P-40E v P-39D

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
As for Historical, I think it was the P-40K version that was better ... they built in the 'improvements' that Chennault told them they needed after they lost a bunch of good airmen in the E's.

The P40K in game is very good at high altitude, so the game stats bear out reality there.

[xj900uk]

The P40K was less manoueverable than the earlier B, C & D versions,  however it did have heavier armament (6 x 50-calibre guns in the wings & nothing in the fusalage which meant a higher rate of fire) and finally a decent turbo-supercharger so it could perform better at high altitude.
Funnily enough though it was mainly used as a close-support 'heavy fighter' for ground attack/straffing/bombing duties in most theatres, particularly the Med
 
Re the P39 fitted with the 20mm cannon (P400 export version in some circles),  in theory this should have been better but most of the cannons in late 41/42 jammed as much as the bigger 37mm - the one advantage it had was that the recoil was far less & put lesser strain on the engine mountings & airframe

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Some minor points: The superior version of the P-39 was the one equipped with a 20mm, not the 37mm gun -faster firing and lighter - I believe this was the brand that could be called a 'bomber-killer'. The wretched Allison engine (or to be fair the strange inability to fit any form of booster, whether turbo or not) was the problem - one that also dogged the P-36. This probably explains why the plane was popular with the Russian airforce but not with the RAF. Fighting on the west was normally at a much higher altitude than in the east (25,000 feet versus 5,000!)

Odd you should say that, cause I've recenly been looking at the air war in Europe in WWII and it looks more and more like only the 8th AF really fought regularly at high altitude.
The Spitfire LF.IX (ie the low altitude version) was by far the most numerous produced, the Spit Mk VIII was only produced in Low alt versions and all the Griifon engined Spits had peak perofrmce at low altitude (in all the previous cases these models tended to have best performance around 5,000 to 8,000 ft.) Also the RAF Mustang I and II were the low altitude versions, so right there you have the vast majority of the RAF optimised for low altitude work.

I've noticed you are pretty well informed in this area mariandavid, so what are your thoughts?

[xj900uk]

Most of the BofB was fought at medium altitude, mainly between 12-18000 feet which is where the German bombers usually flew, although for the opening 'Kanalkampfe' in July because the Luftwaffe were attacking Channel convoys they tended to go in lower.
However,  for straight fighter-vs-fighter (which the RAF actually wanted to avoid) combats tended to start out quite high (usually with the Me's swarming down on some RAF squadron struggling for altitude) and after a good deal of manouverings and turns,  tended to end up pretty low down as most planes ran out of energy & started to trade altitude for extra speed.
This actually suited the RAF better because at the time the Merlin (which powered both Hurricanne & Spitfire) used the good old-fashioned gravity-carburettor,  which made the engine burn more efficiently and with more power at lower altitudes (+ more oxygen in the atmosphere), whilst the Me109 was better at high altitudes (particularly above 25,000) due to its direct fuel injection carburrettor

[Nikademus]

Standard German Frei Jagd tactics stressed vertical maneuvers so yes, at times German fighter elements were usually fairly high up. The 109's positive attributes of rapid climb, speed and high alt performance suited these tactics and were employed very effectively against RAF and "Curtiss" type fighters. Turning fights were to be avoided most of the time though some of the best German pilots could get away with it for brief periods.

Patrolling RAF fighter defenses also varied in altitude...some patrolling as high as 28,000 feet at times. Even then one might still encounter an enemy flying higher. Aircombat is like a 3D Chess game. [:D]

[Boozecamp]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk


However yes I do concede that the russians loved it (and the larger P-63) mainly for its ground attack capabilities (once they ironed out the problems iwht the canon), however it sucks as a medium/high level dogfighter or interceptor,  which is what it tended to be used for at least initially in the Pacific campaigns - only later was it discovered that it made a very good barge buster,  although the poor range somewhat limited this type of attack.

Pretty sure that it is a very common misconception that the Russians used the P-39 primarily for ground attack. I believe it was used mainly as a pure fighter. And why not? They already had a motherload of IL-2s to handle interdiction.

A lot of the interviews on this site are very insightful in this regard.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Dobey

Odd you should say that, cause I've recenly been looking at the air war in Europe in WWII and it looks more and more like only the 8th AF really fought regularly at high altitude.

That's because you pretty much have to fight at the altitude your enemy chooses to fly at. P-39's did well in Russia because the Russian Air Force was primarily assigned to ground attack and flew below 10,000 feet. The Luftwaffe could either cruise around uselessly at higher altitudes, or come down low to engage the Russians where they were actually flying.

