Simon Thomas
Senior Airman
Those who were there called it the "Kokoda Track".
The real combat history of the P-39 Airacobra in the Pacific (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Steamed_Banana
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #162
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,119
- Sep 29, 2025
This is the RNZAF anecdote (and the pilot) i was referring to
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
A possibility, which I have not checked out, is that the P-39 had a higher wing loading and perhaps not as good RAM. P-39s seem to have peak power a bit lower than P-40s in fight tests. Look for where the intake pressure drops off in both level speed and climbing. The cockpit canopy may had disturbed airflow and/or the intake scoop was not as good as the P-40 duct?
All of the performance figures are from tests where they try to correct to 'standard' conditions which include 59 degrees F temperature. US pilot manuals went furthered and figured take-off at 32 degrees F.
A lot the flying in New Guinea was either "hot" or "hot and high". Any plane is going to suffer loss of climb and poorer take-off. New Guinea temperatures could add 30% or more to take-off distances even at sea level. even 3000ft is good for another 200-400ft of runway for a P-40 at freezing. Combine hot and high and things go badly soon.
P-39s often had trouble with cooling in tests. How hard the pilots pushed the aircraft when not in actual combat is unknown. Running WEP was a razor edge. If the gauges were in the "green" it was one thing. If they are on the edge of "red" and the enemy is not in sight maybe backing off on the throttle was good choice?
Just some thoughts.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Another possibility is load?
Climb figures are usually for a clean aircraft (or racks only),
Hanging a 52 gal tank under P-40 is a smaller change than hanging a 75 gal tank under a P-39 percentage wise.
Climb figures are usually for a clean aircraft (or racks only),
Hanging a 52 gal tank under P-40 is a smaller change than hanging a 75 gal tank under a P-39 percentage wise.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The location of the P-39's intake was terrible. It seems to me that the intake on the side or underneath the fuselage would have been a much better decision.
- Thread starter
- #166
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,119
- Sep 29, 2025
I think we have discussed the phenomenon of smaller wings maybe not being as ideal in the Tropics and maybe performing a bit better in the cooler climate and / or downright cold air.
That might be a possible explanation for some of the P-39s troubles in the South Pacific, and maybe the Buffalo as well as it also had relatively small wings.
Another possible issue might just be maintenance. I gather these aircraft were a bit more work than some of the other planes (maybe Greg has some insight on this?), and they may not have initially sent over super well-trained mechanics, and they certainly didn't have good maintenance facilities in the early days - you see a lot of photos of major repair work going on out in the open air (in the dust and mud and under the storm clouds).
That kind of thing improved somewhat later in 1942 as they set up some quonset huts etc. which might possibly help explain why the P-39s seem to have been doing a bit better. Mechanics got more experienced, better trained mechanics arrived, better manuals, better tools, better facilities, and better living conditions seem likely to play a positive role.
We still have to notice that the Allies lost a lot more aircraft to accidents, even still in 1943, but in early to mid 1942 these losses were absolutely appalling. A lot of them were due to engine failures and things like burst tires etc.
That might be a possible explanation for some of the P-39s troubles in the South Pacific, and maybe the Buffalo as well as it also had relatively small wings.
Another possible issue might just be maintenance. I gather these aircraft were a bit more work than some of the other planes (maybe Greg has some insight on this?), and they may not have initially sent over super well-trained mechanics, and they certainly didn't have good maintenance facilities in the early days - you see a lot of photos of major repair work going on out in the open air (in the dust and mud and under the storm clouds).
That kind of thing improved somewhat later in 1942 as they set up some quonset huts etc. which might possibly help explain why the P-39s seem to have been doing a bit better. Mechanics got more experienced, better trained mechanics arrived, better manuals, better tools, better facilities, and better living conditions seem likely to play a positive role.
We still have to notice that the Allies lost a lot more aircraft to accidents, even still in 1943, but in early to mid 1942 these losses were absolutely appalling. A lot of them were due to engine failures and things like burst tires etc.
- Thread starter
- #167
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,119
- Sep 29, 2025
Ok here's my breakdown of the Japanese planes for all of 1942 through March 1943.
A6M Zero
This may be a controversial statement, but in March 1943 the Zero was still the King of the South Pacific. It was being challenged by the Allied fighters and bombers, but the IJN fighter units were also adapting. The peak of their lethality was in second through third quarter of 1942, but they were still more than holding their own. Japanese fighters were a serious threat to anything flying anywhere near any Allied base in New Guinea. The range of the Zero meant that it could show up unexpectedly, and if the Allies weren't prepared and running CAP at every single base, catastrophe could swiftly result. IIJN fighter units were taking steady losses in almost daily clashes around New Guinea, (and this was a problem) and were in fact bearing the brunt of the air combat in this Theater, but were not taking what you could call heavy losses, and if they were no longer wreaking the kind of havoc on Allied aircraft that they were in mid 1942, by March 1943 they were still giving as good as they got.
