P-39 Needed

[Bronk]

Originally posted by tedrbr



Of these, I'd go with the P-39D-1, P-39D-2, (both EW IIRC) or the P-39Q (MW?) configuration.

I would go with the d, n and the Q. I believe they had the largest production numbers.


Bronk

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Karnak
I don't think anything fills as many holes, but there are many things that fill much, much bigger holes.

And how many scenario holes do they fill?


Bronk

[Fencer51]

We desperately need the KI-43 and the Betty.  Those fill huge holes in the planeset for scenarios.

[Noir]

need a Pe-8 !

BTW I won't fill your hole

[Nilsen]

id like to see the P39 sometime in 2011/2012

[Angus]

P63.
The last mass produced single engined fighter of MA quality that still is not here in AH?

[joeblogs]

I don't get it. We have the Sturmovik, which is superior at tank busting. For any other role the P39 will be at a serious disadvantage.

-Blogs

Originally posted by Bronk
No other plane would fill as many holes.


Bronk

[VansCrew1]

Originally posted by Bronk
The p-39 can carry ords or a DTs lets see a yak-t do that. Also secondary weapons are double that of the T.
Ohh and BTW  the 39 can be skinned as russian, so that's a russian fighter.

Do some reading squeaker.

Bronk

WOOHOO DT's ,and the P39 was not a russian fighter,the americans produced it and gave them to the russians because they lacked a high alt fighter.The Americans use the P39 in the pacific frount so you cant say it's a russian fighter.

simpley put the mig's or more yaks would be better to see then the P39.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Bronk
And how many scenario holes do they fill?


Bronk

Scenarios is what I am refering to.

Bluntly, the P-39 does not actually fill many scenario holes as it's service was almost universally paralle to the P-40.  It adds depth to our coverage.

It does not begin to fill holes like the Ki-43, G4M2, I-16-24, Yak-1, DB-3, Pe-2, Do217E/Ju188A or Wellington Mk III do.

[straffo]

Originally posted by VansCrew1
WOOHOO DT's ,and the P39 was not a russian fighter,the americans produced it and gave them to the russians because they lacked a high alt fighter.The Americans use the P39 in the pacific frount so you cant say it's a russian fighter.

simpley put the mig's or more yaks would be better to see then the P39.

/agree with Bronk ,do more reading.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by joeblogs
I don't get it. We have the Sturmovik, which is superior at tank busting. For any other role the P39 will be at a serious disadvantage.

-Blogs

The Soviets didn't use the P-39 as a tank buster. They used it as a battlefield air superiority fighter. In that role it was very effective. Between 5k and 15k, the P-39N and P-39Q were reasonably fast with adequate climb and generally good maneuverability. These two models made about 1,420 hp @ 9,700 feet, giving them a speed (depending upon condition of the airplane) between 375 mph and 385 mph. In AH2, between 9k and 10k, that is faster than the 190A-5, 190A-8, 109G-6 and on par with the 109G-2. At that altitude it's also faster than most Yak-9 variants and on par with the La-5FN (maybe slightly faster).

The Soviets held the P-39 in high regard and many of their top aces flew the Airacobra, with more than a few preferring it to the Lavochkins.

In AH2, the P-39N/Q would be effective. It would eventually become an "experts" fighter, one that would be flown by pilots who enjoy the challenge of a mid-war fighter in the late-war arenas. The lower skilled players and noobs would still gravitate to the La-7, Spit16 and N1K2-J as these give some expectation of survival or gaining a few kills.

In the MTO, P-39 units were quite successful.

Don't sell the P-39 short... Later models were markedly better than the D models and P-400s that fought in New Guinea and the Solomons.

My regards,

Widewing

[TimRas]

Originally posted by Widewing
Later models were markedly better than the D models and P-400s that fought in New Guinea and the Solomons.

Really ?

AFAIK, the Soviets liked P-39 because of the pilot amenities (ie. pilot protection, visibility, radio, etc.) that were not common in Soviet fighters. In terms of pure performance (speed/climb), P-39 (later or early models) was no match for La-5/7, Yak-9 or Yak-3.

[Larry]

Originally posted by VansCrew1
WOOHOO DT's ,and the P39 was not a russian fighter,the americans produced it and gave them to the russians because they lacked a high alt fighter.The Americans use the P39 in the pacific frount so you cant say it's a russian fighter.

simpley put the mig's or more yaks would be better to see then the P39.

You are wrong on soooo many levels.

[VansCrew1]

hey thats what i heard.

[Noir]

P39 was horrible at high alt, If I remember well it laked a two stage turbosuperubercharger, and had no chemical boosts like LW fighters had. Its a good plane but not what the US needed (range, high alt performance) so they gave them to the soviets which made good use of it, running the poor allisons at speeds that weren't on the book. When the engine was dead they just scrapped the plane and the pilot with it  

(EDIT : The American pilots were not familiar with 37mm cannons with few ammo, so I suppose the gunnery training of pilots just for that model was a bit too much for the army. Take the average runstang pilot in AH and put him in a Yak9t by force, he'll suffer a nervous breakdown in the 30 following minutes.)

Its low level performance and that center cannon was totally fit with the russian philosophy of war. They were using planes just as a support/cover for ground battle, high alt bomber raids and high alt fighter battles mostly didn't occur. (once again there is a thread or two about it).

BTW that cannon was probably using HE rounds so busting tanks was out of question, and I don't know if you could fit AP in it..