What makes the P-51D so great at shooting down people

[DaveJ]

I could list almost 150 that are MORE THAN ADEQUATE in the Pony.   You named 2 so far.   

What's your point?

 All I'm saying is that there are very few GOOD Pony pilots in this game who can handle their own in a 1 v 1 and not pick.

[Banshee7]

I could list almost 150 that are MORE THAN ADEQUATE in the Pony.   You named 2 so far.   

Am i one? 

[Kweassa]

What makes the P-51D so great at shooting down people

 Actually, from a skeptic's perspective, the answer to that question is the fuel load.

 Even on 75% fuel it flies a much longer duration than most of the planes in the game. So basically, one takes off with DTs, uses that fuel load to get to alt, and cruises around until a nice cherrypick target is found. Pick off a few targets, and since the P-51D is one of the fastest diving plane in the game, and not to mention one of the fastest at deck, they can simply dive towards the direction of friendlies when things become wary. Although a handful of planes are faster at deck, they aren't fast enough to catch a P-51 speeding out of a dive before it reaches safety of friendly pilots or home base.

 The catch is, a lot of planes can do that, but only the Pony has enough fuel to get back to altitude, and do it over and over and over and over and over again, and still have enough fuel left to fly half-way across the map. You can't do that with a La-7, or a Typhoon, or a 109K-4 or a Fw190D, or the F4Us. They can be the altmonkey, and they can do the cherry pick, but they don't have enough fuel to do it so many times. Planes like the Zero or the N1K, or the Ta152 have excellent flight time, but aren't fast enough to run away in time.

 
 There, another one of life's mysteries solved.

[Grendel]

As Badboy pointed out the P51 was perhaps the first fighter developed specifically with mutual support in mind. They were not designed to individually turnfight with a single opponent

Uhhh.... This is so weird in all aspects...
Planes are designed for combat. Pilots are taught tactics. Airplanes were flying in groups, mutually supporting each other already in WW1. Pilots were mutually supporting each other in Spain, in China, in Mongolia, in many wars before WW2.
Many WW1 planes were already being designed for speed and climb, not turnfighting invidually.

Face it: no combat airplanes were designed for "mutual support" - that was what the pilots were taught to do. Even the Triplane/Tridecker, Ki-27, Zero, Gamecock and Gladiator were to be used mutually supporting each other, not invidually.

[Angus]

If you want to get good with your P51, you should try the whole planeset against other P51's.
Once you are familiar with the planeset, your encyclopedia of enemy weakness has been established

[Saxman]

Kweassa,

I beg to differ about the F4U-1 and 1A. They have a much larger internal fuel load than the other three Hogs and have quite an impressive range, especially on cruise. Not quite that of the P-51, but on a full load can still do that.

[Zazen13]

Face it: no combat airplanes were designed for "mutual support" - that was what the pilots were taught to do. Even the Triplane/Tridecker, Ki-27, Zero, Gamecock and Gladiator were to be used mutually supporting each other, not invidually.

That is patently false. The Japanese are a perfect example. Japanese fighters were specifically designed to excel 1 vs 1 against their counter-parts. They were kept light by sacrificing armor in order to preserve their ability to outmaneuver a single opponent. This made them extremely vulnerable to fire, especially from behind as the pilot was not protected by an armor plate. The Bushido code was literally infused into the aircraft design whereby, ideally, each fighter pilot would face off in a samurai-esque duel with a single opponent. That is not to say they did not patrol in groups, but the nature of engagement sought individually was more along the lines of each pilot selecting an enemy and engaging that single foe to conclusion.

A lot of fighter combat tactics evolved and developed during WWII to accentuate the attributes of the newer planes like the P51 which were becoming faster specifically to create a more mutually supportive environment, in tandem, in a progressive fashion. Both the tactics and the equipment were evolving at a rapid pace toward the shared goal of enhanced mutual support.

[Kweassa]

I beg to differ about the F4U-1 and 1A. They have a much larger internal fuel load than the other three Hogs and have quite an impressive range, especially on cruise. Not quite that of the P-51, but on a full load can still do that.

