P-40N (and update the other P-40s)

[angelsandair]

Jeez ever fight FlyinFin in a P40E? He's got the secret man  

I think so. I like the P-40E alot. It seems to have very frequent stalls though. I just got what I found off of wiki, but somehow... it got to people arguing with it over the 109F?!?  I'm just asking for the P-40N, upgrad the other P-40s and update any flight modeling that needs to be updated (which it seems it does). The P-40 is an over all monster.

[Karnak]

I have never heard of any pilot who was saddend to be transferred from P-40s to P-38s, P-47s, P-51s or Spitfires.

[Krusty]

BnZ I got nothing against you, but you're coming off as a 2-week squeaker.


FYI: Ubisoft has the crappiest historically accurate flight modeling EVER. Every plane has the same flight model, stall characteristics and handling. Only minor tweaks differentiate these planes from each other. Ubisoft has openly changed things because of players' complaints, first making .50cals weak, then making them super instant killers, then caving in again to players' yelling and making them weak again. They do not have accurate flight data most of the time, and AH has put its emphasis on getting real performance specs for the planes they model.

It's like saying "Well, Al Jazeera says the Taliban killed 50 US troops, but CNN says US troops reported no losses" -- which are you going to believe? One has credibility, one has none. In this case, Ubisoft has no credibility, and your basing your entire premise on ANOTHER game's flight modeling is simply ... forgive me.... stupid.

[Saxman]

True that, about Il-2. You can tell just by looking at the flap modelling: All aircraft have the exact same four flap positions: Up, combat, takeoff, landing.

One of about a million reasons I can't stand Pacific Fighters, not least of which is because it's a glorified and half-assed expansion pack. It's got some nice features (complex engine management, openable canopies, more detailed damage modelling--I especially like how the R-2800 doesn't conk out if a single .303 round so much as bounces off the cowling as happens in AH) but the only really thing stand-out about the Il-2 series is that it's pretty to look at. Virtually everything else AH2 does better.

Now if only we could get graphics and visual effects like that in AH.... Then again, probably 80% of the player base wouldn't be able to handle it, but it would certainly eliminate many of the squeakers playing on daddy's AOL account.

[BnZ]

BnZ I got nothing against you, but you're coming off as a 2-week squeaker.

Eh, don't worry about offending me. Everyone knows I have been squeaking alot longer than two weeks.  

FYI: Ubisoft has the crappiest historically accurate flight modeling EVER. Every plane has the same flight model, stall characteristics and handling. Only minor tweaks differentiate these planes from each other. Ubisoft has openly changed things because of players' complaints, first making .50cals weak, then making them super instant killers, then caving in again to players' yelling and making them weak again. They do not have accurate flight data most of the time, and AH has put its emphasis on getting real performance specs for the planes they model.

It's like saying "Well, Al Jazeera says the Taliban killed 50 US troops, but CNN says US troops reported no losses" -- which are you going to believe? One has credibility, one has none. In this case, Ubisoft has no credibility, and your basing your entire premise on ANOTHER game's flight modeling is simply ... forgive me.... stupid.

Yet HTC is immune from making any tweaks based on player base demands or balance? Or, as I theorize, to prevent the MA from being 50% P-51s, 30% P-38s, and 18% P-40s and P-47s (Caveat: One reason I fly the P-47 is that in AHII it does EXACTLY what I would expect a Jug to be capable of, and I can live with that. Fw-190, same way.)

I will tell you though, in Ubisoft, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the planes are pretty similar to AHII, except that the Army planes aren't quite as completely horrible as turners relative everything else.

Forgive the analogy, if the Bible and the Koran disagree, they cannot BOTH be the infallible word of God. And it opens up the strong possibility that NEITHER is infallible. Funny you should mention what troops report, when my complaints are more or less based on that.

<S>

[Vudak]

Some people *really* need to start thinking about angles tactics on a deeper level than "flat turn in one direction."

[Krusty]

BnZ... you're saying you think the jug and 190 fly like they should, well it doesn't matter one rat's buttocks what you THINK they should fly like. They're modeled based after actual flight tests. They are modeled to meet certain criteria. HISTORICAL criteria.

The completely unrelated coincidence that you LIKE the way they are modeled has nothing to do with the way you're arguing nor with the way P-40s should be modeled.

The FM of the P-40E in-game is said to be closest to that of the P-40K. We're not talking theoretical wiki listings of speed, we're talking complete aircraft testing (climb, power, turns, etc). The 109E is based off a 109E-3/4. We know these aircraft are modeled after the real thing.