The A6M2 was showing some flaws by the end of 1942, but to the credit of the IJN, they brought in their considerably improved A6M3s in pretty large numbers in this area (at least two Ku) right about that time. They were also learning fast. In spring to summer of 1942 they were having problems with US heavy and medium bombers with their power operated turrets and multiple heavy machine guns. Almost as many Zeros were lost to Allied bombers as to fighters. But they were adjusting. By 1943, IJN fighters almost always attacked US B-17s and B-24s from the front. They had worked out methods to shoot down B-25s and B-26s as well if they had enough time and weren't being interfered with by Allied fighters. Between Jan 1942 and the end of March 1943, the IJN lost 130 A6M fighters, at a steady rate of around 7 or 8 per month. In Jan-March 1943, they lost 21 Zeros in air combat : 6 to P-38s, 5 to US bombers, 4 to "US Fighters", and 6 more to unspecified causes during air combat. During the same period, Zero pilots shot down 15-16 Alied aircraft: 4 x P-38s, 4 x B-24s, 5 x B-17s, 1 x B-25, 1-2 x P-40s.
A6M2 - The A6M2 was the original 1941 vintage, long-ranged, lethal Zero fighter. It had epic reach and endurance, superlative agility in both vertical and horizontal, good firepower and excellent handling. It (very, very famously) lacked armor or self sealing tanks, but one thing is abundantly clear from the operational histories, it was more toughly built than is typically credited. It did have some flaws though. The cannons only carried 60 rounds each. The big wings inhibited roll somewhat, especially at higher speeds. Controls locked up in a dive, and dive acceleration wasn't that great. It's altitude performance was limited and started falling off noticeably above about 18,000 ft. At 25,000 ft it was struggling somewhat. Still, even in 1943, the A6M2 had a bite, Allied fighter pilots in any aircraft who fought carelessly and made mistakes like following an A6M2 into a loop learned very harsh, and often the ultimate lesson.
A6M3 - The A6M3 is largely known in Western circles for having less range than the A6M2, which caused problems in the Solomons campaigns and Battle of Guadalcanal. This is true but it had some significant merits. The 20mm cannon now have 100 rounds per gun (some variants had more). There are a couple of sub-variants of the A6M3 but the early ones (model 32) have clipped wings which improved the roll rate, dive acceleration and strait line acceleration. High speed aileron control was improved in all subvariants. The engines were a big improvement. The A6M3 had 180 more horsepower, and a two speed supercharger which greatly improved performance at altitude. The introduction of significant numbers of A6M3 when the Allies were ramping up in numbers and improving their logistics and bases etc. helped the Japanese keep up in this pivotal period.
Ki-43 Oscar
It's hard to overstate how much the Japanese Army disliked the Japanese Navy. In late 1942 they were pressured into sending help for what was becoming a large land and air battle on the 'green hell' of New Guinea. The Army really didn't have time for this. They had their hands full with a vast war in China and Burma, right up to the border with England's key colony of India. In this Theater in 1942 and early 1943, their enemies were mostly inferior. With the exception of a few US fighter units, they were mostly up against neglected air forces flying Hurricane fighters and bombers like Blenheims. They were just starting to learn to deal with US heavy bombers like B-24s but through careful planning and training were doing well against those.
The JAAF arrived reluctantly in New Guinea and they did not bring their best units. The 1st and 11th Sentais were equipped with Ki-43-I variant of the Oscar. This has a 950 hp engine pushing a manually controlled variable pitch two-bladed propeller making a top speed of about 308 mph. It has a periscope style gunsight and either two 7.7mm machine guns or one 7.7mm and one (often faulty) 12.7mm, and it has no armor or self sealing fuel tanks. Dive speed is limited to ~330 mph. The much improved Ki-43-II has an 1,150 hp engine pushing a three bladed constant speed propeller, a 12mm armor plate behind the pilot, and some kind of self sealing fuel tanks, two (now reliable) 12.7mm machine guns, and the engine has a two speed supercharger, for a top speed of about 330 mph, dive speed is now up to about 400. And it still has the same phenomenal agility as the Ki-43-I, which is to say, even better than the Zero. This was a much more effective fighter. The 64th Sentai in Burma received Ki-43-II in Nov 1942. By the end of March 1943 the 1st and 11th Sentais in the New Guinea / New Britain area were still flying the obsolescent Ki-43-I. This was a really a 1941 vintage version of what would become a superb and much feared fighter.
