adopted by the AVG took months to filter throughout the units in the pacific.

and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve.

I'm not sure that anyone made this claim...I didn't see it.

What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle.

In the opening months of the war I don't think this is verifiable.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.

Why do you keep bringing up US naval pilots in all these threads? Last time I looked the navy flew neither the P-40 or the P-39, or the Buffalo (though it was a modified version of the F2A).

[mdiehl]

In the very early days of the war the USAAC pilots used the tactics they were trained in. As each individual pilot and unit gained experience with the enemy they adapted...sometimes in mid-air.

A2A combat is complicated and the version of history that suggests that US pilots had a problem consequence of doctrine or training, or some yet-to-be-realized learning curve thingie that gave the Zero an edge are not, in my view, substantiated by any quantititaive data. The claim's been made. I've never seen anyone back up the claim. The claim might be correct but, again, I'll have more faith in it when the data have been systematically examined.

They learned...but they also got shot down far more frequently in the early part of the war.

More frequently than whom? Under what circumstances? According to what data? Yeah, a Zeke could easily down a P-40 when they were landing or taking off. At low energy states there's no question that the Zeke held all the cards. I wonder what the data look like when such circumstances are eliminated from the data, or at least given a footnote.

The lessons and tactics adopted by the AVG took months to filter throughout the units in the pacific.

As you say, USAAC pilots may have adapted "on the fly. Possibly even in their first encounter. As energies dropped below a certain threshold, IIRC about 250 knots, the Zeke was going to start to fly rings around any P-40. Unless every P-40 driver died the instant a Zeke started to get ahead, I suspect that a whole lot of viral learning went on among USAAC pilots whether or not they'd heard from the AVG.

I'm not sure that anyone made this claim...I didn't see it.

It seemed implicit. After all, if you think that Zekes must have always held a maneuverability edge, then you have to believe that US pilots always tried to turn with them until the P-40s were in the lousy edge of their performance envelope. Because it is evident that the P-40s at high speeds could out roll not only Zeros but far more maneuverable Ki-43s. And roll is an important part of maneuver.

In the opening months of the war I don't think this is verifiable.

We shall see.

Why do you keep bringing up US naval pilots in all these threads?

Because for quite a while here in the Matrix fora "everyone knew" that the Zero was a "superweapon" against which only grinding attrition with an unfavorable loss ratio for US naval pilots broke the back of the 25th Air Flotilla in the Solomons Campaign. If everyone could believe it when it wasn't actually true about USN pilots (that the Zero was a better plane than the F4F and that Zero pilots were better pilots than USN pilots), then it may also be true that the same claims made about the relative merits of early war USAAC pilots and a.c. vs IJN/IJNAF pilots and a.c. may be equally an "urban legend."

That said, was one to talk about the F2A, which I haven't, I'd concede that the Zero was hands down the better plane.

[AW1Steve]

"That isn't a very accurate or adequate description". You have a interesting way of not getting personal. As far as your statistics go , I can't , nor want to refute them. I'm not a statistician. I have done a few dozen oral histories with pilots in the museums I've worked for. 80+ year old veterans don't get into Col. Boyd's "energy", curves . But the quote you seemed to enjoy ripping so much was not mine , but theirs. Turn with a Zero and die. Climb with a zero and die. When they watched friends die or saw empty seats in the mess , they learned these points. As far as nothing personal , well maybe we just have a failure to communicate. So again , I'm not going to argue with you. I conceed.








AW1Steve -- nothing personal meant there. Really.

Thanks Demosthenes.

For the record, AW1, the original study that I did on this may be found here:

tm.asp?m=84229&mpage=2&key=

Where I wrote (edited for brevity) the following:

In the interest of full disclosure here are some stats. ... Here are the facts as researched by Richard Frank in *Guadalcanal* (1990, Penguin Books). ... From August 7 1942 through January 1943 land based (not carrier) aircraft lost in combat (not non-combat losses) at Guadalcanal and its surrounds (up approximately to Rendova.. the air units were stationed at Henderson and, mostly for the Japanese, Rabaul) were as follows (Frank 1990:645-646). US: F4F-70, SBD-24, TBF-2, P400/P39-13, B17-7, PBY-7. IJN (25th Air Flotilla): Zero-72, Val-11, Betty-95, Flying boats-12, Irving-1. ... MAG 23 (VMF223 and VMF224) for example was comprised of pilots recently out of flight school and veterans reassigned from Midway, and the air groups were formed on May 1, 1942 (see p.139). The 25th air flotlla was an elite IJNAF unit. Of 24 Zekes available on 7 August, the pilots included Saburo Sakai, Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, and Toshio Ota... ... Best to all.

The new version of this study is an attempt to count actual matchups between fighters by type, number, and results, in order to valuate the degree to which either side's pilots or a.c. manifest an "edge" in the historical record, and to id some of the reasons why that "edge," if any, existed. So although I've run down the crude stats from Lundstrom before, I'm doing it again, and will also endeavor to track down combats between allied Army type a.c. and Japanese aviation. It's a big project....

But as it stands the crude loss ratios at least for USN aviation vs Japanese aviation don't indicate any general Japanese superiority. Caveat: at least that's how I see it given the quantitative data.
[/quote]