The advantage of flying at max altitude in such a situation was virtually nil..., as cloud layers and simple visual "ground clutter" would make it very difficult to spot an enemy 25,000 feet below you. Being above your enemy is "good"..., but being WAY above your enemy is "bad". Personally, I'd like to see the "bounce" advantage start to diminish once the altitude differential begins to exceed 5,000 feet..., and become a negative when it exceeds 10,000 feet.

[mariandavid]

Dobey: The RAF by early 1942 was a great believer (rightly or wrongly) in 'stacked' formations with the highest at around 30,000 feet. Other commentators are correct in that the fighting 'ended' at 10,000 feet but by then, in most cases, the damage was done. A very high proportion of the kills were in the initial attacks, while the dogfights at lower levels tended to be inconclusive (it seems that any pilot with a brain would zoom up as fast as possible to avoid being caught in a diving attack). Regardless - the RAF (and the Luftwaffe) emphasised performance at height above all. The 'clipped and cropped' variants of the Spit V were intended as close escorts at around 15-20,000 feet where their higher turn/roll rate would compensate for the chopped supercharger.
 
Note that the RAF (unlike most (all??) other airforces) designated 'fighting bands' for its aircraft - as much later when the levels became Spit XIV, Tempest, Typhoon in descending order. The Luftwaffe did the same of course with the Me 109K and Fw 190 but only against USAAF heavy bombers.
 
All this explains the disaste felt by Fighter Command for all three Allison engined USAAF fighters. The Desert Air Force used the P-40E family as a medium level (beneath the Spits and above the Hurricane D etc) fighter.

[xj900uk]

in the BofB the Me's would often come over cruising high above 25,000,  watching and waiting for the Hurricanne's and Spitfires to take off and come up to the levels of the German bombers (anywhere between 12-18k feet, althuogh sometimes higher particularly if reconissance mission).  The early Merlin engines with their gravity carburettors would often miss beats,  leading to the British formation becoming more & more strung out & the Me ace's would be on the look-out for any stragglers struggling and skidding in the freezing cold air - many British pilots died this way trying desperately to gain altitude, in many cases not even seeing the Me that got them.
At least,  this is what the German fighter pilots were doing, quite successfully in fact, until Herman Goering had a better idea & decided to tie them in closely with the bomber formations.  In doing so he seemed to forget everything he'd learned as a fighter pilot in WWI - that a fighter is a hunter, and needs its own space.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

in the BofB the Me's would often come over cruising high above 25,000, watching and waiting for the Hurricanne's and Spitfires to take off and come up to the levels of the German bombers (anywhere between 12-18k feet, although sometimes higher particularly if reconissance mission). The early Merlin engines with their gravity carburettors would often miss beats, leading to the British formation becoming more & more strung out & the Me ace's would be on the look-out for any stragglers struggling and skidding in the freezing cold air - many British pilots died this way trying desperately to gain altitude, in many cases not even seeing the Me that got them.
At least, this is what the German fighter pilots were doing, quite successfully in fact, until Herman Goering had a better idea & decided to tie them in closely with the bomber formations. In doing so he seemed to forget everything he'd learned as a fighter pilot in WWI - that a fighter is a hunter, and needs its own space.

Problem was that while the Bf-109's were "hunting", the Luftwaffe's bombers were going down in flames... [8|]

[xj900uk]

The problem with the Luftwaffe was Herman Goering, period.
The idea was actually to destroy the RAF, either in the air or on the ground.  Goering forgot about that pretty quickly and tried to keep his bomber losses to a minimum.  The result of which was that the bomber losses went down (so did the RAF fighter ones) and the Me's went up quite considerably.  Talk about an 'own goal'

[Graymane]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Early war USAAF fighter comparison......the P-39 looks better to me, hands down. Am I missing something?

P-39 is 6 mph faster, has a better climb rate, is more durable (29 v 32), has better manueverability at every altitude, and has more guns. The range is the same. The only advantage it seems is that the P-40 has a better transfer range.

Historically, P-39 performance suffered at higher altitudes, but this doesn't seem reflected in the maneuver bands.

Am I missing something, or is P-39 the better plane?

I'm finding the same thing in my game. P-39s seem to do better than P-40s. I'm also finding that flying ALL of my fighters at 20k or higher gives me significantly better results than any other altitude. There are far fewer losses (for both sides). So I fly them up there until my XP goes up, then I start moving them down toward bomber range. I haven't found that 9k does better for me in any situation. While zeros are better in all bands, they seem to be less better, for whatever reason, above 20k.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

The problem with the Luftwaffe was Herman Goering, period.
The idea was actually to destroy the RAF, either in the air or on the ground.  Goering forgot about that pretty quickly and tried to keep his bomber losses to a minimum.  The result of which was that the bomber losses went down (so did the RAF fighter ones) and the Me's went up quite considerably.  Talk about an 'own goal'

the problem with the Luftwaffe over Britain wasn´t Herman Goering it was their aircraft which couldn´t do what they were expected to do over Britain. Goering became the problem after it was obvious that the Luftwaffe wouldn´t achieve air superiority and couldn´t knock out the RAF. Goering made it only worse in the end but neither the Me-109 nor the Heinkells, nor the Dorniers or the Junkers were up to the task of knocking out the RAF.

