P39D vs P39N1? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


Gunner98 -> P39D vs P39N1? (1/31/2012 8:01:59 AM)

Could an aircraft aficionado out there point out the advantage of upgrading from the P39D to the P39N1? I see that there is a slight increase in max speed and altitude but at the cost of 50% in range (not as drastic with drop tanks). There is no change in manoeuvre, firepower etc.

I know that the Aircobra will never be a front line fighter but is there a stage in the game when it proves its worth beyond ground attack of isolated forces in the jungle?

Thanks

B




castor troy -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (1/31/2012 8:05:42 AM)

speed matters, alt too if you don't have restrictions on it. Actually, the P-39 is a better aircraft than the P-40E so I would use it in the frontline or you nearly halve your available USAAF fighter replacements early on. The P-39 has better stats and also performs better in my games (according to it's stats) compared to the P-40E. The penalty it had in WITP is gone as is the Zero bonus.




HansBolter -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (1/31/2012 11:55:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

speed matters, alt too if you don't have restrictions on it. Actually, the P-39 is a better aircraft than the P-40E so I would use it in the frontline or you nearly halve your available USAAF fighter replacements early on. The P-39 has better stats and also performs better in my games (according to it's stats) compared to the P-40E. The penalty it had in WITP is gone as is the Zero bonus.



Didn't know they had taken away the penalties. Does it still have reduced performance above 10k?

I tend to keep them out of front line air to air action and use them as ship busters. They are one of the Allies best antishipping tools for close in work (lack of range). They make mincemeat of unarmored ships.




castor troy -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (1/31/2012 12:00:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

speed matters, alt too if you don't have restrictions on it. Actually, the P-39 is a better aircraft than the P-40E so I would use it in the frontline or you nearly halve your available USAAF fighter replacements early on. The P-39 has better stats and also performs better in my games (according to it's stats) compared to the P-40E. The penalty it had in WITP is gone as is the Zero bonus.



Didn't know they had taken away the penalties. Does it still have reduced performance above 10k?

I tend to keep them out of front line air to air action and use them as ship busters. They are one of the Allies best antishipping tools for close in work (lack of range). They make mincemeat of unarmored ships.


no more penalty, what you see is what you get.




EUBanana -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (1/31/2012 1:23:47 PM)

I think the P-400 has the penalty now? Just a guess.




Sardaukar -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (1/31/2012 2:59:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I think the P-400 has the penalty now? Just a guess.


I don't think there is penalty per se, probably just abysmal MVR ratings higher and lower service ceiling. P-400 high-pressure oxygen system was not suitable for high altitude apart from engine performance.




crsutton -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (1/31/2012 7:40:28 PM)

Any base out of fighter range, they are good for CAP. I never had much luck with them in the front lines. And you need something to use in training squadrons.




dr.hal -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (1/31/2012 7:48:44 PM)

Another important characteristic to note is the difficulty of repairing and/or maintaining the aircraft. the rating goes from 1 to 5 IIRC. If a number is low, 1 or 2, then that's acceptable for front-line air units, 3 and above is problematic. Hal




Alfred -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (1/31/2012 8:15:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Another important characteristic to note is the difficulty of repairing and/or maintaining the aircraft. the rating goes from 1 to 5 IIRC. If a number is low, 1 or 2, then that's acceptable for front-line air units, 3 and above is problematic. Hal


A service rating of 3 is still quite acceptable if the airfield is on a railway line and fresh units can be rotated in from the rear. Which is why I never attach much weight to Allied players complaints, compared to Japan's, aircraft service ratings.