The JAAF was having problems in New Guinea in early 1943. Not all these problems can be laid at the feet of the Ki-43-I. Like the Allied air units, they arrived with inadequate preparation in many respects. They had jungle in Burma but New Guinea was on another level. They were not used to the atrocious weather, the climate, or to facing large numbers of American fighters and medium and heavy bombers. In one incident Claringbould mentions four Oscar pilots suffering from painful symptoms which took them out of combat, which he (as a native of New Guinea himself) attributes to a type of venomous catarpillar getting into the cockpits when they had left the canopies open. The JAAF was forcing their way up a steep learning curve, and it seems like they were not being well briefed by the IJN, but were having to learn the same lessons the Navy had the hard way. Between Dec 1942 and the end of March 1943, the JAAF lost 29 Oscars. 25 of these were in 1943. Of that number 19 were lost in air combat: 4 to P-38s, 4 to US bombers, 9 to "US Fighters", and 2 to A-20s that caught them while taking off. In the same period they shot down 12-13 Allied aircraft: 2 x P-38s, 2 x B-24s, 1 x B-17, 1 x B-26, 1 x B-25, 1 x A-20, 1 x RAAF Boston III, 2 x C-47, and 1-2 P-40s.
G3M Nell
The Japanese navy had a force of land based bombers with extremely long range which carried torpedoes and could drop bombs on enemy airfields and ports. They were not really designed for attrition warfare or supporting armies in sustained ground campaigns. The G3M had a phenomenal range, and could carry torpedoes which the world learned at Singapore, were extremely lethal and could sink capital ships. They were also slow (top speed around 230 mph) and unprotected by armor or self sealing tanks, earlier versions were also poorly armed, so all in all very vulnerable to Allied fighters. Between May 1942 and March 1943 the IJN lost 7 Nell bombers, most of which were shot down by P-40s. By later in 1942 these were mainly being used at night or at dawn / dusk to minimize the likelihood of interception. 4 were shot down during the Milne Bay campaign by RAAF Kittyhawks. The G3M is still a viable ship killer in 1943, especially for commercial ships or isolated warships, but it is going to pay a price against modern AAA let alone fighters. It's in a similar niche as the British Wellington at this point.
G4M Betty
The G4M was the replacement for the G3M. It does not have quite the superlative range of the Nell but it does reach quite far, 1,700 miles strait line range with bombs. It's about 30 mph faster than the Nell (which isn't enough) and has a 20mm cannon in the tail (with limited ammunition). Still no armor or self sealing fuel tanks. All in all, it's designed for similar purposes and has similar strengths and weaknesses. From Jan 1942 through Mar 1943, the IJN lost 39 G4M bombers. Due to being very vulnerable to Allied fighters, by 1943 the G4M mostly being used for night time and dusk / dawn attacks. It doesn't carry a large bomb load but when it does attack it could be pretty accurate and wreak some havoc. It's real threat is to ships, and ships that aren't protected by a strong fighter force could face a sudden torpedo attack from these things and that is a recipe for sinking into the very deep waters of the Pacific Ocean.
Ki-48 Lilly
The Ki-48 is the small, fast bomber of the JAAF. A mainstay in Burma, this zippy little plane was pretty accurate (it could even do low-angle dive bombing) and being small and fast with a top speed of 300 mph, rather hard to hit. The original variant Ki-48-I had no armor but the Ki-48-II (some of which were arriving in New Britain in late 1942) did have armor and some kind of fuel tank protection. It's still not well armed and on their own, vulnerable to Allied fighters. But JAAF tactics were to send a handful of 6-7 Ki-48s surrounded by an armada of 40+ Ki-43 escorts. This worked pretty well, at least for the bombers. Better than the Bettys fared. In 1943 the JAAF lost 3 Lilys (to Kittyhawks) but in return they destroyed about a dozen Allied aircraft on the ground in airfields, in spite of carrying a small bomb load and usually dropping quite small bombs.
Ki-21 Sally
The Ki-21 was the older JAAF 'heavy' bomber. It's much larger than the Lilly and a bit more heavily armed, but about the same speed of 300 mph and better range. The Ki-21 was used with similar tactics as the Ki-48, a few bombers escorted by a lot of fighters. Like the Ki-48, they proved surprisingly accurate in some of their attacks. The JAAF lost just 2 Ki-21s by the end of this period, but they had just arrived.
H6K Mavis
The H6K was a very large flying boat with a superlative range. It was good as a recon scout and ASW aircraft over the deep blue waters, but it was very vulnerable when Allied fighters were nearby, or even bombers or other flying boats. The IJN lost 9 of these between Jan 1942 - late March 1943.
E13 Jake
This is a small seaplane which was good at spotting Allied ships and submarines, and in spite of only having a single defensive gun, was surprisingly aggressive against other seaplanes and flying boats, scout bombers etc. when they encountered them far out to sea. Needless to say these were doomed when caught by Allied fighters. 5 of these were lost in this period.
