Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SkyChimp on August 16, 2005, 07:34:44 PM
-
p40's need remod too!:D
-
I second that, and request the F and N models while they are at it. :)
-
Originally posted by Grits
I second that, and request the F and N models while they are at it. :)
I'll jump on the bandwagon... Just having the F model would do.
-
Acording too Eric Schilling the B model was the best P-40.
-
Ah, but he didnt have to survive in the MA. :)
-
The B had self sealing fuel tanks.While we are on the subject;the skins for the P-40-B in AH-2 are russian.According too my research the only models we sent the russians were the C models.
And Eric Schilling dealt with real life situations not some GAME.
If he says the B,then i fly the B model.
-
Originally posted by Ted Strykker
And Eric Schilling dealt with real life situations not some GAME.
The real life P-40B's of AVG did not meet N1K2's or Ki-84's, not even Zeros. They encountered Ki-27's , that had fixed landing gears, two small calibre machine guns and top speed below 300mph. Even P-40B looks good in that company...
-
Originally posted by Ted Strykker
The B had self sealing fuel tanks.
Um...it was the first one, not the only one. In addition, the B's had the less desireable exterior sealing and not the preferred internal sealing. Also the AVG planes were not B's or C's exactly, they were special models built using whatever spare parts Curtiss had at the moment. Thats why their planes that were in many respects C's, did not have the internal sealing, plumbing for drop tanks, or shackles for bombs, but they did have the armor in the firewall that the B's did not have.
If he says the B,then i fly the B model. [/B]
And how many guys say their plane was the best? My Dad says the A-4 Skyhawk was the best light attack plane ever built. At one time that might have been likely, but he still says it. You think its because he loves the plane because it saved his life and help him survive a war, or because he thinks that statement is true?
-
Quoted by Joel Paris:I never felt that I was a second-class citizen in a P-40. In many ways I thought the P-40 was better than the more modern fighters. I had a hell of a lot of time in a P-40, probably close to a thousand hours. I could make it sit up and talk. It was an unforgiving airplane. It had vicious stall characteristics. ...
If you knew what you were doing, you could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons. They looked like barn doors on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll it. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls ...
You could push things, too. Because you knew one thing: If you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. He couldn't leave the fight because you were faster. That left you in control of the fight. Mind you: The P-40 was a fine combat airplane
-
True against the A6M.
Doesn't say very much about it against the Ki-84, P-51D, La-7 or Spitfire Mk IX though.
I would have dreaded going up against the rare late war combo of a fully functional Ki-84 and a skilled Japanese pilot in it if I were a USAAF pilot in the P-40 of your choice.
-
I dont think anybody is saying the P-40 was a bad aircraft, personally its one of my favorites.
-
Ted, I'd say you picked a fitting avatar. You need to lighten up man. Seriously. If you cant see the humor in my statement, you are wound waaaaaaaaaay too tight. Its fine to have someone you look up to, and want to fly what they flew and so on and etc. Problem is, you wont ever face the same opponents your hero did, and you will just be dissapointed. Fly what you like, its your 14.95. I'm just sayin, respect what the AVG did but it doesnt have to tie you to one ride. I have nothing but respect for those men, and my statement was in no way shape or form disrespectful to any of them. I have several paintings on my walls, and a photo of a P-40 and an F4F-4 in formation. I always tell people the P-40 is underappreciated, and I marvel at what the men who flew it accomplished. But you still have to respect it's limits. Because of design decisions at Curtiss, the P-40 was doomed to forever be a mid-altitude fighter that was slower than its contemporaries. It has strengths yes. And flown to accentuate them, its a formidable weapon. But then so is a rock thrown from a sling if you know how to do it and have good aim. Everything is relative.
-
Star my hero's are not the subject.I respect your opinion entirely.
The B model is a very nasty little plane.
Yes it has week guns compared too a Ki-84 or a La-7.
But IMO those 2 planes are dweeb rides that don,t really require much skill too fly.Now the B-model is about the hardest plane in this GAME too get kills in therefore making it Harder.I don't like playing a game in EASY mode.
here's 1 of my little secrets,the best way too kill a La or a 84 or any plane for that matter in a B-model with weak guns is too master shooting the other plane in the Canopy for the plane will not fly without the pilot.Granted this manuver may get you killed more times then you kill them but it is still really,really fun too try it.
