P-39Q and D

[red26]

What is the difference in the P-39Q and the P-39D ?? From what ive found only the max speed is the difference about 30mph,

Thanx RED26:aok

[Gowan]

p-39d has 2 cowling 50 cals, 1 tater gun, and 4 30 cals (2 each wing)

p-39q has 2 cowling 50 cals, 1 tater gun, and 2 wing mounted 50 cals in pods on the wing (1 each wing)

[Saxman]

Gunnery in the 39D is going to be interesting, to say the least. Three different types of guns with three different ballistics properties.

[Xasthur]

Originally posted by Saxman
Gunnery in the 39D is going to be interesting, to say the least. Three different types of guns with three different ballistics properties.

Pull 'em right in and hit at point blank. With a 37mm that's going to be your only option anyway.

2 x .50cal and 4 x .30 cal is just going to tickle at anything less than close range.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Xasthur
Pull 'em right in and hit at point blank. With a 37mm that's going to be your only option anyway.

2 x .50cal and 4 x .30 cal is just going to tickle at anything less than close range.

Remember, the P-39D will have the 20mm option.

As far as two .50s, I vulched 6 Bf 110G-2s with a TBM (competing for the kills with numerous fighters). It has twin .50s, and they're widely separated out on the wings. Two heavy MGs are enough if you're accurate.

Two .50s and a 20mm Hispano bunched in the nose offer better punch than your typical 109 (without the 30mm). Four additional .30 MGs are just gravy.

Four .50s (not firing the 37mm) are adequate, RE: the FM-2. Add the close-range devastation of the 37mm and you have a vicious airplane.

My regards,

Widewing

[Iron_Cross]

Originally posted by Widewing
Remember, the P-39D will have the 20mm option.

As far as two .50s, I vulched 6 Bf 110G-2s with a TBM (competing for the kills with numerous fighters). It has twin .50s, and they're widely separated out on the wings. Two heavy MGs are enough if you're accurate.

Two .50s and a 20mm Hispano bunched in the nose offer better punch than your typical 109 (without the 30mm). Four additional .30 MGs are just gravy.

Four .50s (not firing the 37mm) are adequate, RE: the FM-2. Add the close-range devastation of the 37mm and you have a vicious airplane.

My regards,

Widewing

Wait you can fire at targets beyond D200?  Seriously, Training in EW with the Hurricane Mk I, has taught me some mad gunnery skill.  Cause with the Mk I, every shot has to hit to do damage, and you have to be really close.  I have landed 2-3 kill sorties with the Mk I in the Main.  So the .30's can kill too.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Saxman
Gunnery in the 39D is going to be interesting, to say the least. Three different types of guns with three different ballistics properties.

With the 37mm, yes.  That is why I think of the P-39D as the Predreadnought of WWII fighters.  The armament is so hodgepodge, just like those old ships with their mix if 4", 6", 8" and 12" guns before HMS Dreadnought showed it was best to go with big guns as the spotters had trouble telling what splash was for what gun when the mix was so varried.

The Hispano and .50 cals have very similar balistics though, so that will be easier.


And yes, the .303 can kill too.  I've shot down a good number of fighters with the Mossie's four .303s.  Lancasters were not impressed though.

[Squire]

Only 60 rounds for the 20mm though.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Karnak
With the 37mm, yes.  That is why I think of the P-39D as the Predreadnought of WWII fighters.  The armament is so hodgepodge, just like those old ships with their mix if 4", 6", 8" and 12" guns before HMS Dreadnought showed it was best to go with big guns as the spotters had trouble telling what splash was for what gun when the mix was so varried.
 

As a side note, Dreadnought was not the first "all big-gun" capital ship designed. The US had authorized the construction the USS South Carolina well before the Dreadnought (1904). Due to delays getting the appropriations, the South Carolina didn't begin construction until two weeks after Dreadnought was commissioned.

I have read an engineering analysis of the two designs. South Carolina's design was actually considered superior to that of Dreadnought, with all turrets being on centerline. Dreadnought had two wing turrets, which reduced her total broadside to the same as the South Carolina. Using Superimposed turrets, the South Carolina was able to reduce length, which allowed better armor protection over vital spaces. Being a smaller target, with better armor and a fire control system deemed superior, the South Carolina class were the best of initial all big-gun designs. She was, however, 2 knots slower than the Dreadnought.

My regards,

Widewing

[Saxman]

But referring to latter-era battleships as "South Carolinas" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Gowan]

i can smack people with the .30's/7mm rounds, ive taken out a good amount of planes in ju-88's and ive once torn the wing off a b-25 in a pintle gun on a tank ^_^

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Widewing
As a side note, Dreadnought was not the first "all big-gun" capital ship designed. The US had authorized the construction the USS South Carolina well before the Dreadnought (1904). Due to delays getting the appropriations, the South Carolina didn't begin construction until two weeks after Dreadnought was commissioned.

There was also an all big gun Japanese battleship, the Satsuma, designed and laid down before the Dreadnought and only the lack of available 12" guns stopped her from being the first all big gun ship.  Designed to carry twelve 12" guns, she was finished with four 12" guns and twelve 10" guns.  She was actually the first domestically designed and built Japanese battleship, all prior battleships having been bought from British yards.

As to power, the South Carolina did not adopt turbine engines and was hence a bit slower and less reliable mechanically.  Satsuma likewise lacked turbines and was 2.5 knots slower than Dreadnought.  The second Satsuma class ship, Aki, did have turbines.

I think Dreadnought gets a lot of credit because she was first out the gate, even if guns planned for the Nelson class ships had to be appropriated for her fast build time, because she joined what was seen as the world's premeir navy and because calling a category of ships "Dreadnoughts" sounds a lot better than "South Carolinas" or "Satsumas".  And Dreadnought did lead the way vis-a-vis engines.

[Widewing]

Well, the term Dreadnought is just so appropriate for this class of ship. Reminds me of a favorite Bible passage, "Fear God and dreadnought".

American Naval designers were on the cutting edge since the 1840s, and have remained so ever since. Britain, on the other hand, didn't build a truly world class dreadnought after the Queen Elizabeths. Nearly everything after these were inferior to the QEs or were governed by the Washington Treaty. Their focus on Battlecruisers didn't help. As late at 1945, the Royal Navy had nothing capable of standing up to the South Dakota class, much less the awesome Iowas. The King George V class was under-gunned and under-armored and especially vulnerable to hits below the armor belt. The old Nelsons were never much more than large ocean going monitors. The one-off Vanguard wasn't commissioned in time to see service in WWII. Even so, she was still no match for the Iowas.

My regards,

Widewing

[red26]

So the flight prformance of the two planes are the same then even with the diffrent gun variants right???

[Karnak]

The D has 300 less horse power than the Q, so no, the performance will not be the same.