How to use the Aircobras?

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus RAF Kittyhawks suffered an approximate 2.5:1 ratio loss in favor of the 109.

I believe 112 Squadron RAF attributed 21 of their Tomahawk losses in the Med to 109s (primarily JG27) whilst claiming 32 109s. Even discounting the overclaiming, it's not as shabby a performance as the JG27 claims would have the unwary believe

[Nikademus]

overclaiming is a natural product of the environment. A standard rule of thumb in the most general sense is about 2:1 In some cases it was worse....in some cases the claiming was remarkably accurate. In one case Shores found the records of the side that lost the plane to be in error! [:D]

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

overclaiming is a natural product of the environment. A standard rule of thumb in the most general sense is about 2:1 In some cases it was worse....in some cases the claiming was remarkably accurate. In one case Shores found the records of the side that lost the plane to be in error! [:D]

Aye That said, some of JG27s over-reporting seems 'zealous' even by the LW standards of the time - several '10 with one blow' kind of claims passed without any critical comment as the Experten racked up their scores. Makes for some interesting discussion sixty years after the event as the historians try to figure things out.

Guess the real underlying point is that neither the P-39 nor the P-40 were truly horrific as planes when used within their limits (or pushed well beyond in the Soviets case - 35 flight hours per engine change surely wouldn't have happened if they were paying for the engines cash on the barrel? XD) by pilots of adequate skill, and that's reflected to a degree in-game. Certainly, speaking as someone who primarily plays Japan vs Allied AI, the P-40 performs adequately given the relative skill disadvantage the Allied squadrons usually have.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

overclaiming is a natural product of the environment. A standard rule of thumb in the most general sense is about 2:1 In some cases it was worse....in some cases the claiming was remarkably accurate. In one case Shores found the records of the side that lost the plane to be in error! [:D]

Aye That said, some of JG27s over-reporting seems 'zealous' even by the LW standards of the time - several '10 with one blow' kind of claims passed without any critical comment as the Experten racked up their scores. Makes for some interesting discussion sixty years after the event as the historians try to figure things out.

Guess the real underlying point is that neither the P-39 nor the P-40 were truly horrific as planes when used within their limits (or pushed well beyond in the Soviets case - 35 flight hours per engine change surely wouldn't have happened if they were paying for the engines cash on the barrel? XD) by pilots of adequate skill, and that's reflected to a degree in-game. Certainly, speaking as someone who primarily plays Japan vs Allied AI, the P-40 performs adequately given the relative skill disadvantage the Allied squadrons usually have.

Yep, the P40E & F was competent, not a world beater. Later models didn't fare well as the opposition improved.

Re JG 27, as one who managed to upset the LFB by querying their claims, I think the propaganda dude got their claws into them. Similar comment about one of the JG in Tunisia.

There is a large gap between honestly making claims for victories which you believe you made. The mad swirl of air-air, even ship to ship combat makes it hard to guarantee who fired the fatal shot.
In some cases, not confined to any nation, there seems to be claims made well beyond this which gave reward in medals, promotion, payment or improved conditions.