Most people dog the P-40 all day long,that IMO is because they do not know it good points,yes it is slow,prolly the slowest plane in the game IMO but that helps when people are screaming down at you and they fly right by even better.
And i did see the humor in your statement Star.
I sorry i,m just a P-40 Fanatic,sleep, dream P-40's.
-
You want slow? Try flying the Hurricane Mk I or Mk IId. Your P-40 will feel pretty dang fast after that.
There are a lot of fine fighters in AH that are under appriciated and that says nothing about how they did in WWII and everything about how they do in AH.
Though I am amused at you're labeling the Ki-84 as a dweeb plane as it is a death trap for newbies.
-
Originally posted by Ted Strykker
Star my hero's are not the subject.I respect your opinion entirely.
The B model is a very nasty little plane.
Yes it has week guns compared too a Ki-84 or a La-7.
But IMO those 2 planes are dweeb rides that don,t really require much skill too fly.Now the B-model is about the hardest plane in this GAME too get kills in therefore making it Harder.I don't like playing a game in EASY mode.
here's 1 of my little secrets,the best way too kill a La or a 84 or any plane for that matter in a B-model with weak guns is too master shooting the other plane in the Canopy for the plane will not fly without the pilot.Granted this manuver may get you killed more times then you kill them but it is still really,really fun too try it.
Most people dog the P-40 all day long,that IMO is because they do not know it good points,yes it is slow,prolly the slowest plane in the game IMO but that helps when people are screaming down at you and they fly right by even better.
And i did see the humor in your statement Star.
I sorry i,m just a P-40 Fanatic,sleep, dream P-40's.
:lol
You had that famous P40B (you) vs A6M2 (Raptor01) duel already?
-
According to a book on the Flying Tigers I read, the AVG did go up against zeros (fixed gear version I do believe) as well as ki-27s.
When the AVG arrived they went through Chennault's training a few weeks. After a few months the RAF stationed at Rangoon had challenged an AVG pilot to go up against his spitfire. Tex Hill flew agaisnt the RAF Pilot and won.
-
AVG never fought Zero's (to my knowledge), they saw Ki-43's and mistook them for A6M's. They were against IJA fighters, the IJA didnt fly Zero's.
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
According to a book on the Flying Tigers I read, the AVG did go up against zeros (fixed gear version I do believe) as well as ki-27s.
"fixed gear version I do believe"
:rofl
There was no such thing. All Zeros had retractable landing gear and enclosed cockpits. You're thinking of the A5M 'Claude'.
Calling the Claude a Zero is like calling the P-36 a P-47.
-
Quote:The first production version received a more powerful engine than the prototype and was designated the 'A6M2'. As it was first produced in 1940 - the Japanese year 5,700 - it became popularly known as the "Zero-Sen" ("Type 00 Fighter"). Two squadrons with 15 planes were sent to China in July 1940 for trials under operational conditions, and quickly eliminated all opposition. The effectiveness of the Zero was urgently and emphatically reported to Washington by General Chennault, commanding officer of the Flying Tigers, but his report appears to have gone unnoticed
-
Originally posted by Ted Strykker
Quote:The first production version received a more powerful engine than the prototype and was designated the 'A6M2'. As it was first produced in 1940 - the Japanese year 5,700 - it became popularly known as the "Zero-Sen" ("Type 00 Fighter"). Two squadrons with 15 planes were sent to China in July 1940 for trials under operational conditions, and quickly eliminated all opposition. The effectiveness of the Zero was urgently and emphatically reported to Washington by General Chennault, commanding officer of the Flying Tigers, but his report appears to have gone unnoticed
As I recall, that was based on Chinese reports of fights with the A6M, not on AVG encounters with it.
