P-40 great for toasting BF110's?

[Uriah]

I have been trying out many of the planes and it seems to me that while I have been taking on BF110 planes it seems to quickly toast them, more so than any other plane I think.  Is that just me or is this a great plane for this kind of thing?

[Gambit21]

Shooting other aircraft?

Hard to argue with those 6 .50 cals.

 

Wish that was the whole story.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The P-40 is the best at dealing with anything that's not a single engine DB600 series or BMW801 powered fighter.

Maybe it will get some 190 style Love, or maybe a La-5/La-5F style with Full Power Release. But Right now it really isn't a very Potent Weapon against 109s and 190s. 

 

If you want to fly the P-40 as a fighter you have to fly it clean and on 330 litres which gives you very good Handling, but it's still a Sloth against the much lighter and more Powerful Germans. Taking 4x.50 Cal also helps (don't take additional Ammo though)

 

Otherwise use it for Ground Pounding. Or in a well organized Team. 

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

a wet tissue can toast a 110

[Field-Ops]

More vital stuff to hit on a 110. Hell the P40 is good for taking on any multi engine anything. Set convergence to 400 and aim for the fuselage, both engines likely to suffer damage. But if you ever want to fight single engine craft youl need to catch them at low energy states and finish it quick before they get more energy than you. And they will given the P40 power to weight ratio. Fly the P40 like a more conservative 190 and you should be good.

[Fern]

a wet tissue can toast a 110

lol

[Frequent_Flyer]

In real Life They had no problem against the 109 or 190. Both VVS and RAF and US pilots agreed. However, something gets lost in translation........

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

lol

lol good one

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

In real Life They had no problem against the 109 or 190. Both VVS and RAF and US pilots agreed. However, something gets lost in translation........

I believe thats mostly Propaganda ..

 

Much like the stuff about P-51's in WW2 they were too little too late and pretty crap anyways

Nothing like Us gov made out and Hollywood

[Rjel]

I believe thats mostly Propaganda ..

 

Much like the stuff about P-51's in WW2 they were too little too late and pretty crap anyways

Nothing like Us gov made out and Hollywood

Gawd. Talk about propaganda.

[Frequent_Flyer]

I believe thats mostly Propaganda ..

 

Much like the stuff about P-51's in WW2 they were too little too late and pretty crap anyways

Nothing like Us gov made out and Hollywood

You can believe whatever you want,clinically it would be called " delusional ".

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

In real Life They had no problem against the 109 or 190. Both VVS and RAF and US pilots agreed. However, something gets lost in translation........

Because real life is not only about aircraft and individual skills but also group skills, cooperation, tactics, positioning, numbers, weather and also luck. Results of our little dogfights online have little in common with reality. 

[EAF_Starfire]

The outcome of the war was never about the quality of the equipment. It was about numbers. The production of the Allies was more than a 4 times of the axis. By 1943 the Luftwaffe pilots was meeting more 4:1. Luftwaffe pilots flew until they died. Allied pilots roteded home and shared their experiences with the rookies.

Source: Brute Force by John Ellis.

BTW John Ellis was disliked for his analysis of the war. He called the Allied commanders unimaginative. Especially Montgomery which was seen as a warhero by the British.

[LukeFF]

Oh, look at all the propaganda in this thread... 

[Frequent_Flyer]

The outcome of the war was never about the quality of the equipment. It was about numbers. The production of the Allies was more than a 4 times of the axis. By 1943 the Luftwaffe pilots was meeting more 4:1. Luftwaffe pilots flew until they died. Allied pilots roteded home and shared their experiences with the rookies.

Source: Brute Force by John Ellis.

BTW John Ellis was disliked for his analysis of the war. He called the Allied commanders unimaginative. Especially Montgomery which was seen as a warhero by the British.

So, When the Luftwaffe was outnumbered 4:1 on the Eastern front and thrived in that target rich environment. but when they were out numbered 4:1 in the west and were annihilated in the same target rich environment it was'nt because the aircraft and pilots were far superior  to what they faced in the East.  ? Your logic is at best flawed. The Luftwaffe lost more aircraft to western allies vs the VVS in WW II. 

.

