PDA

View Full Version : The strange story of the P-39?



drose01
03-14-2005, 07:00 AM
The story of the p39 has always been confusing to me.

Built by Americans, but found to have unacceptable performance, it is given to the Russians, who find it to be outstanding and one of their best fighters.

This would make sense, if the homebuilt Russian aircraft were inferior in general to American a/c, but as I have learned since playing this game, Russian La's and Yak's were formidable, if not sometimes superior to Luftwaffe foes.

So how does it make sense that the P39 was good enough for the Russians but not the USAAF?

To further my puzzlement: I was reading that the P39 did poorly against the Japanese when first introduced, thereby causing it to be sent to Russia. But which plane had a decisive impact against the Japanese in the early war? The P38 (Twin tailed devil). How is that so? Conventional wisdom, at least on these boards, seems to favor, in general, the P39 vs the P38. Certainly if you had to pick one plane as modelled in the game to win a fight, it would be the P39.

Just wondering, and does anyone have any thoughts on these questions?

drose01
03-14-2005, 07:00 AM
The story of the p39 has always been confusing to me.

Built by Americans, but found to have unacceptable performance, it is given to the Russians, who find it to be outstanding and one of their best fighters.

This would make sense, if the homebuilt Russian aircraft were inferior in general to American a/c, but as I have learned since playing this game, Russian La's and Yak's were formidable, if not sometimes superior to Luftwaffe foes.

So how does it make sense that the P39 was good enough for the Russians but not the USAAF?

To further my puzzlement: I was reading that the P39 did poorly against the Japanese when first introduced, thereby causing it to be sent to Russia. But which plane had a decisive impact against the Japanese in the early war? The P38 (Twin tailed devil). How is that so? Conventional wisdom, at least on these boards, seems to favor, in general, the P39 vs the P38. Certainly if you had to pick one plane as modelled in the game to win a fight, it would be the P39.

Just wondering, and does anyone have any thoughts on these questions?

FatBoyHK
03-14-2005, 07:15 AM
Very nice question, I think in the same way too, I just don't dare asking here :P

Daiichidoku
03-14-2005, 07:41 AM
In short....very short....the P 39 had it supercharger gear deleted, and weight increased to the point whre it could not climb as expected, and had no high alt performance...

the Russians mostly flew low level attack missions, where the P 39 gave good performance, could fight, escort bomber/attackers, and ground pound, so found P 39 ideal

USA did actually get good use out of P 39s, mstly as advanced fighter trainers...P 39s and P 400s used in PTO were there moslty cuz it was availible, and had little else to use at the time

dont go by P 39 vs P38 performance or capabilities based on this game...IRL the Lightning WOULD be the only sensible choice

in fact, dont judge ANY ac type based on what you see in this game

Skarphol
03-14-2005, 09:25 AM
Here are some information stolen from the excellent pages of Joe Baugher:

"The most serious change, however, was the elimination of the turbosupercharger, and its replacement by a single-stage geared supercharger. This change was a result of a shift in philosophy on the part of the USAAC. The USAAC believed that the widths of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans made the USA virtually immune from high-altitude attack by enemy bombers. Therefore, the development of high-altitude interceptors was curtailed in favor of strike fighters optimized for low-level close support. The 1150 hp V-1710-17 (E2) of the XP-39 was replaced by a V-1710-37 (E5) engine rated at an altitude of 13,300 feet. The carburetor air intake was mounted in a dorsal position just behind the cockpit, where it was to remain throughout the Airacobra production run.

At the time of Pearl Harbor, the P-39 (along with the P-40 and a few P-38s) was virtually the only modern fighter available to the USAAC.

On April 30, 1942, thirteen P-39s from the 35th and 36th Pursuit Squadron flew their first combat mission under Lt Col Boyd D. Wagner. For the next 18 months, the P-39 and the P-40 were the principal front line equipment of USAAF fighter units in the Pacific. They carried much of the load in the initial Allied efforts to stem the rapid Japanese advance. Many Allied pilots lacked adequate training, and equipment and maintenance were below average. The Airacobras operating in the Southwest Pacific were sometimes called upon to serve as interceptors, a role for which they were totally unsuited. They proved to be no match for the Japanese Zero in air-to-air combat. In fact, because of difficulties with the oxygen supply, the Airacobra was not even able to reach the Mitsubishi G4M (code name *Betty*) bombers raiding from altitudes above 25,000 feet. In the laconic words of the official AAF history: "The Airacobra, even in a good state of repair, was unable to meet the Japanese fighters on equal terms." Experienced Japanese pilots such as Saburo Sakai regarded the Airacobra as a relatively easy "kill". The P-39s were not as manauverable as the lighter and more nimble Japanese fighters, and enemy fighters could often avoid combat with the P-39s by outclimbing them. Nevertheless, the Airacobra was quite tough and was able to absorbing a great deal of battle damage and still keep on flying, and its armament was able to deliver lethal blows to many a lightly-armored Zero.