Alfred




Gunner98 -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (1/31/2012 8:30:25 PM)

Well the service rating for both is a '2', the max speed is 360 for the 'D' and 376 for the 'N1' but the cruse speed is 31 lower for the N1 and the max alt is 2900 feet higher with a slower climb 2630 to 2500. Endurance is 242 for the D and 248 for the N1 - no difference really. Manoeuvre, durability, Armour, max load are all the same. Gun value for each is '0' but both have the same cannon and MG armament. The D has a 500 lb - CL mounted bomb (Centre line I think) while the N1 has an XT mounted 500 Lb (? External ?) - not sure what the difference is on the bomb. Overall the stats aren't that much different. I guess the N1 is just the 'new & improved' version

I do use the P39 in the front line early on, usually in the Port Moresby area but try and keep them working in tandem with P-40E - which, until Castor Troy pointed it out, I thought would be a better aircraft. I do tend to keep the P39 at 10K or lower and the P40 at 12-15K. They both get the stuffing knocked out of them but I always thought the P40 was the better craft, the stats don't agree. Well the first P47s just arrived so all is looking up - except their drop tanks don't show up for a couple more months...

B




Mundy -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 1:14:43 AM)

I haven't fought with them in AE yet (as of March 2, 42), but I've always treated them as AD Skyraders, rather than fighters, per se.

Ed-




Xxzard -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 3:51:43 AM)

Unfortunately the CAS role is not a very effective one in AE. Nor was it really in the original WITP. The effect seems limited at best. Large scale bombing of opposing ground forces has shown quite a bit better results.

Barge busting works, but is definitely a niche activity.

IMO one must use these planes as fighters.




oldman45 -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 4:29:26 AM)

I have had good luck with the protecting my forward ports from bettys and nells.




freeboy -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 5:18:01 AM)

you have to love that 37 mm cannon, give it the love it deserves and use as anti shipping platform.. it really needs to have greater range in the pac for this ...




HansBolter -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 11:56:22 AM)

They are good for more than barge busting:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Salamaua at 98,127

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes


Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 14


Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 6 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Hukusei Maru, Shell hits 4, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Kako Maru, Shell hits 8, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
97 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



Aircraft Attacking:
8 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on TF, near Finschhafen at 100,126

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 30 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes


Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 20


Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Dakar Maru, Shell hits 4, Bomb hits 6, and is sunk
xAK Oridono Maru, Shell hits 2, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Kaikei Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
463 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 26 destroyed, 28 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 9 (5 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 4 (4 destroyed, 0 disabled)



Aircraft Attacking:
14 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Finschhafen at 100,126

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes


Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 15


Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
AK Rangoon Maru, Shell hits 6, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
AK Karachi Maru
SC CHa-3, Shell hits 1, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk



Aircraft Attacking:
12 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Salamaua at 98,127

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes


Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 5


Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Oregon Maru, Shell hits 4, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage



Aircraft Attacking:
5 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Finschhafen at 100,126

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 23 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes


Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 26


Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 6 damaged

Japanese Ships
AK Colombo Maru
SC Ch 12
PB Shonon Maru #10, Shell hits 1, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
SC Ch 22
AK Roko Maru #2, Shell hits 2, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
75 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



Aircraft Attacking:
10 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
10 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Lae at 99,126

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 1



Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 18


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-N Rufe: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
TB Abashiri
SC Ch 27, Shell hits 4, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Zenyo Maru, Shell hits 2
AMC Aoba Maru



Aircraft Attacking:
11 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
7 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
790 Ku-K 36 with A6M2-N Rufe (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes

Massive explosion on SC Ch 27


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------






freeboy -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 2:53:18 PM)

its about the range though... I love the big gunned planes for a2g roles




Banzan -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 3:50:23 PM)

Don't overestimate the guns. The P39 is a solid fighter with the ability to drop good bombs (easy bomb rule: The bigger the better!) on targets. Shooting with a 37mm gun at a ship will not have that much of effect as people expect. The RoF was far too low to be dangerous and ship hulls, even merchants were mainly build from steel/iron. Pounding 2-3 holes into it will not mean any real harm. Using explosive rounds, the charge would be far too small. Against ground targets it would work (i guess thats why the sovjet liked the P39 series so much), as a tank or vehicles could be destoryed by the gun and the fragments can kill people.

