P-400 Fighter Trainer

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by MakeeLearn »

The P-400 flying above the skys of Port Moresby and Kirakira has been instrumental in pilots gaining experience and in producing the highest scoring Allied aces, so far in my campaign.

It is the best "Trainer". [;)]






User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

P-400 is a P-39 with a 20mm gun instead of the 37mm

20mm is better, more accurate than 37mm for anti-air purposes, so yes, it is a good plane, one of the best early war models
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by MakeeLearn »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

P-400 is a P-39 with a 20mm gun instead of the 37mm

20mm is better, more accurate than 37mm for anti-air purposes, so yes, it is a good plane, one of the best early war models



Wrong P-400[:)]






User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by MakeeLearn »



P-400

Slang for a P-40 with a Zero on its tail.






Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by Buckrock »

That subject of that WWII joke was the P-400 not the P-40. An actual P-40 with an A6M Zero on its tail was still a P-40, though probably not a happy one.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by crsutton »

In reality the P39 was probably just as good as the P40 if not better. The faults of both planes were about the same give or take. Neither was really very good at altitude. The P39s bad reputation comes more from the fact that pilots did not really like it-for various reasons some deserved some not. Generally speaking pilots loved an aircraft that they deemed safer and more reliable even if the other plane had better combat stats (B25 over the B26). The P39 was a harder plane to fly. Most important was that when it went into a flat spin, the plane became very deadly. It took a very good pilot to get one out of that type of spin vs the P40. Also, pilots tended to like the familiar and did not care for the try-cycle landing gear-preferring the familiar tail dragging set up instead. Nobody really cared for the unreliable 30 mm gun and pilots did not like the cramped cockpit or the fact that the engine was behind them. But in a fight both planes were probably equal. In DaBabes the designers have polished up the P39 so that statistically it is no worse than the P40k and I use them both the same way.

By the time they got it right (P63), the US had no use for a fighter that could not fly long range.

I don't waste the P400 in training. It is a front line fighter until something better comes along.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by Macclan5 »

Most of the historical articles I have read describe the P39 (et al versions) as: "As proof that designing a plane in concept around the armament ~ gone wrong".

The front nose gun was described as a brilliant weapon; reliable with high rate of fire and oomph. The T9 Oldsmobile cannon 37MM could open up armored vehicles and tanks with its high kinetic energy transfer. Even later in the war.

The Soviets loved them.

Sadly the plane was designed around firing this weapon through the nose with accuracy and stability; which in turn gave the plane less than optimal flight characteristics.

I think a lot of P39 et al ended up in the ground attack role which suited the T9 brilliantly. Hence the Soviet love on the eastern front.

--

In game I use them as needed everywhere; when better airframe come along I train them up in low level attack and strafing (PDU Off)

I think this is historically characteristic and the game models this rather well. P39s in South Pacific Command can make a lot of damage around Rabul and Truk depending upon your locations of deployment.
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
Panther Bait
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by Panther Bait »

Another problem with the P39 was the slow speed of the cannon versus the .50 cal made it difficult to hit one target with both weapons (the 20mm Hispano cannons had a better ballistic profile match to a 50 cal or a 30 cal, at least at close ranges).

Mike
When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard
dave sindel
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Millersburg, OH

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by dave sindel »

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Most of the historical articles I have read describe the P39 (et al versions) as: "As proof that designing a plane in concept around the armament ~ gone wrong".

The front nose gun was described as a brilliant weapon; reliable with high rate of fire and oomph. The T9 Oldsmobile cannon 37MM could open up armored vehicles and tanks with its high kinetic energy transfer. Even later in the war.

The Soviets loved them.

Sadly the plane was designed around firing this weapon through the nose with accuracy and stability; which in turn gave the plane less than optimal flight characteristics.

I think a lot of P39 et al ended up in the ground attack role which suited the T9 brilliantly. Hence the Soviet love on the eastern front.

--

In game I use them as needed everywhere; when better airframe come along I train them up in low level attack and strafing (PDU Off)

I think this is historically characteristic and the game models this rather well. P39s in South Pacific Command can make a lot of damage around Rabul and Truk depending upon your locations of deployment.

I have tried using P-39's mainly in Burma in a ground attack / strafing role. As you said, this was their historical role with the Soviets. My results have been disappointing at best. Many, many missions resulted in damaged planes and no IJA casualties shown. I'm curious what you are doing differently than I am, since you seem happy with the results?
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I have read actually the opposite regarding Soviet's usage:

They already had an abundance of IL-2 Sturmoviks, and hence they used their P-39s as a fighter, without the wing guns to make it more maneuverable. And since East front's combat happened at low altitudes and short ranges, it was more than adequate to fulfill this against the BF-109s they encounter
User avatar
AcePylut
Posts: 1487
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:01 am

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by AcePylut »

That’s the key – the East Front air war was mainly fought at much lower altitudes than the Pac War, such that their problems at high altitude weren’t much of a factor. Also, the “problem” with the P39/40/400 was that they were far outclassed by the Japanese planes maneuverability, whereas they weren’t so relatively deficient in this area against the German planes.
dave sindel
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Millersburg, OH

