Curtiss P-36 Hawk / H-75

[Krusty]

The D.520 was limited use and limited service even under vichy rule for the axis. The real powerhouse of the Battle of France was the imported Hawk75, with 2/3 of all the kills going to Hawk pilots, and the vast majority of French aces (and there were a lot!) earning them in the Hawk 75. It saw service around the world as an export in every random air force you can think of.

The MS.406 would be the next most representative French airframe after the Hawk75, compromising almost as much of the French Air Force as the Hawk75 did. A couple hundred were lost in combat, a couple hundred more destroyed on the ground by Luftwaffe, more by ground forces and some by retreating French forces to keep them out of German hands. All told, over 400 were lost in the Battle of France alone.

The Cr.42 was obsolete and being removed from frontline service before the Italians even entered the war. The C.200 and G.50 were the frontline fighters then, and the biplanes were relegated to second-tier harrassment missions and "advanced trainer" status.

EDIT: Okay, I typed that a little fast and want to correct slightly on the Cr.42. It was in some use right at the beginning of the war without much good results, but its main spotlight would be in the deserts of the mediterranian theater where every plane, no matter how old or outmatched, was thrown into the fight. It was outdated and this was a desperation move more than a "frontline fighter" movement. IMO.

[Guppy35]

I'm all for more early-war birds (especially for scenarios), but the Dewoitine D.520 and some of the early Italian rides (CR.42, G.50) would probably be more useful.

The number of spots the Hawk flew far exceeds any of the two you mentioned.  Skinners could have a field day with the French, Finnish, RAF, USAAF, Chinese, etc Hawks.  Keep in mind the Hawk was still being used on the front lines in the CBI in 1944 by the RAF. 

[Nosara]

Still waiting for the French D520...

[Vudu15]

 

[EagleDNY]

The MS.406 would be the next most representative French airframe after the Hawk75, compromising almost as much of the French Air Force as the Hawk75 did. A couple hundred were lost in combat, a couple hundred more destroyed on the ground by Luftwaffe, more by ground forces and some by retreating French forces to keep them out of German hands. All told, over 400 were lost in the Battle of France alone.

The Cr.42 was obsolete and being removed from frontline service before the Italians even entered the war. The C.200 and G.50 were the frontline fighters then, and the biplanes were relegated to second-tier harrassment missions and "advanced trainer" status.

EDIT: Okay, I typed that a little fast and want to correct slightly on the Cr.42. It was in some use right at the beginning of the war without much good results, but its main spotlight would be in the deserts of the mediterranian theater where every plane, no matter how old or outmatched, was thrown into the fight. It was outdated and this was a desperation move more than a "frontline fighter" movement. IMO.

True about the MS-406, but the D.520 might see more action in game.   The CR.42 was outdated but they had loads of them and upgraded them for ground attack, adding racks for a couple of small bombs and upping the armament to 12.5mm guns.  Would be lovely for North Africa scenarios, and they actually had an Italian contingent using CR.42s during the Battle of Britain. 

We are kind of light on very early war planes getting some more of these early rides so we can do the Battle of France scenarios would be nice. 

[haggerty]

50 eny?

[Krusty]

True about the MS-406, but the D.520 might see more action in game.   The CR.42 was outdated but they had loads of them and upgraded them for ground attack, adding racks for a couple of small bombs and upping the armament to 12.5mm guns.  Would be lovely for North Africa scenarios, and they actually had an Italian contingent using CR.42s during the Battle of Britain. 

We are kind of light on very early war planes getting some more of these early rides so we can do the Battle of France scenarios would be nice.

I quibble on the "loads of them" comment -- they made a lot but even by the time of the BOB they were already replaced as the primary frontline fighter by the G.50, and because those were taking too long to build the C.200 was built parallel to the G.50. I'd say it would be interesting but not very useful or representative in an early war setup. At least give us the other IT planes before it, eh? 

[oboe]

Krusty, can you evaluate the Gloster Gladiator compared to the CR.42?   Did they fight each other?   Were they both roughly in the same position, being obsolete and phased out at the start of the War, serving in backwater areas that actually ended up being part of the front lines?

I was thinking a good WWII biplane pack release might consist of the CR.42, Gladiator, and Swordfish.

Another couple of early War planes I wouldn't mind seeing belong to the VVS - the Mig-3 and the LaGG-3.   For the most part these early War planes participated in fairly one-sided air battles - the Fall of France and Operation Barbarossa both opened with sudden attacks that incapacitated much of the defending air force, IIRC.  But in AH we could see the planes pitted against each other with relatively well-trained and prepared pilots on both sides.  I think the Allied early War planes might do much better in AH than they did in RL.

[Krusty]

roughly same position, but mostly worse for the gladiator. Before the BOB even started it was just about fully replaced by the Hurricane. You only found it in really desperate places. Like the BEF where they had no supplies, no spare parts, operated off of a frozen lake as a runway, etc.