You can test the effect of guns by creating some kind of attackbomber with the desired guns using the editor and let them shoot at ships. You will see mainly some system damage from 37mm guns.




Erkki -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 4:16:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banzan

Don't overestimate the guns. The P39 is a solid fighter with the ability to drop good bombs (easy bomb rule: The bigger the better!) on targets. Shooting with a 37mm gun at a ship will not have that much of effect as people expect. The RoF was far too low to be dangerous and ship hulls, even merchants were mainly build from steel/iron. Pounding 2-3 holes into it will not mean any real harm. Using explosive rounds, the charge would be far too small. Against ground targets it would work (i guess thats why the sovjet liked the P39 series so much), as a tank or vehicles could be destoryed by the gun and the fragments can kill people.

You can test the effect of guns by creating some kind of attackbomber with the desired guns using the editor and let them shoot at ships. You will see mainly some system damage from 37mm guns.



P-39 used as anti-tank fighter in the Soviets is a myth, though. It was used solely as a fighter. For air combat use they used all-HE shell belting for the nose M4/NS37 making it useless vs. all but the lightest armored vehicles any way. Soviets liked the P-39 mainly because it was better than (many of) their own early designs for the wanted role(low altitude CAP and escorting) but also outside that role. One great problem they did have with the P-39 was its need for high quality fuel to not considerably shorten the already (relatively)short engine life of the Allison.

In WITPAE the P-39 is better than P-40E, and slaughters Netties at a record rate. [;)]




Nemo121 -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 4:29:19 PM)

Actually the P-39 ( or any fighter with a good cannon armament and which is reasonably tough ) can do a good job of FlAK suppression vs DDs, CLs and the like. They do a good job starting small fires, causing system damage and, most importantly, destroying 13mm to 40mm FlAK sites on the ships and combining fighter-bombers with torpedo-bombers is a good way to actually increase the survivability fo the torpedo bombers.

I'm sure some of that is to do with just using up the AAA ammo on the ships etc but you definitely see improved TB survival once that light FlAK has been lessened plus system damage can make ships more vulnerable to future attacks later in the combat resolution.




Banzan -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 5:29:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

P-39 used as anti-tank fighter in the Soviets is a myth, though. It was used solely as a fighter.


Sorry, i noticed that i didn't really make clear that i was talking about the 37mm guns in general. I never read where the sovjets used the P39 and only thought that might have been a use for them as i did read about Stalin (as Hitler) being very obsessed about the ability to use every fighter as a fighter bomber as well.




Erkki -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 5:55:26 PM)

Can you remember the book or Internet site, Banzan? Thats interesting because Soviet fighters could carry a very modest payload compared to their German and (western) Allied counterparts, with some of them having no AG payload options at all, some Yak-9 variants and Yak-3 at least.

Or then Uncle "Sunny" Joe was trippin' again. [:)]




freeboy -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 7:03:02 PM)

Regarding guns vs ship comments... these strafers are good agaisnt ak targets.. armored ships need torps and bombs




EUBanana -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 8:43:15 PM)

The bombs on them is whats doing damage to warships, not the 37mm. The 37mm wrecks bombers and barges, aside from that it's a bit of a donkey IMO. I bet the Japs wish they had one however, as I'm sure it'd make a mess of B24s. [:D]

Even the 75mm on the B25G is pretty poor. Its the bombs that hurt. I'm not really sure how effective the 'strafing to suppress flak' is, as at 100' the flak, even suppressed, tends to hurt.

You can see how good these popguns really are against ships because the 3 inch guns you see on sub chasers, submarines, DEs, merchants and the like are pretty similar to these heavy aircraft guns, and the damage they do is pretty marginal. You have to really fill the target full of holes.