-
From warbirdsforum.com
[The following was written by Erik Shilling and posted on the web. Bear in mind that Erik himself was never in combat with a Japanese fighter, and only once with Japanese bombers. Nor did the AVG ever encounter the A6M Zero in combat. Still, it's a first-person account from a man who was both a skilled pilot and trained in AVG tactics. Also see Erik's account of his dogfight with a Brewster Buffalo. -- Dan Ford]
http://www.warbirdforum.com/shilling.htm
-
Originally posted by Ted Strykker
Quote:The first production version received a more powerful engine than the prototype and was designated the 'A6M2'. As it was first produced in 1940 - the Japanese year 5,700 - it became popularly known as the "Zero-Sen" ("Type 00 Fighter"). Two squadrons with 15 planes were sent to China in July 1940 for trials under operational conditions, and quickly eliminated all opposition. The effectiveness of the Zero was urgently and emphatically reported to Washington by General Chennault, commanding officer of the Flying Tigers, but his report appears to have gone unnoticed
Chennault was in China fighting the Japanese before he formed the A.V.G. According to the books the IJN pulled out of China before they could encounter the Tigers. Does that mean that 100% without a doubt they didnt encounter the Zeke, I dont know. Like Grits said, they most likely mistook the Ki-43 for the Zeke. They are similar as far as looks go.
ps, I love the P-40 and the Ki-84 is no dweeb ride:D
-
P40 is such a useless plane. I like to fly it because it gives me some sort of an excuse when I die.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
True against the A6M.
Doesn't say very much about it against the Ki-84, P-51D, La-7 or Spitfire Mk IX though.
I would have dreaded going up against the rare late war combo of a fully functional Ki-84 and a skilled Japanese pilot in it if I were a USAAF pilot in the P-40 of your choice.
Couldn't have been all that bad of an aircraft. It was 2nd to the P-38 for the number of aces that flew it in the PTO.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Couldn't have been all that bad of an aircraft. It was 2nd to the P-38 for the number of aces that flew it in the PTO.
ack-ack
It did that against Ki-43s and Ki-27s. Ki-84s with good pilots would be a whole other ballgame. The power advantage the Ki-84 has over the P-40, any P-40, is tremendous. I'm not saying that the P-40 couldn't shoot a Ki-84 down, that'd be silly of me. I am saying that the Ki-84 is a better fighter as designed and as a some actually flew.
-
It did that against Ki-43s and Ki-27s. Ki-84s with good pilots would be a whole other ballgame. The power advantage the Ki-84 has over the P-40, any P-40, is tremendous. I'm not saying that the P-40 couldn't shoot a Ki-84 down, that'd be silly of me. I am saying that the Ki-84 is a better fighter as designed and as a some actually flew.
If that were true we would most likely be speaking Japanese.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Chennault was in China fighting the Japanese before he formed the A.V.G. According to the books the IJN pulled out of China before they could encounter the Tigers. Does that mean that 100% without a doubt they didnt encounter the Zeke, I dont know. Like Grits said, they most likely mistook the Ki-43 for the Zeke. They are similar as far as looks go.
ps, I love the P-40 and the Ki-84 is no dweeb ride:D
Japanese planes encountered by the AVG over China/Burma.
Nakajima K-27 Nate
Engine: 650 hp Nakajima air-cooled radial
Crew: one
Wingspan: 37 feet 1 inch
Combat weight: 4,000 lb
Maximum range: 500 miles on internal fuel
Top speed: 290 mph at 13,000 feet
Armament: two 7.7 mm machine guns in nose; four 55-lb bombs
Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa
Engine: 1,050 hp Nakajima air-cooled supercharged radial
Crew: one
Wingspan: 37 feet 6 inches
Maximum range: 750 miles (greater with drop-tanks)
Top speed: 305 mph at 15,000 feet
Ceiling: 39,000 feet
Combat weight: 5,000 lb
Armament: one 12.7 mm and one 7.7 mm machine gun in the nose; two 33-lb bombs
Kawasaki Ki-48 Lily
Engines: Two 950 hp Nakajima air-cooled radials
Crew: four
Wingspan: 57 feet 4 inches
Combat weight: 13,000 lb
Maximum range: 1,500 miles
Top speed: 300 mph at 11,500 feet
Armament: Three 7.7 mm flexible machine guns; 880 lb total bomb load
Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally"
Engine: two 1,500-hp Mitsubishi air-cooled radials
Crew: seven
Wingspan: 74 feet
Maximum range: 1,500 miles
Top speed: 300 mph at 15,500 feet
Armament: one 12.7 mm and four 7.7 mm flexible machine guns; 2,200 lb total bomb load
Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu
Engines: Two 950 hp Nakajima air-cooled radials
Crew: two
Wingspan: 49 feet 3 inches
Combat weight: 11,600 pounds
Maximum range: 1,400 miles
Top speed: 340 mph at 23,000 feet
Armament: one 20 mm cannon and two 12.7 mm machine guns in the nose, one 7.92 mm flexible gun; 1,100 lb total bomb load
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
It was 2nd to the P-38 for the number of aces that flew it in the PTO.
Second USAAC plane behind the P-38 or second of all services? I'd be very suprized if the P-40 had more aces than the F6F or F4U but I guess its not impossible since so many USAAC guys flew it early in the war, and RAAF and RNZAF flew them too.
-
Sorry, out of the U.S. Army Air Force planes in the PTO. When looking up what the USAAF aces flew in the PTO, came as a surprise that the P-47 was #3 and the P-51 was #4. And of the aces the flew the P-47 and the P-51, the majority of them were already aces in the P-40 before transitioning to the P-47 and the P-51.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Sorry, out of the U.S. Army Air Force planes in the PTO.
Still, that is pretty impressive for the P-40 to hold second even in USAAF planes considering the performance increase the P-47 and P-51 brought, even if it was late.
-
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.
-
Omg... Didn't mean for it to turn like this:p
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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")
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
P38 had the best K/D ratio IIRC.
Ted, no offense but the P40 by no means is the best aircraft of WW2. During early years in the war it was a good aircraft, but by 1943 it was pretty much obsolete. You claim a good P40 pilot could kill any other plane, true. But put a good P40 pilot up against a ki84 (seems to be the plane we are comparing it to in this thread) pilot of equal skill, the P40 will lose.
You have started this arguement before and said P40 could out turn a zero, I challenged you to a duel and you still have not come through with it (though you said you would)
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
P38 had the best K/D ratio IIRC.
The F6F's kill ratio of 19:1 was the best of all US aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
P38 had the best K/D ratio IIRC.
Best kill ratio among USAAF planes. Overall I think it was the Hellcat.
ack-ack
-
I thought I saw (on several occasions) P38 had better K/D ratio than F6F.
-
Hellcat was 19:1, F4U was 11:1 and P-38 was 10:1 donno about any others.
-
The F6F saw a lot of action during the Marianas campaign, which was widely nicknamed a "turkey shoot". Also I am sure that being on anti-kamikaze duty skewed the stats somewhat. Rather easy to kill an already obsolete enemy aircraft which was laden with explosives and flown by a pilot with little to no stick time.
While the Brewster saw success in the hands of the Finns beyond any reason, and due to their skills and tenacity I'd have to question that it beat the 19:1 ratio. Would love to see evidence to the contrary if any of you can find it.
Ted, I am only of average skill. You take the P40 and I'll take the Ki84 and if you get me more than one out of ten I'd be amazed. It is simply not a fair fight, very few pre-42 planes could beat the late '44 planes.
-
I did a Google for "B-239 kill ratio" and got a couple sites, one lists the Brewster as 496 kills and 19 losses for a 26:1 kill ratio. Even if that is true, much as you noted for the Hellcat, circumstances led to a bit of a statistical outlier in those numbers IMO.
-
Originally posted by Grits
I did a Google for "B-239 kill ratio" and got a couple sites, one lists the Brewster as 496 kills and 19 losses for a 26:1 kill ratio. Even if that is true, much as you noted for the Hellcat, circumstances led to a bit of a statistical outlier in those numbers IMO.
There is a SEARCH button in AH board too...
-
Oh,now you wanna be friendly about having a duel raptor01.
Where was this friendlyness when you came into Blav's room demanding this and demanding that?