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by dave sindel »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I have read actually the opposite regarding Soviet's usage:

They already had an abundance of IL-2 Sturmoviks, and hence they used their P-39s as a fighter, without the wing guns to make it more maneuverable. And since East front's combat happened at low altitudes and short ranges, it was more than adequate to fulfill this against the BF-109s they encounter
Interesting. I will have to look into this. In any case, I quit using them in a strafing role because the losses in planes wasnt worth the few IJA losses I was causing.
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by Macclan5 »

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I have read actually the opposite regarding Soviet's usage:

They already had an abundance of IL-2 Sturmoviks, and hence they used their P-39s as a fighter, without the wing guns to make it more maneuverable. And since East front's combat happened at low altitudes and short ranges, it was more than adequate to fulfill this against the BF-109s they encounter
Interesting. I will have to look into this. In any case, I quit using them in a strafing role because the losses in planes wasnt worth the few IJA losses I was causing.

Indeed. In fact I may be equally mis-informed.

Actually Wikipedia suggest the exact same and it is attributed to the 'western translation' of Soviet close air support (generically).

I just happen to look it up.

Clearly the books articles I have read fall victim to the same.

--

To answer the other question.. my 'somewhat successful P39 deployment" was Naval Attack low level (alt = 1000) strafing based out of Munda/ Shortlands et al near Rabul. My P39s seemed to have success against xAKs on route ..or at least enough success that I diverted some of the Marine dive bomber squadrons into Airfield attack to suppress the CAP / Japanese air frames.

I would not classify it as outstanding success; but useful.

Equally I did not try nor have much success as Ground attack in New Guinea et al, but like Burma I presume the jungle helps LCUnits shrug it off...

..and perhaps you / I / we did not try 'long enough' till the skills were very high ?



A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
dave sindel
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Millersburg, OH

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by dave sindel »

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I have read actually the opposite regarding Soviet's usage:

They already had an abundance of IL-2 Sturmoviks, and hence they used their P-39s as a fighter, without the wing guns to make it more maneuverable. And since East front's combat happened at low altitudes and short ranges, it was more than adequate to fulfill this against the BF-109s they encounter
Interesting. I will have to look into this. In any case, I quit using them in a strafing role because the losses in planes wasnt worth the few IJA losses I was causing.

Indeed. In fact I may be equally mis-informed.

Actually Wikipedia suggest the exact same and it is attributed to the 'western translation' of Soviet close air support (generically).

I just happen to look it up.

Clearly the books articles I have read fall victim to the same.

--

To answer the other question.. my 'somewhat successful P39 deployment" was Naval Attack low level (alt = 1000) strafing based out of Munda/ Shortlands et al near Rabul. My P39s seemed to have success against xAKs on route ..or at least enough success that I diverted some of the Marine dive bomber squadrons into Airfield attack to suppress the CAP / Japanese air frames.

I would not classify it as outstanding success; but useful.

Equally I did not try nor have much success as Ground attack in New Guinea et al, but like Burma I presume the jungle helps LCUnits shrug it off...

..and perhaps you / I / we did not try 'long enough' till the skills were very high ?




I like the idea of using them on Naval Attack. Havent tried that yet, and that 37MM cannon would definitely do some damage vs merchant ships.

I was using them vs LCU's in jungles, true. But they were also ineffective vs AFV's that ventured into open terrain.
User avatar
JohnDillworth
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:22 pm

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by JohnDillworth »

I believe like a lot of planes it started out as a pretty good design with adequate power. Once they got done adding guns, armor, radios and whatever else was not consider on the drawing board it was too heavy. The small airframe prevented a larger engine so you had to make do. As mentioned above. It's a fighter when you don't have any fighters so you can either use it or preserve your pilots until you can put them in 2nd generation aircraft. Lots of AA is your friend when this is the best fighter you have.
Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly
User avatar
bomccarthy
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:32 pm
Location: L.A.

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by bomccarthy »

A lot of veteran pilots liked the P-39, including Chuck Yeager, who said he would have willingly gone to battle in one. More inexperienced pilots feared the light touch of its controls (a feature that veteran pilots really liked). In addition to its adverse spin characteristics, one handling problem was tied to the cannon - as its ammo was used up, the plane's c.g. shifted to the rear, until it eventually went past 1/4 MAC (mean aerodynamic chord), which seriously affected stability in most maneuvers. Some aviation historians attribute this as one source of the legends that the P-39 could flip end-over-end if pushed too far. This points to one advantage of locating guns and ammunition in the wings - the c.g. remains within 1/4 MAC as the ammunition is expended.

The P-51 had a similar problem when the 85-gallon fuel tank was added behind the cockpit early in the production of the P-51B. Until at least half that fuel was burned, the c.g. was behind 1/4 MAC. This made the plane difficult to fly early in a mission and a number of green pilots found out the hard way that the plane needed to be treated with extra respect. However, these losses were considered a necessary price for the ability to reach Berlin from English bases.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Most of the historical articles I have read describe the P39 (et al versions) as: "As proof that designing a plane in concept around the armament ~ gone wrong".