While the Luftwaffe proved to be deadly over Poland, the Western front and later also on the Eastern front, they operated "near" the frontline and not over enemy territory without having adequate flying time for their fighters and without the possibility to knock out the fighters airfields as they moved out of Luftwaffe fighter range.

[xj900uk]

That's not exactly true.  THe Germans lost rather than the RAF won the BofB (I've done a lot of research on the subject for several writings & theses) and more or less threw it away.  They had the power to win it but thanks to lack of planning, tactical awareness,  totally inept leadership and yes limitations in their own aircraft that they refused to recognise,  they managed to loose it.
IMO the main reasons they lost it are as follows :
 
(1). Lack of range of the Me109.  Also using it as a close-escort fighter which used up its fuel even faster.  It was made as a hunter (I've flown one as well so can speak from personal experience).  True the Germans had a drop-tank for the 'E' series which was made of moulded plywood, tended to split and caused soem spectacular ground & hanger fires so it was never deployed operationally
(2). Total lack of planning/intelligence.  The Germans could not identify a major target or strategy then stick to it.  Their reconissance was good,  but planning & using such reconissance was attrocious.  For example, the main Spitfire factory near Southampton was identified by reconissance back in July,  yet it took until September 27th to plan the first major raid on it - should have been hit repeatedly and often.  Also even when they started to make progress, like hitting Park's main airfields repeatedly, they then changed direction several times.  The Germans also knew of radar but made no real attempt to understand it or the organisation behind it - they actually thought the fighter stations were tied/controlled to indiviudla radar units.
(3). The appallingly inept leadership of Goering and his chronies.  He didn't understand what was happening when the Luftwaffe failed to perform, and blamed his fighter pilots fo lack of fighting spirit.  As a result morale plummeted.  Also he took his eye off the ball for not going out to destroy the RAf from the start.  Park and Dowding realised they had to keep pilots morale up and refreshed were possible,  and in order ot win all they had to do was for the RAF to survive.
(4).  Bombing London by day.  This I accept was not Goering's idea, however London burned whilst the RAF (and Park's fighter stations) survived.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

All of Germany's efforts were hindered by Hitler's promise to his military chiefs that no war would start in Europe before 1943. So they began rebuilding all of Germany's military services with that belief. So navy had some battleships and cruisers but virtually no desrtoyers or subs as these could be built closer to 1943 ( and be more modern). Army made training tanks with MKI and II. Barely any MK III or IV were made prior to war. And the Luftwaffe was making its first generation of planes (in numbers) Do17, He111, Me109. But when the war started in 1939 the entire re-armament program was caught off balance. And Germany was forced to go to war with barely adequate forces- and in many instances hopelessly obsolete or worse still none existant. So the navy had 37 subs at war's begininng when the plan was for 200 in 1943. The airforce was not equipped for its role. The early victories only covered up deeper problems within the German war machine. The biggest problem, of course, was the total lack of planning for a long war and having virtually no reserves or replacements.
Germany was lucky that its enemies for even less prepared for war than itself. But reckless leadership ensured that Germany's defeat would be utter when it came.
Who knows how the war would have played out if started in 1943 as Hitler promised? Or even in 1939 but at least with some minamum of proper pre-war planning.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

All of Germany's efforts were hindered by Hitler's promise to his military chiefs that no war would start in Europe before 1943. So they began rebuilding all of Germany's military services with that belief. So navy had some battleships and cruisers but virtually no desrtoyers or subs as these could be built closer to 1943 ( and be more modern). Army made training tanks with MKI and II. Barely any MK III or IV were made prior to war. And the Luftwaffe was making its first generation of planes (in numbers) Do17, He111, Me109. But when the war started in 1939 the entire re-armament program was caught off balance. And Germany was forced to go to war with barely adequate forces- and in many instances hopelessly obsolete or worse still none existant. So the navy had 37 subs at war's begininng when the plan was for 200 in 1943. The airforce was not equipped for its role. The early victories only covered up deeper problems within the German war machine. The biggest problem, of course, was the total lack of planning for a long war and having virtually no reserves or replacements.
Germany was lucky that its enemies for even less prepared for war than itself. But reckless leadership ensured that Germany's defeat would be utter when it came.
Who knows how the war would have played out if started in 1943 as Hitler promised? Or even in 1939 but at least with some minamum of proper pre-war planning.

