Adler_ Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Which one do you think will be better ? Or your favorite one.. ? Personally I prefer MC202 , why ? Well I'm positive it will have stronger engine / better climb + it has 2x 12.2mm and 2x 7.7mm if I'm correct. And well love how it looks.. Post your opinions I'm curious what you guys think on this topic.
Y-29.Silky Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Every book I've read (a _ton), the 202's had the better engine but it wasn't a true game changer. It could out perform the P-40 at high altitude and speed, but the P-40 could easily out turn it (they could out turn zero's with high speed), is 2000lbs heavier which probably means it could out dive the 202, plus it's x6 12.7mm's. Either way, this comparison is one of those that are so close, the debate will never end. What it really comes down to is how the pilot flies. Edited July 8, 2015 by Bearcat
Original_Uwe Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) P-40.Why?Because it's the [Edited] P-40./thread. Edited July 8, 2015 by Bearcat 1
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 P-40. Why? Because it's the [Edited] P-40. /thread. Amen, even with the edit! 1
Finkeren Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 As a dogfighter it's not even gonna be close. The MC. 202 will leave the poor P-40 no chance: better climb rate, better acceleration, higher top speed, likely a better sustained turn and overall better handling.
YSoMadTovarisch Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 As a dogfighter it's not even gonna be close. The MC. 202 will leave the poor P-40 no chance: better climb rate, better acceleration, higher top speed, likely a better sustained turn and overall better handling. When people look at "higher top speed" they need to look at "what altitude". 1
Finkeren Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 When people look at "higher top speed" they need to look at "what altitude". In the case of the P-40 vs. MC. 202 I'd be tempted to say 'all altitudes', but I have no charts to prove my case.
Matt Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The power to weight ratio is favoring the 202 quite a bit. Armament will probably be the only advantage of a P-40 in a 1vs1 matchup, but maybe the roll rate will be a bit better too. Everything else should go to the 202 or be equal.
SR-F_Winger Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 As a dogfighter it's not even gonna be close. The MC. 202 will leave the poor P-40 no chance: better climb rate, better acceleration, higher top speed, likely a better sustained turn and overall better handling. This. But the P40 is surely a sexy plane.
Finkeren Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The P-40 will be an awesome ground pounder and a fearsome interceptor (provided the bombers don't simply outclimb it ) but beyond that I don't expect much.
Adler_ Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Every book I've read (a _ton), the 202's had the better engine but it wasn't a true game changer. It could out perform the P-40 at high altitude and speed, but the P-40 could easily out turn it (they could out turn zero's with high speed), is 2000lbs heavier which probably means it could out dive the 202, plus it's x6 12.7mm's. Shamed to say but I didn't know p40 had 6 12.7mm on him..I though they were 7.7mm.. And yea have to agree..at the end it all comes up to the pilot skills. Edited July 8, 2015 by NobodieCRO
Adler_ Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 The P-40 will be an awesome ground pounder and a fearsome interceptor (provided the bombers don't simply outclimb it ) but beyond that I don't expect much. Yea same here..tho people are supper excited about it. I guess movies do their part :D
1CGS LukeFF Posted July 8, 2015 1CGS Posted July 8, 2015 Shamed to say but I didn't know p40 had 6 12.7mm on him..I though they were 7.7mm.. Some had .30 cal MGs, some didn't. This guide here will help you out: http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/09/stuff_eng_p40.htm
Roo5ter Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) If you look at the OP it seems to infer we are just looking at which plane is better overall not a direct comparision in a fight including 1 Mc202 and 1 P40. That being said I would expect the P40 to be awesome to use in diving attacks considering the lead should be easy with the velocity of armament. Diving attacks so often lead to deflection shooting which is of course much easier the faster your rounds fly. Add in 6x 50 and you are still putting forward a lot of lead. I don't really know what to think of the 202. I am excited for the existence of it but I don't know that I would give up the F4 in a serious fight. It will be interesting to see how damaging these Italian 50s are. Edited July 8, 2015 by Roo5ter
Adler_ Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 I don't really know what to think of the 202. I am excited for the existence of it but I don't know that I would give up the F4 in a serious fight. It will be interesting to see how damaging these Italian 50s are. Well mc202 shouldn't be compared to F4 or any other BOS planes. Same could be said for P40..They are good planes for BOM expansion and the planes that are coming for it.. But I wouldn't go against YAK's or LA'5s with the MC202 neither would I put my money on the P40. And tbh I never knew that MC202 existed until l I started playing war thunder way back..and still then it wasn't my favorite plane. It just never had the fame like the 109's did or P40 ..or well any other plane. But I will be patient and wait for the BOM and see how it flies etc..
