Have I called you out about your behavior or treated you unfairly or insulted you personally?
I think we know who is throwing a tantrum
You are right I apologize I was too rude to you, some of the other posts rubbed me the wrong way.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Have I called you out about your behavior or treated you unfairly or insulted you personally?
I think we know who is throwing a tantrum
We seem to have strayed away from the P-39/P-40 topic here a bit.We should leave the P-38 out as it doesn't arrive until after the Bf 109G does. The Bf 109F/Trop has speed, dive, climb, and roll rate going for it and the Ki-43 speed (maybe), climb, roll rate and turning circle against either a Hurricane II/Trop or Spitfire V/Trop. So I do know which planes I won't be choosing for a dogfight.
![]()
Yes but I think mainly because they hadn't adopted new tactics for it (still using Western desert tactics basically) and had a ton of maintenance problems, plus range issue.Hurricane for rear area air defence, no problem, rugged plane, good destructive armament, should be able to take on a Me 110 without a problem and competitive with the Bf 109E below 15000 feet, not so sure about the Ki-45 though. The Spitfire V should do better against a Ki-43, but I've not seen any figures. The Spitfire Vc Trop struggled against the A6M3 below 20000 feet.
It would be nice to see a breakdown of exactly what types the Bf 109F and Ki-43 were victorious over.
Can I assume that the Ki-61 got deployed rapidly to the Pacific because of the inadequacy of the Ki-43's armament against heavier American bombers such as the Mitchell, Flying Fortress and Liberator? Was the Ki-43 successful in the CBI because it was mainly up against planes like the Hurricane, Blenheim, Vengeance and Wellingtons (?) although less successful against the Warhawk(?). The Mitchell packed a heavy defensive punch for a twin and could be used as a long range bomber, is that why the IJA needed Ki-44's in China to defeat Mitchells and Liberators. In the case of the Hurricane, 6500 were built in the UK between 1942 to 1944, so assuming 1500 went to the Soviets, 1500 to the Middle East, that would leave 3500 for the K-43 to shoot down.![]()
Spit V/Trop should be much faster than a Ki-43 at most altitudes, Hurricane II as well I would think though it would be closer.
What is the armament of a 109G-2 or G-4? Similar to 109F4 right?
Yes but I think mainly because they hadn't adopted new tactics for it (still using Western desert tactics basically) and had a ton of maintenance problems, plus range issue.
Can I assume that the Ki-61 got deployed rapidly to the Pacific because of the inadequacy of the Ki-43's armament against heavier American bombers such as the Mitchell, Flying Fortress and Liberator? Was the Ki-43 successful in the CBI because it was mainly up against planes like the Hurricane, Blenheim, Vengeance and Wellingtons (?) although less successful against the Warhawk(?). The Mitchell packed a heavy defensive punch for a twin and could be used as a long range bomber, is that why the IJA needed Ki-44's in China to defeat Mitchells and Liberators. In the case of the Hurricane, 6500 were built in the UK between 1942 to 1944, so assuming 1500 went to the Soviets, 1500 to the Middle East, that would leave 3500 for the K-43 to shoot down.![]()
You have a good point about the bombers. My theory about the twin nose guns (or 1 cannon + 2 LMG) is that it's perfectly good for fighter vs. fighter, and it's good enough for attacking lightly defended bombers, especially since HMG and cannon pretty much outrange defensive LMGs. This is also why I think the 8 LMG armament was limited, .30 cal (.303, 7.9mm etc.) lose a lot of their 'punch' at longer range.
I agree the Blenheim was a deathtrap, but it may surprise you to know that Beauforts in RAAF service actually scored aerial victories. As for the Beaufighter, if one of them hit you with its four 20 mm cannon and 6 lmg then I think you're a gonna. The Blenheim and Beaufort should be fast enough to evade the Cr 42, G50, A5M, Ki-27 and IJN float planes at max speed.
I am not sure the Hurricane should be getting quite the blame that it is because at some point well before the end of production they gave up any pretense of it being a fighter and it was used pretty much in the ground attack role
20mm cannon of course will explode regardless of range pretty much and do their ripping apart stuff thing, and .50 cal will still punch through engines, put big holes in fuel tanks and rip apart defensive gunners from 1,000 meters or more.
By the way I was just reading in Shores MAW Vol II, a British pilot commented that they took out a pair of LMGs from their Spit VC(2)s to improve climb and altitude performance. And I also previously read they took out two of the cannon from Hurri IICs if they were expected to face fighters. So that was not just an adaptation for P-40s by any means.
Taking out 2 lmgs didn't change the firepower of the V as much as taking out 2 of the P-40's hmgs (which amounted to 1/3 of the firepower).
Some Spitfire Vs had their cannon removed, so they could reach the high altitude Ju 86P reconnaissance aircraft.
Yeah I was reading about that. They put in two .50 cals. Good for a long chase.
No, they did not.
They had the 4 x 0.303" lmgs.