Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: P-39 vs. P-40...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 5:23:50 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12885
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

This thread has unfortunately migrated off subject and off track. If I contributed to this , please accept my apologies. I simply wanted to say that war is combat, and combat is fighting. I was trying to say that I felt "getting back to basics" is usually the key to victory. Not who keeps the better statistics. In the Vietnam air war it was the "Whiz kids" who argued sphisticated weapons were the answer. Missiles would replace dog fighting. "Spray and pray" would replace marksmanship. I feel in that war "getting back to basics" was the answer. In world war 2 the question is a little more muddled. No one will argue that the most basic basic is "Getting there firstus with the mostest". Yes , virtually everyone on the planet will acknowledge the allies eventual supeiority in production , etc...etc. But consider this ..is not pilot traing another form of production? And once again lets consider the "man vs. the Crate". Is the p-51 superior to the me-262? Yet after the first few surprise engagements the mustangs triumphed , by adjusting their tatics. They hit them when they were taking off and landing (and therefore vulnerable) or caught them on the ground. War is about using what you have in the most advantagous way. You might be a Japanese swordsman who defeats 80 opponets mostly using a wooden sword against a real one , a sherman tank platoon comander taking out a tiger by superior tactics , or Wild Bill Hickok defeating modern guns with a pre-civil war out dated black powder pistol. Yes numbers are great (but we have seen the results of human waves) yet usage of those numbers , or better weapons is what wins battle. Training, tactics and strategy , which often manifest themselves in the form of experince will win out. In other words , I feel that the p-39s and p-40's , early in the war , were not used to their fullest potential due to the inexpereince of the flyers who flew them. (Exept by isolated commands who developed approriate tactics and doctrine such as the AVG). I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree. Sorry if I've annoyed or offended anyone .



Steve. You certainly weren't annoying or offending me. You provided a good opening for a discussion of the "forest vs. the trees" type thinking that occured during the war. You are focusing on the "trees" aspect..., best trained/equipped being able to deal with greater numbers of more poorly trained and equipped folks. And having a Saburo Sakai or a Michael Wittman in a Zero or a Tiger is certainly an advantage.

I've been taking the "forest" approach...., or the "quantity has a quality all it's own" viewpoint. The Axis focused on extra high quality, the Allies focused more on "good enough..., and LOTS of it." Extra high quality is a wasting asset..., eventually your Sakai's get shot down or crack up or burn out---or your Wittman's get hammered by a fighter-bomber. And you just can't replace those people in the middle of a war...., especially as the hordes of "decent" pilots on the other side keep getting better (and getting better equipped as well).

By the time the Axis powers came to grips with this fact, they simply couldn't catch up. To get the numbers they had to cut training to the bone, which left them with inferior pilots trying to deal with an overwhelming force of better trained ones. Even with some excellent equipment, they were novices facing veterans..., and well trained veterans as well. I'm not knocking your point of view..., having superior athletes on the playing field is always good. But War isn't a sporting event. You might be putting the 11 finest players in the world into play..., but if the other side can put 100 good players out there, you are in big trouble.


You raise some good classic arguments. But isn't a forrest mostly trees. I've seen trees without forrests , but never a forrest without trees. Here is my point. I've heard on this thread 100 to 11 or that 1v1 is wwI thinking. But seriuosly, have we ever seen more than two aircraft firing at one at a time ?(And please understand that I mean fighter aircraft , not a formation of bombers). It always comes down to 1v1. Even when there are two attacking fighters , the wing man is supposed to cover the leaders (attacking fighter) rear. I suppose in modern times , 100 fighters could all launch missiles at the same prey , but I'm guessing that probably won't set too well with the people paying for said missiles. The AVG is probably my best case. The pilots had average skills when they arrived in theatre. Chennault imparted his several years of experimenting with tactics, theory and doctrine. He didn't let them fly combat for several months , drilling them in his doctrine , giving the a "post graduate " education as it were. At one point he thought he was getting Buffalos . I have to feel that had he received p-39s , or even p-400's he would have created approriate tactics , and today he would admire what he and the AVG did with those "Shark-nosed p-39's".

