PDA

View Full Version : P-40s-destroying the myth



HotelBushranger
12-01-2004, 03:56 AM
Check out these sites:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm

P-40s arent bad aircraft!
The AVG scored a 70 to 1 kill ratio!!! 70 to 1!!! Bah, just read the pages, you'll understand.

HotelBushranger
12-01-2004, 03:56 AM
Check out these sites:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm

P-40s arent bad aircraft!
The AVG scored a 70 to 1 kill ratio!!! 70 to 1!!! Bah, just read the pages, you'll understand.

Ruy Horta
12-01-2004, 04:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
P-40s arent bad aircraft!
The AVG scored a 70 to 1 kill ratio!!! 70 to 1!!! Bah, just read the pages, you'll understand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

scored or CLAIMED?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Ruy Horta

HotelBushranger
12-01-2004, 04:11 AM
Read the pages!!!:
The AVG was made up of three squadrons, The Adams & Eves, The Panda Bears, and The Hell's Angels. They began combat operations on 20 December 1941 and officially disbanded on 4 July 1942. For seven months this ragtag band of Army, Navy, and Marine pilots were the only effective defense in the skies over China. Once organized, the men of the AVG recorded an unprecedented 70 to 1 kill ratio, 296 (although some sources say 286) enemy aircraft confirmed and an additional 153 probables for a loss of only 12 planes and 3 pilots in air combat. An even more impressive feat considering that the American mercenaries had virtually no combat experience while the Japanese had been fighting in China for years.

strelnik_Sipi
12-01-2004, 04:18 AM
Since when used japanese ARMY A6m Zero in China? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Allways thought it was KI43 and older for most of the time.

Athosd
12-01-2004, 04:27 AM
There's no doubt that they did a lot damage - considerably more than they suffered. However kill ratios are a bit of a touchy subject in these forums - given the often wide differences between each sides official records.

I imagine the Japanese claimed a lot more than 12 P40s destroyed during that campaign (just a guess I have no sources to hand).

Also IIRC the Tigers were mostly up against the older ki27s and such - at the time somewhat inferior to the P40 (which I believe was considered a very good fighter in its time).

Cheers

Athos

Athosd
12-01-2004, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by strelnik_Sipi:
Since when used japanese ARMY A6m Zero in China? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Allways thought it was KI43 and older for most of the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing that HotelBushranger posted suggests the Flying Tigers fought the A6M (or anything about it being deployed in China). Trying paying attention.

strelnik_Sipi
12-01-2004, 05:02 AM
That site where he posted the link says such things... so u pls read the page in question.
They compare P40 and A6m as oponents.
A quote from the site:

"Before the A5M Claude was introduced, Chinese pilots, flying mostly Russian-built Polikarpov I-15 biplane and I-16 monoplane fighters enjoyed success against the Japanese bombers attacking their cities. After the Claude was introduced control of the skies over China passed to the invaders. Once the Zero debuted the Chinese had no chance of regaining air superiority without outside help. Chinese pilots even refused to engage the sleek, ultra-modern Zeroes with their out-of-date, fixed landing gear, open cockpit relics."

"It seemed the A6M was an unstoppable juggernaut. It soon gained the reputation of being invincible. Everywhere it was encountered, the Zero vanquished its enemies.

Everywhere with the exception of China, that is. Patrolling the skies over China were a band of American mercenaries known as the AVG (American Volunteer Group). Flying P-40s adorned with fearsome shark's mouths they shattered the myth of Japanese invincibility and almost single-handedly saved China. Amazingly, this ragtag group of renegades, or so their Japanese opponents called them, fought using only fifty or so planes at a time and downed several times that many. They became known to the grateful Chinese populous as "Fei Hu" or Flying Tigers. The keys to their success was understanding their enemy, the tactics they employed, Col. Chennault's uncanny ability to predict the enemy's next move, and an aircraft that excelled in their method of fighting. Much has been written about the AVG, so this article will only briefly summarize the accomplishments of the famed unit."

PBNA-Boosher
12-01-2004, 05:10 AM
Erm, hate to burst your balls, but it WAS the Ki-43 that the AVG was up against. They fought against the Ki-27 and Ki-43 fighters. The A5M and A6M fighters did not see service in the parts of China and Burma that the AVG served in until after they were inducted into the US Air Force. What they were identifying as Zekes and Claudes were really Oscars and Nates.

MrOblongo
12-01-2004, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Read the pages!!!:
The AVG was made up of three squadrons, The Adams & Eves, The Panda Bears, and The Hell's Angels. They began combat operations on 20 December 1941 and officially disbanded on 4 July 1942. For seven months this ragtag band of Army, Navy, and Marine pilots were the only effective defense in the skies over China. Once organized, the men of the AVG recorded an unprecedented 70 to 1 kill ratio, 296 (although some sources say 286) enemy aircraft confirmed and an additional 153 probables for a loss of only 12 planes and 3 pilots in air combat. An even more impressive feat considering that the American mercenaries had virtually no combat experience while the Japanese had been fighting in China for years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple, most of those are sluggish bombers, they didnt attack fighters then only made high pass attacks to bombers (Ki-21 Sallys and others) and dived away. They used the correct tactic against the correct target.

