Follow up: Opinions on the P39 Aircorbra

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

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

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

RE: Follow up: Opinions on the P39 Aircorbra

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: wdolson
The P-36s in service at Pearl Harbor were not up to USAAF standards for pilot protection, fuel system protection, or armament. When experiments were done adding these things, the weight got too high and performance suffered. This is a major reason the P-40 came into existence. With the more powerful Allison engine, these things could be added without making the plane a slug. It still increased wing loading which degraded maneuverability.

If the USAAF had used P-36s without those protections, they would have been as vulnerable as the Zero with poorer armament. Losses would likely have been unacceptably high.

Bill
There was also the issue of the P-36A's P&W engine delivering its optimal performance at around 10,000ft. It wouldn't be a good match for the A6M2 except
at lower altitudes, much like in the game. It also had a reputation for less than stellar dive acceleration, something the P-40 had little trouble with
and for which many USAAF pilots were grateful.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
BillBrown
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:55 am

RE: Follow up: Opinions on the P39 Aircorbra

Post by BillBrown »

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Macclan 5 - are you playing stock or a mod?

Hated the P-39 in stock, P-40 was a much better fighter. In DBB-C, I've found just the opposite.

Also, house rules limiting strato-sweeps will have an effect too.

I find this a curious statement. This is from a stock scenario 2
As you can see, the P39-D is superior in most every stat.



Image
Attachments
ScreenHunt..3010.46.jpg
ScreenHunt..3010.46.jpg (114.34 KiB) Viewed 64 times
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Follow up: Opinions on the P39 Aircorbra

Post by Yaab »

There may be two issues with Airacobras. First, high cruise speed can lead to a lack of coordination with slower bombers. Second, her armament is so heterogeneous: 0.30, 0.50 and 37mm. 37mm cannon has lousy stats for dogfight use, 0.30 lack punch and accuracy in F position, so you are really shooting with 2 x CL 0.50 Browning. Also, with 32 durability and SR2, Airacobras will take longer to repair than Warhawks.
User avatar
Disco Duck
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:25 pm
Location: San Antonio

RE: Follow up: Opinions on the P39 Aircorbra

Post by Disco Duck »

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Optimal uses of the P39 Aircobra ~ how to vets treat the frames

1) Typically a number of Allied squadrons from USAAF Fifth Airforce and V Bomber Command and II Fighter Command

2) Some Stateside in USAAF Fourth Airforce and IV Fighter Command that can be bought out or disbanded for the airframes at the least.

3) Some Aussie Squadrons

Hey friends

Some months ago there was a thread that opined on the use/ purpose of the P39.

Firstly I admit that I was generally under the same "false" opinion about the Russian Love Affair with the Cobra. In fact they were not primarily ground attack air frames and the Russian translation of squadron description seems to have "infected" many historical books I have read about the P39.

Refer to current Wikipedia description about the P39. It clarifies the role / translation and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy.

The big 37MM Oldsmobile cannon was a fine weapon.. evidently not a great weapon.. as well.

--

As I play my second game (Hard PDU On) I am experimenting and trying many different tactics / directions.

I never experienced much success with the Bell airframes as a ground attack nor as CAP; but as I move forward in the Coral Sea I am again deploying them in smaller forward bases:

Alt = 5000 : High Strafe and Defense Skill. Overall Experience 50+ : Naval Attack 70%

I seem to have a fair amount of success as xAK xAP and tender hunters. They have even dropped a solid bomb hit on DD CL and CA.


In Summary:

1) middling performance in CAP roll. Useful for (tiered) lower altitude CAP i.e. 10000 feet below 15000 feet P40's (or better planes)

2) poor performance in Ground Attack despite solid training. Perhaps jungle terrain is a bigger factor than I account for

3) very strong performance as Naval Hunter as above.


Any other insights or opinions; is it something I am doing "right" or "just lucky playing the AI"?
I think the confusion about the Russians used as ground attack planes was because they were used to protect the ground attack planes. This included going after the German AAA positions.

http://acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html
There is no point in believing in things that exist. -Didactylos
Rusty1961
Posts: 1239
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:18 am

RE: Follow up: Opinions on the P39 Aircorbra

Post by Rusty1961 »

How can the P40 have almost an hour-and-a-half better endurance yet have the same ranges as the P39?
Assume crusing speed at 90 minutes means almost 300 more miles.

Hex range though is identical.
God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”