[Stig]

 

 

The Luftwaffe lost more aircraft to western allies vs the VVS in WW II.  .

 

 

Yes, but the P-40 had little to do with that.

[Gambit21]

I believe thats mostly Propaganda ..

 

Much like the stuff about P-51's in WW2 they were too little too late and pretty crap anyways

Nothing like Us gov made out and Hollywood

I have gobs of notes from phone interviews, recordings of those interviews as well as email interviews from Mustang pilots of the 352nd - who also flew Jugs. Based on this data I can say you're statement is woefully inaccurate. That's the "mod safe" version of my response anyway.

 

They liked the Jug better for ground attack - but would box your ears if you made that statement about the Mustang around them. Hell as a historian I'd box your ears.

 

None of this should be interpreted as "best plane of the war!" Which is equally as erroneous.

[CUJO_1970]

Mustang "pretty crap" ... lol you can't make this stuff up.

 

6 .50 cal is all you need to take down any and all WWII aircraft, it's the best feature of our P-40...would be great to get higher engine rating for Kuban, or surely the Pacific to go with those guns.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Mustang "pretty crap" ... lol you can't make this stuff up.

 

6 .50 cal is all you need to take down any and all WWII aircraft, it's the best feature of our P-40...would be great to get higher engine rating for Kuban, or surely the Pacific to go with those guns.

They are fine against Fighters, but Bombers and well Armored Attackers will put up a lot more Resistance. I can only repeat: There is a Reason all other Nations of the War switched to 20+mm Cannons. 

 

You can shoot down heavy Bombers with .30 cal or even .22, the question is how Practical it really is. And 20+mm are simply more effective and quicker at dealing with certain Threats. 

I understand the Appeal of the .50 cals and the sheer amount of Rounds you can throw at the enemy, but 2x20mm will do the Job of 6x50 cals just fine. 

[Scojo]

I flew a few sorties yesterday in an La-5 with a squadmate in a P-40.

 

The P-40 proved to be useful for two things:

1) Bait

2) 6x.50 CALs

 

My squadmate would use the P-40 to bait planes from the enemy airfields. The combination of the durability and the small stature of the plane made it great for this purpose.

 

In one event, myself and him engaged a 190. I pressured the 190 by keeping altitude and the P-40 eventually got guns on him. All it took was one good ambush burst and that sucker flew apart.

 

I would say never fly this plane without a friend backing you up. Also, if you or a friend are a really good snapshot, this plane can really make that skill pronounced.

 

Disclaimer: I haven't tried it myself. I'm thinking about getting it next though

[hames123]

The outcome of the war was never about the quality of the equipment. It was about numbers. The production of the Allies was more than a 4 times of the axis. By 1943 the Luftwaffe pilots was meeting more 4:1. Luftwaffe pilots flew until they died. Allied pilots roteded home and shared their experiences with the rookies.

Source: Brute Force by John Ellis.

BTW John Ellis was disliked for his analysis of the war. He called the Allied commanders unimaginative. Especially Montgomery which was seen as a warhero by the British.

Well, this was true, as long as the allies could turn out reasonably good aircraft, the Germans would lose to numbers. In fact, I am surprised that so few of those "ace" German pilots were killed on the ground, the allies probably should have done more airfield raids to press the advantage. Also, Montgomery was a good commander, but his style was based on World War 1 tactics(massive artilery bombardments follow by mass assaults). He later experimented with Paratroops. To be fair, he did not have many battles which he won through skill, but he never lost a battle so I guess that is alright.

Also, could some Russian Squadron try flying this plane exclusively on the next TAW or something? They could write a log of events, and probably find out more about the P-40. I ask this because going out alone in a P-40 is asking to be ripped apart.

[Scojo]

Also, could some Russian Squadron try flying this plane exclusively on the next TAW or something? They could write a log of events, and probably find out more about the P-40. I ask this because going out alone in a P-40 is asking to be ripped apart.

The only way this would prove any real point is if it were video recorded.

 

Flying in numbers is always superior to flying alone. A group of P-40s could definitely perform well, but that's mostly due to group tactics and not the plane.

 

What you'd really want to see is two groups of comparable pilots flying against each other, one in P-40s and the other in something else.

