Hi Tech Decision on P-63

[Butcher]

Your view of the P-39 is rather myopic, completely ignoring it's actions in the Pacific in the early part of the war.  For the USAAF, it as the P-40 and the P-39/P-400 that checked the IJAAF in the SW Pacific in the early days. 

I've read fire in the sky, I know what the P-39 did, but it still is the biggest piece of crap fighter in my opinion regardless of what it did in the SW P. I do have tremendous respect for the pilots who flew it, even the russian pilots who threw themselves at the luftwaffe with it.

If you had to fly a P-40 or P-39 what would you choose? the majority I'm betting are going to pick the P-40, I know I would in a heart beat.

[Karnak]

If you had to fly a P-40 or P-39 what would you choose? the majority I'm betting are going to pick the P-40, I know I would in a heart beat.

Can I whimper while I make my choice?

I recall reading about the first USAAF fighter squadron to get sent to the UK and how they had trained on P-39s in the States.  They arrived in the UK to find that rather than waiting for their P-39s to arrive the UK had provided Spitfire Mk Vs in reverse lend-lease to their substantial relief as they had not been looking forward to going at the Luftwaffe in the P-39.

[save]

Butcher, in full squadron duty you are probably right, however they where produced from april-45 and Manchuria ended late summer -45, I so far only have internet sources, and my russian is more limited than my klingon.

If full squadron strength is needed, we already have some planes that would be in trouble.

Im not advocating for later stuff at all, but if King cobra enters the scene using Manchuria as latest date, we see some planes and tanks that would blow the socks of the rest.

I prefer to reinforce the mid-war plane/tank selection that go late war.

[Butcher]

Butcher, in full squadron duty you are probably right, however they where produced from april-45 and Manchuria ended late summer -45, I so far only have internet sources, and my russian is more limited than my klingon.

The whole P-63 argument brought me to read up on a ton of information, I don't have anything that says Yak9-P's flew during WW2.
If I could find information that would say it flew in combat I would jump on it, but someone needs to get concrete evidence which I don't have.

[Blinder]

You seriously need to do some actual reading.  On multiple subjects.  Offering opinions on things you, self evidently, know nothing about only provides illumination about your shortcomings, not your target's shortcomings.

Karnak. You can kiss my ack. I have read plenty about Brewster, it's woeful corporate mismanagement and it's pitiful airframes.The company was so bad it even managed to screw up a proven war winner. It's licensed built version of the Corsair, the F3A-1, had a reputation amongst pilots for poor quality, shoddy workmanship and a "plane not to fly if you could avoid it." <---- A quote from another book I have read on the subject. I really couldn't care less what a great job the Buffalo  did in the skies over Finland. For me, it's what it couldn't do in the skies over Midway and Singapore. My grandfather was there flying SBDs and had to be protected by that unmitigated disaster. And that title is not one I gave the tubby little fighter that just looks like it has one foot in the monoplane era and one foot stuck in 1921. It was the title of a chapter in a book I used to own about carrier fighters of WWII.

So yes .. I read.
Yes ...you are extremely quick to judge.
And no ...I don't give a rat's patookus about your opinion.

Have a nice day, sir. 

[Karnak]

Karnak. You can kiss my ack. I have read plenty about Brewster, it's woeful corporate mismanagement and it's pitiful airframes.The company was so bad it even managed to screw up a proven war winner. It's licensed built version of the Corsair, the F3A-1, had a reputation amongst pilots for poor quality, shoddy workmanship and a "plane not to fly if you could avoid it." <---- A quote from another book I have read on the subject. I really couldn't care less what a great job the Buffalo  did in the skies over Finland. For me, it's what it couldn't do in the skies over Midway and Singapore. My grandfather was there flying SBDs and had to be protected by that unmitigated disaster. And that title is not one I gave the tubby little fighter that just looks like it has one foot in the monoplane era and one foot stuck in 1921. It was the title of a chapter in a book I used to own about carrier fighters of WWII.

So yes .. I read.
Yes ...you are extremely quick to judge.
And no ...I don't give a rat's patookus about your opinion.

Have a nice day, sir. 

It isn't my "opinion", it is historical fact.  The fact that you conflate the disaster that was supposed to protect your grandfather with the B-239 used by the Finns and get upset when somebody dares to contradict your feelings indicates that you are making emotional decisions, not fact based decisions in regards to how it is modeled.  Yes, the F2A3 Buffalo was a disaster, but it was also a far different machine than the B-239 and the fact that the B-239 in AH is not a disaster has no bearing on how the F2A3 Buffalo would be in AH.

I do agree with you that using the B-239 in AH as a substitute for the F2A3 is absurd and I have argued against it every time I see it happen used thusly.

[Blinder]

It isn't my "opinion", it is historical fact.  The fact that you conflate the disaster that was supposed to protect your grandfather with the B-239 used by the Finns and get upset when somebody dares to contradict your feelings indicates that you are making emotional decisions, not fact based decisions in regards to how it is modeled.  Yes, the F2A3 Buffalo was a disaster, but it was also a far different machine than the B-239 and the fact that the B-239 in AH is not a disaster has no bearing on how the F2A3 Buffalo would be in AH.

I do agree with you that using the B-239 in AH as a substitute for the F2A3 is absurd and I have argued against it every time I see it happen used thusly.

Ah ...so it appears we do have some common ground after all. Very well. But my biased is against the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation in its entirety. Right, wrong or indifferent I have no love of any Brewster aircraft. It's a little different reading about it versus hearing the actual tales come out of the mouth of your greatest childhood hero. 

