P-40E v P-39D

[xj900uk]

Have sat in a P39 cockpit & believe you me it is very uncomfortable, particularly the propellor shaft between the legs.  Also bailing out of it and getting your feet to come with you from that side 'car door' is almost impossible into a slip stream (I had a great deal of difficulty with it sitting on the ground engine off going nowhere)
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.
 
I have logged about 90 minutes on three separate occasions in a P40 and believe me it is a beautiful plane, fun and easy to fly.   Fast,  light on the controls and manoueverable.  Also given the high-wing loading tends to hang on to its energy quite well.
Also logged 8 hours + in Spanish-built Me109's, even more uncomfortable than the P39 and (I'm a large chap) virtually impossible to get in or out of in a hurry.  Also the visibitily is completely naff (something you don't want to really suffer with in a dogfighting plane),  the whole thing was far too light and delicate,  the narrow undercarriage sucks (very easy to drop a wingtip and turn it over) and the cockpit is far too crowded.  Other than that it's OK.
Sat in but not flown a Fw190 Butcher Bird,  seemed a lot bigger and more rugged plane,  probalby not as manouverable as the Me109 but a lot more armour plate and armament.  You felt that this plane could really do a lot of damage in the right hands

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I've read several places that the German aces disdained the FW190.  No, they had a choice and chose the Me109.  Remember, these guys were celebrated.  They had their pick of aircraft.

Same with the P-39.  The Soviet ace had his choice and chose the P-39, even later in the war when there were "better" planes available.  My guess on the P-39 is that he became very adept with its roll characteristics.  If you haven't flown, roll rate allows you to choose your direction for your turn. High roll rate means you can get to a new direction very quickly.  P-39 turn rate reputedly wasn't much better than anything else, but since it could roll so fast it allowed you to lose someone on your tail almost immediately, and conversely allowed you to stay on an opponent tail faily well.  Both are pretty important in dog fighting.  And then that big cannon it had ... one or two hits and most fighters would have been down.  Firing centerline meant high accuracy ... very interesting and unique design.

the big cannon might look nice to you but believe me, even if you only need one or two hits to down a fighter, hitting a fighter with it is pure luck. Two German 20mm cannons are far more effective than this useless center lined 37mm cannon. This cannon was near useless... firing centerline or not, the rate of fire just sucked.

and yes, German aces were celebrated (just as all other aces of other nations) but if your squadron is flying a Me109 then you will end up flying this aircraft too and even if all the Me109 models were really good aircraft, the Focke Wolf still would have accounted for more kills and more German pilots surviving if it would have been the primary fighter IMO.

[PaxMondo]

Well 150 rounds/min is slow I grant you.  But with 2000ft/sec muzzle velocity and centerline it fired straight, something that a lot of other big cannon struggled with (accuracy).  Somehow the Soviets figured out how to use it effectively against the Germans.  Unfortunately, I've never read anywhere that those Soviet pilots left detailed notes on their tactics so we may never know exactly how they did it.  But the numbers do not lie.  Pretty or graceful as a Spit?  No way.  Rack up a lot of kills and get its pilot home safe for another fight?  Yep.

Edit: "Sasha" Alexandre Ivanovich Pokryshkin. Something like 59 confirmed kills across the entire war. Almost entirely in the P-39.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Real life aside, is there any explanation as to how the stats are interpreted by the game engine?

Firepower remains an overbearing factor. The P-39's armament gives it a large firepower rating within the engine which makes it particularily deadly to unarmored bombers. Altitude penalties will do little to alter this. In this respect the P-39 is SAIEW in Witp. If it gets at the bombers, watch out.

[castor troy]

a fighter with a "door"... this should say enough... [;)]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Firepower remains an overbearing factor. The P-39's armament gives it a large firepower rating within the engine which makes it particularily deadly to unarmored bombers. Altitude penalties will do little to alter this. In this respect the P-39 is SAIEW in Witp. If it gets at the bombers, watch out.

I've noticed this with Beaufighters, they shred bombers like you wouldn't believe.

But why does a P39 suffer against fighters compared to a P40? In game stats look like the P39 should be better, but it isn't. Whats the crack?

[Nikademus]

In theory, its supposed to have a preformance falloff at higher altitude, + starting 39 groups tend to have lower experience. However in my experiences the 39's do abnormally well against both fighters and bombers, primary due to the firepower they bring into the calcs.

I used to reduce this firepower in my old mods to compensate.

[EUBanana]

Any performance falloff isn't really reflected in the stats, and I thought all hardcoded under the hood wrinkles like that were removed?

P39D
Max speed 368mph
Gun rating 18
Maneuverability bands 19 17 13 9 5
Armour 1
Climb rate 2631 feet/min
Durability 32

P40E
Max speed 354mph
Gun rating 18
Maneuverability bands 16 16 11 6 2
Armour 1
Climb rate 2050 feet/min
Durability 29


So the P39 is better than the P40E in every regard but one, and equal in that one. Yet the P39 gets eaten for lunch and the P40 does not. Any pilot differences seem pretty minor, certainly at my point in the game anyway as the originals are all dead, so both are drawing from the same pool.

Like I said, what gives? The Beaufighter VIC tells a similar tale. It certainly minces bombers more than anything else in the air, but against fighters it's dead, and yet if you look at the stats even of a twin like the Beau, it's maneuverability is akin to the P40E.

The only thing that seems different is that the P39 and Beau are classed as a fighter bomber and the P40 is not, which is why it seems maybe simply being a fighter bomber incurs a penalty of some kind.

[crsutton]

In theory multi weapon equipped aircraft make much poorer dogfighters that aircraft with the same type of guns throughout. The differing muzzle velocities of the 37mm cannon, twin 50 cal and four 30 calibers put the P-39 at a distinct disadvantage over the P40 when any sort of deflection shot was used. So a turning fight against a fighter gave the P40 a substantial advantage since the pilot was only trying to get six identical 50 caliber guns to hit the target. The cannon on the 39 could be deadly if it hit anything but with the slow rate of fire, it was not the easiest thing to do and not a poplular weapon.
 
One aspect of the P40 that is very underrated both vs the P39 and the zero is the superior roll rate that the P40 possesed. In fact the P40 had one of the best roll rates of any fighter in the war. This is a key advantage in a fight as any turn in an aircraft must begin with a roll. The zero was a great turner but had a slower roll rate-especially at high altitudes and at any speed above 280 kts. Don't be fooled the zero was not a great turning plane at high speed and that is why P40 pilots were told to keep their top speed up. So, for a brief period, due to the better roll rate, a P40 could actually out turn a zero. A diving P40 pilot making a pass on a zero could react to the zero's turning maneuvering by rolling over and actually begin his turn before the zero-allowing for the P40 pilot to get in a deflection shot before the zero's superior turn rate actually took effect. The (smart) p40 pilot would then refuse to turn any further with the zero and just straighten out and extend away for another pass or another day.
 
Any talk of zero vs P40s at high altitude is sort of out of whack anyway. If a p40 encountered a zero at 27,000 feet (not likely since both planes sucked at altitude) then any competent p40 pilot would use his superior dive speed to fly away to a lower altitude where he could even the fight or just disengage. One reason why I am not a fan of the high altitude sweep in the game. Experienced pilots just learned to not play the zero's game. The rule was simple. Keep your speed up and don't turn with a zero. Follow that simple rule and the P40 was a far superior aircraft.

[EUBanana]

Thats real life though, I'm curious as to the game mechanics... there are quite a few areas where the stats that are written down just don't seem to have anything to do with the results you get, which makes me curious.

[crsutton]

Yes, you are right about that. P39 looks to be an incredible bomber killer in AE.

[Barb]

P-39Ds roll rate was superior to that of P-40 up to 265 mph (426 km/h). And with two or four of the MGs removed from the wing mad it even better - Soviets did it quite frequently.

(And they did not use P-39s as tank-busters as only HE ammo was supplied to them - would like to know who came up with that idea? Imagine country fighting for its withdrawal against enemy armor heavy forces and you will not send AP ammo for a weapon system that could be effective tank-killer [&:])

[joliverlay]

Adolf Galland wrote alot about this. Most German fighter aces preferred the 109 because above 20K or so it was a much better plane. So much so that Galland proposed to use 109s solely against Allied fighters and FW190 against the bombers. Hitler was not keen on any thing other than everbody attack the bombers.


Anyway Galland preferred the 109 and flew it until the me262. It was not quite as good as the opposition by 1944, but the late war G10, G14 and K were getting close to the capabilities of the P51. Many say that with the same octane fuel the US had had, they might have been equal.

[goran007]

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

Adolf Galland wrote alot about this. Most German fighter aces preferred the 109 because above 20K or so it was a much better plane. So much so that Galland proposed to use 109s solely against Allied fighters and FW190 against the bombers. Hitler was not keen on any thing other than everbody attack the bombers.


Anyway Galland preferred the 109 and flew it until the me262. It was not quite as good as the opposition by 1944, but the late war G10, G14 and K were getting close to the capabilities of the P51. Many say that with the same octane fuel the US had had, they might have been equal.

true, high octane fuel US had and Japan didnt was the real killer.

[Xxzard]

OK, I think Eubannana, Q-Ball and I are all asking the same thing, and we've yet to get an answer.

The original question was: Why is the P-40E a better plane in the game than the P-39, even though the P-39 has all around better stats???

There is no arguing with the stats, (unless something else is coming into play here[&:]) They say the P-39 is more manuverable than the P-40 at all altitudes.

I get it that maybe no one knows the answer here, but if that is the case, I think we ought to find someone who knows, or perhaps discuss why this is. While historical discussions are valuable, and usually fairly relevant with this game, this is an in-game issue.

[xj900uk]

Me109 was more manouevrable in theory (a good dogfighter) than the Fw190 (used mainly for slashing attacks) but most pilots wouldn't put this to the test, given the fragility of the Me's wings.
However the aces liked it, particularly the centre-mounted 20mm cannon.  Marsielle in N Africa used to be able to bring down on an ALlied plane on average with less than 10 shots per plane with his trusty 'F'
 
Re the P39 and those side-car doors!  Imagine trying to bale out of that with the slipstream holding the thing shut?  For what it's worth, the P63 KingCobra had the side-car doors hinged at the front rather than the rear

[MightyPaladin]

no mention of the P-39s infamous tendency to go into a flat spin because it feels like it? I imagine that was a reason for it being less than popular [:D]

Anyway, is dive speed modeled in any way? 'cause the P-39 can dive like a meteor. Of course the P-40 is pretty well known for its dive characteristics too. Then again, when compared to most Japanese fighters and their dive characteristics of a dropped feather, I'm not sure its an important difference between the two American fighters.

[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!)

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

OK, I think Eubannana, Q-Ball and I are all asking the same thing, and we've yet to get an answer.

The original question was: Why is the P-40E a better plane in the game than the P-39, even though the P-39 has all around better stats???

There is no arguing with the stats, (unless something else is coming into play here[&:]) They say the P-39 is more manuverable than the P-40 at all altitudes.

I get it that maybe no one knows the answer here, but if that is the case, I think we ought to find someone who knows, or perhaps discuss why this is. While historical discussions are valuable, and usually fairly relevant with this game, this is an in-game issue.

For me, so far, the P-39 is the better plane. At least I'm getting more kills, but then I have them in higher action areas. Someone above pointed out that the starting exp is higher for P-40 groups that P-39. That might explain what you are seeing.

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.

[TheElf]

From Bell P-39/P-63 Airacobra & Kingcobra, WARBIRD TECH SERIES Vol. 17, p. 59

Citing Memo from Gen. D. MacArthur to USAAC Chief Gen. Henry Arnold 14 May 1942

"In combat with "0" it is the opinion from different pilots that [the] P-39 is from 5 to 10 percent superior over the P-40." The memo conceded that the Zero had better climb and MVR than the P-39, but at low altitudes, "the P-39 is slightly faster at 325 mph. P-39 can out-dive the Zero..." The memo does call for fighters with higher altitude capabilities than those of either the P-39 or P-40 to be sent to the Pacific.