 

My personal opinion though? If the enemy fighters place emphasis on staying out of the P-40s sights at all times no matter what, the P-40s are doomed. It's too easy to stay above a P-40 where you can choose when to engage.

If the enemy fighters let themselves get in sights, though, the P-40s could snapshot their way to victory considering the P-40 would likely be able to take more of a beating, and also can down a German fighter pretty quick considering its armament.

 

It would be a fun experiment though, and I'd like to see it

[hames123]

Yes, it would be great for a squadron to fight it out with the lufties over a tank column, which seem to be covered by axis planes all the time.

Edited February 21, 2017 by hames123

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I like using the P-40 for Train Busting. The Bombload is amazing. 

[CUJO_1970]

There is a Reason all other Nations of the War switched to 20+mm Cannons.

 

You are preaching to the choir, man.

 

Heck I like my 20mm so much I bring an extra pair, just because.

[gnomechompsky]

Also, Montgomery was a good commander, but his style was based on World War 1 tactics(massive artilery bombardments follow by mass assaults). He later experimented with Paratroops. To be fair, he did not have many battles which he won through skill, but he never lost a battle so I guess that is alright.

Market garden?

[Uriah]

I don't get the idea of trying to use a P-40 in a dog fight.  So far in what I have played around with I fly well above the enemy and when I dive down I try to make it so the route out is on the way home.  I can zoom down on a JU-88 or Stuka, give them a good burst which usually seems to do the job and then fly on home,  I usually do a shallow climb back up.  Sometimes I get two opportunities.    I can take a Yak and attack an JU-88 or Stuka and I have to attack it many times.  

[Stig]

 

 

A group of P-40s could definitely perform well, but that's mostly due to group tactics and not the plane.

 

Like it was done in the real thing?   

[hames123]

Market garden?

Market Garden was actually inconclusive, with both sides suffering similar losses, which the British could afford to replace while the Germans could not.

[Scojo]

Like it was done in the real thing?   

Are you implying it wasn't?

[Stig]

On the contrary, it's more like the real thing than how it's generally done in simgames.   

[Scojo]

On the contrary, it's more like the real thing than how it's generally done in simgames.   

Ah ok, just making sure I understood. It seemed like you might be saying I was wrong via a rhetorical question lol

 

And yeah, group tactics are even more helpful in sims since it's very common you'll come across few opponents(and disorganized ones at that) rather than many

[19//Moach]

best way to win a dogfight is:  don't get in a dogfight 

 

 

truth of the matter is, if you're down to a "how can I outfly that guy and live to tell about it" type situation, your tactics have failed you 

 

 

how to win ANY dogfight is then a matter of few simple steps:

 

1: pick your opponent

 

2: engage and kill him

 

3: allow him to figure out you're there 

 

 

 

alternatively - you can always improve your plane's performance by having more of it flying with you - your odds of success increase with wingmen squared (minus those of your enemy)

 

 

I would have the following equation for this:

 

victory = tactics + (planesGood² - planesBad²) > 0  

 

   

 

 

 

in simpler terms:   all you can do alone is die    

 

 

 

fly together: live to make up stories about your "individual achievements"      

 

 

 

don't debate a machinegun - it's arguments are always louder

Edited February 24, 2017 by 19//Moach

[unreasonable]

@Moach - Something like Lanchester's square law. I agree: some people's obsession with dueling is most un-warlike. 

 

I would just modify it a little to read:  

 

victory = (tacticsGood * moraleGood * planesGood^2) - (tacticsBad * moraleBad* planesBad^2) >0 

 

One might say that "morale" is not an issue in MP but I would disagree, given the number of people complaining that they do not like to fly Blue/Red anymore because their side is always outnumbered, the enemy has better flaps, cannons, whatever.

[Frequent_Flyer]

You are preaching to the choir, man.

 

Heck I like my 20mm so much I bring an extra pair, just because.

Desperation !! to overcome the inherent short comings of their design was why most other countries used cannons. The USAAF staid with the .50 because the Luftwaffe was never a threat. statistically the USAAF lost more aircraft to AAA than aircraft vs. aircraft engagements.

