Hapless AI versus total freaking newbie.

[Capt. Harlock]

Excellent style on your AAR! (Although, wouldn't 'Imperial General Staff' apply to the Japanese rather than the British?)

I've long had a theory that P-39's are best used in the Burma-India theatre, since they have good ground-pounding abilities and hold up well against the lesser armament of the Nates and Oscars. My humble prediction is that the planes in Gasmata will come off badly.

[HMS Resolution]

Actually, the British had an Imperial General Staff as well; the birdwatching General Alan Brooke was Chief of the Imperial General Staff from 1941 on.

I am quite certain the P-39s will be slaughtered over Gasmata, even when used as fighter bombers. The USAAF still has a quite unmerited confidence in its abilities, and is going to throw them in willy-nilly over Rabaul along with the excellent P-40E, which so far has proved to be a world-beater in my book.

[Ian R]

Unfortunately there aren't enough P40s to go around early, so you have to use those P39's for something, until they upgrade.... to P38s. CBI theatre suits them, but all the better to involve them in the attrition battle of the South Pacific if it can be effectively done.
 
Somewhere in the manual it tells you to keep the P39s below 10,000 feet. or at least that they are penalised above that. This is an engine related thing (same as the P51A/A36, though as far as I know they never tried to to put an RR Merlin into a P39, might have been interesting if the centre mount engine made for a very manouvreable result). 
 
Try treating them as Sturmoviks, keeping them down low and using them to bomb and strafe ground units, ships and bases, but not as escorts or, if you can avoid it, CAP over bases within enemy fighter range. Hopefully by the time their Lightnings are available the pilots will have excellent experience ratings. Conversely, do not use your P40s for anything other than CAP or Escort (even if the IJN CVs turn up, keep them as escorts so maybe some bombers will get through).

[HMS Resolution]

2/3/1942
TO: Brigadier Swales, GOC RAF 221 Group, BURMA
Sir, consider yourself removed from command effective immediately. The previously low standards of the RAF SEAC no longer hold true, and a man who cannot identify an aeroplane may not continue to command an RAF HQ.
(signed)

[BGEN Swales had an air skill of 4 and a leadership rating of 35. The RAF must have been wondering why all their Hurricanes had so many parts left over.]

[HMS Resolution]

The Dutch have hit the IJNS Kuma five times with 250- and 500-pound bombs over the course of four days. Amazing!

The USAAF Rabaul raids are not going super well; morale dropped below thirty in all four bombing groups, and they're taking a break.

The AVG is now flying out of Chandpur, and even in P-40Bs, they are smoking hot. On 3/4/42, 25 Hurricanes and 16 AVG P-40Bs engaged 19 Zekes, 47 Bettys, and 23 Oscars over Akyab; two Hurrys and a single P-40 were shot down in exchange for 8 Zekes, 10 Oscars, and 17 Bettys.

I have occupied the Andaman and Nicobar isles; Andaman has 12 Buffaloes, 8 Dutch Catalinas, and two Vildebeests, in the unlikely even that anything gets too close. Nicobar has some bewildered Dutch naval personnel, and a battery of 155mm coastal guns. Eventually, it will have seaplanes.

Akyab has two Indian and one UK division holding out against a single IJA division. So far, it's been relatively calm, but I have 50+ Blenheims raiding it every day, and the Japanese are throwing the kitchen sink at me in the air. I'm starting to like Oscars, by the way; they're like cheap malt liqour: they go down fast.

APDs can invade, right? Because if not, I'm going to look really dumb at the Marcus islands in a turn or two.

HMAS Canberra magically regrew her two forward turrets! That's kind of swell.

Soryu's in the Java Sea.

More later, when I'm not a-sleepy.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Ian R
Somewhere in the manual it tells you to keep the P39s below 10,000 feet. or at least that they are penalised above that. This is an engine related thing (same as the P51A/A36, though as far as I know they never tried to to put an RR Merlin into a P39, might have been interesting if the centre mount engine made for a very manouvreable result).

The P-39 had terrible spin characteristics, had maintenance problems, and was considered unfit for use by the USAAF. By mid-1942, it was decided to phase it out of front line use. Production probably would have been discontinued alltogether if the Russians hadn't fallen in love with them.

Some prominent combat pilots tried to get the P-39 grounded for even training purposes. Quite a few pilots learned how to bail out of airplanes in the P-39. If it got into a flat spin, it was almost impossible to recover. The complex drive shaft for the propeller had its problems too. The gearing was complex and sometimes seized up. Pilots didn't like the idea that something that could have a catastrophic failure was spinning at high speed between their legs.