The P-40E (as it is in AH2) turns a full 100+ feet wider than the 109E, and is no better than ANY early 109 variant in-game (all based off historical figures)



So go ahead and say you think the P-40 should fly like a zero just so that the US planeset has something that can out-turn 109s, regardless of historic fact. You're not earning any respect (probably the reverse).

[angelsandair]

So go ahead and say you think the P-40 should fly like a zero just so that the US planeset has something that can out-turn 109s, regardless of historic fact. You're not earning any respect (probably the reverse).

Me?! I'm just reading what I got off wiki! 

And then this went to Il-2?! 

I'll go put up more info from wiki...

[Rambo Fan]

Me?! I'm just reading what I got off wiki! 

And then this went to Il-2?! 

I'll go put up more info from wiki...

You better do that, even though i'd like the P-40N that doesn't mean your getting much respect, or any at all. Maybe reading the information more might help you do better posts.

 
-RF

[angelsandair]

Tomahawk and Kittyhawk squadrons would bear the brunt of Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica fighter attacks during the North African campaign.

P-40s initially proved quite effective against Axis aircraft and contributed to a slight shift of momentum in the Allied favor. Its appearance and gradual replacement of Hurricanes led to the Luftwaffe accelerating retirement of the Bf 109E and introducing the newer Bf 109F, flown by the veteran pilots of elite Luftwaffe units such as Jagdgeschwader 27 (JG27), to North Africa.

The P-40 was considered markedly superior to early versions of the Hurricane, which it replaced as the primary fighter of the Desert Air Force.[6] It was deadly against Axis bombers in the theater, as well as the Bf 110. Among its first claims, during the Syria-Lebanon campaign of 1941, were five Dewoitine D.520s, which are often considered to be France's best pre-war production fighter.[2] The P-40 was superior to early Italian fighter types, such as the Fiat G.50 and the Macchi C.200, although Clive Caldwell is reported to have said that the Macchi C.202 would have been a superior fighter to both the P-40 and the Bf-109, had it been adequately armed;[15] the C.202 had only two 12.7 mm and two 7.7 mm guns. The Bf 109 proved a greater challenge, particularly the later F and G variants. The P-40 was generally considered roughly equal or slightly superior to the 109 at low altitude, and inferior at high altitude. Though this varied depending on the specific variants, the P-40 usually had an edge over Bf 109 in horizontal maneuverability, absolute dive speed, and structural strength; was roughly equal in firepower, slightly inferior in speed and outclassed in rate of climb and operational ceiling.[6][16] However, most of the air combat in North Africa took place well below 16,000 feet, the altitude above which the performance of P-40s tapered off.

In June 1941, Caldwell, serving at the time with No. 250 Squadron RAF in Egypt, recorded in his log book that — as F/O Jack Hamlyn's wingman — he was involved in the first air combat victory for the P-40, a CANT Z.1007 bomber on 6 June.[2] The claim was not officially recognized, as the crash of the CANT was not witnessed. The first official victory occurred on 8 June, when Hamlyn and Flt Sgt Tom Paxton destroyed a CANT Z.1007 from 211a Squadriglia of the Regia Aeronautica, over Alexandria.[3]

Several days later, the Tomahawk was in action over Syria with No. 3 Squadron RAAF, which claimed 19 aerial victories over Vichy French aircraft during June and July 1941, for the loss of one P-40 (as well as one lost to ground fire).[18]

Because DAF P-40 squadrons were frequently used in bomber escort and close air support missions, they suffered relatively high attrition rates.

Some DAF units initially failed to use P-40s according to its strengths and/or utilized outdated defensive tactics, such as the Lufbery circle. However, the superior climb rate of the Bf 109 enabled fast, swooping attacks, neutralizing the advantages offered by conventional defensive tactics. Various new formations were tried by Tomahawk units in 1941–42, including: "fluid pairs" (similar to the German rotte); one or two "weavers" at the back of a squadron in formation, and whole squadrons bobbing and weaving in loose formations.[19] Werner Schröer, who would be credited with destroying 114 Allied aircraft in only 197 combat missions, referred to the latter formation as "bunches of grapes", because he found them so easy to pick off.[19]The leading German expert in North Africa, Hans-Joachim Marseille, has claimed as many as 101 P-40s in his career.[20]

