P40's next!

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Ted Strykker
If that were true we would most likely be speaking Japanese.

Are you nuts?  Through what convoluted chain of "logic" did you arrive at that insane conclusion?

What was the Ki-84 facing?  P-47s, P-38s, P-51Ds, F6F-5s and F4Us.  All of those are much better fighters than the P-40.

Your love of the P-40 blinds you to reality.

[SkyChimp]

Omg... Didn't mean for it to turn like this:p

[Stang]

Originally posted by Morpheus
P40 is such a useless plane. I like to fly it because it gives me some sort of an excuse when I die.

Because you always die, dweeb.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Ted Strykker
If that were true we would most likely be speaking Japanese.

We were better trained.

You have to remember, they were smashing their pilots into the sides of ships. Not very good long term thinking there.

We were also taking some of the best we had out of combat to train the newbs. That's good thinking no matter how you dice it.

[Ted Strykker]

Are you nuts? Through what convoluted chain of "logic" did you arrive at that insane conclusion?

Don't be an A** just because i don't think the way you think,or believe in what you believe.

[StarOfAfrica2]

You cant knock all the P-40s.  It was in service well into 1945.  It held the line in the Pacific until newer, more capable planes could take over.  Over 600 a/c kills are credited to P-40 pilots, with 31 aces and 22 aces who had at least 1 confirmed kill in the P-40 before moving on.  With a poor rate of climb and a low service ceiling, it may never have been the BEST fighter in any theater, but it was always capable if flown properly.  And btw, I'd love to see a P-40N.  Have I said that before?  I think I have.  

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Ted Strykker
Are you nuts? Through what convoluted chain of "logic" did you arrive at that insane conclusion?

Don't be an A** just because i don't think the way you think,or believe in what you believe.

Your comment could only be taken to mean that you believe that if the Ki-84 were better than the P-40, we'd all be speaking Japanese.

I would really like to know how you could hold such a patently absurd position.

[Ted Strykker]

No your just tryin too start crap,and you know it because you live a feeble little life and this is the only way that you can feel important.

Get a life Karnak.

BTW,Hols Dieze Nuesse

[Krusty]

Now now, let's not fight. The P40 was obsolete for the entire war, save for the very beginning. It was an obsolete plane killing lots and lots of other obsolete planes. That's the only reason it has such a high kill rating. Killing 50,000 Ki27s is like killing 400 zeros. Makes a big difference.

Killing 100,000 (all numbers hypothetical) obsolete 1930's IJA bombers got them out of the fight, but doesn't mean that it takes much to kill a bomber from the '30s. Hell a spitball from a hang glider can get kills but that doesn't mean that this is by ANY means a good fighting platform.

The P40 was continuously updated throughout the war in the vain hopes of improving it. Instead, it was behind the performance curve of most planes in most nations out there. It didn't serve in the ETO because it would have been dogmeat. Instead it was delegated to the theaters with less intense fighting.

[Karnak]

No, I am not trying to "feel important".

I am trying to figure out why you would hold such a belief as it puzzles me.  I try to solve things that puzzle me.

Just because somebody really likes something doesn't mean they have to hold that it is the best.  So your leap of logic is something I would like to know more about.

Do I think you're wrong?  Clearly, and the facts back that up.  That is why I would like to know why you hold that position in defiance of facts.

[Ted Strykker]

Now see Karnak krusty is talkin what i would consider crazyness.
but you don,t see me harping him about it.

The P-40 has vicious stall tactix that in the right hands can beat just about anything.

[Edbert1]

The Japanese lost the war in the morning of December 7th, no aircraft they produced or designed could have possibly altered the outcome.

The Ki84 has it's strengths but it is no dweeb ride.

The best K/D ratio of the entire war, all sides all theaters was the F6F, only elcipsed by the F15 which has never suffered a combat loss.

[Krusty]

Edbert, correction, F-15 has never suffered a loss against any other aircraft in the air. There have been some destroyed on the ground (and bombing is combat, so you MIGHT say some have been lost in "combat" but not "in action")

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Ted Strykker
The P-40 has vicious stall tactix that in the right hands can beat just about anything.

Any WWII fighter can beat any other WWII fighter, depending on the pilots.

For example using the aircraft I refered to,  I think your average Japanese pilot in late 1944 in the average Ki-84 would lose to your average American pilot in an average P-40.  But none of those things are equal in weight.  The average Japanese pilot in 1944 was a pale shadow of the average Japanese pilot in early 1942.  The average Ki-84 was mechanically unreliable to say the least.  The average American pilot was trained to a proffesional skill level.  The average P-40 was functional.


Like Edbert said, no fighter produced by the Japanese (or any other nation) would have changed the outcome of the war.

[Grits]

Originally posted by Ted Strykker
The P-40 has vicious stall tactix that in the right hands can beat just about anything.

So, you are saying you think the P-40 was a turnfighter and it was better than mid-late war ETO opponents?

Originally posted by Edbert
The best K/D ratio of the entire war, all sides all theaters was the F6F, only elcipsed by the F15 which has never suffered a combat loss.

I think the Finn's with the Brewster would dispute that best K/D Edbert, but I think the Finn's are a statistical outlier.