HansBolter -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/1/2012 10:01:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

The bombs on them is whats doing damage to warships, not the 37mm. The 37mm wrecks bombers and barges, aside from that it's a bit of a donkey IMO. I bet the Japs wish they had one however, as I'm sure it'd make a mess of B24s. [:D]

Even the 75mm on the B25G is pretty poor. Its the bombs that hurt. I'm not really sure how effective the 'strafing to suppress flak' is, as at 100' the flak, even suppressed, tends to hurt.

You can see how good these popguns really are against ships because the 3 inch guns you see on sub chasers, submarines, DEs, merchants and the like are pretty similar to these heavy aircraft guns, and the damage they do is pretty marginal. You have to really fill the target full of holes.



Agree completely. The number of gun hits is typically way below a level that will do significant damage to anything that isn't hauling fuel. Its the 500 lb. bomb hits that my guys are running with bombing accuracy levels in the mid to high 20s% that's sinking shipping.




Mundy -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/2/2012 12:39:04 AM)

One of you guys, a while back, posted a .pdf of "A War of Their Own", by Matthew Rodman.

Basically a history of the 5th AF's bombing campaign.

The big battery of .50s was a serious hit with the crews, for flak suppression and the outright damages caused by them.  The 75mm carrying B-25 weren't really popular, just because they didn't put as much metal downstream as the batteries.  A few shots per pass, at best.

I can't remember who posted it, but thanks for a terriffic read.

Ed-




Banzan -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/2/2012 9:03:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Can you remember the book or Internet site, Banzan?



Sorry, too long ago. I remember that one was about plane R&D for germany and sovjets with a key aspect being ground support planes (HS129/Il-2 and Ju88/Tu-2). Long part about Hitlers obsession for fighter-bombers and dive-bombers, and him ignoring that they are not that usefull if you don't have air superiority (western europe). Stalin was mentioned loving them too, but they were much more usefull for the sovjets as the front size was too great to cover it completly. Getting worse for germany with more air groups needed to protect the "Reich" and thus better for the sovjets.
Conclusion was that the Il-2 was better due better useability and durability, with the HS129 being the better base design, but "unfinished". Can't really remember the conlusion of the Ju88/Tu-2.
I'll check this weekend if i can find it in the basement.




JeffK -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/2/2012 11:02:56 AM)

Regardless of the stats, i find I never have enough fighters in 1942 to keep the P39/P400 out of the frontline.

You just have to hope they survive.

Note that Greyjoy is still using them in late 1944!




EUBanana -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/2/2012 11:29:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Regardless of the stats, i find I never have enough fighters in 1942 to keep the P39/P400 out of the frontline.

You just have to hope they survive.

Note that Greyjoy is still using them in late 1944!



They are probably OK with experienced pilots. When all your air skills are 70 things do change a bit. The reaming dealt to the Allies in the first three months is IMO more to do with pilot skills than crappy aircraft.

The later model P40s are also very acceptable aircraft, albeit short ranged. The P40K in my experience is a match, more than a match even maybe, for a Tojo, when you have professionals in the pilot seat.




crsutton -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/2/2012 7:32:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Another important characteristic to note is the difficulty of repairing and/or maintaining the aircraft. the rating goes from 1 to 5 IIRC. If a number is low, 1 or 2, then that's acceptable for front-line air units, 3 and above is problematic. Hal


A service rating of 3 is still quite acceptable if the airfield is on a railway line and fresh units can be rotated in from the rear. Which is why I never attach much weight to Allied players complaints, compared to Japan's, aircraft service ratings.

Alfred



Overall, I would rather have the Allied planes. The only real advantage comes in 1942 when the Japanese planes all have a 1 service rating and vastly outnumber the Allied planes. By mid war the problem corrects itself.




EUBanana -> RE: P39D vs P39N1? (2/2/2012 7:53:09 PM)

The rail lines aren't exactly omnipresent, though it sure does help when you do have them, yes.

There'll be a heavy bomber base at the front somewhere on the map without a rail line though, and all it takes is some night bombing to damage 50% of them and then thats it for a week or two.





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.832031E-02