They spent time and money engineering the P-47 and P-51 to have better performance,longer range in the PTO. The B-29 was far and away the most sophistacated aircraft of WWII and it was designed for the PTO not ETO.It took the Luftwaffe till the end of the war to develop a fighter with high altitude performance ,still not on par with the P-47 nor P-51. Although they BMW radial engine was a copy of the US technology, they could never engineer high altitude performance from it.They had to requip the FW-190 air-frame with a less effecint power to weight ratio inline engine to finally get close. 4- .50 were enough to bring down any Luftwaffe aircraft, 6 was over kill and 8 just was not fair.

 

No need to stop production for an unnecessary production change.

[Lusekofte]

In real Life They had no problem against the 109 or 190. Both VVS and RAF and US pilots agreed. However, something gets lost in translation........

 

 

It was quite liked by the RAF pilots in africa, but that does nt mean they had no problems with 109 and 190 . All allied planes had problems with them. In Africa they fought against well trained pilots too. So there where big problems, quantity and fuel/ service advantage made allied air superiority not the planes.

But it did a good job in 1942/43 in several places against IJN and IJA . 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Oh boy, Frequent_Flyer, in my opinion you should try to make less bold statements since too often you are wrong or at least not exactly correct. 

 

Neither Germans, nor British, French, Polish, Soviet or Japanese air forces used cannons because of shortcomings of their designs. That is wrong on so many levels. 

 

Decision to stick with M2 .50 caliber was based on two-three factors which is explained in the following book: http://www.schifferbooks.com/report-of-joint-fighter-conference-nas-patuxent-river-md-16-23-october-1944-428.html

Wish I could bring you a direct quote but unfortunately during the time I was moving I've lost that book somewhere. It is however so valuable that I'm considering buying it second time if I wont find it. But to the point, basically a question was asked by U.S. Navy officer as to why U.S. Army decided to stick with .50 caliber armament when even U.S. Navy decided to adopt 20 mm cannons and would do so earlier but U.S. manufactured Hispanos were pretty bad and quite unreliable (check P-38 reports). Army officer replied that they opted for waiting for .60 caliber developments and at given time they considered .50 caliber most effective in the type of missions they carried (fighter escort, strafing, standard 1944 kind of stuff). It was considered that a battery of six .50 caliber machine guns offered so far best chance of scoring hits by average pilot and decent ammunition load permitted prolonged firing time. Basically it was "noob" friendly. 

 

But there is a reason as to why during and after world war 2 cannons were standard armament of most fighter types - few hits were required to bring down the enemy while .50 caliber machine guns required a bit more. Frankly, the supposedly easiest aircraft to bring down - Zero, was the main reason why U.S. Navy opted for adopting 20 mm cannons as during 1944 and 1945 events with kamikaze .50 caliber machine guns could not bring down Japanese aircraft sufficiently fast or simply firepower was not enough to prevent them from hitting targets. You needed something that could literally blow up an aircraft to make sure it wont come close to your ship. 

[Uriah]

I like to dog fight in a game because it is fun.  If I were a real pilot in WWI or II I would avoid it because I would suffer and die.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

Oh boy, Frequent_Flyer, in my opinion you should try to make less bold statements since too often you are wrong or at least not exactly correct. 

 

 

Frequent Flyer is the Personification of Poe's Law. He is perfect in that I still can't tell if he means a Word he writes. His Poe-Levels are through the Roof. 

 

I still assume that he is in Fact a Poe and having a Laugh with us. I'm basing that purely on the Avatar though. Otherwise I would call it insanity. 

[Frequent_Flyer]

It was quite liked by the RAF pilots in africa, but that does nt mean they had no problems with 109 and 190 . All allied planes had problems with them. In Africa they fought against well trained pilots too. So there where big problems, quantity and fuel/ service advantage made allied air superiority not the planes.

But it did a good job in 1942/43 in several places against IJN and IJA . 

On both the Eastern and N. Africa front the Luftwaffe pilots were told not to get into a turn fight with the P-40. It had no problem out turning either the 109 and 190. Of course the " Russian Version " of the  a P-40 in this game can't even out turn the bus known as the 110. It could out dive either of them . Climbing with them was an issue.