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 31
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 7:47:42 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Steve. You certainly weren't annoying or offending me. You provided a good opening for a discussion of the "forest vs. the trees" type thinking that occured during the war. You are focusing on the "trees" aspect..., best trained/equipped being able to deal with greater numbers of more poorly trained and equipped folks. And having a Saburo Sakai or a Michael Wittman in a Zero or a Tiger is certainly an advantage.

I've been taking the "forest" approach...., or the "quantity has a quality all it's own" viewpoint. The Axis focused on extra high quality, the Allies focused more on "good enough..., and LOTS of it." Extra high quality is a wasting asset..., eventually your Sakai's get shot down or crack up or burn out---or your Wittman's get hammered by a fighter-bomber. And you just can't replace those people in the middle of a war...., especially as the hordes of "decent" pilots on the other side keep getting better (and getting better equipped as well).

By the time the Axis powers came to grips with this fact, they simply couldn't catch up. To get the numbers they had to cut training to the bone, which left them with inferior pilots trying to deal with an overwhelming force of better trained ones. Even with some excellent equipment, they were novices facing veterans..., and well trained veterans as well. I'm not knocking your point of view..., having superior athletes on the playing field is always good. But War isn't a sporting event. You might be putting the 11 finest players in the world into play..., but if the other side can put 100 good players out there, you are in big trouble.


You raise some good classic arguments. But isn't a forrest mostly trees. I've seen trees without forrests , but never a forrest without trees. Here is my point. I've heard on this thread 100 to 11 or that 1v1 is wwI thinking. But seriuosly, have we ever seen more than two aircraft firing at one at a time ?(And please understand that I mean fighter aircraft , not a formation of bombers). It always comes down to 1v1. Even when there are two attacking fighters , the wing man is supposed to cover the leaders (attacking fighter) rear. I suppose in modern times , 100 fighters could all launch missiles at the same prey , but I'm guessing that probably won't set too well with the people paying for said missiles. The AVG is probably my best case. The pilots had average skills when they arrived in theatre. Chennault imparted his several years of experimenting with tactics, theory and doctrine. He didn't let them fly combat for several months , drilling them in his doctrine , giving the a "post graduate " education as it were. At one point he thought he was getting Buffalos . I have to feel that had he received p-39s , or even p-400's he would have created approriate tactics , and today he would admire what he and the AVG did with those "Shark-nosed p-39's".



Are you speaking of the GAME? Or of REALITY? The game necessarily runs a one on one sequence in it's programming and certainly favors your individual "tree". In reality, a "furball" has folks all over the place snapping off shots whenever they get the opportunity, which favors the "forest" (every time your ace gets on someone's tail, three other enemy planes start heading for his). The real problem for the Japanese was that in the time it took their system to turn out a "75", the Americans had turned out a dozen "60's"...., and were putting them in better aircraft.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 32
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 8:37:04 PM   
pbear

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

There was a series of books documenting the air war between the Luftwaffe and the Red Air Force during WWII. The name escapes me but I believe they are out of print and rather pricey IIRC. Anyone know?

You raise some good classic arguments. But isn't a forrest mostly trees. I've seen trees without forrests , but never a forrest without trees. Here is my point. I've heard on this thread 100 to 11 or that 1v1 is wwI thinking. But seriuosly, have we ever seen more than two aircraft firing at one at a time ?(And please understand that I mean fighter aircraft , not a formation of bombers). It always comes down to 1v1. Even when there are two attacking fighters , the wing man is supposed to cover the leaders (attacking fighter) rear. I suppose in modern times , 100 fighters could all launch missiles at the same prey , but I'm guessing that probably won't set too well with the people paying for said missiles. The AVG is probably my best case. The pilots had average skills when they arrived in theatre. Chennault imparted his several years of experimenting with tactics, theory and doctrine. He didn't let them fly combat for several months , drilling them in his doctrine , giving the a "post graduate " education as it were. At one point he thought he was getting Buffalos . I have to feel that had he received p-39s , or even p-400's he would have created approriate tactics , and today he would admire what he and the AVG did with those "Shark-nosed p-39's".