It would have provided four years of catch-up time for Germany's opponents--a mini-cold war, with the strongest economy winning.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

Yes there would have been an arms race as Germany's enemies were already awakening to Germany's growing mence. But going to war in 1939 with the weapons in hand was a major blunder (in my opinion). Italy would have been given more time to prepare.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
On paper the FW109 looks much better, but most of the GER aces flew ME109's.  Reason was that the ME109 had better rollrate and tighter turn circle.  FW109 was faster and tougher, but not as nimble.  Further, data on roll rates and turn rates doesn't exist for most of the planes of the era.  So, instead, gamers have to quantify what they can and some planes get reputations in game that are not consistent with how they actually performed in the war.  P-39 is one of those that generally gets pretty slammed.  Oh well.

Sorry but this is simply wrong.

The 190 was famous for having the best rollrate in the whole european theatre. The standard evasive maneuvre in a 190 was to roll it on its back and split-S away
which worked perfectly against the lower wing-loaded british aircraft - until the arrival of the first P-47 squads that were able to outdive the 190.

The reason for most German aces choosing to remain with the 109 airframe, which was from design outdated in late ´42, was simply that they got used to handle
this aircraft to its absolute limit. they all had 1000´s of hours flight experience on the 109 and knew it better than anything else.

to quote RAF Air Marshall Sholto Douglas in 1942:
"We are now in a position of inferiority. There is no doubt in my mind, or in the mind of my fighter pilots that the FW190 is the best fighter in the world today."

they were, simply put, two different approaches to fighter design.
the 109 being a good overall dogfighter while the 190 was a class A energy fighter.

the differences between P39s and P40s are much smaller in these aspects.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

I thought the Army Air Force's problem with the P-39D was on a maintenance level. There were maintenance problems with the power-train, and the complicated landing-gear. Whereas the P-40 compared with the P-39D required less maintenance hours to keep airworthy.

Don't forget that the prop hub mounted 37mm cannon constantly jammed and rarely worked at any given time.

Surprisingly the Russians had very good results with the P-39, but they used them in a completely different role.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
On paper the FW109 looks much better, but most of the GER aces flew ME109's.  Reason was that the ME109 had better rollrate and tighter turn circle.  FW109 was faster and tougher, but not as nimble.  Further, data on roll rates and turn rates doesn't exist for most of the planes of the era.  So, instead, gamers have to quantify what they can and some planes get reputations in game that are not consistent with how they actually performed in the war.  P-39 is one of those that generally gets pretty slammed.  Oh well.

Sorry but this is simply wrong.

The 190 was famous for having the best rollrate in the whole european theatre. The standard evasive maneuvre in a 190 was to roll it on its back and split-S away
which worked perfectly against the lower wing-loaded british aircraft - until the arrival of the first P-47 squads that were able to outdive the 190.

The reason for most German aces choosing to remain with the 109 airframe, which was from design outdated in late ´42, was simply that they got used to handle
this aircraft to its absolute limit. they all had 1000´s of hours flight experience on the 109 and knew it better than anything else.

to quote RAF Air Marshall Sholto Douglas in 1942:
"We are now in a position of inferiority. There is no doubt in my mind, or in the mind of my fighter pilots that the FW190 is the best fighter in the world today."

they were, simply put, two different approaches to fighter design.
the 109 being a good overall dogfighter while the 190 was a class A energy fighter.

the differences between P39s and P40s are much smaller in these aspects.

LoBaron,
Not disputing anything you say, but you're missing 2/3 of the war. Typical western mistake.

From the USA and UK perspective, due to the type of fighting they did, the FW-190 was the very best. It was the foremost energy fighter of the war by many expert opinions. From the SOV perspective, they considered the FW-190 a sitting duck. It was not a dogfighter. It did not have good 'deck' performance.

Most of the GER aces were on the East not West front, and they preferred the Me. Very few exceptions, if any. You may be correct in that it was due to the time they had in the airframe, I haven't chatted with any of them so I cannot know the answer. OTOH, it may be due to the reputed fact, from both GER and SOV sources that the ME was a far superior dogfighter which is what was needed in the East.

Again, your reference to roll-rates is correct against the armament wing-mounted fighters in the West. In the East, the roll-rate did not compare at all to the Yak or Me designs with most/all of the weapons mounted c/l or inboard against the fuselage.

For the P-39, the SOV typically removed the wing guns to further enhance its already unmatchable rollrate. They also, somehow, fixed the problems with the 37mm cannon, because that is what the No.2 Sov ace used. He had all the other guns removed to lighten and improve the performance.