"On July 21, 1940 the Japanese Navy decided to assign 15 pre-production A6M2s to the 12th Rengo Kokutai (12th Combined Naval Air Corps) for combat trials in China. In China, the A6M2 entered combat for the first time on August 19, 1940, when 12 A6M2s escorted 50 G3M2 bombers in a bombing raid over Chungking, but no enemy fighters were encountered. The Zero Fighter drew first blood on September 13, 1940 when thirteen A6M2s led by Lt Saburo Shindo attacked a force of 27 Chinese-piloted Polikarkpov I-15s and I-16s, shooting down all the Chinese aircraft with no Japanese losses. The pre-production Zero Fighters were later joined by the initial production A6M2s. In the next few months, they destroyed 99 Chinese aircraft for the loss of only two of their own to ground fire.

After over a year of use in China not one Reisen had been captured or inspected by either Chinese or American observers. Claire E. Chennault, who was a retired USAAC officer attempting to reorganize the demoralized Chinese air force, took note of this new Japanese fighter and attempted to warn the USAAF of the Zero's capabilities, but his warning was ignored and the Zero remained largely unknown in the West."

But...
"The only bright spot during these dark days was the American Volunteer Group (AVG), better known as the Flying Tigers. They were first in battle on December 20, 1941 during a Japanese raid on Kunming. The P-40s flown by the AVG were faster than the Zero in level flight, but were much less maneuverable. It was soon concluded that it was suicide to try and out-maneuver a Zero, and AVG pilots found that they were able to take advantage of the superior diving speed and ruggedness of their P-40s. The tactics that most often achieved success were to first make sure the P-40s had a height advantage, dive down on the Zeroes, shoot, and then run as fast as you could. By the time that the AVG was absorbed into the 14th Air Force in early July of 1942, they had been credited with 286 Japanese aircraft destroyed in the air as against 13 pilots killed in aerial action"

Athosd
12-01-2004, 05:15 AM
There is extensive comparison of the P40 vs A6M - however no mention of the Flying Tigers facing them.

I did miss that first bit about the Zeros debuting in China, apologies - however they were trialed there in early 1940.

HotelBushranger
12-01-2004, 06:20 AM
Simple, most of those are sluggish bombers, they didnt attack fighters then only made high pass attacks to bombers (Ki-21 Sallys and others) and dived away. They used the correct tactic against the correct target.

Exactly! smart use of the aircrafts characteristics were used, enabling it to give its full potential. this has to be considered when comparing aircraft, not in a one on one head on fight. characteristics, strengths and weakness people. this has been proved with the P-40:the greatest fighter of the war (in my opinion) lol

cheers guys

CTO88
12-01-2004, 06:41 AM
some comparsions @ these sites are really doubtful:

i.e.:
"Two myths about the P-40 were that it was slow and not maneuverable. Compared to later American and German aircraft with 400+ mph top speeds, a mere 345 mph at 15,000 feet (the top speed of the P-40C) doesn't seem that impressive. But remember, in 1940-41 the Warhawk's top speed essentially matched that of the Spitfire 1A (346 mph at 15,000 feet) and Bf-109E (348 mph at 14,560 feet), and surpassed the A6M-21 Zero (331 mph at 14,930 feet) and Hawker Hurricane II (327 mph at 18,000 feet)."

none of these datas are wrong, but in 1941 the germans had already the 109f4 which runs nearly 390mph, also 190 was already in production also with speeds ~600km/h. soviet mig-3 developed also nearly 400mph. most 109e and spits in 1941 reached 570km/h or more, spit 5 also ~600km/h.

if you only compare 1940 planes:
also note that wingload of p-40 was really high for a plane in that speed class. wingload of p40c was much higher than 109e (-1/9 of p40c) and spit 1 (~only 2/3 of p40). so 109e and spit should turn much better. climb rate of p-40 of was also worse.

conclusion: "myths" are right.

kill claims are no proove, especially if they are claims and not confirmed by other side. even if claimes are roughly right, it's the man behind the machine (chuck yeager), so you also have to ask for pilot skills.

Chuck_Older
12-01-2004, 07:34 AM
P-40s weren't bad aircraft. But websites don't prove it. The Luftwaffe considered them an aircraft that turned well. In the case of the AVG, the H81As they got differed slightly from 'regular' export H81As. In particlular, there is strong evidence that the engines were made to a higher standard by necessity; the parts were factory rejects that couldn't be bolted into engines "as is" and were instead hand-fitted together, which eliminated much of the characteristic Allison blow-by, giving the engines 15-20% more power by some accounts. Most references cite the AVG aircraft as being H81A-2s, but other insist they were -3s, with the slightly better powerplants

Saburo_0
12-01-2004, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The tactics that most often achieved success were to first make sure the P-40s had a height advantage, dive down on the Zeroes, shoot, and then run as fast as you could. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wish more people understood this. Would stop the whining i think.(as opposed to legit. question/concerns.)