Soviet pilots had first seen the Airacobra in Great Britain, when a group of pilots was sent to No. 601 Squadron at RAF Duxford for training. The British had found the Airacobra unsuitable for their own use and were more than happy to turn over their Airacobras to the Soviets, (€¦)
It is in Soviet service that the Airacobra was used to its best effect. Soviet Air Force military doctrine was that its primary mission was to support the ground operations of the Soviet Army, and the P-39 was a natural for this role since it had an excellent low altitude performance and was heavily armed. Contrary to many published reports, the Soviet Airacobra was not primarily used as a ground-attack aircraft and tank buster, although it is certainly true that it often strafed targets of opportunity. It was actually primarily used as a low-altitude escort fighter for ground attack aircraft such as the Il-2 and later the Il-10.
The Airacobra was quite popular with its Russian pilots, who appreciated its heavy armament, its excellent low-altitude performance, and its ability to absorb an incredible amount of battle damage. When operating at low altitudes, the Airacobra was often able to hold its own against top-of-the-line German fighters. Some Soviet pilots felt that the P-39 outclassed even the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Focke Wulf FW 190 at altitudes below 10,000 feet. "

Skarphol

AndyHigh
03-14-2005, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skarphol:
The Airacobra was quite popular with its Russian pilots, who appreciated its heavy armament, its excellent low-altitude performance, and its ability to absorb an incredible amount of battle damage. When operating at low altitudes, the Airacobra was often able to hold its own against top-of-the-line German fighters. Some Soviet pilots felt that the P-39 outclassed even the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Focke Wulf FW 190 at altitudes below 10,000 feet. "
Skarphol <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that might be a bit too romanticized view of the P-39. The main reason why VVS came back in general was their massive numerical superiority, quality came second. They knew it too, but soviet history writing was so unique that you can't trust much of it. And Wold Wars aren't won by kill ratios. I've read USSR received about 7000 P-39s alone.

What goes for absorbing battle damage, P-39 was infact tought to be quite an easy kill by pilots, one reason was that its engine was behind the cockpit and was easily damaged from behind. Once even a captured I-153 managed to shoot down one.

Recoil of its 37mm cannon was so high that it was told to "jump like a cockhorse" every time it was seen firing, it must have been very hard to hit a fighter with it.

Its always amusing that some people claim they learn about history when playing computer games. The reality is always "rounded" in games and IL-2 is clearly a russian made game.

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-14-2005, 10:36 AM
The P-39 certainly had its devotee's. The Cactus Air Force was said to have had a preference, for a period of time, FOR the Airacobra for a few reasons. First, it had tricycle gear that made taxiing easier and was , at times, the only fighter that could take off and meet the enemy at all as the standard landing gear on the F4F was unable to properly function in the thick mud of the airfield. It had decent firepower and comparatively effective armor for the pilot.

Despite its being "downgraded" for export, these factors (as well as the effective radio equipment) suited it much better in the role the Soviets employed it. The reality is, it wasn't necessarily a bad fighter, simply rather better suited for a role that the US didn't need nor use it for.


TB

Vipez-
03-14-2005, 11:38 AM
Well one thing conserning P39 on vvs use.. it was common for soviet ground crews to strip the P39 out of all extra weight. For soviets, that meant deleting wing guns, and armor plates behind pilot.

This is ok, though, making the P39 very vulnerable for ground fire and fighters (allthough giving it a nice add in manouvarability).. however, in game I feel,that Oleg has modelled the P39s with the additional armor and with wing guns without adding the added weight of the armor and guns, while taking the perfomance from the stripped down Aircobras..

Apparently, P39 is one of the toughest airplanes in the game, so it definately is not missing the armor plates in game. Just one thing I have allways wondered, that is never never ever i have received Pilot kill in the P39(to be honest, i have witnessed about two-three pilot kills in P39 in my over three years of playing IL-2 ).. it seems to have some sort of magical armored windscreen protecting the pilot from all guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif This is probably due to P39 has a simple damage model from old IL-2.. (meaning, no oil in cockpit, controls lost etc, almost never PK etc..)

Now for P39-fans, this is not a whine (be sure ), but facts from the game. P39 is one of the deadliest soviet planes in the game, like in real life..

