Follow up: Opinions on the P39 Aircorbra

[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"?

[BBfanboy]

Your experiences and conclusions mirror my own.
The 37mm is a slow firing and relatively inaccurate weapon so trying to hit troops anywhere is mostly chance. Give it a big target like a ship and it should connect once in a while.

[apbarog]

Agreed. I train the P-39 pilots in Low Naval and Strafing. They will get a bomb hit and connect with the cannon occasionally. Great for barge busting and naval targets up to destroyers.

With PDU off, some units stay in an air to air role when I see a better upgrade coming in the not too distant future. Ok to use in a layered CAP setting, at a lower altitude. I've used them as cannon fodder for strike escort also, if the pilots aren't anything special.

[IdahoNYer]

In my current DBB-C PBEM, the P-39 has been the best USAAF fighter until the P-38 showed up. Was surprised that it routinely performed better than the P-40E, and comparable to the P-40K at 15k feet and below. Have had good loss ratio against the Zero and Oscar, only the Tojo has proven a better plane through '42.

Now in May '43, its starting to show its age and its more of a second line fighter as its going out of production. Looking forward to getting its replacement, the P-39N1 which should be able to hold its own against current opposition, but will be limited by its short range.

Although I've been tempted to use it in a barge busting role, I just don't have enough fighters to waste it on low naval. At least not yet....

[wneumann]

I train the P-39 pilots in Low Naval and Strafing. They will get a bomb hit and connect with the cannon occasionally. Great for barge busting and naval targets up to destroyers.

+1. They also work in low-level strikes against airfields, especially at night where they have a somewhat better chance of surviving to come back home.

[Dirtnap86]

I wouldn't say the 37mm is slow firing just incredibly inaccurate, it needs a big target to shoot at. Boats fill that purpose well. A lot of late war PT boats had a 37mm Olds or a 40mm Bofors mounted on the bow of the boat. And the Russians used them for lower altitude interdiction I think.

Here's a nice little training video on it courtesy of youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXnXP39cO8U

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Dirtnap86

I wouldn't say the 37mm is slow firing just incredibly inaccurate, it needs a big target to shoot at. Boats fill that purpose well. And the Russians used them for lower altitude interdiction I think.

Here's a nice little training video on it courtesy of youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXnXP39cO8U

Slow is relative. On the ground tracking a truck the rate of fire would be great. In an aircraft moving over 100 mph you are probably getting one round per hundred yards. I've seen cockpit camera footage of a low level strafing attack and the pilot has maybe half a second to hit a smallish target, maybe one or two seconds to hit a bomber parked on the ground. And then there is the danger of ricochet resulting in "own friendly fire". [X(]

[Lowpe]

If you are using them to strafe cargo ships, etc., then you want them to have low naval attack training. I have used them that way in Ironman Nasty Nasty in the past, some P40's are also good at it early on too.

Strafing runways can be pretty good too early, as Japan really lacks AA guns early...but you have to get them within range which can be tough.

[spence]

Since you're stuck with this one at the beginning you really have little choice but to use it for A2A. They do OK as CAP if the bombers come in at an altitude where they can be effective.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

In my Allied game, I don't use the P-39 for anything other than air superiority; this for the simple reason I need as many fighters as I can get.

While I understand it has potential as as low naval platform, I have plenty of level bombers (B-25s, B-26s, Hudsons, Blenheims, etc) and dive/ torpedo bombers that can take care of naval bombing missions

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Dirtnap86

I wouldn't say the 37mm is slow firing just incredibly inaccurate, it needs a big target to shoot at. Boats fill that purpose well. A lot of late war PT boats had a 37mm Olds or a 40mm Bofors mounted on the bow of the boat. And the Russians used them for lower altitude interdiction I think.

Here's a nice little training video on it courtesy of youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXnXP39cO8U

The P-39's 37mm would fit well on the bow because it was a compact design for a small space, but the Bofors 40mm was too large for the bow. Most PT boats built from mid-1942 on had a 40mm Bofors on the stern right from the factory. PT-109 had a 37mm AT gun strapped to the bow when she was sunk. They just removed the wheels and literally tied it to the deck.

Bill

[SheperdN7]

Playing my first PBEM game as the allies and I find the P-39's to be a pleasant enough aircraft for going against IJAAF aircraft at least until Ki-44's or Ki-61's are available in numbers. Even then they are good CAP fighters if used at low altitudes.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

In my Allied game, I don't use the P-39 for anything other than air superiority; this for the simple reason I need as many fighters as I can get.

While I understand it has potential as as low naval platform, I have plenty of level bombers (B-25s, B-26s, Hudsons, Blenheims, etc) and dive/ torpedo bombers that can take care of naval bombing missions

Thanks Jorge.. could observation.