And the P-38 did was an even better fighter when using these tactics! Nothing against the P-40 I like these old warhorses, they did the more of the fighting but the late war planes got most of the glamour.

Oh & AVG kill claims were seen as a good way to boost morale so were probably exagerated even more than normal. Tho i imagine someone will show up with real Japanese losses before too long . (?)

Hendley
12-01-2004, 08:19 AM
Hmm. Wonder if the $500-per-kill reward might have lead some pilots to be even more enthusiastic to file a claim than normal...

Tater-SW-
12-01-2004, 08:26 AM
Kills claims are tricky. From Lundstrom's "First Team" books, which extensively compare claims vs actual losses on both sides from their own records, it's fair to say during Guadalcanal's principal combat periods the USN claimed 2 planes for every one shot down (same for the whole first year of the war, theater wide, actually---except flying boats where claims=kills). The Marines, OTOH, actually shot down 1 for every 3 claimed. The IJN pilots flying to Guadalcanal from up the slot claimed far more per actual kill. Hard to tell, I need to write them all down chapter to chapter and add it up, but it's fair to say they claimed 6-10 per actual kill.

I would imagine USAAF claims:kills are probably closer to the Marines.

It's particularly interesting to consider when you realize that the AFs judged their war progress partially on this data. If you think there were 100 planes based at Guadalcanal, and in a week you shoot down 90 of them, you probably think the time is ripe to send a big resupply in. same can be said of ship sinking claims, and a similar issue exists where the IJN ilots far overclaimed ship sinkings compared to the USN pilots (and both sets of pilots tended to assume the ship they were attacking was bigger than it was (calling DDs, CAs, and CAs, BB, for example).


tater

LilHorse
12-01-2004, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrOblongo:
"The only bright spot during these dark days was the American Volunteer Group (AVG), better known as the Flying Tigers. They were first in battle on December 20, 1941 during a Japanese raid on Kunming. The P-40s flown by the AVG were faster than the Zero in level flight, but were much less maneuverable. It was soon concluded that it was suicide to try and out-maneuver a Zero, and AVG pilots found that they were able to take advantage of the superior diving speed and ruggedness of their P-40s. The tactics that most often achieved success were to first make sure the P-40s had a height advantage, dive down on the Zeroes, shoot, and then run as fast as you could. By the time that the AVG was absorbed into the 14th Air Force in early July of 1942, they had been credited with 286 Japanese aircraft destroyed in the air as against 13 pilots killed in aerial action" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's incredible how persistant mis-information is. AVG fought Ki-27s and Ki-43s mostly. No Zeros. Some AVG pilots called the Ki-43 the "Zero-type". But they knew it wasn't a Zero.

And it's true that even those airforces that had the strictest methods for accounting for kills exaggerated on the numbers. Or were at least very "optimistic" in their accounting.

That takes nothing away from the accomplishments of the AVG. They were three squadrons of mercenary pilots who consistantly bested one sentai (the 77th) and frustrated the efforts of a couple others. Not to mention the impact they had on Japanese ground forces along the Burma road (Salween River gorge anyone?). Perhaps it's only natural that one of the truly great combat aviation outfits in history would spawn so much in the way of mythology.

Saburo_0
12-01-2004, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Perhaps it's only natural that one of the truly great combat aviation outfits in history would spawn so much in the way of mythology <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, the problem as always is distinguishing fact from myth.

(1VB)YAKMAN
12-01-2004, 09:33 AM
If I remember correctly over @ the AVG site, I think one of the pilots wrote a book about them vs the Zero. Can't remember if it was with the AVG or the USAAF when they took over though?? I'll have to look later .

Heres their website if you wish to look.
Flying Tigers AVG (http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/)

Chuck_Older
12-01-2004, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrOblongo:
"The only bright spot during these dark days was the American Volunteer Group (AVG), better known as the Flying Tigers. They were first in battle on December 20, 1941 during a Japanese raid on Kunming. The P-40s flown by the AVG were faster than the Zero in level flight, but were much less maneuverable. It was soon concluded that it was suicide to try and out-maneuver a Zero, and AVG pilots found that they were able to take advantage of the superior diving speed and ruggedness of their P-40s. The tactics that most often achieved success were to first make sure the P-40s had a height advantage, dive down on the Zeroes, shoot, and then run as fast as you could. By the time that the AVG was absorbed into the 14th Air Force in early July of 1942, they had been credited with 286 Japanese aircraft destroyed in the air as against 13 pilots killed in aerial action" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's incredible how persistant mis-information is. AVG fought Ki-27s and Ki-43s mostly. No Zeros. Some AVG pilots called the Ki-43 the "Zero-type". But they knew it wasn't a Zero.

And it's true that even those airforces that had the strictest methods for accounting for kills exaggerated on the numbers. Or were at least very "optimistic" in their accounting.