Russians gave it the nickname "lawnmover" due to firepower, however probably 9 out of 10 kills, that the P39s made were archieved with Machine guns. M-4 cannon was found to be ineffective on aerial targets, because of low muzzle velocity, and poor quality of the shells, sometimes they pre-detonated, sometimes they detonated outside the aircraft structrure, not causing much damage.. but when the rounds did work, it killed any plane with a single shot.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Skarphol
03-14-2005, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndyHigh:
I've read USSR received about 7000 P-39s alone.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"A total of 4924 P-39s were delivered to the Soviet Union between December 1941 and February 1945, of which 4758 actually reached their destinations. " according to Joe Baugher.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Recoil of its 37mm cannon was so high that it was told to "jump like a cockhorse" every time it was seen firing, it must have been very hard to hit a fighter with it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joe Baugher again: "The Soviets preferred the 20-mm Hispano cannon of the P-400 over the 37mm of other Airacobra variants because of its greater reliability. In addition, the trajectory of the shells from the 20-mm cannon more closely matched that of the 0.50-inch guns, making for a greater concentration of fire. In the P-39Q, the Soviets usually removed the underwing guns or had them removed at the factory, preferring a better performance over the enhanced firepower. "

I really don't know nothing about the P-39, but Baugher has allways seemed like a god source for information.

Another, and even stranger story of how an airplane can be a failure for one service and excell for another is the Brewster Bufffalo. It was not near good enough for the USN, but superb for the Finnish Airforce


Skarphol

AndyHigh
03-14-2005, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skarphol:
In the P-39Q, the Soviets usually removed the underwing guns or had them removed at the factory, preferring a better performance over the enhanced firepower.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That leaves the Soviet P-39 with 37mm and 2x12.7mm then. Anyway that cannon had great recoil and was hard to hit with. Do you know how many P-400s VVS had and when they became available?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Another, and even stranger story of how an airplane can be a failure for one service and excell for another is the Brewster Bufffalo.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think the Brewster model used in Finland was never used by USAF which had overweighted version and in Finland it was mostly given to war experienced pilots who already knew how to use "rocking chair" tactics against herds of more agile planes. But that's another story though.

VW-IceFire
03-14-2005, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
In short....very short....the P 39 had it supercharger gear deleted, and weight increased to the point whre it could not climb as expected, and had no high alt performance...

the Russians mostly flew low level attack missions, where the P 39 gave good performance, could fight, escort bomber/attackers, and ground pound, so found P 39 ideal

USA did actually get good use out of P 39s, mstly as advanced fighter trainers...P 39s and P 400s used in PTO were there moslty cuz it was availible, and had little else to use at the time

dont go by P 39 vs P38 performance or capabilities based on this game...IRL the Lightning WOULD be the only sensible choice

in fact, dont judge ANY ac type based on what you see in this game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually...I've spent some time in the P-38 now and I'd say even in-game...its by far the better choice.

Skarphol
03-14-2005, 12:59 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Do you know how many P-400s VVS had and when they became available?
QUOTE]

Joe Baugher: "The Airacobra I was powered by an Allison V-1710-E4 twelve-cylinder V in-line engine rated at 1150 hp for takeoff. Weights were 5462 pounds empty and 7845 pounds normal gross. Maximum speeds were 326 mph at 6000 feet, 343 mph at 10,000 feet, 355 mph at 13, 000 feet, 341 mph at 20,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2040 feet per minute. With an internal fuel capacity of 100 Imp gal the Airacobra had an endurance of 1 hour 20 minutes at maximum continuous cruising speed at 6000 feet, 1 hour 5 minutes at 12,000 feet, and 1 hour 35 minutes at 20,000 feet. The true airspeeds at these altitudes were 287 mph, 327 mph, and 308 mph, respectively. Under most economical cruise conditions, the endurance increased to 3 hours 20 minutes, the relevant speeds being 183 mph at 6000 feet, 217 mph at 12,000 feet, and 215 mph at 20,000 feet. Under maximum continuous climb conditions, it took 15 minutes to reach 20,000 feet. The operational ceiling was considered to be about 24,000 feet, although there was a marked decrease in performance above 20,000 feet. At the Airacobra's rated altitude of 13,000 feet, it was 18 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. However, the speed fell off rapidly above that height, and the two planes were almost exactly matched at 15,000 feet. At 20,000 feet, the Spitfire VB was 35 mph faster and at 24,000 feet it was 55 mph faster. The ground run of the Airacobra during takeoff was 2250 feet, as compared with 1470 feet for the Hurricane II and 1590 feet for the Spitfire V.

The AFDU also did some comparative dog-fighting tests with the Airacobra against a Spitfire VB and a captured Messerschmitt BF 109E. The Airacobra and the Bf 109E carried out mock dog-fighting at 6000 feet and 15,000 feet. The Bf 109E had a height advantage of 1000 feet in each case. The Bf 109, using the normal German fighter tactics of diving and zooming, could usually only get in a fleeting shot. The Bf 109 could not compete with the Airacobra in a turn, and if the Bf 109 were behind the Airacobra at the start, the latter could usually shake him off and get in a burst before two complete turns were completed. If the Bf 109 were to dive on the Airacobra from above and continue the dive down to ground level after a short burst of fire, it was found that the Airacobra could follow and catch up to the Bf 109 after a dive of over 4000 feet. When fighting the Bf 109E below 20,000 feet, the Airacobra was superior on the same level and in a dive.

