From: USA Me-FL-DC-Guam-WS-NE-IL-?
Okay. I conceed. mdiehl is right. I'm sorry.
It's a good catchphrase for training people not to bleed out energy against Zeroes. And yet, some WW2 vets held the P-40 to be more maneuverable.
Shilling's view concerning the merits of the P-40 vs the Zero leaves no doubt as to which he considers the superior aircraft. "If you look up maneuverable in Webster's Dictionary, by all criteria the P-40 was more maneuverable." The aircraft, actually a model H81-A2 similar to the P-40B, had originally been set up for British machine guns. They were shipped to China without armament and U.S. 30 cal. guns were installed by the AVG crews. "The P-40 was faster (354 mph with combat load vs a little over 300 for the Zero), the roll rate at 240-280 mph was 3 times faster and the aircraft could outdive the Zero." In talking with Saburo Sakai, he was told that the Japanese pilots didn't like to dive the airplane at much over 350 mph. Apparently at anything much over that the control surfaces would stiffen and the skin on the wings would wrinkle, causing, as Sakai put it 'the pilot much concern'. "I many times dove to 480 mph. We didn't have any reservations about taking the plane to its red line." Shilling did admit that the Zero had a much smaller turning radius but "we didn't dogfight with them. Why should we when we had the speed advantage?" The AVG used hit-and-run tactics which worked very well, as the numbers show. "We attacked whenever we had the speed advantage. If we got into trouble we would simply dive away."
Shilling also recalls the very phenom that you mention. That dogfighting with a zero wasn't a good idea, and that viral learning led P-40s to adopt other tactics.
Of course, Eric Hartmann also said that he avoided turning engagements more generally (same link).
I'm sorry if I came down too hard on you. Yer comment sounded like the sort of Zero advocacy that I've seen before. If it wasn't meant as such my bad.
Anyhow, my notion is that for designing a consim, the quantitative data will matter, and that's what will tell me the degree to which the Zero had any edge over USAAC types during the early war. The anedcotes provided by oral history may tell you how the Allied pilots learned to get through the early part of the war, but they won't tell you what their overall relative attrition rates were.
I think if you go back and read the rest of my posts , you see that All I have tried to say , since my very first response , is what Von Richoffen , and Boeche said in world war 1. "It's not the crate , it's the pilot". I can't be any plainer. The way you ripped me was not indicative of someone who has been following the post s, but someone who jumped in with both feet when he saw a chance to pontificate on his favorite subject. You won't have to try and put words in my mouth if you go back and read my previous posts . You "were not hard on me because I sounded like a zero advocate". You were rude because you never bothered to read what I or anyone else had written. In the Navy we used to have an abbreviation RTFQ. Talk about "inaccurate and inadequet".
As a poster who has been quiet for quite a long time, let me just add a little perspective to this.
I'm sure Mdiehl meant no offense - he said so above.
But this relates to this game, and hence it's place on this forum. If you follow the link he posted, you will discover that the origin of the emotional debate goes back to the genesis of WitP in it's first form GG's PacWar.
In the posted thread link back in 2000 as PacWar was being developed - there was a discussion going on over how to rate the aircraft in the game and the one-sided exchange rates being developed. It was argued in that link that historical or not it provided game balance. Mdiehl argued (basically a lone voice t the time) that it was not only unhistorical - it was a poor way to develop game balance.
It has carried over into WitP and has been debated ever since. The only solution now is to document as best as can be done what really happened, and take it from there.
Needless to say, over the years this has become a hot topic. The only thing that makes sense now is to calmly do the study that Mdiehl is undertaking and see where it leads.
No subject is too dangerous to look into.
So be of good cheer and let's not go into defensive mode.
[By the way, a relative of mine died in a P-40 over China during the war (his case was waste in as far as it was a mechanical failure at the end of his tour - not combat), and I don't take offense at looking into this topic.]