[Butcher]

Blinder, if you think the B-239 why did the Fins manage to shoot down so many russian aircraft with so very few?

How do you explain the fins shooting down 500 russian aircraft for the loss of 19 B-239s?

[Lusche]

It's a little different reading about it versus hearing the actual tales come out of the mouth of your greatest childhood hero. 

He did fly the Finnish version against the Soviet?

[Blinder]

Superior training and tactics and not necessarily the machine. Also, in those early winter war days exactly what were the Finn's up against? I do know that Stalin purged his military so badly that they had a large deficiency in leadership, motivation and training. Many Finnish pilots racked up enormous scores on the Finnish/Soviet front by using formulaic defensive tactics against Soviet aircraft. The default tactic was the four-plane "parvi" with a pair flying low (but visible, not too close to the terrain) as the bait, and a pair flying high to dive on the eventual interceptors. In the long run, the Soviet Air Force on the Finnish front never developed an efficient approach to counter this tactic. According to some reports, this tactic also inspired the German Luftwaffe's kette.

Upon further inspection the export B-239 is little more than a F2A-1 with a two extra guns and a 950hp rated R-1820-G5 instead of a  940 or 950 hp rated R-1820-34. Once in country the Finns added armored backrests for their pilots, metric flight instruments, the Finnish Väisälä T.h.m.40 gunsight, and four .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns. The top speed of the Finnish Buffalos, as modified, was 297 mph (478 km/h) at 15,675 ft, and their loaded weight was 5,820 lb. Not a tremendous difference between the US navalized version and this version.

So how was it we got our MiG kill ratios back up to snuff during the Vietnam conflict? We took on inferior machines such as the MiG-19 Farmer with the state of the art Phantom II and still from 2 March 1965 to 1 November 1968 we saw almost 1,000 U.S. aircraft losses in about one million sorties. The advent of Top Gun did not change the equipment, except to give the Phantom II an internal cannon. It provided for superior tactics and training.

This also brings to mind the subject of Jimmy Thach and his weave that confounded the superior Zero. The B-239 was not a superior weapon of war ....the Finnish pilots were.

[Blinder]

He did fly the Finnish version against the Soviet?

Apples, oranges or grapes .... a B-239 by any other name ...  is still a Buffalo. 

[Wmaker]

It's a little different reading about it versus hearing the actual tales come out of the mouth of your greatest childhood hero. 

There are people (unlike you) however, who manage to remain objective regardless. My grandfather used tell me how the Stuka was one of the faster combat aircraft in flying in Finland during the war. Honest mistake really, he was an infantry man, not an aviation enthusiast and that was what he had heard during the war. He was and is my hero aswell, and yet I'm not repeating his factual error here.

Regarding Midway you either don't know or conveniently left unmentioned the fact that Marines were vastly outnumbered against the Japanese and didn't have any previous combat experience and that F4Fs also suffered heavy losses in that battle.

[Blinder]

There are people (unlike you) however, who manage to remain objective regardless. My grandfather used tell me how the Stuka was one of the faster combat aircraft in flying in Finland during the war. Honest mistake really, he was an infantry man, not an aviation enthusiast and that was what he had heard during the war. He was and is my hero aswell, and yet I'm not repeating his factual error here.

Regarding Midway you either don't know or conveniently left unmentioned the fact that Marines were vastly outnumbered against the Japanese and didn't have any previous combat experience and that F4Fs also suffered heavy losses in that battle.

And at that time, the F4F, without the superior tactics put in place by Thach's experimentation, was still inferior to the Zeke. Gentlemen, I've already established my biases against Brewster. You can continue to beat that dead horse all you like. It doesn't change the fact that my argument about mechanical shortcomings is solid, nor does it change the fact that tubby little fighters from the late 1930s were inferior machines to the best the Axis could put up in those days.

Your quote here "Regarding Midway you either don't know or conveniently left unmentioned the fact that Marines were vastly outnumbered against the Japanese and didn't have any previous combat experience and that F4Fs also suffered heavy losses in that battle." simply reenforces my argument. it's not necessarily the machine that makes it superior ...its also the pilot.

Any of you ever have the pleasure of going H2H against a P-40 driver from Warbirds 2.77 whose handle was Ibex?

He personified my argument to a tee. He flew only the P-40 and more often then not, won the engagement against all comers.

[Wmaker]

The B-239 was not a superior weapon of war ....the Finnish pilots were.

...and it isn't one in Aces High either.

When you start making claims that an aircraft (any aircraft) is over modeled in Aces High you are the one that needs to prove your claims. Repeating (selective) facts about what happened in the war won't get you anywhere. You need to pint point what is wrong with the aircraft and prove it by testing the aircraft in the game against real life, primary source flight test data. Saying that your grandfather hated them ain't gonna cut it, sorry.

[Blinder]

...and it isn't one in Aces High either.

When you start making claims that an aircraft (any aircraft) is over modeled in Aces High you are the one that needs to prove your claims. Repeating (selective) facts about what happened in the war won't get you anywhere. You need to pint point what is wrong with the aircraft and prove it by testing the aircraft in the game against real life, primary source flight test data. Saying that your grandfather hated them ain't gonna cut it, sorry.

I never made the claim that it was overmodeled. I merely referred to the fact that in the Pacific it was a disaster. Thats when all the B-239 defenders showed up.

This has been truly a hoot. But steaks on the grill are just about done and that means infinitely more to me than this thread. Cheers all!