Chennault taught the AVG to "Hit the bombers" make one pass them leave the area climb to altitude the "Hit the bombers" again and above all "Don't dogfight the Japaness Fighter". This is a classic hit and run tactic, particularly useful when attacking bombers whose escort can not leave them or when you can out dive the escort. The Germans caught on latter when they strarted their 12 OClock high attacks against the B-17 bomber boxes. And if you are good it never comes down to 1v1. Oh yea the AVG thought they were slighted because they did not get the Buffalos until Rangoon.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 33
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 8:47:41 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
"Oh yea the AVG thought they were slighted because they did not get the Buffalos until Rangoon."


I'm not sure that I understand this comment. When did the AVG get Buffalos? Are you saying that they wanted Buffalos and were upset at getting P40s instead?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to pbear)
Post #: 34
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 8:56:13 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12885
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Steve. You certainly weren't annoying or offending me. You provided a good opening for a discussion of the "forest vs. the trees" type thinking that occured during the war. You are focusing on the "trees" aspect..., best trained/equipped being able to deal with greater numbers of more poorly trained and equipped folks. And having a Saburo Sakai or a Michael Wittman in a Zero or a Tiger is certainly an advantage.

I've been taking the "forest" approach...., or the "quantity has a quality all it's own" viewpoint. The Axis focused on extra high quality, the Allies focused more on "good enough..., and LOTS of it." Extra high quality is a wasting asset..., eventually your Sakai's get shot down or crack up or burn out---or your Wittman's get hammered by a fighter-bomber. And you just can't replace those people in the middle of a war...., especially as the hordes of "decent" pilots on the other side keep getting better (and getting better equipped as well).

By the time the Axis powers came to grips with this fact, they simply couldn't catch up. To get the numbers they had to cut training to the bone, which left them with inferior pilots trying to deal with an overwhelming force of better trained ones. Even with some excellent equipment, they were novices facing veterans..., and well trained veterans as well. I'm not knocking your point of view..., having superior athletes on the playing field is always good. But War isn't a sporting event. You might be putting the 11 finest players in the world into play..., but if the other side can put 100 good players out there, you are in big trouble.


You raise some good classic arguments. But isn't a forrest mostly trees. I've seen trees without forrests , but never a forrest without trees. Here is my point. I've heard on this thread 100 to 11 or that 1v1 is wwI thinking. But seriuosly, have we ever seen more than two aircraft firing at one at a time ?(And please understand that I mean fighter aircraft , not a formation of bombers). It always comes down to 1v1. Even when there are two attacking fighters , the wing man is supposed to cover the leaders (attacking fighter) rear. I suppose in modern times , 100 fighters could all launch missiles at the same prey , but I'm guessing that probably won't set too well with the people paying for said missiles. The AVG is probably my best case. The pilots had average skills when they arrived in theatre. Chennault imparted his several years of experimenting with tactics, theory and doctrine. He didn't let them fly combat for several months , drilling them in his doctrine , giving the a "post graduate " education as it were. At one point he thought he was getting Buffalos . I have to feel that had he received p-39s , or even p-400's he would have created approriate tactics , and today he would admire what he and the AVG did with those "Shark-nosed p-39's".



Are you speaking of the GAME? Or of REALITY? The game necessarily runs a one on one sequence in it's programming and certainly favors your individual "tree". In reality, a "furball" has folks all over the place snapping off shots whenever they get the opportunity, which favors the "forest" (every time your ace gets on someone's tail, three other enemy planes start heading for his). The real problem for the Japanese was that in the time it took their system to turn out a "75", the Americans had turned out a dozen "60's"...., and were putting them in better aircraft.


Actually , I'm speaking of the game and reality. "60" and "75" are not that tremendously different, and yes the aircraft factor will make a difference. What I've said is an exceptional pilot in a crap air plane will generally find a way to defeat a crap pilot in an exceptional airplane. A furball consists of many dog fights. A individual fight may last only seconds , and may consist of a "snap shot", but at that precise moment , it's 1v1. Maybe the wing man may take a shot , but that's poaching , and won't win him any favor from his squadron mates. His job is to set up his leaders shot and cover his six. You might have sixteen planes hanging on hoping for their chance , BUT that is where the 1v1 comes in again.