A similar trial was carried out against a Spitfire V. Although the Airacobra was faster than the Spitfire up to 15,000 feet, it was outclimbed and out-turned by the Spitfire. Unless it had a height advantage, the Airacobra could not compete with the Spitfire. If on the same level or below, at heights up to about 15,000 feet, the Airacobra would have to rely on its superior level and diving speeds and its ability to take negative "G" without the engine cutting out. Above 15,000 feet, the Airacobra lost its advantage in level speed.

The Airacobra was considered to be very suitable for low altitude operations because of the excellent view and controllability, and it was fully maneuverable at speeds above 160 mph. It was not difficult to fly at night, but the exhaust flames could be seen by another aircraft flying three miles to the rear. The flash from the nose guns was blinding, and could cause the pilot to lose not only his target but also his night vision. Firing of the nose guns caused the buildup of carbon monoxide contamination in the cockpit, and this could reach a lethal level very quickly. The guns were fairly inaccessible, and maintenance was troublesome.

By the end of September, No. 601 Squadron had received permission to take its Airacobras into action. On October 9, two Airacobras took off from RAF Manston and flew across the Channel on a "rhubarb"--a code name for a small-scale raid by fighters against targets of opportunity. On this raid, they shot up an enemy trawler near Gravelines. The next day two Airacobras visited the same area, but found no targets. On October 11, two aircraft flew to Gravelines and Calais and hit some enemy barges and then three Airacobras flew to Ostend, but no targets were found.

After these four missions, the RAF Airacobras were taken off operations because of difficulties encountered with the compass. The compass was too close to the guns in the nose, and when the guns were fired, the compass got thrown out of alignment. Deviations of anything from 7 degrees to 165 degrees were recorded. Without a reliable compass, pilots tend to get themselves lost. In December of 1941, the Airacobra was officially withdrawn from operational service with the RAF.

In spite of the problems with the compass and the need for flame dampers for the exhaust and flash suppressors for the nose guns, the RAF concluded that the Airacobra would make an excellent day fighter at altitudes below 20,000 feet and was well suited for the ground-attack role. However, before these plans could be implemented, a decision was made to divert the bulk of the British Airacobra contract to Russia.

By the time this decision was made, production of British-contract Airacobras had reached four a day at Bell's Buffalo plant. The initial contract for 170 planes (RAF serials AH570 thru AH739) had been completed before the end of September, and all but six of these planes had actually been shipped to Britain. However, many of them remained in their crates and were shipped directly to the Soviet Union without being opened. Somewhere between 80 and 100 Airacobras were assembled and flown in Britain by the end of 1941. They were gathered at maintenance units for final modification before being re-crated and shipped to the Soviet Union during 1942. In all, the Soviet Union received 212 of the British Airacobras (some of them shipped direct from the USA), but 49 more were lost at sea en route. "

I think these planes were the ones called P-400.

Skarphol

civildog
03-14-2005, 01:34 PM
Magical canopy, huh? I've been killed a lot in the P-39 and it's the plane I use more than any other. Bomber gunners seem to be able to hammer through what was a 1 1/2" slanted armor glass plate (in real life) with surprising ease with .30 cal MG42s.

I think a lot of the confusion is as a result of people not thinking far ahead enough about what was going on in real life. That and the "it's this way in the game and on the Discovery Channel so it must be the truth" syndrome. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Think about this: if you were a pilot who was at war and were unlucky enough to be given a Brewster what are you going to do? Hit relfy and get a better plane? No, you are going to bust your tail learning how to make that little plane kick Russkie rearends as fast as you can because that's all you have to keep you alive.

Same with the Cobras. If that's all you have, and yes Vriginia the Russians did love the plane for all the reasons above - ability to take damage, high pilot survivability, excellent low-level manueverability, you learn to use or you'll die.

Now the Finns didn't use the Brewster for what the Navy wanted it for, so it wasn't considered out of spec for them. The USAAF and RAF wanted a high altitude long-range fighter and so the Cobra didn't cut it. But the plane distingushed itself in the PTO down in the weeds and fighting around the mountains and valleys of New Guinea. The Russians modified the Q model and turned it into a much better dogfighter than the previous versions. Thier work and experience resulted in the P-63...which is STILL a low level plane, though it's fast and powerful enough to at least climb better than the Cobras.

Basically it's this kind of argument: if you are going into combat with some guy who has a rifle, and you are handed a pistol and told to go kill the other guy with it or you'll be shot for desertion, what would you do? Say no, I want a better gun? Or figure out how to use whatever advantages you might have that the other guy might not? I can come up with some, just like I use the same advantages the Cobra has against my opponent. The real pilots did the same....like...say...

