Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: fire_ant on July 27, 2000, 01:44:00 PM
-
As part of my ongoing efforts to disprove the P40's reputation as a crappy plane, I found this testimony from one of the few USAAF P-40 aces....
Robert M. DeHaven
Robert Marshall DeHaven was born on 13 January 1922 in San Diego, California. He attended Washington and Lee University but left to join the Army Air Corps in February 1942. Earning his pilot's wings, he was assigned to P-40 training in Florida. In February 1943 he was sent to Hawaii, then on to Port Moresby, New Guinea via Australia in May. He was assigned to the P-40 equipped 7th Fighter Squadron, 49th Fighter Group at Dobodura.
Lieutenant DeHaven scored his first victory on 14 July 1943 and became an ace on 10 December. He participated in the offensives which took Buna, Lae, Markham Valley, Hollandia and Biak Islands. During these battles, he downed a total of ten enemy aircraft with the P-40, one of the highest P-40 scores for USAAF pilots, other than AVG pilots.
DeHaven liked the P-40, surprisingly, even preferring it to the highly acclaimed P-38. In Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific, DeHaven explains:
After training I requested duty in the Pacific and I requested being posted to a P-40 squadron and both wishes were granted. This was early in 1943 and most pilots already desired more advanced types and some thought my decision a mistake. Yet I had been inspired by the deeds of the Flying Tigers. We had also heard accounts that the P-38 was difficult to bail out of because of its twin-boom tail and that it was difficult when flying with one engine. I also knew that P-38s were still rare in the theater and I wanted to get into the war as soon as possible. That wish, too, was granted. I never regretted the choice.
If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. In many conditions, it could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. The P-40 kept me alive and allowed me to accomplish my mission. The real problem with it was lack of range. As we pushed the Japanese back, P-40 pilots were slowly left out of the war. So when I moved to P-38s, an excellent aircraft, I did so not because I believed that the P-40 was an inferior fighter, but because I knew the P-38 would allow us to reach the enemy. I was a fighter pilot and that was what I was supposed to do.
The 7th Fighter Squadron transitioned to P-38s in July-September 1944 for the Philippine invasion. On 27 October, leading the 7th Squadron, DeHaven became one of the first AAF fighters to "return" to the Philippines. Within seven days he acquired four more victories. After leave in the U.S. he rejoined the 49th at Lingayen as group operations officer, serving into the occupation of Japan.
Following World War II, DeHaven joined the Hughes Aircraft Company as an engineering test pilot and personal pilot to Howard Hughes. Eventually he became an executive of the firm and manager of the Flight Test Division for over 30 years. He was also elected a Fellow in the Society of Experimental Test Pilots and served as President of the American Fighter Aces Association.
TALLY RECORD: 14 Confirmed and one Damaged
DECORATIONS: Silver Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, Distinguished Flying Cross with 2 OLCs, Air Medal with 13 OLCs, and the Presidential Unit Citation with one OLC.
Sources:
· DeHaven article at 475th FG website - listed under "Friends of the 475th"
-
Give me a P-38, you take the P-40.
We meet at 10K. Assuming you don't hit anything when we pass, I do a low-G pullup and do a lazy loop over your head. You are dead no matter what you do now.
I don't discount the P-40's ability to turn, its toughness, or even its 6x.50's. Its climb and poor altitude performance is what damns it. Co-alt a good pilot in a good plane should finish it IMHO.
Not trying to pee in your Wheaties, and I would love to see and fly a P-40, but it was an obsolescent aircraft in 1941. It is no match whatsoever for anything we have in the game, not even the 202. The only possible P-40 worth modeling as a fighter would be the P-40N.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
I flew exclusively P-40 in WarBirds as first thing when it got into WB (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I liked it, was very stable control and good dive, K/D way more than 1:1
-
Originally posted by Kieren:
Not trying to pee in your Wheaties, and I would love to see and fly a P-40, but it was an obsolescent aircraft in 1941. It is no match whatsoever for anything we have in the game, not even the 202.
LOL kieren...there is people (finnish people (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)) crying for a Brewster Buffalo and you say P40 was obsolescent?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
I'm not trying to say a P40 is better than a P38. You are arguing with the ace i quoted, no doubt you know more than he did, he only had 11 kills in real life while you probably have hundreds of virtuals.
All I'm saying it was better than it's overall bad rep deserved. (By the way, I would love to see the P40 N modled here, it was lighter and up engined, should be great)
I'd like to try your bet though in warbirds, anytime. Email me. I flew P40's in Air Warrior where their model is far far inferior to the model on Warbirds and I shot down P38's (which have a very exxageratd model in AW) pretty regularly. Anyway i don't think the outcome is so certain. You might follow me down and end up losing some E in some twisting and turning. At high Speed the P40 handles better than just about anything.
Even in Warbrirds I think the P40B is probably superior to the Hurri, the F4F, the Ki43, the P39, the 109E, the 110, and probably one or two others I forgot to mention.
As for the P40 being 'obsolete' in 1941, I don't agree with this. If you look at the battle performance of P40 squadrons in the med, china, and the pacific, experienced squadrons generally gave better than they got. Many pilots ran up quite a few kills against such allegedly superior aircraft as 109E, 109F, Me 110, Ki 43, Ki 61, and A6M. The P40 did have some poor tactical performance characteristics which some of it's pilots and many Army air Corps strategists complained about (mainly climb rate) but it had advantages too and the fact is it was quite a good dogfighter overall.
The P40 and the P39 especially, were vilified as obsolete fighters, and yet they largely held he fort for many years, and
statisitcal evidence on paper indicates they were probably not truly obsolete all all.