The Merlin only helped planes that were high performance to begin with. There were quite a few planes that were not hot rods with Merlins. The P-40F's performance was somewhat lackluster with the Merlin. It had a little higher top speed and better altitude performance, but the performance increase was marginal. Later models went back to the Allison.

I believe the Fairey Battle had a Merlin. It's front line career ended with the Battle of France. (It was a light bomber.)

One plane that would have benefitted from the Merlin, but it was never tried was the P-38. Lockheed drew up plans to convert the P-38 to Merlins, but the War Planning Board decided that they couldn't afford the down time to retool, so it was never done. The P-38 had supercharged Allisons. The Merlin got it's great high altitude performance from a built in supercharger that was much lighter than the external beasts on the P-38. Putting Merlins in the P-38 might have saved 1000 pounds or more in weight for better high altitude performance (the turbos on the P-38 froze up under some conditions).

Bill

[HMS Resolution]

Heck, if you want an example of a lacklustre plane with a Merlin, consider, if you will, the Fairey Fulmar. Heavens, how I hate that aircraft.

[DuckofTindalos]

Amazing that the mortality rate for its crews wasn't 100%[:D]

BTW, the Battle was actually responsible for the RAF's first A2A kill of WWII, on 9/20/39, when a Battle gunner accounted for a 109... Sorry for the hi-jack, Resolution...

[DuckofTindalos]

Oh, and forgot to mention: Nice AAR-style...[&o]

[Ian R]

I don't think you can compare the Battle to a fighter - if I put an RR engine in a garbage truck it will still be a garbarge truck - and the Fulmar was actually another development of the P4/34 design from which the Battle emerged. The Fulmar was a two seater, with a navigator as well as pilot, although it was still the first FAA monoplane fighter.

[HMS Resolution]

I was under the impression that the equally lacklustre Blackburn Roc had preceeded the Fulmar into service; imagine, Gentlemen, if you will, an aircraft combining all the deficiencies of the Bolton-Paul Defiant with a speed 100MPH lower, so that it couldn't even run away properly...
 
I still have great difficulty understanding the need for an observer in what was nominally a fighter aircraft, but I suppose it was part and parcel of letting the RAF decide what the FAA needed or did not need. As it stands, it's sheer murder to field the Fulmar against Zekes, or probably even Oscars.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I don't think you can compare the Battle to a fighter - if I put an RR engine in a garbage truck it will still be a garbarge truck - and the Fulmar was actually another development of the P4/34 design from which the Battle emerged. The Fulmar was a two seater, with a navigator as well as pilot, although it was still the first FAA monoplane fighter.

I wasn't comparing the Battle to a fighter, though I guess I wasn't all that clear. The Mosquito and Lancaster had Merlins and were excellent bombers, but the Battle also had the Merlin and it was a turkey.

The Hurricane was a decent fighter, but considered inferior to the Spitfire. It's performance was poorer than the Spitfire and reached a developmental dead end earlier because it was a more primitive airframe.

The P-51 and Spitfire were excellent fighters because they combined the Merlin with a first class airframe. Putting a Merlin into a turkey made a slightly better turkey. If you were lucky.

Bill

[Ian R]

Unless it was the P51A Turkey

[Ian R]

How do you get the smileys to work here?

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Unless it was the P51A Turkey

From what I have read, the P-51A was an excellent fighter at low altitudes. I recall reading a quote from a pilot who flew them in (I believe) the CBI who said that below 10,000 feet, they were the best plane in the sky.

Bill

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

I was under the impression that the equally lacklustre Blackburn Roc had preceeded the Fulmar into service; imagine, Gentlemen, if you will, an aircraft combining all the deficiencies of the Bolton-Paul Defiant with a speed 100MPH lower, so that it couldn't even run away properly...

I still have great difficulty understanding the need for an observer in what was nominally a fighter aircraft, but I suppose it was part and parcel of letting the RAF decide what the FAA needed or did not need. As it stands, it's sheer murder to field the Fulmar against Zekes, or probably even Oscars.

According to Green & Swanborough:

Fulmar:

first flew on 4 -1- 40, production of 600 finished xx-2-43. Served on 13 carriers.

Roc: "Blackburn B25 two-seat shipboard fighter-bomber derivative of the B-24 Skua dive bomber"

first flew 23-12-38 (production aircraft - there was no prototype), 136 plane build run contracted, none operated from carriers and after brief operational service relegated to second line duties.


So we're both right.