 
North Africa, c. 1943. A P-40 "Kittybomber" of No. 450 Squadron RAAF, loaded with six 250 lb bombs. (Photographer: William Hadfield.)Caldwell believed that Operational Training Units did not properly prepare pilots for air combat in the P-40, and as a commander, stressed the importance of training novice pilots properly.[21]

The introduction of the Kittyhawk barely offset the strengths of the Bf 109. On 15 July 1942, No. 2 Squadron SAAF, in its first combat with the new P-40E, attacked a formation of six Stukas, and was in turn attacked by eight Bf 109Fs. Neither side suffered any losses in the encounter, and this enhanced the confidence of the German fighter pilots that the 109 remained superior to the P-40.[22] By this time, the frequent use of height in attacks by Bf 109 pilots had resulted in South African commanders instructing their pilots to operate at altitudes as high as 18,000 ft. However, the Bf 109 had an exceptional operational ceiling of 36,000 ft, and the German pilots responded by climbing higher, at an earlier stage of sorties.

From 26 May 1942, all Kittyhawk units operated primarily as fighter-bomber units,[23] giving rise to the nickname "Kittybomber". As a result of this change in role, many Desert Air Force P-40 pilots were caught low and slow by marauding Bf 109s.

Nevertheless, in the hands of competent pilots the P-40 proved effective against even the best of the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica.[6][24] A total of 46 British Commonwealth pilots reached ace status in P-40s, including seven double aces.[24] Caldwell — who scored 22 of his 28.5 victories flying P-40s in North Africa — is the prime example of a pilot using the strengths of the P-40 to its utmost. On one occasion in August 1941, while flying alone, he was attacked by two Bf 109s, one of them piloted by Schröer. Although Caldwell was wounded three times, and his Tomahawk was hit by more than 100 7.9 mm bullets and five 20 mm cannon shells, he survived the encounter and shot down Schröer's wingman. Some sources also claim that in December 1941, Caldwell killed a prominent German Expert, Erbo von Kageneck (69 kills) while flying a P-40.[25] Caldwell's victories in North Africa included 10 Bf 109s and two Macchi C.202s.[26] Billy Drake of 112 Sqn was the leading British P-40 ace with 13 victories.[24] Canadian James "Stocky" Edwards, who achieved 12 kills in the P-40 in North Africa, shot down German ace Otto Schulz (51 kills) while flying a Kittyhawk with No. 260 Squadron RAF.[24] Caldwell, Drake, Edwards and Nicky Barr were among at least a dozen pilots who achieved ace status twice over while flying the P-40.[24] [27]

I looked up the information from wiki and used that here.

yes, apparently...bring in your data

Read the other quote Noir

[Saxman]

Because we all know Wiki is the pinnacle of unbiased reporting and carefully scrutinized to ensure the total accuracy of its articles. 

[angelsandair]

Because we all know Wiki is the pinnacle of unbiased reporting and carefully scrutinized to ensure the total accuracy of its articles. 

Yes, but it's the only time I can be wrong, but still have wrong data from a wrong website to prove it's not my fault. 

[Rambo Fan]

Yes, but it's the only time I can be wrong, but still have wrong data from a wrong website to prove it's not my fault. 

You didn't read the whole thing so its your fault, completely.

[angelsandair]

You didn't read the whole thing so its your fault, completely.

Oh, my bad, I only read till a little past half way...   

I didn't read the very end.... 

[BnZ]

So go ahead and say you think the P-40 should fly like a zero just so that the US planeset has something that can out-turn 109s,

I was unaware that HTC had access to actual side-by-side test measurements of the turn radii of all the plane variants in the set. Where may I get this data?

I have never said that the P-40 should turn like the Zero. Exagerating what I say to make a paper tiger is unbecoming.

Nor will I claim a P-40 nessecarily should make a smaller minimum turning circle than can be made by a skillful pilot using both slats and flaps in a 109F, the same can be said for the P-51 vrs. 109G debate. I don't think this is what is happening when American pilots "out-turned" 109s. What I do think is that they were competive ENOUGH in turning ability, that along with their higher speed flaps and better elevator at speeds in the ~280+ that it wouldn't last long enough to come down to who can make the minimum turning circle on the edge of stall, unless they were fighting a very skilled old hare indeed.

I think the biggest advantage 109s have in AHII vrs. how they may have fared historically is that in AHII 109s can pull max Gs all the way up to 400mph IAS, pretty much the limit for what is practical "fighting airspeed" anyway.

"You're not earning any respect (probably the reverse)."

I am indifferent to the matter.