The P39 in particular was nothing short of spactacular in Russian hands (a fact only grudginly admitted by most western experts)
It's real drawback, and that of the P40 is that they had two major strategic problems, a lack of high altitutde performance which made it difficult to intercept high altitude medium bombers particularly in the pacific, and a lack of long range (due to only being able to fit one external fuel tank instead of two) which was also a major problem especially in the pacific.
These can be crippling issues when you are trying to conduct say a battle in the solomon islands, but may not be as relevant in an online arena with different circumstances.
Due to these two issues the P39 (which was legitimately unpopulr with US pilots) and the P40 began to be called obsolete fighters by the 'experts'. On the other hand, in theaters such as the russian front and particularly the mediterranain where there was often a low cloud ceiling and where tactical bombing took precidence over strategic, many accounts I have read indicated that early P40 models in particular were considered by the RAF to be "superior" to the Me 109 below 5,000 feet. I have another book which stated that many pilots in the USAAF in the China theatre prefered the p40 to the p51 for the type of operations they usually flew there.
If you look objectively at the P39, late models had a top speed of 380 mph at low altitude (5,000 ft), and an initial climb rate of close to 4,000 ft per minute, making it an obvious killer in the low cloud ceiling environment of the Russian front.
This is why they did so well there.
The Hurricane used to get similar bad press for some time, until it was realised that they carried most of the actual load during the battle of Britain. Now it's rep has been largely rescued.
I think many experts are too lazy and too eager to repeat what they heard before. When the history about the p40 and P39 (both hands down better fighters than the Hurri) are more carefully examined, people wont be so surprised to see that their flight models look relatively good in simulators like Warbirds.
And if this (or some other) game takes the path of modeling some of the more interesting mid and early war planes instead of only "uber" planes from 1944, you might find it holds up quite well.
-
There is a difference in meaning between the words "Obsolete" and "Obsolescent". "Obsolete" means you are completely outclassed and have no chance, "Obsolescent" means you have tipped the scales heavily in favor of the opponent.
I wouldn't argue whether the P-40 turns better in WB than the P-38. I wouldn't play that game. I would stay above you, and every time you tried to run I would hit you and pull up. Once I was above you, there isn't a thing you could do but evade.
This isn't a challenge, and don't take it as such. I am only saying that, if I use the trump cards of speed and climb, the P-38 wins hands-down. Surely you can see what I am saying?
-
Bring the P-40 to AH is a beautiful plane!!!
If people need ultrapower plane to be satisfied his not my problem i can fight u all whit any plane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) !
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
PS: sometime i'm not serious (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) , just give us that plane.
-
Well said fire_ant. The P-39 was deficient in range and altitude performance, two factors which meant a lot over the Pacific or over the Reich, but were not a factor on the Ostfront.
P-40 would be a great addition to AH, although I'd rather see the late-war plane set finished before focusing on a different period. The cool thing about doing an early P-40 model is that you get a P-36 almost for free. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-27-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Kieren:
>chance, "Obsolescent" means you have tipped >the scales heavily in favor of the opponent.
/QUOTE
Ok thanks for the etimology lesson (seriously), but I don't think P-40's (or P39's) were either obsolete 'obsolescent' by this standard.
>I wouldn't argue whether the P-40 turns >better in WB than the P-38. I wouldn't play >that game. I would stay above you, and >every time you tried to run I would hit you >and pull up. Once I was above you, there >isn't a thing you could do but evade.
/QUOTE
Ok, granted, I have two arguments though. This is essentially the case for any BNZ fighter which has a climb advantage over any other plane. You could say the same thing about a Spit mk V probably, and it's not obsolesecnt. In any event that battle would really depend how good you were at B&Nzing with how good I was at keeping my speed up and being able to turn my nose at you at just the right second. But I'll grant you have the advantage of chosing engagement.
On the other hand, the scenario you cite while fair, is not necessarily very realistic. For the sake of argument I'll say you win in this scenario. But what if you are escorting some dive bombers to attack an airfield and I'm in an equally matched group of P-40's flying CAP at altitude... you might not have so much success...
Anyway as an amateur historian I think it is very intersting how much these more realistic simulation games have shed light on the performance and relative qualities of these magnificent machines... it is what makes them more than just a game
DB
-
I hope you understand I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you. I like the P-40, and I think it is essential for scenarios. I do study history, too (in fact, I teach it!). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
BTW, when I stated "I wouldn't play that game" I was referring to flying my P-38 in a way the P-40 has an advantage, not making snide comments about Warbirds. After re-reading the post I saw room for misinterpretation. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
and here is yet another juicy series of anecdotes...
P-40E -vs- P-40N
Lt. Sammy A. Pierce, 49th Fighter Group/5th Air Force
"From a maintenance standpoint, the P40E was a much better built aircraft; the P-40N appeared to be a lightweight, very cheap copy with pretty poor workmanship, poor fittings, clearances and tolerances. The P-40N actually required more maintenance man hours even though it did not have many of the normal components of the P-40E, such as an internal starter, vacuum pumps, and other items. After we received the P-40N, we lost two or three due to material failures before we could correct all the deficiencies. We had to replace the main oil line, which was too light to stand up under engine pressure, and build up the wheel spindles, which were too small and allowed the wheels to wobble, resulting in excessive tire wear and blown tires. After these problems were corrected, the P-40Ns were fairly easy to maintain and keep in commission.
From a performance standpoint, the P40N would outperform the P-40E in many respects, including rate of climb and turning radius. There was not improvement though to try to out turn the Zekes, Oscars or Hamps. The P40N would out turn the Tony, which we began to run into in late '43. I had the utmost confidence in the P40E, and felt that as long as the engine ran, the airplane would stay airborne regardless of the other damage. Several times when flying both numbers 42 and 50, I took some good hits, but it did not hurt the flying characteristics or performance of the P-40E, and at least twice, number 55 was shot up pretty good.
The P-40N, being lighter, had a much better rate of climb and was a little faster on the straight and level, but, on the other hand, from a standing start, we could take off and climb to altitude about as fast with the old P-40E because of the extra time required to hand crank the engine starter on the P-40N. The only thing in the theater that would out dive the P-40E, was the P-47. With either model we could out climb any version of the Zero in a shallow high-speed climb but the advantage was too small to chance it if he was in range, unless you were on the deck and had no other choice. The Tony (Ki 61 Hein) could out run either of the P-40 models. The Hamp was the fastest of the Zeros, but we saw very few of these. I had always felt that I could out run them and out zoom them, but I never got a chance to find out. The Oscar was probably the slowest Japanese fighter in the theater and had very little armament, but it was a performing fool. An experienced pilot in an Oscar was not as much a threat to an experienced P-40 pilot because of the Oscar's lack of guns and the P-40's ability to take it, but he could send you home talking to yourself. The P-40 would have had to rely on mutual support and turning tactics against the Frank and George, but would still have a slight edge in firepower because our .50 caliber machine guns had a little more range than their 12.5mm guns, as well as a faster rate of fire.
The Zero was a good fighter, every version or mark number of it, and I guess I must have encountered six to eight different versions, their only deficiency was in armament. Another problem was the pilots. Until late 1943, they had a number of good, experienced pilots, but thank goodness, they were seldom coordinated in their attacks, otherwise there are probably many of us who wouldn't be around now. Starting in 1944 they just didn't have enough experienced pilots left who knew what they were doing, and things went downhill from that point on.
As far as dive or level bombers were concerned, the Japanese never put anything in the air that was a problem for the P-40s except possibly in altitude. The Betty could operate above you but for some strange reason, except for recon flights, they were usually down around 18,000 to 22,000 feet, and we could stagger up to 25,000 to 26,000 feet. The Betty had twin 20mm cannons in the tail that made the tail an unpopular area of attack, so most of our attacks were either frontal or overhead whenever possible
-
I am gathering info for the WWIIOnline Techpubs Site (http://www.techpubs.wwiionline.com) and will be writing the piece on the P-40 (Probably other American Fighters too, since I bought "America's 0ne Hunderd Thousand.")
Lately several WWII Vetran have been posting pieces in the "Friends Journal" a quarterly News Letter from the USAFM.
Can you provide a reference for your P-40E and N comparrison so I can try to contact the author and use this info.
The P-40 Generally got longer and Slower as the war Progressed, the B was the fastest at 352MPH IAS at 10,000Ft.
I have read numerous articles that said a P-40 would out turn a 109 below 15,000 Ft.
Nothing would out turn the Japanese Aircraft, but the U.S.A.A.C. wanted Dogfighters that were rugged and flew below 15,000 Ft. The P-40 won the Army Contract because it met those specifications. Faster than 350 below 15,000, rugged and easily maintained and fly close support missions. Very quickly the U.S. Pilots learned that altitude was life in Air Combat. The Germans hated to be dragged down to the deck because that is where the performance of their aircraft was weakest.
The P-40 Was produced throughout the war and served in the Air Forces of over 28 different countries.
Anyhow I would like a P-40 in AH. My preference would be for the B in the following Paint Scheme.
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/0621.gif)
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
[This message has been edited by Downtown (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Downtown:
I am gathering info for the WWIIOnline Techpubs Site (http://www.techpubs.wwiionline.com) and will be writing the piece on the P-40 (Probably other American Fighters too, since I bought "America's 0ne Hunderd Thousand.")
(snip)
Can you provide a reference for your P-40E and N comparrison so I can try to contact the author and use this info.
/B
This sounds fascinating, please let me know if you need help with this project. I found the P40E versus P40N thing on that same P40.com website you mentioned in your other post. The 325 fighter group website has a bunch of interesting anecdotes about P40's in combat as well, they seem to have done very well with them indeed.
The P-40 Generally got longer and Slower as the war Progressed, the B was the fastest at 352MPH IAS at 10,000Ft.
I think you are wrong here. The P40B was definately one of the more nimble versions, but the E, F and most models of the N were faster, and probably every version except the K. The E-1 had a top speed of 362 mph at 15,000 feet (The complete book of fighers. William Green, Salamander Books ISBN 0-8317-3939-8), the merlin powered F had a top speed of 364 mph at 20,000' (same source) and there were various versions of the N, produced with a wide range of engines and equipment (some only had 4 guns) speed ranged from 378 mph in some of the more souped up versions to 348 mph in some of the later versions which were relegated to training duties...
I have read numerous articles that said a P-40 would out turn a 109 below 15,000 Ft.
Nothing would out turn the Japanese Aircraft, but the U.S.A.A.C. wanted Dogfighters that were rugged and flew below 15,000 Ft. The P-40 won the Army Contract because it met those specifications. Faster than 350 below 15,000, rugged and easily maintained and fly close support missions.
(snip)
Anyhow I would like a P-40 in AH. My preference would be for the B in the following Paint Scheme.
I would like to see the P40B, P40E or F, and the (hot rod version)of the P40N! Mostly, I suspect that due to the bad rep of the P40 (and probably some other planes too) I think the developers of some of these sims, both ofline and otherwise, have tended to undermodel or fudge numbers a bit so it would perform worse. In spite of this the P40 is looking better and better in each new sim I see it in. I hope they don't make this mistake in AH.
(can somebody explain to me how to paste photos into these messages? For some reason I can't!)
DB
-
I would like to see the P40B, P40E or F, and the (hot rod version)of the P40N! Mostly, I suspect that due to the bad rep of the P40 (and probably some other planes too) I think the developers of some of these sims, both ofline and otherwise, have tended to undermodel or fudge numbers a bit so it would perform worse.
Again, I have to disagree. This comment would suggest that developers intentionally "dumb-down" planes to make their preferred aircraft sparkle in comparison. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has been stated here.
What does HTC have to gain to dumb-down anything? Especially an aircraft as ubiquitous as the P-40, the fighter available in the most numbers in the early part of the war, and one that served in every theatre of action?
I think it is great you have a favorite aircraft, and hope HTC models it some day. I have a feeling, based on what you've written, that you won't like it when they do. I hope I am wrong. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Boy I can feel the love in here...
Originally posted by Kieren:
Again, I have to disagree. This comment would suggest that developers intentionally "dumb-down" planes to make their preferred aircraft sparkle in comparison. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has been stated here.
I'm not at all accusing anyone of doing this in any malicious sense, or to make their preferred aircraft "sparkle". That is really a juvenile idea.
I'm certainly not accusing HTC of doing anything like that either. They don't have a P40 in here yet. From what I can tell so far of the few times I've played AH online (my first kill today, woo hooo!) it's a fantastic game with a community of supporters which seems, with a few notable exceptions, to be well intentioned, well informed, interested in military history and avaition, and very nice people.
My point is that in the process of developing historical games, something I have some experience with, one can base technical modeling on two things: statistical information in the form of techincal specifications like wing loading etc., and historical information which can be used as to kind of double-check.
I'm sure as these sims develop they rely much more on accurate technical specs and less on subjective historical anecdotes, but no system based purely on the numbers works 100%. And if I was, for example, developing a game and my numbers say indicated that a Me 210 was a stable and agile aircraft, I would recheck my figures, and if I couldn't make the system do it, I would change the numebrs some because I know from history that the 210 didn't perform very well. Unless you have the actual aircraft on hand to test you will have to rely on this to some extent.
Having said that I have noticed that through the generations of WW II flight sims I have played, the P40 gets better and better with each more realistic incarnation, apparently to the surprise of the developers.
Just read the developers notes about the P40 in Warbirds... they describe it as performing "surprisingly" well.
And yet I've seen some evidence that warbirds may have undermodeled the roll and turn rates of P40's. I just raised the possibility that this might be due to the bad historical record of the plane, which I think unlike the case of the Me 210, is largely undeserved. Thats why I posted all this commentary from WWII pilots familiar with the aircraft which seems to counterract the common opinion.
What does HTC have to gain to dumb-down anything? Especially an aircraft as ubiquitous as the P-40, the fighter available in the most numbers in the early part of the war, and one that served in every theatre of action?
Again, I'm not accusing HTC of anything, AH sems like a very realisitc system. But I think if I didn't know better and I was a desiginer I might do it myself to make the game more histoically accurate.
I think it is great you have a favorite aircraft, and hope HTC models it some day. I have a feeling, based on what you've written, that you won't like it when they do. I hope I am wrong. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
This is cute. Well, I do like the P40 but it's not my "favorite aircraft". I have a suspicion you might have one which I have somehow slighted somewhere. Personally I am intersted in WW II history and aviation, and am something of a revisionist.
I am also very interested in what these "games" can show historians in terms of fleshing out the war in actual 4 dimenstional models, which can really sheed a lot of light on what it was really like.
In the past I used to often argue the merits of the Hawker Hurricane, the Ki-43 Oscar, Japanese late war fighters in general, and the various Italian fighters. These have largely been vindicated in the field, now I'm trying to see what I can recover of the P-40 and P-39 reputations, because frankly history of the air war in WW II makes a lot more sense if they are better than some pilots and a lot of historians made them out to be.
I think I see the writing on the wall that a more realistic assesement of these planes is begnning to percolate in. Who know what is next, I might even take on the Brewster Buffalo, the Finns seemed to do very bloody well with it! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Meanwhile, I hope AH models the P40, I'm sure I'll like the way it turns out. I like the P40 in Warbirds, for that matter.
DB
-
We seem doomed to remain at odds- you don't seem to understand what I am trying to tell you, and worse seem to think I am trying to offend you. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You haven't slighted my favorite aircraft, as I don't have one. Really.
You can post as much anecdotal data as you like, and I really enjoy reading it.
You have stated what you would do if you were a game designer. Fair enough.
The point I was actually trying to caution you against was the seeming intimation that either game producers (HTC included) are ignorant or intentionally fudge their numbers to make them match their vision of history. I don't know how long you have played AH or WB, or frequented either board, but I think I can be safe in assuring you that no intentional fudging happens in either sim. Their market has been for the hardcore realist, and fudging the numbers alienates the crowd they are after. You should also know that, despite their reputations for striving for the most realistic flight models on the market, both AH and WB have been accused of doing exactly what I felt you were hinting at.
Sorry I don't know of your past. The first exposure I have had to you is in this forum, and so far you have multiple wall-o-text posts on the P-40. Perhaps I jumped the gun to assume it is your favorite plane. Please accept my apology. However, based on the picture you paint of the P-40, I assumed you would go over the flight model with a fine-toothed comb. And, as you illustrate with the WB P-40 comment on roll rate, you likely would find something you didn't like. Does that sound fair?