Make your opponent REACT to you instead of you trying play catchup all the time.

Learn to be patient and keep your energy high.

Suck the opponent down into the weeds...if he wants to BnZ you let him try to recover from a high speed dive at 500m with your Cobra bobbing and weaving like a boxer.

Use the cannon like bolt action rifle and .50s like a pair of autopistols. Wear him down with the .50s and then shoot him in the head with the cannon using single shots.

Learn how to use that nasty stall to your advantage: to either help you drop out of your opponent's sights instantly, or to out-turn him and force and overshoot.

I'd be willing to bet - not fair though, since I learned all these things from reading a lot of pilot accounts of using the Cobra in real life - that these are the same kind of things the real pilots learned to do because they had to.

Not everyone in WW2, despite the best efforts of Hollywood and the DF room fans to say so, had the luxury of flying Doras, Mustangs, Spitfires, and Yak-3's. Most had whatever was at hand and were thankful for that much.

civildog
03-14-2005, 01:48 PM
As to why the Russians got the plane after the US and RAF decided they didn't want it? Well, firstly the RAF and French had pre-ordered the plane. Then France was overrun and the Brits found the plane was , "Entirely unsuitable for the type of combat we have experienced.", so the planes were sitting there waiting to go and the two customers didn't want them anymore.

The USAAF used them all through the planes' development in the PTO, but the original foriegn orders went to Russia because it was a lot of planes that we weren't using, so why not give them to the Russians? No conspiracy there. Same with the P-40's they got, and the tanks, rifles, canned hams, and halftracks. As Stalin said: "Quantity has a quality all it's own."

The Russians liked it well enough they wanted all they could get and helped design the P-63 later. So the design must have had something going for it.

Also don't forget that the US had a lot of catching up to do in ALL areas of weapons development in WW2. At the time of our entry in the war we didn't even have any medium tanks let alone advanced planes like the 109 or Spitfire. The best we had were cavalrymen running around with tommypots on horses and Stuarts, and thier was even a squadron of P-26 Peashooters that were destroyed in minutes in the air off New Guinea by Japanese pilots in Zeroes.

So we spent half the time we were in the war just trying to catch up, let alone surpass what everyone else had already been working on. Sheesh, not even the Russians wanted the medium tank we finally came up with, calling it the "coffin for 7 comrades"..the Grant. We sure had a lot to learn.

p1ngu666
03-14-2005, 02:27 PM
i think the russians put asmany planes into the air for a reason, germans couldnt be everywhere, all the time, so in some areas u could do lots of damage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

also ment that most things could have some defense in the air

and, it turned out to beat the germans, who could have had more planes actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F19_Ob
03-14-2005, 04:43 PM
As mentioned, the russians removed the wingmounted guns and left two heavy mg's and the big cannon.
Also mentioned they stripped it of anything they could, but they also added leadweights to balance it better wich improved the handling in slow speeds.
Most battles in russia took place below 4000m where it could battle any german plane According to the p39 aces. The russian ace Golodnikov claimed it even could fight 109's up to 6000m and higher but rarely happened.

The armament of 2 guns and a cannon was enough for the russians. They usually fired on close ranges and that means that they must have caught up with them, wich is hard in the game.
The cannon was so powerful that it could take out small ships and a tanker has been reported.

In the game the 109 and p39 are pretty close.
Both planes have advantages and disadvantages.
The 109 can disengage though.

SpartanHoplite
03-14-2005, 07:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vipez-:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif This is probably due to P39 has a simple damage model from old IL-2.. (meaning, no oil in cockpit, controls lost etc, almost never PK etc..)


QUOTE]

Thats an interesting point, and I certainly can't claim to have any knowledge on this issue. Is there a list of planes that use "old" Il2 flight and damage models, versus "new"? And how much difference does it make?

SH

civildog
03-14-2005, 07:26 PM
And we all know that being able to disengage at will is one of the best ways to maintain advantage. The other being not to lose it in the first place.

Notice how 2 medium guns and 1 big one seemed to be the direction fighter design was heading at the end of the war?

JG54_Arnie
03-15-2005, 04:09 AM
Hmm, the P-39 is weird in game, offline its the weakest of them, but online it seems the toughest, almost. Ofcourse, it wont give oil on the windscreen when the engine is in the back though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Vipez-
03-15-2005, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpartanHoplite:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vipez-:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif This is probably due to P39 has a simple damage model from old IL-2.. (meaning, no oil in cockpit, controls lost etc, almost never PK etc..)


QUOTE]

Thats an interesting point, and I certainly can't claim to have any knowledge on this issue. Is there a list of planes that use "old" Il2 flight and damage models, versus "new"? And how much difference does it make?