 Yeah, but the frustratingly low rate of climb..!

 

 

[Pannono]

Fire only at convergence
Yesterday i had a 4 gun 51D and got a spixteen at convergence, gone go the wings with 26 shots from both slots (13 per gun)

[Grendel]

That is patently false. The Japanese are a perfect example. Japanese fighters were specifically designed to excel 1 vs 1 against their counter-parts.

The Bushido code was literally infused into the aircraft design whereby, ideally, each fighter pilot would face off in a samurai-esque duel with a single opponent. That is not to say they did not patrol in groups, but the nature of engagement sought individually was more along the lines of each pilot selecting an enemy and engaging that single foe to conclusion.

Urban myths, both claims. Yes, the Ki-27/A6M were light and very capable in traditional dogfight. With Ki-27 for the purpose and because the engines available were so poor, that the plane had to be as light as possible. Ki-43 is a true dogfighhter, though, designed to excel in close combat, but it was the last of its kind...
With A6M the purpose was not to create a dogfighter but an offensive fighter with great range. To achieve that range, everything else was sacrificied.
Claiming "Japanese fighters were specifically designed to excel 1 vs 1" puts all Japanese fighters into same basket and ignores/refuses to understand the differences between various designs and their purposes. Equalling for example Ki-44 to Ki-27/A6M is plain ignorance.

The Bushido code was there with the pilots, too, but they were taught to fight as units, supportive to each other. Mutual support. Westerners often just repeat the much hyped, though false, claims but in real life the Japanese pilots were not lone wolves in combat, but fought with their wingmen, with their units.

Naturally, the trouble is that the truth is far harder to believe than the myths that were invented in west during the wartime as propaganda, having been copied from article to article since then.

[Hap]

im realy curious because when ever i use it i cant kill anything with it and when i see other people use it its a monster i mean it doesnt even have any cannon rounds any advice?

Hook up with some guys from Death From Above.  Great guys, and some VERY VERY good pony drivers.

[Saurdaukar]

The Bushido code was there with the pilots, too, but they were taught to fight as units, supportive to each other. Mutual support. Westerners often just repeat the much hyped, though false, claims but in real life the Japanese pilots were not lone wolves in combat, but fought with their wingmen, with their units.

Ive seen more than one interview where old Jap sticks actually discuss this issue.

In the words of one Zeke pilot, in particular (I forget the exact question but it followed a discussion of the relative performance difference between the F4F and the A6M), he responded that the primary difficulty when fighting American's were the wingman tactics.  He went on to explain that Japanese pilots were never really taught this to the extent that American's were and that it proved to be a problem because it was difficult to get a shot at one without the wingman smoking you and that, but contrast, the Americans were always able to separate Japanese formations relatively easily and engage individuals on a 2v1 basis.

The kicker is that he attributed this phenomenon to "the values taught by American football." 

On the other issue - its always been my understanding that American fighters (with the single exception being the F15) have always been designed with speed, speed, speed and, to a lesser extent, range in mind.

Whether the tactics shaped the planes or the planes shaped the tactics is a chicken/egg argument, IMO.

[Zazen13]

In the words of one Zeke pilot, in particular (I forget the exact question but it followed a discussion of the relative performance difference between the F4F and the A6M), he responded that the primary difficulty when fighting American's were the wingman tactics.  He went on to explain that Japanese pilots were never really taught this to the extent that American's were and that it proved to be a problem because it was difficult to get a shot at one without the wingman smoking you and that, but contrast, the Americans were always able to separate Japanese formations relatively easily and engage individuals on a 2v1 basis.

Great anecdotal example.

[whiteman]

Yeah, but the frustratingly low rate of climb..!

 

 

I'm so bad in a 51 I'll live with F4U rate of climb. 

[Angus]

Try the humble P51B, take 25% fuel and dop tanks.
Then have fun. A Spixteen will have some job in the turns if you go slow, and if you choose zoom, you'll have a nice time as well. And the slower ...well they are slower than you.
109's and lalas may be a trouble, but if it gets to the dirt, you can probably outturn them. The P51D is heavier.