That takes nothing away from the accomplishments of the AVG. They were three squadrons of mercenary pilots who consistantly bested one sentai (the 77th) and frustrated the efforts of a couple others. Not to mention the impact they had on Japanese ground forces along the Burma road (Salween River gorge anyone?). Perhaps it's only natural that one of the truly great combat aviation outfits in history would spawn so much in the way of mythology. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the 500 dollar bounty is leavened by their actual pay, which was very good, and they were in a sense 'mercenary' but they were directly recruited from the US military. If I recall correctly, there was initially one civilian AVG pilot

Uncle Sam didn't just slap out 500 bucks whenever a kill was claimed. It had to be verified. take Greg Boyington for example. He claimed 6 kills in the AVG. I beleive he was paid for 3.5, which is one reason he took action that got him dishonorably discharged from the AVG

mortoma
12-01-2004, 10:07 AM
The P-40 was a fine and capable aircraft, only problem it was a hair too slow to be competent past the mid war period. For some reason I have read a lot of American pilots hated it and the Russians liked the P-39 a bit better. Of course in the case of the American pilots, you have to consider their pyschology, thay always wanted ther 'hottest' fighter available, and felt short-changed if they had to fly a lesser bird. The P-40 was not the hottest plane around in most cases, even in the early part of the war.

ZG77_Lignite
12-01-2004, 10:14 AM
Not to take away from the AVG or its accomplishments (IMHO they were equalled in effectiveness only by the Finnish), but the 'Kill Ratio' does not actually reflect the whole story, they lost nearly all of their aircraft during their combat period, but most were lost to pilot error, maintenance issues and the like, the Kill/Loss ratio only reflects aircraft shot down by enemy action.

It is my understanding that their 'kill claims' (286-296) are quite legitimate, as they needed to be confirmed by the Chinese to recieve the credit (money).

LilHorse
12-01-2004, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Well, the 500 dollar bounty is leavened by their actual pay, which was very good, and they were in a sense 'mercenary' but they were directly recruited from the US military. If I recall correctly, there was initially one civilian AVG pilot

Uncle Sam didn't just slap out 500 bucks whenever a kill was claimed. It had to be verified. take Greg Boyington for example. He claimed 6 kills in the AVG. I beleive he was paid for 3.5, which is one reason he took action that got him dishonorably discharged from the AVG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That and I'm sure CAMCO (or was it C.A.T.?) even as a front corporation would want to hold on to as much money the govt. was giving them. They'd want to make sure the claims were legit before plunking down the money. But I'm sure disputes still came up as you point out with Boyington. Anything that was questionable might be grounds for them to hold back on kill bonuses. Though I'd be willing to bet that some were awarded where they weren't deserved. We'll never know.

horseback
12-01-2004, 11:05 AM
re the confusion about the Zero vs the Ki-43: Chennault's early drawings of the Zero, made from observations from the ground and from examining one example that had been downed by ground fire, failed to show the tapered tail, instead depicting a rudder remarkably similar to the Ki-43's.

Please keep in mind that nobody had a clear idea of the new Japanese types' appearance (or existance in some cases) at that time, and the brand new (early production) Ki-43 was making its combat debut over Indochina against the AVG and RAF over Rangoon. The Ki-43 looked like the rough drawings the 'Tigers' had of the Zero, and it certainly possessed the spectacular maneuverability, radial engine and all round vision canopy. The mistaken identity is understandable, given the lack of information and the stress of combat.

The Ki-27 Nate, which was more numerous, was vaguely known, but still occasionally confused with the A5M Claude. Both had been fairly effective against the I-16 during the disputes over the Mongolian border, and while not capable of the speeds or firepower of the later models, very dangerous in a dogfight on their terms. Again, though, it could turn on a dime, and possessed a radial engine and a 'greenhouse' type canopy.

All Japanese fighters became Zeros in AVG pilots' eyes very quickly, and it was only later that anyone had the time or inclination to go beyond ID-ing enemy aircraft beyond fighter, bomber, or transport classes. By that time, the legend had been established.

Even so, the Tigers' tactics worked well for the P-40 against all Japanese fighters they and their USAAF successors faced for the next couple of years, and were applicable to fighting the Zero for units in the Southwest Pacific.

cheers

horseback

Ruy Horta
12-01-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Uncle Sam didn't just slap out 500 bucks whenever a kill was claimed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF I take Daniel Ford's "Flying Tigers" as a semi official history, since it was published by the Smithsonian Institute, much of the bill was paid by the Chinese Nationalists, not Uncle Sam. Also there are many similarities between the early AVG history and later semi mercenary air operations / activities of the US in post war South East Asia. The link is even established in this book.

Combining the "Flying Tiger" title with "Bloody Shambles" produces a sobering picture. The AVG might have had a number of well published (succesful) encounters, but overall their use was more in terms of publicity as opposed to effectiveness.

They did little in real terms stop the Japanese advance into Birma.

Also IMHO we tend to glorify the AVG, while the mercenary element might have been stronger than their later reputation suggests.

If there is a real myth its the AVG, not the P-40, which was just another workhorse, effective enough yet not superior enough to stand up to most of its contemporaries by virtue of performance alone.