SH <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, as for flyable planes, Lagg3 and P39 are perfect examples about planes having the most simple Damage modelling in the game. There might be couple of more, but for now I can't recall..

This does make a difference, for example, compare them to IL2 and BF-109 DM and the difference is huge, sometimes giving a great advantage to these flyable planes. For example, you never loose controls in Lagg3/P-39.. IL-2s have imho the most beautiful DM in the game, BF109 comes second.. Il-2 can get damaged in dozens of ways, Lagg3 can get damaged only in few ways.. Every axis pilot, who flys against Lagg3s and P39s, probably knows how much punishment these planes can absorb from german guns (not counting MK108). Oleg is aware of it, but he is not going to sacrifise any more time to give them more complex DM.. which is understandable. There are few planes, which used to have simple DM (FW-190 Ju-87), but these got eventually fixxed.. JU-87 esspecially is extremely easy to shoot down now.

Ofcourse there are more planes with old DM, but most of them are AI bombers or AI fighters, not so important as flyable fighters with simple dm.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Platypus_1.JaVA
03-15-2005, 09:44 AM
I don't know if anyone else mentioned it but, one point why the Russians liked the P-39 is that all of the aircraft where equiped with a radio of good quality. At the time the Soviets got the P-39, most of their own aircraft didn't have radio equipment and the ones that did have them, where poor quality.

p1ngu666
03-15-2005, 11:25 AM
depends on the ju87, a full ai stuka is possibly the most dangerous plane u will come across
tough, or tougher than il2 (paper cables) and the ai gunner WILL hit u

and yes i know howto attack them, seen in alot that stuka's do more damage than their escorts..

Whatsmypassword
03-15-2005, 12:55 PM
Story of success of P39 in Soviet VVS is very simple. Russians did not have much choice cos in 1941-42 because their aviation plants moved to East and just started mass production of planes.

P39 were GIVEN to ELITE VVS units such as Pokrishkyn's regiment with skilled and experienced pilots who know how to fly and how to fight. P39 had a big & comfortable cabin which was important for Russian pilots in heavy winter jackets, powerful cannon, good radio and three wheel gear. Even in 1944 when elite units already could get much better La-7 they chose to stick with P-39 because pilots are conservative people and trusted the bird that they successfully flew for some years in the combat.

horseback
03-15-2005, 04:53 PM
Soviets liked the Airacobra Mk I/P-400 as soon as they got their hands on them; it was the first Lend-lease aircraft they got in useful numbers with 'modern' equipment and enclosed cockpit that didn't leave the pilot next to blind (initial 'modern' Soviet fighters with enclosed cockpits used a type of cellophane for the canopy-it yellowed almost immediately in sunlight, and was next to impossible to see through thereafter). Initially, the major Soviet modification to the Airacobra involved the installation of an oil drain uh, spigot that allowed the oil to be drained overnight instead of freezng in the lines and possibly rupturing them. Further Soviet mods lightening the aircraft are IMHO overrated, and more about 'taking ownership' than actual combat performance.

In any case, they wanted more, and complained about getting too many P-40s instead of Airacobras in early American Lend-Lease shipments.

It also had very competitive performance below 12,000 ft for most of, if not the entire war. It was rugged, easy to taxi in rough field conditions, and it was the 'right size' for a fighter in Soviet eyes: the P-40, which boasted comparable toughness, performance and firepower, using the same engine, never really caught on with the VVS. It was a lot bigger than the 'Cobra. Too big for them to think of it as a fighter, I think.

US users were forced to apply it in combat where it was not suited, and when other planes were available, most units wanted other planes which might not have served any better, but at least were different. Sometimes change is necessary just for the sake making a new start.

But the 'Cobra was never a popular mount with the USAAF, and they were happy to ship as many of them to Russia as they could. That made everybody happy.

cheers

horseback

drose01
03-15-2005, 07:52 PM
Interesting to me to think about all the "intangibles" that make a plane popular/successful.

Cockpit heating, comfortable seat, better radio, windshield quality- all of these things that are nearly impossible to capture in a sim.

The comfort issues especially are an interesting factor- I wonder how much of a performance problem you would be willing to overlook for the sake of superior comfort?

JR_Greenhorn
03-15-2005, 10:10 PM
It's interesting to think of the MiG-3.
That plane was being introduced in Russia about the time the P-39 was being introduced in the US. Both planes were not successfully designed to match the needs of their respective countries. However, while the P-39 later became successful in Russia, the MiG-3 never really got a fair chance anywhere. In the early days of the US airwar in the Pacific, the MiG-3 could likely have been close to what the US needed, at least from its land bases.

p1ngu666
03-15-2005, 11:25 PM
whats the aircraft in the sig?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mig planes, even ones designed after 3 never got into production i think. got a feeling they where planes bulit to specs that wherent needed in the war, hence where never made. contingency planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JR_Greenhorn
03-15-2005, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
got a feeling they where planes bulit to specs that wherent needed in the war <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That was my point.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
whats the aircraft in the sig?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heinkel He 112.