At the time the p-39 (early 1942). was a major player (and the original subject of this thread) , the US wasn't producing "75"s (yet).. And Japan had lots of aviators who were considerably better than "60". What you had were "fair" pilots in a "fair" plane against really good pilots in a pretty good plane. Good pilots would look at the p-39 and use it's strong points- such as very heavy firepower (a 20mm or 37mm gun, plus 50 cals). Heavy weight like the p-40 , which would suggest diving hit and run tactics , and good low level manueverability. To me , the dream situation would be low level in mountain passes against fighters , or high altitute stooping hawk attacks against bombers. A better tactic would be to use p-40's to tangle with the escorts while p-39's clawed the bombers ( such as the spitefire -hurricane arrangements in the battle of Britan.) Instead , with the exception of the AVG , American fighter pilots used the tactics they learned as air cadets in flight school. They tried to turn with the Zero , and climb with the Zero. And they died.

By the time the US pilots were largely better than the Japanese , you had , with a few exceptions, pretty good pilots with really good planes. We really never had (again with a few exceptions) really good pilots with fair (or crappy planes). So my contention is that we don't know , and never really will ever know what the results of American p-39s with really good pilots and approriate tactics against the INJ pilots of 1942 would have been. All we can do is speculate. And here we are.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 35
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 8:59:10 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12885
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline
No they were slated to get Buffalos. The Brits got them instead. And thought that they (the British) had the better plane. Until they engaged the Zero's.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Oh yea the AVG thought they were slighted because they did not get the Buffalos until Rangoon."


I'm not sure that I understand this comment. When did the AVG get Buffalos? Are you saying that they wanted Buffalos and were upset at getting P40s instead?


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 36
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 9:50:02 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10262
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Until they engaged the Zero's.




Which they never actually engaged!



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 37
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 9:52:12 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
But then, every Japanese fighter with a radial engine and retractable landing gear was a "Zero" during the initial phase of the war.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 38
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 10:08:21 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12885
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Until they engaged the Zero's.




Which they never actually engaged!



What are saying the IJN flew during the Guadacanal campagin? Claudes? Nates? Or that they only encountered IJA planes? Or that they were blown out of the sky while trying?

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 9/17/2007 10:11:28 PM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 39
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 10:13:33 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
No, he's saying that the AVG never engaged the Zeros... I'm not sure that USN F2As ever engaged Zeros either...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 40
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 10:44:54 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22590
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

IIRC the AVG did not (contrary to all false reports) encounter Zero fighters of IJN at all - instead they foought fighters of IJA...


BTW, and IMHO, the biggest problem in WitP game terms is that centerline weapons are not differentiated from wing mounted weapons!

In other words for WitP game engine it simply doesn't matter if guns are centerline mounted or wing mounted - they are all forward firing. In Real Life (tm) this, of course, was not the case and, thus, even "light" centerline weapons could made a difference...


I think centerline and wing mounted weapons are treated differently - it´s displayed in the accuracy. Though in stock the accuracy rating seems not important enough at all, so in stock there is IMO nearly no difference between wing mounted and centerline armament.


In stock there is no difference.

In mods this was tackled (more or less) with creation of "new weapons" (i.e. the mods distiguished same real historic weapon if it was mounted in wind or centerline by creating two weapons with different characteristics - one for wing and one for centerline although they were same weapons in real world)...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 41
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 10:50:20 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12885
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

No, he's saying that the AVG never engaged the Zeros... I'm not sure that USN F2As ever engaged Zeros either...

Ah , now I understand. Yes the USMC F2a's had the misfortune to meet them at Midway. I had thought that the the British Buff's had encountered Zero's when the KB attacked the Indian ocean forces.

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 9/17/2007 10:53:01 PM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 42
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 10:54:36 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12885
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Forgive my misunderstanding. Since you didn't use a full quotation , I thought you were quoting my earlier comments about P-39's. Yes , you are quite right , I don't think I've heard of the AVG facing Zero's. The British Buffalo's on the other hand , I believe did.
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Until they engaged the Zero's.




Which they never actually engaged!



What are saying the IJN flew during the Guadacanal campagin? Claudes? Nates? Or that they only encountered IJA planes? Or that they were blown out of the sky while trying?


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 43
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 10:59:11 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

There was a series of books documenting the air war between the Luftwaffe and the Red Air Force during WWII. The name escapes me but I believe they are out of print and rather pricey IIRC. Anyone know?


Black Cross vs Red Star series I believe you're referring too.....yup pricey and i've never managed to get my hands on them.

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 44
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 11:18:29 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
You're more than a day late, Wienie-boy...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 45
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 11:28:13 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

No they were slated to get Buffalos. The Brits got them instead. And thought that they (the British) had the better plane. Until they engaged the Zero's.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Oh yea the AVG thought they were slighted because they did not get the Buffalos until Rangoon."


I'm not sure that I understand this comment. When did the AVG get Buffalos? Are you saying that they wanted Buffalos and were upset at getting P40s instead?



This is true...excpet perhaps actually engaging the zeros.

To settle the debate they actaully had a mock dogfight. A pilot from the RAF and AVG each was selected and they took off from the same airfield (at Mandalay IIRC) and engaged in several mock dogfights. The P-40 thoroughly trounced the Buff.

This happened very early on in the war....I'm not sure in retrospect it was a very good idea. It can't have done much for the confidence of the RAF pilots in their plane. Pointing out their vulnerability would not necessarily have helped the pilots unless you could teach them tactics to overcome them.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 46
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 11:49:18 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Instead , with the exception of the AVG , American fighter pilots used the tactics they learned as air cadets in flight school. They tried to turn with the Zero , and climb with the Zero. And they died.


That isn't a very accurate or adequate description. American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero, and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve. What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle. At high energy states, American a.c. were often capable of outmaneuvering the Zero. At low energy states, they could not hope to do it.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 47
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/17/2007 11:52:02 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

The P-40 thoroughly trounced the Buff.


That incident is recalled in Bond's diary. Erik Shilling was flying the P-40. As I recall, the reason why this demonstration occurred was because some AVG and UK/C'wealth pilots were grousing about being "stuck with" the P-40, rather than getting one of the relatively rare F2s in the theater. The demonstration was intended, as I recall, to show that the P-40 had marvelous properties when properly used.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 48
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 12:09:07 AM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You're more than a day late, Wienie-boy...


Sh*t didn't see your reply

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 49
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 12:10:26 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Too bad I saw yours...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 50
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 12:21:42 AM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline


_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 51
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 12:41:06 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12885
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Instead , with the exception of the AVG , American fighter pilots used the tactics they learned as air cadets in flight school. They tried to turn with the Zero , and climb with the Zero. And they died.


That isn't a very accurate or adequate description. American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero, and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve. What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle. At high energy states, American a.c. were often capable of outmaneuvering the Zero. At low energy states, they could not hope to do it.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 52
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 12:57:42 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12885
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Instead , with the exception of the AVG , American fighter pilots used the tactics they learned as air cadets in flight school. They tried to turn with the Zero , and climb with the Zero. And they died.


That isn't a very accurate or adequate description. American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero, and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve. What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle. At high energy states, American a.c. were often capable of outmaneuvering the Zero. At low energy states, they could not hope to do it.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.

At this point I think I'll just concede . Before it gets any more personal.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 53
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 1:02:46 AM   
Demosthenes


Posts: 520
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Instead , with the exception of the AVG , American fighter pilots used the tactics they learned as air cadets in flight school. They tried to turn with the Zero , and climb with the Zero. And they died.


That isn't a very accurate or adequate description. American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero, and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve. What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle. At high energy states, American a.c. were often capable of outmaneuvering the Zero. At low energy states, they could not hope to do it.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.

At this point I think I'll just concede . Before it gets any more personal.


No need to take that personal - it doesn't read that way.

There is simply a project underway by Mdiehl to accurately as possible determine just what the actual kill rates were in 1941/1942, to verify or lay to rest some myths/legends that have developed over the years.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 54
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 1:13:39 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
AW1Steve -- nothing personal meant there. Really.

Thanks Demosthenes.