Chuck_Older
12-01-2004, 11:51 AM
Well, yes, it was China's money, the US just set up the conract and organisation...but it seems odd the say "Daddy Chaing's cash"

the mercenary element is a funny thing to me. They weren't even allowed to know what they were signing up for. Nobody said "hey, we'll pay you cash to fight", the first AVG members were doing this sight unseen. Sure later on word got around, but I can't quite make the mercenary connection so clear cut as to say they were in it for the money, and that's it.

The AVG, as has been stated, didn't really get P-40s, though. their aircraft were quite similar to the P-40B, but it wasn't quite the same plane

As far as effectiveness, that's hindsight. At the time, you couldn't very well say "Well, ultimately it's going to fail so why bother"

Loki-PF
12-01-2004, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Uncle Sam didn't just slap out 500 bucks whenever a kill was claimed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF I take Daniel Ford's "Flying Tigers" as a semi official history, since it was published by the Smithsonian Institute, much of the bill was paid by the Chinese Nationalists, not Uncle Sam. Also there are many similarities between the early AVG history and later semi mercenary air operations / activities of the US in post war South East Asia. The link is even established in this book.

Combining the "Flying Tiger" title with "Bloody Shambles" produces a sobering picture. The AVG might have had a number of well published (succesful) encounters, but overall their use was more in terms of publicity as opposed to effectiveness.

They did little in real terms stop the Japanese advance into Birma.

Also IMHO we tend to glorify the AVG, while the mercenary element might have been stronger than their later reputation suggests.

If there is a real myth its the AVG, not the P-40, which was just another workhorse, effective enough yet not superior enough to stand up to most of its contemporaries by virtue of performance alone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ruy,

Great points... You summed up concisely what I had felt about the AVG situation in China. Good intentions on the part of many of the pilots but sullied a bit by the merc aspect. Bloody Shambles is a great read eh?

Chuck_Older
12-01-2004, 12:13 PM
So...the fact that US servicemen had to agree to do "it" before they were told what "it" was makes them mercenary? They were sealed orders- you didn't know the details until you agreed to do whatever the details entailed.

Later on, I am sure word got spread around about what was going on, but bear in mind that US Servicemen were recruited- they didn't need to be trained. China needed an instant airforce, and that's what they got.

There is a strange parallel between the AVG and the Eagle Squadron. The US knew about both, but they actively tried to stop the Eagle Squadrons, while the AVG was practicaly condoned.

If you look at who the AVG pilots were and the circumstances of their recruitment, it's not just a case of signing up anyone who wanted to go. They were already trained in the art of flying fighting aircraft, it's not as if they were picking up the dregs of humanity here.

"Ajax" Baumler had previously fought in Spain. He was paid for that, too. Does that make his attempts to aid Spain against facism less real? Or his attempts to make his efforts to help China less real?

It seems to me that the very nature of things is to heap disbeleif and shadowy connotations on everything we can nowadays. We love to see heroes fall. Greg Boyington was a jerk. So what? that makes he actions for the US less desireable for a MoH winner? Why can't the AVG's actions be something more than base?

Saburo_0
12-01-2004, 12:45 PM
Chuck, over reacting to the mercenary label a wee bit i'd say. Seems like most here understand the situation at the time. And that not all mercenaries are created equal as it were.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ruy Horta
12-01-2004, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Greg Boyington was a jerk. So what? that makes he actions for the US less desireable for a MoH winner? Why can't the AVG's actions be something more than base? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one who ever understood his book "Baa Baa Black Sheep" will call this man a yerk for the wrong reasons. He was a brave man, effective soldier and leader men in combat, but not the best material for army life or any normal life for that matter.

OTOH Pappy did fit the mercenary bill quite well.

As for Ajax Baumler, he even fits the bill of mercenary better. I'd love to find out if his motives in Spain were anti-fascist? Most real Anti-Fascists before the war were communist or at least left of center, not the best resumé for a military man or mercenary. Not the best way to get on the friendly side of Chennault either. The almost schizophrenic attitude towards and lack of action against fascism before the war by the liberal democracies stems mainly from predominant anti-communist fears.

I'll make an assumption here, but I'd say its a fair guess that Baumler's reasons for fighting in Spain were purely monetary.

Ruy Horta
12-01-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
There is a strange parallel between the AVG and the Eagle Squadron. The US knew about both, but they actively tried to stop the Eagle Squadrons, while the AVG was practicaly condoned. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apples and Oranges

The AVG became an instrument of US Foreign policy, of entering the war in China against Japan without getting exposed politically. This semi covert involvement would have continued to grow if Japan hadn't started broader hostilities in dec. '41. They were even planning an AVG bombing campaign against Japan from mainland China, under the Chinese flag of course.

Those pilots who left for the RAF were entering a meat grinder. The outcome in 1940/41 wasn't too clear to start with. And pre-dec. 1941 there wasn't much political gain to be made from presenting a picture of strict neutrality.

Those men who tried to join the Eagles did do so mainly out of idealism, maybe that's also the problem...