Abbuzze
03-16-2005, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JR_Greenhorn:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
whats the aircraft in the sig?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heinkel He 112. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are evil! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It´s a jet powered Yak3 not real succsessfull...
Yak15 ? At least it is called so in the picture link! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Whatsmypassword
03-17-2005, 02:44 AM
Photo evidence of P-39 success in Soviet VVS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.fighters.front.ru/pictyri/9giad.jpg

jugent
03-17-2005, 05:11 AM
The modelling of the P-39 in this game is simple. The a/c was flown by Alexandr Pokryshkin a Hero of the soviet union and he shoot down a lot of german a/c.
The soviet union, as all winner of WWII, made a propaganda campaign about the great patriotic war.
In the propaganda there where a golden rule "never criticize the system, only individuals" so the P-39 was very good.
There where many stories about what Alexander did with this plane, and Maddox team made the P-39 able to do this in this game.
So where the market in russia satisfied in this game.

My opinion is taht England and USA gave a lot of surplus ****-materials to the soviet union, Sherman- M3Lee- and Matilda-tank. Exhausted Spits and Hurricanes, and a fighter that USA used for fighter-gunnery-practice the P-39.
Soviet union got better tanks, and fighters of their own than thoose mentioned above.

The biggest contribution to the Soviet Union made by their comerads in arms was electronicstinned food, trains and locomotives.

BSS_Goat
03-17-2005, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jugent:
The soviet union, as all winner of WWII, made a propaganda campaign about the great patriotic war.
In the propaganda there where a golden rule "never criticize the system, only individuals" so the P-39 was very good.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read the Soviet "System" discouraged their pilots from praising the P-39 because it was not Soviet.

Blackdog5555
03-17-2005, 12:03 PM
Well if the US was giving only obsolete products we would have given Stalin our P-26 Peashooters. BTW the Sherman (AKA tommycooker) was the US front line medium tank....***.

Fact (AFAIK)
&gt;&gt; 5 of the top 10 soviet aces used the vaulted P-39. (yes even over the La7 , Yak 9)

&gt;&gt; The P-39 clearly out performed the 109 at low and medium altitudes.

&gt;&gt;in the PTO, as already posted the lack of range and altitude made the P39 unsuited against the Zero.. The Zero was either too far away or too high.

&gt;&gt;&gt;If a PTO pilot was lucky enough to catch a Zero low , it found a Zero on his tail and with all the plumbing in the back (of a P39) a single MG round caused leaking coolant and being out to sea meant death. BTW , no plane could compete with the zero in a turn fight/dog fight as the Russians found out in China.

&gt;&gt;As posted, The P39 tendency to flat spin in a stall was due to the Military requiring the improper weight of armour and armaments. Soviets were smart enough to fix those problems.

&gt;&gt;The General motors 37mm cannon didnt have the MV to knock out tanks but great against ofter targets. It was not really suited for air to air dog fighting but against transports or medium bombers...dam...

&gt;&gt;Not bad..just not universally suited. Just try using a Yak3 as a High altitude long range escort fighter. theres more but and most students of the P39 already know...so Cheers BD

jugent
03-17-2005, 03:06 PM
There you see, critisize the pilot who spoke highly about the P-39, not the system which provided the a/c to them.
The sherman tank was feared, by its crew, they called it Ronson after the famous lighter, it took fire, everytime.
So it wont say anything. Take a look at old photos from D-day. All tanks are reinforced by trak-plates, sandbags etc etc.

It the P-39 was so good, why wasnt it in use over western-europe?
Salute to the brave pilots of the soviet airforce who had no other choice than fly the P-39.
The French Normandy/Niem squad prefeared the Yak instead of the Mustang/Fw190/Spit.
That says that you prefear the plane you are used to fly.
By the way, im convinced that the soviet union would have beaten Nazi-German army without help from USA/UK by the invasion of Italy and France.
It would have taken a year or so longer.
Then would most certain Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne and other german citys been nuked like Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

civildog
03-17-2005, 03:40 PM
The P-39 wasn't used over the ETO becaue...as has been stated ad naseum...the plane, designed well before the war, didn't have a supercharger and it's range was too short.

Before the Mustang, you'll recall that US bombers had to fly unescorted for the most dangerous part of thier mission. The British also found that they needed a longer range, higher altitude capable plane than the 39...which they had approved of BEFORE actually fighting the LW.

Now none of that makes the Cobra a bad plane, per se, just unsuitable for what the USAAF found was needed. That was the same all across the planet, as everybody kept trying to come up with better, faster planes, better tanks (oh, yeah...that T-34/76 was a real crew-friendly little tank! Good thing there were so many, because they sure weren't very good until the 34/85 showed up with a gun that could kill a panzer at a usful range http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) and so on.