The front nose gun was described as a brilliant weapon; reliable with high rate of fire and oomph. The T9 Oldsmobile cannon 37MM could open up armored vehicles and tanks with its high kinetic energy transfer. Even later in the war.

The Soviets loved them.

Sadly the plane was designed around firing this weapon through the nose with accuracy and stability; which in turn gave the plane less than optimal flight characteristics.

I think a lot of P39 et al ended up in the ground attack role which suited the T9 brilliantly. Hence the Soviet love on the eastern front.

--

In game I use them as needed everywhere; when better airframe come along I train them up in low level attack and strafing (PDU Off)

I think this is historically characteristic and the game models this rather well. P39s in South Pacific Command can make a lot of damage around Rabul and Truk depending upon your locations of deployment.

The P-39 was originally conceived as a bomber interceptor with the 37mm cannon being used to bring down bombers at long range with only a couple of hits. It was basically designed to counter a potential enemy developing their own B-17. The prototype had a supercharger, but it was heavy and cumbersome. The Army ordered the supercharger removed which left it a fighter without a real role.

The P-39 was the shortest range modern fighter in the US inventory when the war started and it became apparent that most US fighters lacked range, the P-39 looked worse and worse. Additionally the 37mm cannon had a lower rate of fire which isn't such a bad problem when shooting at bombers that aren't maneuvering around, but in a dog fight where quick snap shots are the norm and an enemy plane might only be in your sights for less than a second, a gun with only 2 1/2 rounds a second rate of fire is not as preferable as the 0.50 caliber which had 10 rounds a second for the early models and faster for later models.

On top of that, the P-39 got a reputation as a widow maker among US pilots because of it's poor spin characteristics. With so much weight right in the middle of the plane if the plane got into a flat spin, it was pretty much impossible to get out of (some highly skilled pilots could do it, but it was a rare talent). Bailing out was pretty much the only option at that point. All other US fighters had much better spin characteristics. Getting out of a spin was doable most of the time.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Most of the historical articles I have read describe the P39 (et al versions) as: "As proof that designing a plane in concept around the armament ~ gone wrong".

The front nose gun was described as a brilliant weapon; reliable with high rate of fire and oomph. The T9 Oldsmobile cannon 37MM could open up armored vehicles and tanks with its high kinetic energy transfer. Even later in the war.

The Soviets loved them.

Sadly the plane was designed around firing this weapon through the nose with accuracy and stability; which in turn gave the plane less than optimal flight characteristics.

I think a lot of P39 et al ended up in the ground attack role which suited the T9 brilliantly. Hence the Soviet love on the eastern front.

--

In game I use them as needed everywhere; when better airframe come along I train them up in low level attack and strafing (PDU Off)

I think this is historically characteristic and the game models this rather well. P39s in South Pacific Command can make a lot of damage around Rabul and Truk depending upon your locations of deployment.

I have tried using P-39's mainly in Burma in a ground attack / strafing role. As you said, this was their historical role with the Soviets. My results have been disappointing at best. Many, many missions resulted in damaged planes and no IJA casualties shown. I'm curious what you are doing differently than I am, since you seem happy with the results?

Strafing is a very weak aspect of the game. More important is the bomb load. Train your fighters in low bombing instead. I would not worry too much about strafing. Plus, AA and fighters eat up fighters in strafing missions.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

I believe like a lot of planes it started out as a pretty good design with adequate power. Once they got done adding guns, armor, radios and whatever else was not consider on the drawing board it was too heavy. The small airframe prevented a larger engine so you had to make do. As mentioned above. It's a fighter when you don't have any fighters so you can either use it or preserve your pilots until you can put them in 2nd generation aircraft. Lots of AA is your friend when this is the best fighter you have.

I think the intent was to have superchargers on the P39, but for various reasons they did not. The Kingcobra with superchargers was a pretty good plane. But the aircraft always had terrible range. That is a defect in any fighter.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: P-400 Fighter Trainer

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Most of the historical articles I have read describe the P39 (et al versions) as: "As proof that designing a plane in concept around the armament ~ gone wrong".

The front nose gun was described as a brilliant weapon; reliable with high rate of fire and oomph. The T9 Oldsmobile cannon 37MM could open up armored vehicles and tanks with its high kinetic energy transfer. Even later in the war.

The Soviets loved them.

Sadly the plane was designed around firing this weapon through the nose with accuracy and stability; which in turn gave the plane less than optimal flight characteristics.

I think a lot of P39 et al ended up in the ground attack role which suited the T9 brilliantly. Hence the Soviet love on the eastern front.

--

In game I use them as needed everywhere; when better airframe come along I train them up in low level attack and strafing (PDU Off)

I think this is historically characteristic and the game models this rather well. P39s in South Pacific Command can make a lot of damage around Rabul and Truk depending upon your locations of deployment.

I think it is a myth about the tank killing ability of the gun. The Soviets were never issued AP ammo for them-only HE was shipped via lend lease. It was useful vs soft targets but would not have caused much damaged to a medium tank.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”