ElAurens
12-01-2004, 04:57 PM
When I heard AVG veteran Peter Wright speak last year I pressed him several times about the P40. In his prepared remarks he referred to it several times as a "front line fighter". When I asked him about this, in light of the way the P40 is seen now he said that they all felt that the P40 was indeed a "front line fighter" and they all jumped at the chance to fly it. He was a Naval Aviator before his stint in the AVG, and said that the Navy guys who went to China felt it a better machine than what they were flying in the Navy. I know that many of you will now be jumping up and down screaming that this is just anecdotal, but he was there, he flew the aircraft in combat, and Mr. Wright had the honor of getting the last kill credited to the AVG in July of 1942.

I think I'll trust his judgement.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Doctor_Feelgood
12-01-2004, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
We love to see heroes fall. Greg Boyington was a jerk. So what? that makes he actions for the US less desireable for a MoH winner? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Times were different back then, men were hard drinking and hard playing. Greg had a drinking problem, he didn't take any shiznit from anyone and he was one hell of a pilot and leader. He may have not been what the military of the day would promote as an idea soldier, but you can bet money that those that flew w/him would follow him anywhere.

I respect a man that will say the word s*** if he has a mouthful of it. A man like that doesn't put on airs about who and what he is. Pappy Boyington was a genuine hero the likes of which may not be seen again. Some said Patton was an a** too, he got results though.

As far as mercenary goes, I think the word itself has taken on a negative connotation. Regardless of how it's perceived when you pay a private citizen to go to war you often times get a better group of soldiers than you would w/a volunteer or conscripted army.

Blackdog5555
12-01-2004, 10:19 PM
Claire Chennault started out in China in 37-38. He was an "advisor" We all know what "advisors are. Chaing had a pretty wife named Soong Mai who alnog with her brother wee sent ot Washington to beg Roosevelt for 100 planes and pilots with technicians. Chennault had been using Eurpean mercenaries and found then to be worthless. Well the US of A sent 100 planes plus 200 technicians. the 100 pilots wereall recruited out of the USAAF/MC..all US soldiers.
Some went for the money, some went for adventure and some went for the principal. The argument about the the ki43 v Zero is insignificant. The Ki43 was as good or better fighter thatn the Zero.. most believe better. Chennault believed in the saying, "he who fights and runs away , lives to fight another day". Hit and run ad dont risk your bacon. He knew the Zero couldnt chase you in a dive. uNLIKE THIS GAME. dIVE--HIT--RUN--SLOW CLIMB--GO BACK IF YOU HAVE FUEL AND AMMO. REPEAT. there is a lot of imfo on the web about this. the p40 could beat the ki43 using the right tactic....tactic (ill say it again) thats is the Ki43/ki27 or Zero. all too flimsy in a dive and all had poor high speed handling. (ALSO NOT MODELLED CORRECTLY IN THIS GAME)

WUAF_Badsight
12-01-2004, 10:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
uNLIKE THIS GAME.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
last time i noticed , the P-40 dives faster (break-up speed) & had a higher top speed than the Zero (41 Zeke v 41 P-40)

anyone with more Zero v P-40 experience confirm or deny that the Zero is faster than the P-40 ?

Kannaksen_hanu
12-02-2004, 12:18 AM
If you dont mind about stupid wingmen who engage turn-fight with japanese, P-40 is untouchable.

Air-quake players presume that P-40 should do a little dive thus warping into safety and then he should be able to turn back and engage in same fight with superior E again.

In RL when you dived away, you disengaged succesfully from the fight. And THAT works in PF too. I've not flown 3.02 online, but at least on previous versions no japanese plane could even score a single hit on me (except tail-gunner). I managed to get 1-2 kills per sortie. When I flew with Zero or Ki, it hardly ever managed to get even with kills. Usually I was shot down 2-3 times per one kill.

The_Ant
12-02-2004, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Check out these sites:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm

P-40s arent bad aircraft!
The AVG scored a 70 to 1 kill ratio!!! 70 to 1!!! Bah, just read the pages, you'll understand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


[QUOTE]ZG77_Lignite
It is my understanding that their 'kill claims' (286-296) are quite legitimate, as they needed to be confirmed by the Chinese to recieve the credit (money).
[QUOTE]


Hotel Bushranger how can you claim a 70 Vs 1 rating,when the total kills where 286-296 kills vs 13 losses.Thats a killratio off 22,769% for each loss at its best,not 70 vs 1.Even at a 22,769% ratio thats a nice score, in those conditions the AVG faced.

Ruy Horta
12-02-2004, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
I think I'll trust _his_ judgement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you know that a number of AVG pilots had never flown fighters when they went to China?

Its not the alpha and the omega on the subject but I can really recommend Dan Ford's "Flying Tigers".

I'm at work, so I cannot check what's on the record for the particular pilot, but having scored last he may well have been one of the pilots who were held back through lack of fighter experience.

For others the P-40 was the first high performance fighter they ever flew, having flown Navy Biplane fighters before.

MoeLarryCheese
12-02-2004, 03:49 AM
Seems the AVG/Flying Tigers get everyone hot.
Let me try to sum it up.

Iron clad confirmation was required for a kill.
A smoking hole matching the claim was required
for kill confirmation. If you were un lucky
and your kill came down in water, you'd best
have a bunch of friendly Chineese watching.

