Maneuverability?

[DOCUP]

I always thought that most single engine (late 1930s early 1940s) fighters where more maneuverable than twin engine fighters. Am I wrong in that thinking? In the database most twin-engine Japanese fighters are more maneuverable than early war allied single engine fighters. I know several things affect the MVR bands. Please explain to me.

[jmolyson]

Once they knew there was a war on, you hear about P-40s returning damaged, but you basically read about Zeros blowing up. No armor and no self-sealing tanks. Why? Because the P-40 was a more survivable airplane and P-40 pilots lived to apply their combat experience. conversely, the really excellent, combat-experienced pilot force the Japanese started with was frittered away less survivable planes. The P-40 pilots learned to avoid turning fights with Zeros and Oscars, easier to blow them up in diving, slashing attacks then chandelle and repeat the process.

Looking at the twins, the Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu; Nakajima J1N1 Gekko and Mitsubishi Ki-46 Dinah were best used as bomber interceptors, and were poorly matched against American single-engine fighters. They were also easy prey for the P-38.

In comparing single-engine versus twin, the exchange rate between Japanese single-engine fighters and the twin-engine P-38 was 7-1. For the American P-40 against Japanese single-engine fighters, it was 1:1 but that includes all those early war surprise attack losses that the P-40s incurred that the P-38 was not around to suffer. Conversely, the Japanese twins had a 3-4:1 exchange rate against the P-40. These numbers come from Google AI.

As with everything else, average American pilot proficiency and survival got better during the war and Japanese pilot proficiency and survival got worse. This more than trumped maneuverability.

All this being said, I'm not sure if the above facts are totally incorporated into the game engine, or rather the Japanese get too much credit for "play balance" at the cost of historical accuracy.

[jmolyson]

Maneuverability depends on a number of factors, including but not limited to weight, wing design and pilot proficiency.

Early war Japanese aircraft, including the twin-engine aircraft, were light weight because they generally lacked radios and self-sealing fuel tanks. Also, especially for the China veterans, they had combat experience. These were advantages for a while again pilots with less experience flying planes originally designed to support a large land army.

The Japanese planes also carried lighter armament with lesser range against a more survivable and heavier armed adversary. This was a disadvantage.

The empty weight of a Zero was less than 4,000 pounds on most models, while the P-40 started the war at about 5,500 lb and grew into about 6,000 pounds mid-war. The numbers for a Japanese twin compared to the P-38 would be similarly disparate.

Comments on armament weight:

The early P-40 (as an example) carried four 60-lb 50 caliber machine guns in the wings plus two 30 caliber machine guns in the nose. This doesn't count the substantial weight of the ammo, a large supply of which was provided for each gun. The 50 had a range of 2,000 yards, the 30 had a range of about 450 yards.

For the Zero, again as an example, had two 7.7 mm Type 97 machine guns (52 lb total) mounted in the engine cowling and two 20 mm Type 99 cannons (about 110 lb) mounted in the wings. Again this discounts the amount of ammo carried. The Type 97 machine gun had a range of 650 yards and the Type 99 autocannon also had a range of about 650 yards.