For the record, AW1, the original study that I did on this may be found here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=84229&mpage=2&key=

Where I wrote (edited for brevity) the following:

quote:

In the interest of full disclosure here are some stats. ... Here are the facts as researched by Richard Frank in *Guadalcanal* (1990, Penguin Books). ... From August 7 1942 through January 1943 land based (not carrier) aircraft lost in combat (not non-combat losses) at Guadalcanal and its surrounds (up approximately to Rendova.. the air units were stationed at Henderson and, mostly for the Japanese, Rabaul) were as follows (Frank 1990:645-646). US: F4F-70, SBD-24, TBF-2, P400/P39-13, B17-7, PBY-7. IJN (25th Air Flotilla): Zero-72, Val-11, Betty-95, Flying boats-12, Irving-1. ... MAG 23 (VMF223 and VMF224) for example was comprised of pilots recently out of flight school and veterans reassigned from Midway, and the air groups were formed on May 1, 1942 (see p.139). The 25th air flotlla was an elite IJNAF unit. Of 24 Zekes available on 7 August, the pilots included Saburo Sakai, Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, and Toshio Ota... ... Best to all.


The new version of this study is an attempt to count actual matchups between fighters by type, number, and results, in order to valuate the degree to which either side's pilots or a.c. manifest an "edge" in the historical record, and to id some of the reasons why that "edge," if any, existed. So although I've run down the crude stats from Lundstrom before, I'm doing it again, and will also endeavor to track down combats between allied Army type a.c. and Japanese aviation. It's a big project....

But as it stands the crude loss ratios at least for USN aviation vs Japanese aviation don't indicate any general Japanese superiority. Caveat: at least that's how I see it given the quantitative data.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 55
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 1:17:01 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Instead , with the exception of the AVG , American fighter pilots used the tactics they learned as air cadets in flight school. They tried to turn with the Zero , and climb with the Zero. And they died.


That isn't a very accurate or adequate description. American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero, and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve. What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle. At high energy states, American a.c. were often capable of outmaneuvering the Zero. At low energy states, they could not hope to do it.

As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.



You have just experienced the Boom n Zoom first hand.


_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 56
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 1:28:39 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Looked more like the Bait and Flee to me...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 57
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 1:29:12 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

American fighter pilots used a variety of tactics when confronting the Zero

While this is true overall it is important to distinguish what part of the war we are talking about here. In the very early days of the war the USAAC pilots used the tactics they were trained in. As each individual pilot and unit gained experience with the enemy they adapted...sometimes in mid-air. The USAAC pilots certainly were not as thoroughly trained as the USN pilots, but they weren't dumb either. They learned...but they also got shot down far more frequently in the early part of the war. The lessons and tactics adopted by the AVG took months to filter throughout the units in the pacific.

quote:


and it was never the case that fighter pilots were trained to pursue Zeros at all costs down the energy curve.


I'm not sure that anyone made this claim...I didn't see it.

quote:


What one sees, both in training and in practice, is that US pilots endeavored to follow zeroes up to a point where their own aircraft were beginning to lose the maneuver battle.

In the opening months of the war I don't think this is verifiable.

quote:


As for "And they died." So did the Japanese. Objectively, against US naval pilots, at faster rates than the USN naval pilots did. It remains to be seen how Army pilots fared.

Why do you keep bringing up US naval pilots in all these threads? Last time I looked the navy flew neither the P-40 or the P-39, or the Buffalo (though it was a modified version of the F2A).

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 58
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 1:44:24 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

In the very early days of the war the USAAC pilots used the tactics they were trained in. As each individual pilot and unit gained experience with the enemy they adapted...sometimes in mid-air.


A2A combat is complicated and the version of history that suggests that US pilots had a problem consequence of doctrine or training, or some yet-to-be-realized learning curve thingie that gave the Zero an edge are not, in my view, substantiated by any quantititaive data. The claim's been made. I've never seen anyone back up the claim. The claim might be correct but, again, I'll have more faith in it when the data have been systematically examined.

quote:

They learned...but they also got shot down far more frequently in the early part of the war.


More frequently than whom? Under what circumstances? According to what data? Yeah, a Zeke could easily down a P-40 when they were landing or taking off. At low energy states there's no question that the Zeke held all the cards. I wonder what the data look like when such circumstances are eliminated from the data, or at least given a footnote.

quote:

The lessons and tactics adopted by the AVG took months to filter throughout the units in the pacific.