It is very unlikely the AVG ever met a Zero
in combat during the mercenary time period.
BUT there is a remote chance they did.
in fact they operated in the same air space
for a breif period.

The P-40 was never a match for a Zero or an Oscar. The tactics
the AVG used made the difference, not the pilot skill
or the quality of the machines.

Of the 99 P-40s the AVG posessed in late 1941
all were destroyed or rendered un servicable
by the time the USAAF took over.

Kill ratios are in "air combat ratio". It is likely
that the Japanese lost many more planes
than the actual losses reported, all combatants
lost crippled and non combatant losses at similar
rates.

So if the ratio was truly 70:1, it would have
remained close to the same rate if all
non comabt and 'planes written off' are added.

The big picture says (well documented) that
over half of total losses will be training
and other non combat losses.

Germany was no exception, the training losses
for everyone were terrible.

MLC

Ruy Horta
12-02-2004, 03:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The argument about the the ki43 v Zero is insignificant. The Ki43 was as good or better fighter thatn the Zero.. most believe better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point is that for much of the AVG campaign its adversaries flew the Ki-27, not the more modern Ki-43.

Their real inpact during the AVG campaign was very small and on a strategic level it didn't influence a thing. The AVG was the right unit in the right place at the right time, mainly for US publicity purposes that is.

That's why they were the darlings of the US public during those early months of set backs, that's why there is a whole myth surrounding them to the present day.

The AVG won the day, the RAF campaign is largely forgotten...

RocketRobin__
12-02-2004, 04:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
P-40s weren't bad aircraft. But websites don't prove it. The Luftwaffe considered them an aircraft that turned well. In the case of the AVG, the H81As they got differed slightly from 'regular' export H81As. In particlular, there is strong evidence that the engines were made to a higher standard by necessity; the parts were factory rejects that couldn't be bolted into engines "as is" and were instead hand-fitted together, which eliminated much of the characteristic Allison blow-by, giving the engines 15-20% more power by some accounts. Most references cite the AVG aircraft as being H81A-2s, but other insist they were -3s, with the slightly better powerplants <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee Chuck, I had an old friend who had the pleasure of servicing wartime Allison aero-engines.
His opinion was that the Allisons were produced to impeccable quality standards, which were superior to all others.

Did you know that back in the old days there was no such thing as CNC assembly? Uhmm... 'cause they didn't have computers and stuff.
Did you know that high performance engines are always loose fits?

Please continue to embarrass yourself. I've found your posts to be quite amusing and add a lot to the current dog and pony show.

ElAurens
12-02-2004, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruy Horta:


I'm at work, so I cannot check what's on the record for the particular pilot, but having scored last he may well have been one of the pilots who were held back through lack of fighter experience.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Peter Wright was not "held back" as you so tepidly suggest. He volunteered to stay on to help with the transition during the integration into the 14th. Air Force.

It must really suck to not have any heros.

Ruy Horta
12-02-2004, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Peter Wright was not "held back" as you so tepidly suggest. He _volunteered_ to stay on to help with the transition during the integration into the 14th. Air Force.

It must really suck to not have any heros. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you get me wrong, no pilots were held back in the sense of having to stay with teh AVG, but quite a number of them were held from combat because of various reasons, the primary one being lack of fighter experience.

As for heroes, well being critical doesn't mean that you don't have any heroes. The AVG men have that "Indiana Jones" aspect that endears them even to me, that doesn't mean I have to inflate their record to suit their ego or reputation.

The germans used the term Heldentum and Heldentot a lot, they abused it a lot as well, perhaps this makes me cautious when choosing my heroes.

EDIT:

Peter Wright flew a number of combat missions, so he wasn't one of the grounded "rookies".

As for volunteering to stay, he stuck out another "two weeks" and went on ferrying transports as a civilian contractor.

LilHorse
12-02-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
P-40s weren't bad aircraft. But websites don't prove it. The Luftwaffe considered them an aircraft that turned well. In the case of the AVG, the H81As they got differed slightly from 'regular' export H81As. In particlular, there is strong evidence that the engines were made to a higher standard by necessity; the parts were factory rejects that couldn't be bolted into engines "as is" and were instead hand-fitted together, which eliminated much of the characteristic Allison blow-by, giving the engines 15-20% more power by some accounts. Most references cite the AVG aircraft as being H81A-2s, but other insist they were -3s, with the slightly better powerplants <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee Chuck, I had an old friend who had the pleasure of servicing wartime Allison aero-engines.
His opinion was that the Allisons were produced to impeccable quality standards, which were superior to all others.

Did you know that back in the old days there was no such thing as CNC assembly? Uhmm... 'cause they didn't have computers and stuff.
Did you know that high performance engines are always loose fits?

Please continue to embarrass yourself. I've found your posts to be quite amusing and add a lot to the current dog and pony show. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really are getting your nickers in a twist over absoulutely nothing. It's been gone over in various books that what Chuck states was indeed the case. Is it possible that this too is some kind of AVG mis-information like that of encountering Zero? Sure, it could be. But given that it would be a subject that would be relatively mundane (as compared to whether or not they encountered Zeros, or their actually Kill/ Loss ratio for example) I doubt it.