Scarcity does play a part...

My counter point is that the P39 flies out of Level 1 Airforce bases with "just arrived and barely adequate air support" at the sharpe end of the stick. I am moving them forward every base I capture up the islands.

i.e. II Fighter Command up Guadalcanal, Munda, Shortlands etc

i.e. 13th SOPAC USAAF and its squadrons at Baker etc etc

While I do have Marine DBs and B26 etc as well moving forward ...they fly with escort ... the P39 seems to fly "as its own escort" i.e. they always sortie !

--

The observations opinions on the P39 as a AirSup Fighter are noted and appreciated.

As I indicate I have "middling success" with them at 10K below P40s and F4Fs...in tiered CAP

Perhaps I should move them lower to take advantage of high maneuver rating in low alt?

Someone once made the same argument with the early Spitfires; this high low alt maneuver rating make them ideal CAP flyers in a tiered Cap below something...

I am just not sure that is opinion or solid game logic / experience ?

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Careful there are restrictions on the type of mission you can fly from a level 1 base

Only defensive ones are allowed: ASW, NavSearch, CAP, Recon

You can't fly sweeps, or any kind of bombing missions

[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.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Careful there are restrictions on the type of mission you can fly from a level 1 base

Only defensive ones are allowed: ASW, NavSearch, CAP, Recon

You can't fly sweeps, or any kind of bombing missions

Sorry correct and I had not perhaps paid close enough attention; perhaps not explicit enough.

In fairness my P39 were flying CAP off the airbase ASAP for some turns while I continued to unload if it is less than level 2; I am thinking here of II Fighter command 8 FG of P39s at Guadalcanal for example. Total of 4 squadrons in mid late 1942.

I landed - took the base in one attack - had Aviation Base forces in the mix with construction engineers; I was up to a level 3 base asap with perhaps 60 level air support (no turn to check).

Where they succeeded / exceeded my expectation was - 'against the AI' - running supply reinforcements down the slot much like history. Shifted P39s from CAP when I moved a squadron of Marine F4Fs to take over CAP duties; they went to town on xAK xAP PBs and even a CA CL DD squadron. Never failed to fly a mission / failed a roll check / compared to i.e. some TBFs and bombers in Nndei

So correction noted.

[Macclan5]

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.

Real stock [8D] (rookie) as in not even the beta patch.

That will be my next learning about this game.. all the mods. Beta DBB Artwork Maps.

Scenario 1

PDU on : Hard : Verses the AI as indicated.

No sweeps. No house rules per see ; just my own imposed ones. I am playing against the AI whereby Fighters always operate in ALT maneuver bands where the planes are most effective / historical (limit tankers to moving fuel, escorts for off map convoys, etc)

Your note about the P40 and DBB noted with a lot of interest.

Away from a save turn to be exact but :

Naval Attack Alt = 5000 80% Rest 20% Average Pilot Experience > 60 ( half with 70's). Range toggled down as I recall by a few hexes to just keep Munda in range. As I say the 4 squadrons have exceeded my expectations (even from my first complete game) and have seemingly never failed to fly (that is impression not fact). If I recall correctly from memory the 4 squadrons I am thinking of is II Fighter Command 8 FG of P39 one of which is a smaller Command Squadron. II Fighter Command itself is in Noumea. They literally damaged (even slightly) and sank everything that came their way; my own Naval interdiction ship squadron had a relative easy time of it.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Yes, air superiority CAP over small bases is what I used them for; Service Level 2 help here, the only better candidate is F4 Wildcat (SL=1), but they are usually in short supply because of carrier requirements.

So, even in 1943, I still use P39s and P-40s for CAP, while the better/ longer range models are doing sweeps or LRCAP

[Leandros]

We should not forget the -400! This version pops up in the game and ought to be a better dogfighter than the "normal" P-39. It's large-calibre gun (20 mm) and ammunition was lighter than the original and better for dog-fighting. I do not believe the game differentiates between these two versions. Correct me if I am wrong. The same could be said about the early P-36 version and the "Mohawk" (as designated in the game). The PH P-36s were not "Mohawks", but lighter, and therefore more maneuverable - even if with weaker armament and protection. I would say they were equal to, or in some respects better, than the Zero for dog-fighting. The US P-36 also had the more reliable P&W engine, most of the "Mohawks" (a British designation) had the Wright engine.

Fred

[wdolson]

The 20mm cannon on the P-400 was lighter, but when fully armed the weight was about the same. The P-400's 20mm carried more ammunition and had better ballistics for air to air combat, but there was little difference in maneuverability between the two. Any there was wouldn't show up in this game engine. An aircraft sim with more detailed aircraft modeling might show some minor differences, but that's way more than this model can accomplish.

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