The Russians like the plane enough they participated in redesign work that produced the P-63. Now what does that tell you?

It's not like there was some nutjob conspiracy to dump cruddy weapon systems on the Soviets. After all they were on the ropes when Lend-Lease started and wnated all the help they could get. Then after the war it turned out they were even stealing US aircraft and hiding aircrews that were forced to land there so they could have a plane like the B-29.

That B-29 copy they started producing was such a carbon copy they even replicated the damage patches and english-language labels on the vaccuum tubes. So I think the Sovs were not exactly as advanced in design work as their erstwhile allies were. But they sure seemed to like the equipment.

Blackdog5555
03-17-2005, 04:38 PM
Ok: Jugent, I dont want to bable with teenage history revisionist. like...yea...Oh yea.. who said so..No i didnt..bla bla..wha wha.. Jeesh, Im laughing, really.. So if you knew your history, jugent, or whoever you are, you would ask obvious and naive questions.. so here is a cut and paste from a website...
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html
"Why was the P-39, which achieved so little air combat success in other theaters, so effective on the Eastern Front? The answer to this question lies in the nature of the air war itself on that front. Neither the Germans nor the Soviets engaged in high-altitude, long-range, strategic bombing. The bulk of Soviet war industry had been moved east of the Ural mountains, beyond the range of the Luftwaffe. German medium level and dive bombers went out every day, escorted by Bf-109s and FW-190s, to find and attack Soviet Army ground units. These bombers, and by necessity their escorting fighters, flew at altitudes well within the high performance envelope of the P-39-under 15,000 feet. The P-39, with its nose armament alone, had devastating air-to-air firepower. A hit on a German bomber with a single 37mm round was frequently sufficient to disable or destroy it. The Red Air Force compensated for the P-39's short range by locating their tactical airfields extremely close to the front line-often within artillery range. And during surge periods, when German air activity was intense, Soviet P-39 pilots were known to fly five and even six or more sorties in a single day.

How do we know all this? Many Soviet P-39 combat pilots wrote memoirs in the 1970s and 1980s in which they described their wartime experiences, hundreds of pages of descriptions of life in fighter units and of air combat. Other publications released since the collapse of the Soviet Union offer new information on what units were equipped with the P-39 and when, lists of pilots and their total sorties, aerial engagements, and scores. When fully exploited, these sources will reveal an enlarged and much improved picture of the P-39 Airacobra. It will be shown to be an outstanding combat aircraft, as worthy of respect as the P-38 Lightning, P-47 Thunderbolt, and P-51 Mustang.

For further reading, check out Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, American P-39s, and the Air War against Germany by Dmitriy Loza (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002). James Gebhardt, a noted expert on Soviet World War Two aviation, has studied hundreds of pages of original Soviet dvocuments and translated Attack of the Airacobras. He was kind enough to contribute the section above for this website."

end quote...LOL cheers BD

JG53Frankyboy
03-17-2005, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
The P-39 wasn't used over the ETO becaue...as has been stated ad naseum...the plane, designed well before the war, didn't have a supercharger and it's range was too short.

............... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it HAD a supercharger !
just a single gaer one that was rated not for higher altitudes.
the prototype of the P39 had a turbosupercharger , like the Allisons of the P-38. if the Airacobra would have been build with that kind of engine, well, it would have fought the Zeros over NewGuinea and Guadlacanl well - with the correct tactics

SUPERAEREO
03-17-2005, 05:44 PM
Just a little side-note: Chuck Yaeger loved the P-39, with which he flew during his training days, and considered it a difficult but "fun" plane to fly. He actually liked it so much that after the war he managed to borrow one for a short flight from a female stunt pilot, and he told her it was "the best airplane I ever flew".


S!

civildog
03-17-2005, 07:10 PM
JG53Frankyboy----

You say tomayto I say tomahto...you know what I mean't. Man, I hate rivetcounters and nitpickers.

BSS_Goat
03-17-2005, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
You say tomayto I say tomahto...you know what I mean't. Man, I hate rivetcounters and nitpickers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we change your name to UncivilDog? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

civildog
03-17-2005, 07:30 PM
LOL!!! Just sticking up for my baby.

Civil = generally polite
Dog = but I may still bite so keep hands, feet, and morons that poke at dogs away

JG53Frankyboy
03-17-2005, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
JG53Frankyboy----

You say tomayto I say tomahto...you know what I mean't. Man, I hate rivetcounters and nitpickers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

tomahto= no supercharger
tomayto= single gear supercharger, rated not for high altitude

well, if you call that rivetcounting ....... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

civildog
03-17-2005, 08:02 PM
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif