Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: eskimo2 on October 31, 2001, 09:42:00 AM
-
.
-
?
-
Good list, I agree! (None sucked IMO, they are all beautiful)
-
Compared to other planes of same era.
P39
P40
ATC
If no comparison's then none of them sucked. :)
ATC (modified in response to below comment)
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: DamnedATC ]
-
No comparisons, just stand alone.
eskimo
-
Sorry eskimo. As a proof to the validity of our Icon system, in the distance, I can't tell what plane is that dot. Btw, is it Bish or Knit? :D
Cheers,
Pepe.
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Pepe ]
-
Some of the Japanese Army Air Force aircraft come to mind, particularly the bombers. I can't agree with the P-40. By most measures, this was a highly successful design. It remained in production through late 1944 and served with distinction in just about every theatre, with more nations than practically any other aircraft. It had it's shortcomings, but used properly it was to be respected. It was a bridge aircraft, in that it filled the need for a modern fighter until the newer designs could replace it. Even then, it continued to soldier on for the duration.
-
Any thing made by Fairey
The He 177
And of course... The P39 (couldn't resist)
-
Brewster Buffalo
Boomerang
Wirraway
all the french planes
N1K2-J (snuck this in)
:D
-
Definitely the Brester Buffalo, and anything French. ;)
-
Lighter B-239 FAF did use was capable to fight against planes Russians did use that time with quite nice K/D ratio.
Edit: Nice Article (http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1996/JJ/ssbb.html) and list of aerial victories (http://www.danford.net/scores.htm) gathered with Buffalo in FAF.
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Staga ]
-
And ... as with most threads in most places
.... the point was lost and everyone took a left turn while the light was still red. ;)
I agree .... if it was practical, I'd say model the whole lot ... and then some. :D
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Definitely the Brester Buffalo, and anything French. ;)
pfffffffffffffffffff :rolleyes:
Look at the MB 155 D520 or Leo451 :eek:
AND DON'T LOOK A THE AMIOT HORROR ;)
(and all the 30's french "planes")
-
Fairy Swordfish ROCKS
Absolute must have before we can do sink the Bismark scenario.
-
Originally posted by Pepe:
Sorry eskimo. As a proof to the validity of our Icon system, in the distance, I can't tell what plane is that dot. Btw, is it Bish or Knit? :D
Cheers,
Pepe.
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Pepe ]
has to be rook, when was the last time you ever saw a single bish or knit? :p
-
He 177
-
Well technically any of the Jets suck.
And blow!
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
Well technically any of the Jets suck.
And blow!
Har Har Har!
:p
I vote for the P-39.
-
Tsk tsk. You can't blame Buffalo to be a poor fighter just because the US pilots didn't know to do do air combat. :-) 44 to 1 kill ratio for B-239 model Brewsters in Finnish Air Force 41-45, and the world record of shot down enemy planes by one single aircraft also belongs to a Brewster (41 kills). Kinda breaks the myth of Brewster being a pig. :)
Quoting colonel Väinö Pokela, 109 and Brewster ace:
It all started in 24 Fighter Squadron during '42 or '43 if I remember correctly. Someone suggested that one of the squadron pilots go to Kauhava (Air Force Academy) to lecture on tactics, 'how to wage war with Brewsters'. That was because the Americans also started waging war and they had no clue how to go about it. There in the Pacific when they started fighting it was completely pitiful. They had three engagements where Brewsters were used. And in the last one they had 17 Brewsters in one aerial engagement, and if I remember correctly, 13 were shot down. After that all the Brewsters were sent to Florida for their Air Force cadets.
And all of this was the result of them attacking Zeros. They didn't consider at all that the Zero had no armour, was made of wood and was much lighter. But it had an engine of the same size. And they (Americans) started turn-fighting them (Zeros). So, the Brewsters were shot down. They just should have used rocking-chair (vertical) tactics, attack and pull out.
The Finns had already learned that in the Winter War when they attacked the I-15s and I-16s with their Fokkers. You did not turn-fight them. And this lecture, the paper about air combat tactics written by Hasse, started right from this idea."
Sorry, I'm too serious for this thread now but can't watch Brewster accused wrongly ;-) Ok, mr. Pokela remembers wrong that Zero "was made of wood" but otherwise he is spot on.
-
Bolton defiant is no.1 in suckness imo,that
rediculous guntower,and way underpowered,,
and its ugly too.One of the biggest blunders
in figterconsept :rolleyes: .
Dawvgrid
-
One of the things that is often overlooked when talking about whether a plane sucks or not is what it was flying against mostly. The P-38 did very well in the Pacific theatre where its strengths of speed, range, and hi altitude performance were perfect against the Jap planes, most of which were very good at dogfighting but not all that fast and with poor hi altutude characteristics. (yes i know there were some fast Japanese fighters later in the war but for most of the war they were not) The P-38 didnt do so well against the Germans except later when it had the advantage of overwhelming numbers. One of the reasons for this was that most of the German fighters were more maneuverable AND as fast or very nearly so. The Brewster Buffalo is an example of the opposite. Against the opposition of the Russians who mostly had sucky planes earlier on the Buffalo did well. Even later it did well because it had a maneuverability advantage. Against the Zero however the Buffalo had no relative advantage in any area. The Zero could take it down in turn fighting or in energy fighting since it was faster and more maneuverable. However I agree that pilot quality, training, experience, and teamwork are far more important than the plane that they happen to be flying. On the other hand though a great plane can make a good pilot out of a mediocre one sometimes.