I also feel I have offended you with my opinion of the plane (which differs from yours). I thought you wanted to discuss them- am I wrong?
-
Boy I can feel the love in here...
By the way, I am in no way trying to have a flame war with you. My comments have all been made to you with respect and good intentions in mind. Sorry you seem to have taken them the wrong way. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Originally posted by Kieren:
You have stated what you would do if you were a game designer. Fair enough.
very subtle... thanks friend
The point I was actually trying to caution you against was the seeming intimation that either game producers (HTC included) are ignorant or intentionally fudge their numbers to make them match their vision of history.
Look Kieran, the point isn't so much that you "fudge" numbers arbitrarily to advance "Your vision" of history. The reality is that in any model based on techincial specifications, there is a certain amount of room for interpretation, and also certain points where your model will break down. I don't care how much technical data you get, roll rates, engine performance, stick resistance etc., THere is no data model anywhere which can fully model an aircrafts performance at all speeds, all altitudes in all atmospheric conditions... ok? There is always some room for interpretation of the numbers. This is what I'm speaking of. Only GOD could create a truly 'perfect' simulation.
I don't know how long you have played AH or WB, or frequented either board, but I think
(snip)
Their market has been for the hardcore realist, and fudging the numbers alienates the crowd they are after. You should also know that, despite their reputations for striving for the most realistic flight models on the market, both AH and WB have been accused of doing exactly what I felt you were hinting at.
Sigh..
Pyro, could you help me out here? Maybe you could shed a little more realistic light on the process...
Kieran I'm sure the designers or WB and AH are very professional and make the best efforts possible, thats why these sims are so interesting to me because I think they DO make a very good effort. How close this gets to reality at this point is another matter... they DO make mistakes, don't they? I seem to remember massive changes in some flight models, such as the early P-38' in WB, as well as many others. There is always a certain amount of reinterpretation of data going on along these lines, when questions of both balance and especially, historical reference. If you have Brewster Buffalos consistantly shooting down zeroes, you got a problem don't you? You may find out later you missed something in the technical data. But what do you do in the meantime, just leave the killer F2A dominating the whole game to the ridicule of the world or what?
Sorry I don't know of your past. The first exposure I have had to you is in this forum, and so far you have multiple wall-o-text posts on the P-40. Perhaps I jumped the gun
Actually I've posted wall-o-text posts on many subjects, angering people in various other airplane tank threads even here on this BBS...
I also feel I have offended you with my opinion of the plane (which differs from yours). I thought you wanted to discuss them- am I wrong?
To my knowlege you never did offer any opinion on the P40, so how could I be offended?
DB
-
The reason I think I have offended you is the backhanded comments you have made toward me.
I'm not trying to say a P40 is better than a P38. You are arguing with the ace i quoted, no doubt you know more than he did, he only had 11 kills in real life while you probably have hundreds of virtuals.
I chose to ignore them initially, because I felt perhaps I had been too confrontational in my original post on the thread. Of course, I have apologized over and over for being offensive (albeit unintentionally), but you seem to have the same stance. I don't think I should post any more on your threads, as I can't see where the continued antagonistic tone is coming from. You're biting comments with me tell me you don't really want to discuss, you want to lecture.
BTW, you said I didn't offer an opinion on the P-40? Here it is:
Look at any technical references you wish- any at all. What you see over and over is an aircraft whose altitude, range, and climb were inferior to almost every single fighter it faced. That the Americans used it so long is due more to the fact it was available in numbers when anything that could fly was needed. As soon as aircraft with better performance were available, the P-40 was relegated to other duties. And, to quote myself from earlier in the thread:
Not trying to pee in your Wheaties, and I would love to see and fly a P-40, but it was an obsolescent aircraft in 1941. It is no match whatsoever for anything we have in the game, not even the 202. The only possible P-40 worth modeling as a fighter would be the P-40N.
With that, I am out on this thread. I am not angry, but this is not constructive, this has become about our personalities.
[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 08-02-2000).]
-
FireAnt, just an FYI, but the person who did the flight characteristics for the P-40 in WB is the same person who will be doing it for the P-40 in AH.
But you are correct that interpretation does have to be done and in the end, it comes down to my interpretation. There is, always has been, and probably always will be talk of bias on our part. The thing I find ironic about that whole situation is that the people who claim a bias on developers are usually the ones with the huge bias and a not-so-hidden agenda. But I'm certainly fallible and when we do find we have any legitimate problems, we do our best to correct them if possible.
As for the debate between you and Kieren, you guys aren't debating anything, you're just misunderstanding each other. In fact, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I understand either. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Originally posted by Pyro:
FireAnt, just an FYI, but the person who did the flight characteristics for the P-40 in WB is the same person who will be doing it for the P-40 in AH.
This is good news for two reasons, 1) it sounds like we will be getting a P40 in AH after all (any hint as to what model(s)?) and 2) as I posted already in this thread, I like the P-40 in Warbirds so I'll prolly like it in AH a lot too...
But you are correct that interpretation does have to be done and in the end, it comes down to my interpretation. There is, always has been, and probably always will be talk of bias on our part.
Kieren seems to think that this was what I was implying. I thought it was clear that I felt the degree that interpretations are made in this type of simulation, and the cause of any mistakes if any mistakes are ever made, was from the point of view of trying to be historically accurate, not biased for chrissake.
I have done some work in this field myself and I have some idea how it works. I evidently failed in explaining my point.