F1M Pete
This was a scrappy, surprisingly effective 'armed scout' biplane seaplane which was used in the separate eco-system of seaplane tenders anchored in isolated lagoons and bays, right along with the Jakes and the Rufes and other types. These could be a lot more dangerous than you might expect, in spite of being relatively slow and lightly armed (two lmgs in the nose, and one defensive). It couldn't stand up to full fledged Allied fighters but would not hesitate to attack bombers (even heavy bombers), scouts, seaplanes and flying boats and was fairly effective in that role. 5 of these were lost during the Battle of Coral Sea. There were some active in the southern coast of New Britain which were playing a role in driving off Allied recon planes.
A6M2-N Rufe
The next step up from the Pete was the Rufe, the floatplane version of the Zero built by Nakajima. At this point in the war these things were still dangerous and the Rufe could still hold their own against Allied fighters. 5 were lost in the second half of 1942. There were some of these based in southern New Britain.
Ki-15 / C5N Babs
This was a fast 1930s vintage recon plane (300 mph) with long range which was developed for the Army but adapted by the Navy too. These were good photo recon planes, quite effective and fairly hard to catch even in 1942. One was shot down by a Kitttyhawk.
Ki-46 Dinah
The Ki-46 was the twin-engined replacement of the Ki-15. It was a superb recon plane, and notoriously difficult to catch. The closest Allied equivalent was the F-4 and F-5 derivations of the P-38, but these F-4s and F-5s seemed to tend to get shot down a lot. Eventually the Ki-46 would become a solved problem but that moment hadn't arrived yet in this Theater.
A6M Zero
This may be a controversial statement, but in March 1943 the Zero was still the King of the South Pacific. It was being challenged by the Allied fighters and bombers, but the IJN fighter units were also adapting. The peak of their lethality was in second through third quarter of 1942, but they were still more than holding their own. Japanese fighters were a serious threat to anything flying anywhere near any Allied base in New Guinea. The range of the Zero meant that it could show up unexpectedly, and if the Allies weren't prepared and running CAP at every single base, catastrophe could swiftly result. IIJN fighter units were taking steady losses in almost daily clashes around New Guinea, (and this was a problem) and were in fact bearing the brunt of the air combat in this Theater, but were not taking what you could call heavy losses, and if they were no longer wreaking the kind of havoc on Allied aircraft that they were in mid 1942, by March 1943 they were still giving as good as they got.
The A6M2 was showing some flaws by the end of 1942, but to the credit of the IJN, they brought in their considerably improved A6M3s in pretty large numbers in this area (at least two Ku) right about that time. They were also learning fast. In spring to summer of 1942 they were having problems with US heavy and medium bombers with their power operated turrets and multiple heavy machine guns. Almost as many Zeros were lost to Allied bombers as to fighters. But they were adjusting. By 1943, IJN fighters almost always attacked US B-17s and B-24s from the front. They had worked out methods to shoot down B-25s and B-26s as well if they had enough time and weren't being interfered with by Allied fighters. Between Jan 1942 and the end of March 1943, the IJN lost 130 A6M fighters, at a steady rate of around 7 or 8 per month. In Jan-March 1943, they lost 21 Zeros in air combat : 6 to P-38s, 5 to US bombers, 4 to "US Fighters", and 6 more to unspecified causes during air combat. During the same period, Zero pilots shot down 15-16 Alied aircraft: 4 x P-38s, 4 x B-24s, 5 x B-17s, 1 x B-25, 1-2 x P-40s.
A6M2 - The A6M2 was the original 1941 vintage, long-ranged, lethal Zero fighter. It had epic reach and endurance, superlative agility in both vertical and horizontal, good firepower and excellent handling. It (very, very famously) lacked armor or self sealing tanks, but one thing is abundantly clear from the operational histories, it was more toughly built than is typically credited. It did have some flaws though. The cannons only carried 60 rounds each. The big wings inhibited roll somewhat, especially at higher speeds. Controls locked up in a dive, and dive acceleration wasn't that great. It's altitude performance was limited and started falling off noticeably above about 18,000 ft. At 25,000 ft it was struggling somewhat. Still, even in 1943, the A6M2 had a bite, Allied fighter pilots in any aircraft who fought carelessly and made mistakes like following an A6M2 into a loop learned very harsh, and often the ultimate lesson.
A6M3 - The A6M3 is largely known in Western circles for having less range than the A6M2, which caused problems in the Solomons campaigns and Battle of Guadalcanal. This is true but it had some significant merits. The 20mm cannon now have 100 rounds per gun (some variants had more). There are a couple of sub-variants of the A6M3 but the early ones (model 32) have clipped wings which improved the roll rate, dive acceleration and strait line acceleration. High speed aileron control was improved in all subvariants. The engines were a big improvement. The A6M3 had 180 more horsepower, and a two speed supercharger which greatly improved performance at altitude. The introduction of significant numbers of A6M3 when the Allies were ramping up in numbers and improving their logistics and bases etc. helped the Japanese keep up in this pivotal period.
Ki-43 Oscar
It's hard to overstate how much the Japanese Army disliked the Japanese Navy. In late 1942 they were pressured into sending help for what was becoming a large land and air battle on the 'green hell' of New Guinea. The Army really didn't have time for this. They had their hands full with a vast war in China and Burma, right up to the border with England's key colony of India. In this Theater in 1942 and early 1943, their enemies were mostly inferior. With the exception of a few US fighter units, they were mostly up against neglected air forces flying Hurricane fighters and bombers like Blenheims. They were just starting to learn to deal with US heavy bombers like B-24s but through careful planning and training were doing well against those.
The JAAF arrived reluctantly in New Guinea and they did not bring their best units. The 1st and 11th Sentais were equipped with Ki-43-I variant of the Oscar. This has a 950 hp engine pushing a manually controlled variable pitch two-bladed propeller making a top speed of about 308 mph. It has a periscope style gunsight and either two 7.7mm machine guns or one 7.7mm and one (often faulty) 12.7mm, and it has no armor or self sealing fuel tanks. Dive speed is limited to ~330 mph. The much improved Ki-43-II has an 1,150 hp engine pushing a three bladed constant speed propeller, a 12mm armor plate behind the pilot, and some kind of self sealing fuel tanks, two (now reliable) 12.7mm machine guns, and the engine has a two speed supercharger, for a top speed of about 330 mph, dive speed is now up to about 400. And it still has the same phenomenal agility as the Ki-43-I, which is to say, even better than the Zero. This was a much more effective fighter. The 64th Sentai in Burma received Ki-43-II in Nov 1942. By the end of March 1943 the 1st and 11th Sentais in the New Guinea / New Britain area were still flying the obsolescent Ki-43-I. This was a really a 1941 vintage version of what would become a superb and much feared fighter.
The JAAF was having problems in New Guinea in early 1943. Not all these problems can be laid at the feet of the Ki-43-I. Like the Allied air units, they arrived with inadequate preparation in many respects. They had jungle in Burma but New Guinea was on another level. They were not used to the atrocious weather, the climate, or to facing large numbers of American fighters and medium and heavy bombers. In one incident Claringbould mentions four Oscar pilots suffering from painful symptoms which took them out of combat, which he (as a native of New Guinea himself) attributes to a type of venomous catarpillar getting into the cockpits when they had left the canopies open. The JAAF was forcing their way up a steep learning curve, and it seems like they were not being well briefed by the IJN, but were having to learn the same lessons the Navy had the hard way. Between Dec 1942 and the end of March 1943, the JAAF lost 29 Oscars. 25 of these were in 1943. Of that number 19 were lost in air combat: 4 to P-38s, 4 to US bombers, 9 to "US Fighters", and 2 to A-20s that caught them while taking off. In the same period they shot down 12-13 Allied aircraft: 2 x P-38s, 2 x B-24s, 1 x B-17, 1 x B-26, 1 x B-25, 1 x A-20, 1 x RAAF Boston III, 2 x C-47, and 1-2 P-40s.
G3M Nell
The Japanese navy had a force of land based bombers with extremely long range which carried torpedoes and could drop bombs on enemy airfields and ports. They were not really designed for attrition warfare or supporting armies in sustained ground campaigns. The G3M had a phenomenal range, and could carry torpedoes which the world learned at Singapore, were extremely lethal and could sink capital ships. They were also slow (top speed around 230 mph) and unprotected by armor or self sealing tanks, earlier versions were also poorly armed, so all in all very vulnerable to Allied fighters. Between May 1942 and March 1943 the IJN lost 7 Nell bombers, most of which were shot down by P-40s. By later in 1942 these were mainly being used at night or at dawn / dusk to minimize the likelihood of interception. 4 were shot down during the Milne Bay campaign by RAAF Kittyhawks. The G3M is still a viable ship killer in 1943, especially for commercial ships or isolated warships, but it is going to pay a price against modern AAA let alone fighters. It's in a similar niche as the British Wellington at this point.
G4M Betty
The G4M was the replacement for the G3M. It does not have quite the superlative range of the Nell but it does reach quite far, 1,700 miles strait line range with bombs. It's about 30 mph faster than the Nell (which isn't enough) and has a 20mm cannon in the tail (with limited ammunition). Still no armor or self sealing fuel tanks. All in all, it's designed for similar purposes and has similar strengths and weaknesses. From Jan 1942 through Mar 1943, the IJN lost 39 G4M bombers. Due to being very vulnerable to Allied fighters, by 1943 the G4M mostly being used for night time and dusk / dawn attacks. It doesn't carry a large bomb load but when it does attack it could be pretty accurate and wreak some havoc. It's real threat is to ships, and ships that aren't protected by a strong fighter force could face a sudden torpedo attack from these things and that is a recipe for sinking into the very deep waters of the Pacific Ocean.
Ki-48 Lilly
The Ki-48 is the small, fast bomber of the JAAF. A mainstay in Burma, this zippy little plane was pretty accurate (it could even do low-angle dive bombing) and being small and fast with a top speed of 300 mph, rather hard to hit. The original variant Ki-48-I had no armor but the Ki-48-II (some of which were arriving in New Britain in late 1942) did have armor and some kind of fuel tank protection. It's still not well armed and on their own, vulnerable to Allied fighters. But JAAF tactics were to send a handful of 6-7 Ki-48s surrounded by an armada of 40+ Ki-43 escorts. This worked pretty well, at least for the bombers. Better than the Bettys fared. In 1943 the JAAF lost 3 Lilys (to Kittyhawks) but in return they destroyed about a dozen Allied aircraft on the ground in airfields, in spite of carrying a small bomb load and usually dropping quite small bombs.
Ki-21 Sally
The Ki-21 was the older JAAF 'heavy' bomber. It's much larger than the Lilly and a bit more heavily armed, but about the same speed of 300 mph and better range. The Ki-21 was used with similar tactics as the Ki-48, a few bombers escorted by a lot of fighters. Like the Ki-48, they proved surprisingly accurate in some of their attacks. The JAAF lost just 2 Ki-21s by the end of this period, but they had just arrived.
H6K Mavis
The H6K was a very large flying boat with a superlative range. It was good as a recon scout and ASW aircraft over the deep blue waters, but it was very vulnerable when Allied fighters were nearby, or even bombers or other flying boats. The IJN lost 9 of these between Jan 1942 - late March 1943.
E13 Jake
This is a small seaplane which was good at spotting Allied ships and submarines, and in spite of only having a single defensive gun, was surprisingly aggressive against other seaplanes and flying boats, scout bombers etc. when they encountered them far out to sea. Needless to say these were doomed when caught by Allied fighters. 5 of these were lost in this period.
F1M Pete
This was a scrappy, surprisingly effective 'armed scout' biplane seaplane which was used in the separate eco-system of seaplane tenders anchored in isolated lagoons and bays, right along with the Jakes and the Rufes and other types. These could be a lot more dangerous than you might expect, in spite of being relatively slow and lightly armed (two lmgs in the nose, and one defensive). It couldn't stand up to full fledged Allied fighters but would not hesitate to attack bombers (even heavy bombers), scouts, seaplanes and flying boats and was fairly effective in that role. 5 of these were lost during the Battle of Coral Sea. There were some active in the southern coast of New Britain which were playing a role in driving off Allied recon planes.
A6M2-N Rufe
The next step up from the Pete was the Rufe, the floatplane version of the Zero built by Nakajima. At this point in the war these things were still dangerous and the Rufe could still hold their own against Allied fighters. 5 were lost in the second half of 1942. There were some of these based in southern New Britain.
Ki-15 / C5N Babs
This was a fast 1930s vintage recon plane (300 mph) with long range which was developed for the Army but adapted by the Navy too. These were good photo recon planes, quite effective and fairly hard to catch even in 1942. One was shot down by a Kitttyhawk.
Ki-46 Dinah
The Ki-46 was the twin-engined replacement of the Ki-15. It was a superb recon plane, and notoriously difficult to catch. The closest Allied equivalent was the F-4 and F-5 derivations of the P-38, but these F-4s and F-5s seemed to tend to get shot down a lot. Eventually the Ki-46 would become a solved problem but that moment hadn't arrived yet in this Theater.
Last edited:
Blame the Army and NACA recommendations for that.
andrewgeorge
Airman
- 53
- Mar 20, 2024
I thought the Buffalo was a nimble little fighter with rather low wing loading—the engine performance was disastrous, not the airframe. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
- Thread starter
- #170
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,119
- Sep 29, 2025
I think it depended a lot on how heavy it was. The version the Finns had (B-239) lacked armor (though the Finns later added some) and self sealing tanks and had lighter guns (two .30 and two .50 caliber, vs four .50 caliber on the RAF and USMC versions). IIRC they were roughly 350 - 400kg lighter, with an engine with 100 - 150 less hp. Buffalos in Malaya etc. were outnumbered in addition to being outclassed, which may have explained part of the combat outcomes, but in Burma they seemed to just not do very well fighting side by side with the AVG. Same with the Marine Corps Buffalos at Midway compared to F4Fs.
I believe in the later days of the early campaigns in the Pacific some steps were taken to lighten the F2As though it was not enough to make a difference.
The Finns were also up against I-153s, I-16s, and LaGG-3s initially, which are (arguably) not as formidable as Ki-27s, Ki-43s, A5Ms, or A6Ms. Nor were the Soviet pilots as well trained.
Some Commonwealth pilots like Geoff Fisken scored some victories with he Buffalo 1 mind you. The Dutch did as well.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The export Buffalo for Finland had the R-1820-G5, rated at 950 hp. The USN's F2A3 had the R-1820-40, rated at 1,100 hp.
In regards to the wings, the F2A3 had a wingspan of 35ft. with an area of 209 sq/ft.
The P-39D had a wingspan of 34 ft. with an area of 213 sq/ft.
The A6M2 had a wingspan of 39 feet, 4 inches with an area of 241.5 sq/ft.
The KI-43-II had a wingspan of 35 feet, 7 inches with an area of 230 sq/ft.
The hot air in the SWP put the F2A (and it's Commonwealth types) at a disadvantage as well as the P-39. The hotter the air, the lower the density, which decreases lift. This is one reason why the 239, even with it's lower hp rating, performed so well in Finland. The same can be said for the P-39 on the Eastern Front.
- Thread starter
- #172
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,119
- Sep 29, 2025
The original Ki-43-I (the only type available through mid 1942 in China and Burma, mid 1943 in the South Pacific) had a 37.6' / 11.44m wingspan and a wing area of 22 sq m / 236.8 sq ft.
The Ki-43-II had the shorter (and also stronger) wings and a lot of other improvements.
Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
Finnish B-239s were initially armed with one .30 and one .50 in the nose, a .50 in each wing. They later e changed the .30 for another .50.
RAF Buffalo Mk Is and US F2A-3s were armed with four .50s.
Though efforts to lighten the aircraft and improve realiability resulted in a variety of gun mixes.
Some good stuff about Brewster F2As here.
Brewster Buffalo: differences from F2A to 339E https://share.google/ByMNdLWQnQQp3FhLW
RAF Buffalo Mk Is and US F2A-3s were armed with four .50s.
Though efforts to lighten the aircraft and improve realiability resulted in a variety of gun mixes.
Some good stuff about Brewster F2As here.
Brewster Buffalo: differences from F2A to 339E https://share.google/ByMNdLWQnQQp3FhLW
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Hey Greg, you're well versed with the B-26 - would you happen to know how the heat in the SWP affected the B-26's take-off versus ops in the ETO?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
These things were all over the place on weight. In part because of some rather dubious weight charts. Like how many 239s flew with just one .30 cal and one .50 and just 100US gal of fuel?
But a big part of the change was the change in engine/powerplant.
The engine in 239 didn't use a reduction gear and used a 9'0" prop.
All the later planes used engines with reduction gears and while the props were different (10'1"-10'3in" (USN, Belgium and Holland used Curtiss Electrics and the British used Hamiliton-Standard) so there was around a 300lb difference in power plant. This is rough given the different engines props and the USN F2A-3 used a different engine (Wright G200 series) from the Belgian, British and Dutch aircraft (Wright G100). The F2A-1 and 239s used a G5 series engine.
Not all armor setups were the same and provision of BP glass was ???
US F2A-3s really porked up so do not their weights to estimate the rest of the pacific Buffalos. The -3s added 3 self-sealing tanks totaling 80 ga capacity to try to eliminate one of the existing tanks (space between the main spars) and the fuel "system" went up by about 250lbs. Belgian, British and Dutch aircraft had varying amounts of fuel tank protection (none [?] to marginal?) added to the existing in the wingspar tanks.
Another thing is that some of the power increase was part illusion. The 239s had a 2 speed engine that was good for 800hp at 16,000ft.
The engines in the other foreign exports, while good for another 150hp for T-0 and low altitud (assuming they were running correctly) this power had pretty much disappeared higher up and the engines were rated at the same 800hp just a little bit higher, 17,100ft. Again, assuming the engines were running correctly, and they were running at the standard air pressure and temperature which they were not.
Engine in the Ki-43 should have been still good for a bit under 900hp at 16,000ft. Same for the A6M2. Buffaloes are gone by the time the two speed Japanese engines show up.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
All I had available at the moment, were specs for the -IIb, however, this also drives home the wing-area comparison.
andrewgeorge
Airman
- 53
- Mar 20, 2024
Wouldn't wing loading matter more than absolute wing area with respect to lift? I'm a little confused still.