Maico Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 MC 200 is Awesome, MC 202 is Epic... If flown correctly. Like 109 trying to turn with P-40 is not good idea, but boom and zoom and you have advantage. Typical axis fighter you have to aim the guns experten style to get results(kill the pilot). I love the P-40 because I am an American. But I know the limitations especially against lighter, faster climbers from the axis. I look forward to both. But I know a good pilot in MC will outdo anything I can do in P-40. I will fly both for sure. 1
LLv24_Zami Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I think MC 202 is better plane overall but P-40 is more interesting for me. Don`t know why exactly . But both are very welcome to my hard drive with this FM.
Finkeren Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) You can think of the MC.202 as a 'poor mans Bf 109'. And of the P-40 as a 'poor mans LaGG-3' Edited July 9, 2015 by Finkeren
silent_one Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Fulgore not poor mans anything . lol. She is a beauty. I would rather have that than an IAR 80 , though thats next on my want list if we stay eastern front in the next add on... Ive never really loved the p40 but Im looking forward to giving it a go. Will be great with new summer maps.
BlitzPig_EL Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) The biggest issue with the Macchi will be it's rather weak guns. The Italian loadings for their Breda machine guns were fairly weak compared to what the rest of the combatants used. Remember, there is more to a projectile than it's diameter. It should be a pretty good aeroplane to fly though, and unlike the Germans, the Italians understood that trim on all axis was a pretty good idea. Plus it is a stunningly beautiful aircraft. Edited July 9, 2015 by BlitzPig_EL
Adler_ Posted July 9, 2015 Author Posted July 9, 2015 The biggest issue with the Macchi will be it's rather weak guns. Yea, that kinda worries me.. For a BnZ plane the guns can be really crucial.
6./ZG26_Custard Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Well there were significantly more P-40's on the eastern front than the MC.202 (was it 12?) so my money is on the P-40
Roo5ter Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Well there were significantly more P-40's on the eastern front than the MC.202 and Im sure there will be again shortly 1
6./ZG26_Custard Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 and Im sure there will be again shortly I'm not going to disagree
StG77_Kondor Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 The biggest issue with the Macchi will be it's rather weak guns. The Italian loadings for their Breda machine guns were fairly weak compared to what the rest of the combatants used. Remember, there is more to a projectile than it's diameter. It should be a pretty good aeroplane to fly though, and unlike the Germans, the Italians understood that trim on all axis was a pretty good idea. Plus it is a stunningly beautiful aircraft. True. But will the .50's be able to kill a Mk IV (And when we get it, the Tiger) by 'bouncing' the rounds on pavement?!
StG77_Kondor Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I wonder if that thread is still up somewhere. Man, those were some interesting times to be alive, thanks Ubizoo.
[CPT]milopugdog Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I'm more worried about if the 202 is going to be flown with the skin they have already shown us... I would hate to have to fly a plane in a winter scenario with a desert camo..
Dakpilot Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I'm more worried about if the 202 is going to be flown with the skin they have already shown us... I would hate to have to fly a plane in a winter scenario with a desert camo.. Actually historically accurate, none of the eastern front 202's used winter camo Cheers Dakpilot
Ace_Pilto Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 P-40 because .50 cals and it looks more badass. It suffers above 15,000 ft though because it knows that nobody on the ground can properly admire it from that height. Macchi, meh, watered down Italian version of the 109. Give me a G.50. 1
BlitzPig_EL Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 hi guys, how long can p40 fire the guns? Well, in standard 6 gun configuration the P40E carried a total of 1410 rounds of .50 ammunition, so that is 235 rounds per gun. The AN/M2 (designation of the aircraft version of the M2 Browning) had a cyclic rate of fire between 750 and 850 rounds per minute. So... Let's assume the lower rate of fire to be on the safe side. That would give about 19 seconds if you held the trigger down till the weapons were out of ammo, as best as I can figure.
Finkeren Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 19 sec of continuous fire with 6x.50cal is fearsome indeed compared to the average 10 - 12 sec of fire with a single cannon in most of the Soviet fighters.
Y-29.Silky Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 I'm more worried about if the 202 is going to be flown with the skin they have already shown us... I would hate to have to fly a plane in a winter scenario with a desert camo.. Wish they added the Rumanian IAR80 instead. Had a far more appearance over Stalingrad.
Saurer Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Off topic but didn't the rumanians use there IAR80 against American P38s? Could be an interesstig pair od premium planes for a later expension
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Off topic but didn't the rumanians use there IAR80 against American P38s? Could be an interesstig pair od premium planes for a later expension Me262 for Battle of Kursk! /s (Those would be some pretty sweet premiums, though...)
Saurer Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 They would not be balanced against each other but the IAR80 is relevant for BOS and the P38 will be at some point for another theater. The P40 is not revant for BOM nor BOS and the MC202 also very minor for BOS but are both cool planes and a great oponents for each other.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now