Perhaps I am too caught up in the excitement of seeing this game in it's early stages of development, and with the universal feeling around here that it's being done RIGHT for a change.
I didn't really want to start a huge debate I just wanted to present some alternative history on the planes I was talking about... in order to counteract the already strong bad "conventional wisdom" reputations they (p40 and p39) had as amply expressed by Kieren.
I'd like to see a lot of planes in a lot of parts of the war that were little known about, the more new areas opened up in flight sims (like the Italian fighters, which was a big crusade of mine in AW) always fascinates me and reignights my interest in the genre.
I love history and I'm a bit of a revisionist about some of the conventional wisdom about these things, somewhat in the tradition of the historian Paul Fussell.
The thing I find ironic about that whole situation is that the people who claim a bias on developers are usually the ones with the huge bias and a not-so-hidden agenda.
I certainly hope I didn't come across like "one of them", like I was claiming a bias on the part of AH or warbirds for that matter. I did say I had seen evidence that I thought the warbirds model was off some, but none of the models in any of these games can be perfect, and even if they were perfect you could still find data somewhere which seemed to refute them. The fact is they get better with every generation. Anyway I don't have an agenda hidden or otherwise, except to have a really clear idea of the history of WW II. If all I wanted was a sim with fake uber p40's I could make my own or hack a version of warbirds or something. That would be a bit megalamaniacal though!
Basically this is a really interesting sim and every time I play this, just as when I played WB before and even (to a lesser degree) AW before that, I learn more about what WW II was like. I think as Historical scenarios get better, more balanced and more fine tuned, and as these games continue to become more realisitc, their value as simulations and not just "games" will become more and more evident. These things are HARD CORE realistic already, imagine what they will be like in 5 or ten years.
Anyway I like this game a lot, and for that matter I like this BBS, so much in fact and I made the mistake of thinking I could play a role in some of the research which went into making the game. Hurbis for which I now consider myself duly punished.
But I'm certainly fallible and when we do find we have any legitimate problems, we do our best to correct them if possible.
I'm not the griping type, I don't think I ever made it sound like I was griping, I kept my argument in a general sense. In fact I may have had questions about flight models in other games but I never squeaked about them, I'm not a 'rules' lawyer, I'm interested in history. As long as there is still development going on on one of these games (and it hasn't been just frozen to make proffits higher as in some previous sims) mistakes will eventually be found and fixed, without my help. I hope I have made that clear, at least to some people reading this.
Anyway if I have had any effect at all on the fate of the P40 in this game I'm sure it has been negative at this point since I have pissed so many people off, so I will hereby shut my mouth on the subject from here on in!
As for the debate between you and Kieren, you guys aren't debating anything, you're just misunderstanding each other. In fact, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I understand either. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
me either. I think some of it is the emotional opacity of email. Sometimes a friendly jab can appear to be a snide retort, or visa versa.
Sometimes I feel like I'm explaining an argument or a point in good faith and then other people are just contradicting me for the hell of it! But I know I can be a bit acid penned as it were, it just springs from my enthusiasm of this subject.
Unfotrunately I don't know a whole lot of people in real life with whom I can get into really hard core technical discussions of history in general let alone historical military hardware, (god knows my girlfriend doesn't want to hear about it!) so when I find a venue like this I can tend to gush somewhat.
Anyway I didn't mean to piss anyone off THAT much (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) No point unless you are in a pub and can settle it! Lol Just kidding.
DB
-
I have an agenda, PLEASE PYRO DO THE "B"
Like this
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/0621.gif)
I really like the P-40 and want it in the sim.
THanks.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
I'd like to see a P-40
I'd also like to see it's historical rival the Japanese He-100/Bf.109...err I mean Ki-61 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
<Shameless P-40 Bump>
AKDejaVu
-
Actually, I think the issue isn't that the P-40 has been underrated, it's that it's opponents have been overrated.
The overwhelming majority of Flying Tiger fighter kills were obsolete Ki-27 Nates (with fixed landing gear)..they never even saw a Zero, and fairly limited numbers of Ki-43s. And I'm sure many of the P-39 and P-40 kills in other units were Ki-27s.
And (I'll get flamed for this) I think even the Zero is somewhat overrated. Despite having perhaps the best-trained pilots, across the board, in the world at the beginning of 42 (I'm sure individual LW experten in 42 were better, but not the LW across the board) once you get past the massacre of poorly trained British Buffaloes and assorted Dutch pieces of crap, US kill ratios vs. Zeros in Wildcats and such were pretty good..BEFORE all the good Japanese pilots were killed. And before the Hellcat and P-38 and such show up and make the kill ratios even worse.
This suggests to me that the Zero wasn't the all-conquering early war uberplane it's made out to be.
[This message has been edited by Torgo (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Kieren:
There is a difference in meaning between the words "Obsolete" and "Obsolescent". "Obsolete" means you are completely outclassed and have no chance, "Obsolescent" means you have tipped the scales heavily in favor of the opponent.
I wouldn't argue whether the P-40 turns better in WB than the P-38. I wouldn't play that game. I would stay above you, and every time you tried to run I would hit you and pull up. Once I was above you, there isn't a thing you could do but evade.
This isn't a challenge, and don't take it as such. I am only saying that, if I use the trump cards of speed and climb, the P-38 wins hands-down. Surely you can see what I am saying?