The search for a multi-role carrier plane continued with the Firefly ("strike fighter", and later there was an ASW version) and the Blackburn Firebrand TF MkV, the "torpedo fighter" whose performance in late 1944 would have been excellent for 1942/3. Of course what they needed was the F/A-18 Hornet, but in the end they settled for the F4U Corsair.

[Ian R]

Bill, did the P51A's assessed by the RAF have or not have turbo-chargers?

I recall that the P-38s offered as Lend lease had had the turbo chargers removed as being secret and not available for export, resulting in poor performance, but am not sure about the Alison engined Mustangs. I do recall some of the 800 A36A/ P51A ordered by the USAAF were in operational use in the CBI with 1st Air Commando Group as late as March 1944, used as both "dive bombers" and tactical recon (ie low level, something particularly suitable).

They both had versions of the V-1710 engine - the early P38 had the -27/29 (F2) version (1150 hp), the A36A had the V1710 F3R (1150hp), the P51A the V1710-81 (1200hp).

The P38L in 1944 was powered by the V1710-111/113 engine generating 1600hp at 26,500 feet. Don't know if that includes the turbo charger.

Against that the Merlin 65 installed in the 5 Mustang I's fitted as test aircraft in 1942 generated 1750 hp at altitude, as did the Packard V 1650-3 version of the engine.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Bill, did the P51A's assessed by the RAF have or not have turbo-chargers?

I recall that the P-38s offered as Lend lease had had the turbo chargers removed as being secret and not available for export, resulting in poor performance, but am not sure about the Alison engined Mustangs. I do recall some of the 800 A36A/ P51A ordered by the USAAF were in operational use in the CBI with 1st Air Commando Group as late as March 1944, used as both "dive bombers" and tactical recon (ie low level, something particularly suitable).

They both had versions of the V-1710 engine - the early P38 had the -27/29 (F2) version (1150 hp), the A36A had the V1710 F3R (1150hp), the P51A the V1710-81 (1200hp).

The P38L in 1944 was powered by the V1710-111/113 engine generating 1600hp at 26,500 feet. Don't know if that includes the turbo charger.

Against that the Merlin 65 installed in the 5 Mustang I's fitted as test aircraft in 1942 generated 1750 hp at altitude, as did the Packard V 1650-3 version of the engine.

No Allison powered Mustangs had superchargers. The P-51 was built because North American didn't want to build P-40s for the British. The British were using P-40s for ground support and wanted more. North American thought they could make a better plane and did. The initial P-51s used Allisons because it was the only high performance liquid cooled engine available to US manufacturers at the time.

When the 9th AF was formed, the USAAF followed the same practice as the British and slated all P-51s to go into that AF for ground attack and the P-47s to remain in the 8th AF for escort duty. Some 8th AF pilots who were aware of the better performance and potentially better range of the P-51 campaigned for getting the P-51s sent to the 8th. A compromise was reached where the first fighter unit of the 9th that already had P-51s would keep them, but all future P-51s would go to 8th AF groups. The 8th borrowed the one unit with P-51s until the D-Day invasion.

The 1600hp at altitude for the P-38 was almost certainly with super chargers.

Bill

[Ian R]

I should have said "high altitude turkey".

The upgrade path in the game is A36 -> P47C. I am starting to wonder if that is right. Although there are only one or two Apache groups in the game, they are pretty useful. (max speed 390, man. 32 and a rare (for a fighter bomber) 2 rating for armour plating - better at low level than the P40.) I keep them around until there is a huge pool of P51s and P47s in 1944.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I should have said "high altitude turkey".

The upgrade path in the game is A36 -> P47C. I am starting to wonder if that is right. Although there are only one or two Apache groups in the game, they are pretty useful. (max speed 390, man. 32 and a rare (for a fighter bomber) 2 rating for armour plating - better at low level than the P40.) I keep them around until there is a huge pool of P51s and P47s in 1944.

I just did some further research. Only one fighter group had A-36s in the CBI. That was the 311th FG, which consisted of the 528th, 529th, and 539th fighter squadrons. I can't find the source now, but not too long ago I read that two of the squadrons upgraded to P-51B/Cs soon after arrival in India. The third squadron operated a mix of A-36s and P-51s when the group moved to the 14th AF in China in 1944.

The game should upgrade the A-36 to the P-51B. No unit in the area covered by the game ever operated P-47s and A-36s.

Poking around, I did notice a blurb saying that most of the 300 P-51As served in India. I didn't research any further though. The P-51A had hardpoints for external fuel tanks and was equipped as an exscort fighter. It was similarly equipped as the P-51B, but with the Allison engine and its limitations.

Bill