As you say, USAAC pilots may have adapted "on the fly. Possibly even in their first encounter. As energies dropped below a certain threshold, IIRC about 250 knots, the Zeke was going to start to fly rings around any P-40. Unless every P-40 driver died the instant a Zeke started to get ahead, I suspect that a whole lot of viral learning went on among USAAC pilots whether or not they'd heard from the AVG.

quote:

I'm not sure that anyone made this claim...I didn't see it.


It seemed implicit. After all, if you think that Zekes must have always held a maneuverability edge, then you have to believe that US pilots always tried to turn with them until the P-40s were in the lousy edge of their performance envelope. Because it is evident that the P-40s at high speeds could out roll not only Zeros but far more maneuverable Ki-43s. And roll is an important part of maneuver.

quote:

In the opening months of the war I don't think this is verifiable.


We shall see.

quote:

Why do you keep bringing up US naval pilots in all these threads?


Because for quite a while here in the Matrix fora "everyone knew" that the Zero was a "superweapon" against which only grinding attrition with an unfavorable loss ratio for US naval pilots broke the back of the 25th Air Flotilla in the Solomons Campaign. If everyone could believe it when it wasn't actually true about USN pilots (that the Zero was a better plane than the F4F and that Zero pilots were better pilots than USN pilots), then it may also be true that the same claims made about the relative merits of early war USAAC pilots and a.c. vs IJN/IJNAF pilots and a.c. may be equally an "urban legend."

That said, was one to talk about the F2A, which I haven't, I'd concede that the Zero was hands down the better plane.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 59
RE: P-39 vs. P-40... - 9/18/2007 1:50:03 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12885
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline
"That isn't a very accurate or adequate description". You have a interesting way of not getting personal. As far as your statistics go , I can't , nor want to refute them. I'm not a statistician. I have done a few dozen oral histories with pilots in the museums I've worked for. 80+ year old veterans don't get into Col. Boyd's "energy", curves . But the quote you seemed to enjoy ripping so much was not mine , but theirs. Turn with a Zero and die. Climb with a zero and die. When they watched friends die or saw empty seats in the mess , they learned these points. As far as nothing personal , well maybe we just have a failure to communicate. So again , I'm not going to argue with you. I conceed.








AW1Steve -- nothing personal meant there. Really.

Thanks Demosthenes.

For the record, AW1, the original study that I did on this may be found here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=84229&mpage=2&key=

Where I wrote (edited for brevity) the following:

quote:

In the interest of full disclosure here are some stats. ... Here are the facts as researched by Richard Frank in *Guadalcanal* (1990, Penguin Books). ... From August 7 1942 through January 1943 land based (not carrier) aircraft lost in combat (not non-combat losses) at Guadalcanal and its surrounds (up approximately to Rendova.. the air units were stationed at Henderson and, mostly for the Japanese, Rabaul) were as follows (Frank 1990:645-646). US: F4F-70, SBD-24, TBF-2, P400/P39-13, B17-7, PBY-7. IJN (25th Air Flotilla): Zero-72, Val-11, Betty-95, Flying boats-12, Irving-1. ... MAG 23 (VMF223 and VMF224) for example was comprised of pilots recently out of flight school and veterans reassigned from Midway, and the air groups were formed on May 1, 1942 (see p.139). The 25th air flotlla was an elite IJNAF unit. Of 24 Zekes available on 7 August, the pilots included Saburo Sakai, Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, and Toshio Ota... ... Best to all.


The new version of this study is an attempt to count actual matchups between fighters by type, number, and results, in order to valuate the degree to which either side's pilots or a.c. manifest an "edge" in the historical record, and to id some of the reasons why that "edge," if any, existed. So although I've run down the crude stats from Lundstrom before, I'm doing it again, and will also endeavor to track down combats between allied Army type a.c. and Japanese aviation. It's a big project....

But as it stands the crude loss ratios at least for USN aviation vs Japanese aviation don't indicate any general Japanese superiority. Caveat: at least that's how I see it given the quantitative data.



< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 9/18/2007 1:52:44 AM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: P-39 vs. P-40... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156