Think of the P-40 as an underpowered Fw 190. Why? Because that's how she flys. Roll rate is fantastic. If your P-38 was a J-20 or earlier model, the P-40 could do just as the 190 did and split-s into a dive that the P-38 could not follow. Granted, the P-40 doesn't climb worth a hoot, but it turns, rolls and dives pretty darn well. Generally speaking, the airframe is tougher than the P-51 and it has the same armament as the P-51D or the F4U-1. If you remember never to fight the way your enemy fights best, the P-40 can give a good acount of itself against any of the early war competition. For that matter, a lot of guys flying the late war aircraft will find themselves with their hands very full tangling with a well flown Curtiss. I'd take a P-40 (any model) over a Zero or Oscar any day of the week.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Downtown:
I have an agenda, PLEASE PYRO DO THE "B"
Your image shows a Curtiss H81A-3. This was not a P-40B, or a P-40C, or even a Tomahawk IIA or IIB. It was a unique version cobbled together by Curtiss, using serial numbers first assigned to a British order of Tomahawk IIBs. Want to know more about the oddball Chinese Tomahawks? Let me know and I'll post more this evening (no time for it now).
My regards,
Widewing
-
I would love to see one in the MA (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
hell i won a fight once against a me 109 in a TBM (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) so why can't this
But would it outurn the P38-L with fowler flaps ?
Yeah the P-40 is a cool plane and i would fly it once in a while (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
On the P-39. I knew a man that flew the F4F, F6F, and the F4U. When I asked him which one he would like to have if he could own one now he said "None, the P-39". Now we were talking about civilian use and not combat. But he loved the way the P-39 flew. It was the first fighter he flew in flight school and he always liked it. As for the aircraft he flew in combat he liked the F6F the best. I also talked to two guys that flew P-51's and P-38's in ETO and they said basically the same thing with the qualification of it's terrible spin recovery, poor high alt performance and it made one nerves to have that 37mm firing between his legs. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
god i love this guy.
-
Widewing said:
> quote:Originally posted by Downtown:
> I have an agenda, PLEASE PYRO DO THE "B"
> Your image shows a Curtiss H81A-3. This was not a P-40B, or a P-40C, or even a Tomahawk
> IIA or IIB. It was a unique version cobbled together by Curtiss, using serial numbers first assigned to a British order of Tomahawk
> IIBs.
You, Downtown, and I know that, but it is a "shorthand" to use as by the time you get
"Curtiss H81A-3" out, someone is whining about their poor 190 being undermodled... :-)
Real undermodeling is not even having a version on line :-)
> Want to know more about the oddball Chinese Tomahawks? Let me know and I'll post more
> this evening (no time for it now).
Allways need MORE DATA. If they (AH) do the Curtis fighters, tell um to give the
"Curtiss H81A-3" the higher power (according to Eric Shilling) hand built engines :-)
> My regards,
> Widewing
My best to you,
------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno
-
Originally posted by Torgo:
Actually, I think the issue isn't that the P-40 has been underrated, it's that it's opponents have been overrated.
The overwhelming majority of Flying Tiger fighter kills were obsolete Ki-27 Nates (with fixed landing gear)..they never even saw a Zero, and fairly limited numbers of Ki-43s. And I'm sure many of the P-39 and P-40 kills in other units were Ki-27s.
And (I'll get flamed for this) I think even the Zero is somewhat overrated. Despite having perhaps the best-trained pilots, across the board, in the world at the beginning of 42 (I'm sure individual LW experten in 42 were better, but not the LW across the board) once you get past the massacre of poorly trained British Buffaloes and assorted Dutch pieces of crap, US kill ratios vs. Zeros in Wildcats and such were pretty good..BEFORE all the good Japanese pilots were killed. And before the Hellcat and P-38 and such show up and make the kill ratios even worse.
This suggests to me that the Zero wasn't the all-conquering early war uberplane it's made out to be.
[This message has been edited by Torgo (edited 02-08-2001).]
Torgo, one only needs to look through the data collected by the several agencies that tested Koga's Zero, the first captured Zero. It could out fly anything the US had it the time, be it climb, acceleration, turn, range, etc.
The most significant problem with the A6M is durability. The best manuverability in the world isn't worth squat if you never get to put them to use. I think history proved this pretty well.
- Bess
-
As Widewing can tell you, some pilots did very well with the P-40.
Which brings us back to the starting point in any discussion such as this...
It's the pilot, not the plane!
Or as we used to say back in the '70s when the Ego jets were just starting their DACT program...
"A hamburger in a fancy wrapper is still a hamburger."
Andy
-
Andy can't play on the BB. He's got an unfair advantage. Take your F-104 and go down the street and play Andy. LOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Seriously Andy what do you think. I think it is a combination of both. A great pilot in a great plane against a great pilot in a mediocre plane given that luck doesn't get involved, a big given I know.
-
Originally posted by M.C.202:
Always need MORE DATA. If they (AH) do the Curtis fighters, tell um to give the
"Curtiss H81A-3" the higher power (according to Eric Shilling) hand built engines :-)
Anyone desiring to learn everything to know about the Allison V-1710 should get a copy of Whitney's 'Vees For Victory'. It's expensive at about $60, but worth every dime. Whitney goes into detail about the engines supplied for the Chinese Tomahawks. My copy is with my co-writer, so I'll try and relate the story from memory.
When the Chinese asked the U.S. for assistance, they asked for fighters and bombers. For political reasons, FDR would agree only to fighters, and U.S. law at the time allowed only for cash & carry sales to beligerents. So, a China based corporation was formed to purchase aircraft. However, virtually all U.S. production capacity was allocated for our own build up and existing contracts with friendly nations such as Britain. In order to free up some aircraft for China, the U.S. asked the Brits to exchange later model P-40Ds (Kittyhawk I) for currently ordered Tomahawk IIB fighters.