-
Originally posted by Durr:
One of the things that is often overlooked when talking about whether a plane sucks or not is what it was flying against mostly. The P-38 did very well in the Pacific theatre where its strengths of speed, range, and hi altitude performance were perfect against the Jap planes, most of which were very good at dogfighting but not all that fast and with poor hi altutude characteristics. (yes i know there were some fast Japanese fighters later in the war but for most of the war they were not) The P-38 didnt do so well against the Germans except later when it had the advantage of overwhelming numbers. One of the reasons for this was that most of the German fighters were more maneuverable AND as fast or very nearly so. The Brewster Buffalo is an example of the opposite. Against the opposition of the Russians who mostly had sucky planes earlier on the Buffalo did well. Even later it did well because it had a maneuverability advantage. Against the Zero however the Buffalo had no relative advantage in any area. The Zero could take it down in turn fighting or in energy fighting since it was faster and more maneuverable. However I agree that pilot quality, training, experience, and teamwork are far more important than the plane that they happen to be flying. On the other hand though a great plane can make a good pilot out of a mediocre one sometimes.
I think your use of the P-38 as an example is way off base, probably due to some of the popular myths.
The performance of the P-38 against the Luftwaffe was very good in the MTO, over North Africa, and over Italy.
As far as the 8th Air Force over Europe and Germany is concerned, there the P-38 faced between 3:1 and 5:1 odds against it until late 43 and early 44. It faced the very best pilots the Luftwaffe had, with some very green pilots. The majority of the losses to the P-38s occured during close escort duty when facing the above mentioned 3+:1 odds. Facing these odds and more experienced pilots, the P-38 managed to kill 1.5 Luftwaffe planes for every P-38 lost during the very worst period of its deployment. that includes all losses of P-38s, due to accidents, navigational errors, and mechanical failures.
On the other hand, in the hands of pilots with more experience, like those who came to Europe from other theaters, it did very well, even against overwhelming odds.
There were far too many pilots doing far too well against the Luftwaffe for it to have been the plane. John Lowell, Jack Ilfrey, John Lowell, Ervin Ethell, Lawrence Blumer, and a host of others did very well, scoring many kills, four of the five were aces, and all but Blumer did it early in the war.
When you look at the performance against the Luftwaffe in other theaters, you may realize that the P-38 did have serious problems, like other planes, but the 8th failed to learn to deal with it. The 9th and the 15th did very well against the Luftwaffe, and then later in many cases, so did the 8th squadrons still flying the P-38.
The P-38 fought AGAINST overwhelming odds in Europe with the 8th until early in 44, and was used in greater numbers than the P-51 until April/May 1944, when the P-51 was available in equal numbers. It is generally conceded by both sides that the Luftwaffe was finished by April as an effective fighting force with a chance at over all victory. Only by April did the P-38 face the enemy with an equal number of Allied fighters in the battle.
Knowing a few hot P-38 pilots and speaking with them on a regular basis, I've learned that the P-38 was an even better plane than I originally thought. I've also learned that the USAAF and the War Production Board were responsible for holding back development of the P-38, and for poor training of pilots and ground crews in handling the P-38.
Ground crews failed to properly maintain the P-38, and multi engine pilot training was woeful. The P-38 was extremely complex and difficult to fly, the untrained pilot was in deep, but a good pilot in a P-38 was a stone killer.
Ervin Ethell managed to knock down 4 109s facing near 20:1 odds early in the war, without even so much as a single hole in his P-38G.
Consider that Blumer knocked down 5 FW 190s in less than 15 minutes, and Lowell nearly killed Galland himself with a P-38 against a 190, I doubt very seriously the P-38 was really a poor performer against the Luftwaffe.
Every single P-38 pilot I've spoken with including those who transitioned to the P-51 said the P-38 was a better performer, and said that the P-38 was more than a match in combat for any Luftwaffe plane save the Me 262. They've told me repeatedly the P-38 would climb, accelerate, and turn with the very best of the Luftwaffe. It did have a slight disadvantage in top speed to a few, a limit in dive speed, and the pre J models were a little slow to roll at high speed. On the other hand, it was either equal to or it held an advantage in climb rate, both sustained and instant, acceleration, and turn rate both sustained and instant when compared to any of its contemporaries Allied or Luftwaffe/Axis.
Renegade Savage
[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Renegade Savage ]
-
BLASPHEMY!
It looks like some folks will not be admitted into airplane heaven...
:(
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2:
BLASPHEMY!
It looks like some folks will not be admitted into airplane heaven...
:(
eskimo
Yer point? Directed at whom?
Renegade Savage