The Gladiator had a top speed of only 210, whereas the Cr.42 had a top speed of 270, only 20mph slower than the G.50 which replaced it. Naturally you can see the gap was much smaller, so some Cr.42s stuck around. The gap between Gladiator and Hurricane was so much larger that they were rushed out of service and didn't even stick around as trainers. The 4 Vickers .303s on the Gladiator were really underpowered in a time when even 8x Browning .303s were thought to be too weak. At least on the Cr.42 the relative weaponry was the same -- 2x 12.7mm. Light, but quite capable.

Overall the Gladiator turned much tighter, was much slower with way worse rate of climb, and way worse weaponry. The Brit Gladiators trounced Cr.42s over Egypt but you could say this was due to discipline, training, and experience of the Brit pilots in comparison to their foes. The Cr.42s trounced SAAF Gladiators in separate engagements.

Generally, skill changes the equation, but the Cr.42 would trounce a gladiator any day of the week on even footing. Think F6F vs A6m [edit: bad example, maybe?]. Can't turn as well but has it in all other areas where it counts.

[Greebo]

The top speed of the Gladiator is usually given as somewhere between 250 and 257 MPH, 210 was its cruise speed, so the CR.42 was 20 MPH faster, not 60.

The two aircraft had similarly powerful engines, 830 HP for the Gladiator vs 840 HP for the CR.42 yet the Gladiator was around 400 lbs lighter and a had lot more wing area, hence its better turn ability. The climb rates were very similar, 2,300 vs 2,340 ft/min, the CR.42 having a slight edge probably due to lower drag making up for its power to weight disadvantage.

All in all Gladiator vs CR.42 would be a close match up. The Italian plane has an edge in speed, the British in turning. The Italian 12.7 inch guns are not that good either, nothing like the US ones.

[Krusty]

The 310 comment came from the Osprey book, going from memory. Maybe they worded it poorly and I misunderstood or maybe they used the wrong number.

I'm not extensively read up on the pair up, but I have read a couple of things. They said that the Cr.42 had a significantly better climb rate compared to the gladiator.

The swedes ran Cr.42s side by side with Gladiators, and pilots that flew both noted the Cr.42 was the better climber. Again, taken with a grain of salt, but it seems to be a recurring theme.

General concensus as far as I see it is that the skill and coordination of the RAF is what tilted some engagements in the favor of the Gladiator instead of the Falco. The Falco was the better machine. The RAF had better radio equipment and whatnot, and the Falco relied on hand gestures. Knowledge is power, too. The RAF and commonwealth also had better ways of relaying new tactics and info to pilots vis-a-vis training, thus rapidly informing pilots of new tactics/ways to take down the enemy. The performance advantage the Cr had over the Glad IMO was in a large part to aerodynamics, more efficient wing design, and the fact the Glad had a fixed pitch prop, which is more limited than the variable pitch which was standard on the Falco.

 

But then, here I am rambling on about a minor side-topic. Sorry. I didn't mean to hi-jack the threat. Either way, the Hawk75 would be far better than either Falco or Gladiator.

[Greebo]

Reading up on the CR.42 a bit more I discovered it had a constant speed prop and an emergency boost setting allowing 960 HP, so that would give it a big edge over the Gladiator in climb rate. Sorry, hijack over.

I'd like to see the Hawk in AH also, good scenario potential and could use the internal and external art from the P-40 series to save development time. With its superior manoeuvrability to the P-40 it might be a more fun MA ride too.

[Krusty]

Back to the hawk.. People say it's more maneuverable to the P-40, but in terms of turn rate there are a couple of major impacts I see: On the one hand, excess thrust can really help stall-speed turns, and the P-40 has a lot more horsepower. On the other hand, the excess weight can also factor in and create a much tighter (or faster?) turn.

Given that the H75 weighs less, but the P-40 has more horsepower and is more aerodynamic, what negates what?

How small a turn radius does the H75 have compared to the P-40 B/C?

[oboe]

I don't know how extra weight could create a tighter turn?

[Krusty]

I don't know. I'd have to look up the math and crunch the numbers and I don't want to do that. Has anybody run across any reference material about H75 maneuverability tests? Or even P-36s?

EDIT: I hadn't realized, or rather had forgotten, that the radial in the P-36s was rated up to 1200hp. In this case it was lighter than the P-40 but with the same or more power depending on the P-40. That would definitely make it turn better.

Edit2: Apparently loaded weight wing loading was about 24lb, lighter than most planes in this game. It was very slow and things could disengage from it at will most times, but it had very responsive controls and could out-turn a spit1 at most speeds and was far easier to handle both on the ground and during takeoffs and climbs. Note that this is close to the Ki-43's wing loading, but was able to soak up lots of damage from enemy fire like a P-40 would (without the risk of radiator hits!)