So your friend worked on Allisons and said they were terrific engines. That's nice. 'Cause they were and continue to be terrific engines. But one person's experiance (or even his encounters with other mechanics of the same opinion) does not a valid blanket assessment make. I'm sure plenty of mechanics during the war found problems with V-1710s. Just like you'd find problems with any engine highly mass produced under war time pressures.

Chuck wasn't ****ging Allisons. Rather he was praising the ingenuity of AVG mechanics to take parts that Allison itself had rejected and hand fit them to make them even better engines.

MoeLarryCheese
12-02-2004, 04:48 PM
The airframe/engine story goes like this.
the planes were available, Curtiss had no
problem delivering. they were P-40B's
or more correctly, the export name, H81-B.
The P-40C shares the same export name and
there are few differences, but according
to one surviving AVG vet, they were B's.

Allison was srtaight out and had no surplus
production time. The engines were assembled, at Detroit Allison
by Allison employees. The hnd fitting thing is
much overblown. The engines had non standard
bore sizes (basicly rebuilt oversizes, although new.)
and many parts, including cylinder bores, were built
to "standard over/under" size dimensions.
The primary problem with early Allisons were
the reduction gears. These were in fact hand
fitted on some engines.

The reason the engine parts were rejected is that
the millitary demands full interchangability.

As was previously noted, performance engines are
loosly fitted., in some cases VERY loose.
As a result the rings fail early and blow by is
the result.
I have many years building Drag Racing Chevys
and HD bike motors, they can run piston to bore
clearances as high as .009" on a 4.125 bore.

Those Allisons have been reported to produce
as much as 20% more power than standard engines.
no one seems to argue. But if the power is
from more careful assembly it is likely the
gain is in the intake tract. Rebuilding
or in this case building to rebuilt specs will
not make more power by its self.
They would never have increased the piston to
bore from stock, or opted for a loose fitting bearing.
But it is easy to imagine malformed head or intake
castings being custom fitted.
I can vouch for the power of a good intake
port match job, or careful porting of the heads.

As to the tactical or strategic gains of the AVG.
They accomplished more than most imagine.
Imagination is the reason. They broke the Japanese
feeling of invincability. They informed the average
dogface that they to could kill Japanese fighters.
Huge resources had to be diverted to fight
a war the Japanese thought already won.

And above all they inspired the average joe
working the production line to pound out
more weapons. Lots more weapons.

As to territory gained, or massive damage
to the enemy, not worth beans.

Damage to enemy moral.... priceless.......


MLC

LeadSpitter_
12-02-2004, 08:22 PM
The p40bs and early hawks have absolutely no advantage they historically had in game. Also the early p40s were much more manueverable then the heavier p40e m f both in turn radius and roll.

They do not have thier high speed handling characteristic over the zero nore the dive accelaration over the zero. Same with above 3000m advantage. Hopefully these birds get corrected.

also the p40e m roll need to be reduced as well as the yaks ki84 190 which are way above what they should be high speed. There is too much that needs correcting and if its true how oleg says changing 1 fm effects others i dont see how it can ever be done.

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
last time i noticed , the P-40 dives faster (break-up speed) & had a higher top speed than the Zero (41 Zeke v 41 P-40)

anyone with more Zero v P-40 experience confirm or deny that the Zero is faster than the P-40 ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
anyone else confirm this ?

DIRTY-MAC
12-03-2004, 04:59 AM
The AVG also flew some P-43 and P-66 fighters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and the P-40s they had were faster and climbed
better than odinary p-40 of the same model
this because they had special handpicked sparepartbuilt engines, cant remember how many horsepower they had
anyone?

ElAurens
12-03-2004, 05:09 AM
Dirty-Mac,

The figures I remember for the engines that the AVG had installed were on the order of 10% higher output than standard.

This would put the V-1710 in the 1200hp range, or there abouts.

LilHorse
12-03-2004, 11:15 AM
Good post MoeLarryCheese. Nice to get some expert info. on this.

HotelBushranger
12-03-2004, 11:24 AM
All right people. Lets calm down and sort out what we no:
Kill ratios dont matter.
Allison engines are terrific.
Right tactics with right aircraft equals goodness.
But
in all in all
lets face it
P-40s were god**** GOOD fighters!

Fritzofn
12-03-2004, 12:40 PM
i did read some books during my childhood, and one of em was "Tigers over china" and if i'm not mistaken, the ratio 70/1 dosent seem far fetched, but it seems that this is only combat losses, since i due recall that they fixed some of the planes, by salvaging on others more damadged planes, since i don't recall them beeing a big fan of US realy, this was a intermidiate plan to please the chinese while they had to allocate resources elsewhere, thus, not many supplies like spare parts for the planes and such was low, or non existent at all.

also read that during a japanese raid of the airifled, even the mechanic attack with the wrench against the attackers.

this book was in a series of WW2 books, great read