-
here we go again :rolleyes:
You stated anytime anywhere you would gladly beat me, I wanna see it cause though I doubt you will. I've called you out and you don't fight, so I concluded you're all talk. I've asked again later but you're too tired to fly or something like that. Lets not turn this into a flame fest that will cause the thread to be closed... IF you do decided to do what you said you would feel free to PM me and we can arrange a duel.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
While the Brewster saw success in the hands of the Finns beyond any reason, and due to their skills and tenacity I'd have to question that it beat the 19:1 ratio. Would love to see evidence to the contrary if any of you can find it.
In a sense, you can explain it with the Turkey Shoot example you used with the Hellcats. The Finns had a professional, well trained air force. IIRC, they also studied thoroughly the lessons the Germans and the Soviets learned in the Spanish Civil War and applied that to their training. The Soviets on the other hand, while having a large air force had pretty much forgotten the lessons learned in the Spanish Civil War and had a lot of capable pilots and commanders purged due to Stalin's house cleaning. So while the Soviets might have fought with tenacity and bravery, they were pretty much like the majority of the Japanese pilots that took part in the Marianna's Turkey Shoot. They were inexperienced and not well trained and I think thier main fighter was the I-16 which I believe the Brewster Buffalo outclassed.
Would the outcome have been the same if Stalin didn't purge his air force of his experienced commanders and pilots?
ack-ack
-
Could be since the Soviet pilots really were fodder much like their soldiers. I read somewhere that the Luftwaffe had a 8+ to 1 K/D versus the VVS and about a 1 to 1 against USAAF/RAF.
Take it with a grain of salt but some of the posters in this thread seem to know their stuff...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about448-0-asc-0.html
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Could be since the Soviet pilots really were fodder much like their soldiers. I read somewhere that the Luftwaffe had a 8+ to 1 K/D versus the VVS and about a 1 to 1 against USAAF/RAF.
Take it with a grain of salt but some of the posters in this thread seem to know their stuff...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about448-0-asc-0.html
Dont let Boroda hear you say that:D
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Dont let Boroda hear you say that:D
Point taken...allow me to specify that they were TREATED as fodder by their command...I did not mean to imply that they were not capable as individuals...in fact many accounts I've read from German infantrymen said that the "Ivans" were fearsome adversaries.
-
in fact many accounts I've read from German infantrymen said that the "Ivans" were fearsome adversaries.
Just ask all the german women that were raped over and over by the advancing soilders of the russian front.
-
Lets get back to planes. A-26 anyone?
-
I had a fight in the middle of a furball against a P40 that was very well played. I was in a 205 and his slow speed fight was phenomenal. it really depends on who is at the wheel. i would not have been at all embarrassed to have lost that fight and consider myself lucky to have come out of it even. S!! mr. skilled P40 tard. :D
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Could be since the Soviet pilots really were fodder much like their soldiers. I read somewhere that the Luftwaffe had a 8+ to 1 K/D versus the VVS and about a 1 to 1 against USAAF/RAF.
Take it with a grain of salt but some of the posters in this thread seem to know their stuff...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about448-0-asc-0.html
That's pretty much what I've read too. Like the Germans, the Soviets learned about air combat during the SCW but it was all forgotten with the purges. So when the war broke out, the Germans mostly faced inexperienced and badly trained pilots in obsolete airplanes. I think the Soviet main fighter was the I-16, obsolete by 1941-42 standards. Germans described them as brave but lacking in both skill and inititiave. So it's easy to figure out why they were cannon fodder during the early years on the Eastern Front. On the other hand, just like the Knitwits, the Soviets figured out numbers can over come skill any day.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by storch
I had a fight in the middle of a furball against a P40 that was very well played. I was in a 205 and his slow speed fight was phenomenal. it really depends on who is at the wheel. i would not have been at all embarrassed to have lost that fight and consider myself lucky to have come out of it even. S!! mr. skilled P40 tard. :D
Sounds like a Bud Light commercial to me.............
-
Sounds like a Bud Light commercial to me.............
That's too funny:lol
BTW, I believe it was common among American pilots to refer to all Japanese fighters as "Zeros". I'm guessing they knew they were technically wrong but it just sort of the way it was done. It similar to what we do down south when we call every kind of Soda a "Coke".
So the the mistake is to take them literally when they talk about shooting down "Zeros". I also have read several articles that state that the AVG never faced a Zero.
Magoo