The Brits agreed and 100 of the contracted Tomahawks were transferred to a Chinese contract. This is where the story gets interesting.....
Curtiss saw an opportunity to utilize stock of enternally sealed fuel tanks that had been used on the Tomahawk IIA. The Brits did not like the external sealing and specified internal sealing for future builds. This left Curtiss with over 100 sets of obsolete fuel tanks. This was their chance to use these, and they had already been written off. This would enhance profits. In addition, the Chinese contract, unlike that with the Brits, did not specify plumbing or shackles for an external fuel tank, so this was deleted from the Chinese aircraft. Again, this simplified production and increased the profit margin. The net result is that even though the 100 fighters carried Tomahawk IIB serial numbers, these fighters were very much like the IIA, except that they had IIB armor. Then there was the engine problem....
Allison was running at 100% capacity. Simply stated, there weren't any extra engines to be had. Every block and cylinder head was already allocated to an existing contract. But, wait a minute, there were plenty of rejected blocks, cylinder heads and such. Allison realized that most of the rejected engine components were usable if the various parts were hand matched and fitted. They set up a production line and began assembling these engines. Individual parts were reworked and carefully matched. The results of this procedure were engines built to very tight tolerances. Essentially, these were 'blueprinted' engines. Dyno tests revealed that they produced as much as 220 hp more than the production line V-1710-33s going into the RAF Tomahawks and USAAF P-40C fighters. Allison had produced some very powerful and very expensive engines. Fortunately they were allowed to bury the extra cost into contracts for U.S. aircraft.
These engines certainly account for the performance of the AVG's Tomahawks. In general terms, the AVG fighters could pull up to 370 mph in level flight, which is reasonable considering that these aircraft had 20% more power and less weight than the British Tomahawk IIB. Another fact not picked up on as significant by historians was the high rate of reduction gear failures in the AVG aircraft. This is easily explained when you realize that the older style reduction gear was rated for no more than 1,100 hp. With as much as 1,250 hp on tap, the reduction gearbox was over-stressed and frequently stripped gears. Later models, with 1,200 hp engines were fitted with a much stronger spur gear design that could handle up to 1,600 hp. This is the major reason that the nose is shorter from the P-40D onward.
Now that the Chinese had airframes and engines, they needed to purchase guns for the fighters. Once again, all production was allocated for existing contracts. Nonetheless, CAMCO (the China based front company) managed to purchase enough .50 caliber Brownings for all 100 Tomahawks. Finding .30 caliber guns (installed in the wings) was more of a problem. Eventually, the 100 Tomahawks arrived at Rangoon with a mixture of guns. Some were fitted with 7.92mm caliber wing guns, others carried British specification guns in .303 caliber. Still others were armed with .30 U.S. caliber Brownings. This complicated logistics somewhat, but all three calibers were readily available, even 7.92mm, which was the standard for the Chinese Army.
Within the context of this knowledge, we can understand that the AVG fighters were a unique model. For that reason, Curtiss gave them their own special designation. Originally contracted for as the Curtiss H81-2A, these fighters were designated as the H81-3A. Many historians and authors have confused the various Curtiss designations, or figured that these were Tomahawk IIB aircraft based upon the serial numbers. We now know that these were a special model. It should also be noted that the serial numbers were assigned months before actual manufacturing began.
So, a unique group of fighter pilots flew an equally unique version of the Curtiss H81/Tomahawk/P-40.
Now you know the 'untold story'. :0
-
Widewing said
In order to free up some aircraft for China,
the U.S. asked the Brits to exchange later
model P-40Ds (Kittyhawk I) for currently
ordered Tomahawk IIB fighters.
The Brits agreed and 100 of the contracted
Tomahawks were transferred to a Chinese
contract. This is where the story gets
interesting.....
I'm ready to see this aircraft in the game... production built, saw action, well known,
and think of the perk bonus...
PYRO? With the hotrod engine?
He he, can we pick which popguns we get, ie .303, 7.92, 30-06 wing guns?
------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno
[This message has been edited by M.C.202 (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
Nice story Widewing, thanks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Just got my Matchbox Collectible 1:72 scale in the mail yesterday. This month it was a P-40E Flying Tiger (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyone else getting these?
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
Torgo, one only needs to look through the data collected by the several agencies that tested Koga's Zero, the first captured Zero. It could out fly anything the US had it the time, be it climb, acceleration, turn, range, etc.
It was better in a lot of areas that turn out not to really matter in terms of head-to-head kill ratios.
I remember Zeros consistently getting thrashed by 39s, 40s, and Wildcats in the big Warbirds scenarios like Solomons, etc. (Of course there are a tremendous number of factors going into that..whether the FMs and gun modeling are in fact accurate, pilot quality, MA experience in similar type planes, etc.)
And of course the main point is, most of what P-40s and P-39s faced wasn't Zeros.
And the Japanese had a real problem with letting production lines for obsolete AC run too long. Would be interesting to see kill stats of USAAF units in 42 and 43 to see how long they were killing a lot of Nates, Whether much beyond the Ki-43 was being faced in any numbers, etc.
[This message has been edited by Torgo (edited 02-09-2001).]
-
Shameless bump of a really good P40 discussion.
AKDejaVu
No demands HTC.. just suggestions (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Hello folks.
Some of you are fogetting that in A2A combat (at least that in real life) it was the MAN NOT THE MACHINE that won the battle (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) The Finnish pilots are a great example of this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) So Kieren don't bet about who's gonna win the duel. It mainly depends on who's at the controls. Remeber this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Have fun people!
Wulf