Surely the Zeke and the Oscar had some of the lowest wing loadings of any front line fighters during the war, so I get the relative advantage there vs allied types of any sort.
A P-39D may have had a slightly larger wing, but it also weighed like 20 percent more than an F2A. I figure the wing loading on the Buffalo was considerably lower—lower than a P-40E even. And the P-40 was a perfectly effective fighter in the South Pacific—it certainly had a much better reputation than the Airacobra among allied pilots in New Guinea, didn't it?
The wing loading question in hot climates is certainly interesting and one I hadn't given much thought to!
- Thread starter
- #178
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,119
- Sep 29, 2025
No, not entirely. Most of the biplanes for example (like the Japanese were fighting in China and Manchuria, and the Finns in Russia) had lower wing loadings. As did the Hawk 75 (or roughly identical, apparently, to the Ki-43-I). The I-16 also had a very low wing-loading.
Anyway wing loading is just a function of wing area and weight so when we give you weight and wing area that is essentially your wing loading. Wing shape and engine power have something to do with turn rate as well but a lot of it is just that. The relevant exception here being the Ki-43 with it's additional maneuvering flaps giving it an extra boost in turn rate.
The P-40 was also little to a lot (10-50 mph) faster than the F2A (depending on which exact types you are comparing and at what altitude) and had one of the best roll-rates of any fighter in the world, up around 100-130 degrees per second depending on the specific test, the variant, and the speed (P-40s rolled best at higher speed). F2A had a roll rate around 70-80 degrees per second though that would vary a lot depending on weight in the wings (like guns, fuel), speed, and possibly some other factors. P-40 also had a much higher dive speed of 460-480 mph depending on subtype, vs about 360 mph for the F2A (again, depending on the type).
On the other hand, a Finnish weight F2A / B239 had a notably better climb rate than a P-40D or E (2,700 fpm initial climb for B 239 vs 2,100 - 2,500 for P-40D or E) though the earlier Tomahawk type is a bit better at 2,800-2900 fpm initial, and B239 had quite a bit better wing loading too (I have 24.1 lb / sq ft for the B-239 vs about 32-34 lb for the P-40D/ E and 28031 lb / sq" for P-40B)
I think the F2A as the USMC was using it was just past (as in a few hundred pounds) that weight tipping point that made the aircraft somewhat sluggish in agility, whereas the Finnish version was a bit below that threshold, making it extra agile and peppy, and the RAF version(s) were somewhere in between.
The same thing happened with many other early types including the P-39 and P-40. The Soviets took the wing guns and some armor out of their P-39s which helped with agility. They did the same with some P-40s in some units. The four gun F4F-3 was famously much more zippy and better climbing than the heavier six gun / folding wing F4F-4, and the FM2 (with a couple hundred extra horsepower) was considerably better than both, at least at lower altitudes.
I think this issue of how well aircraft performed depending on specific subvariants, equipment and loadouts (guns, armor, ammunition, other extra kit) was a lot more important than a many people tend to assume. As well as things like what fuel they had available and how well they were maintained. Many fighters particularly in the first two or three years of the war were right on the threshold between power and weight and what their wings could hold up (more power can compensate for this somewhat, eventually) so specific configurations could make a big difference between a struggling, overloaded dog and a lean, agile wolf.
yes that is an interesting issue. It hasn't really been proven but it seems plausible.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
As a pilot (GA/VFR), I had to learn and understand "Air Density" and actively flying in Southern California for the most part, it was extremely critical to know and understand it based on the conditions between coastal and high desert environments that exist in that area.
Here is a source that will help explain how air temperature and relative humidity can be a huge factor in flight behavior:
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/active-pilots/safety-and-technique/weather/density-altitude
Here is a source that will help explain how air temperature and relative humidity can be a huge factor in flight behavior:
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/active-pilots/safety-and-technique/weather/density-altitude
Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
Well, we are talking about two different aircraft. The B-26s deployed to the Pacific were early, short wing birds with the R-2800-5 engines.
The B-26Bs and Cs sent to the ETO had the longer wing and more powerful R-2800-43s. They also got heavier and slower.
The pilots that flew in the Pacific loved the B-26, preferred it to the B-25, but the brass was not satisfied with it. Long take-off requirements restricted its availability, and planes often flew light to shorten the take off run. 13th AF B-26Bs rarely carried more than 2000 lbs of bombs because max take off weight was restricted to 36,500 lbs.
Even the early, short wing B-26B was heavier than the B-26, which was a factor in the decision to equip the 19th BS with refurbished "straights" and convert the few B-26Bs in theater to fat cats.
I think the additional weight (extra guns, bigger scoops for tropical dust filters, etc.) added to the short wing B-26Bs sent to North Africa played a role in their poor performance in that theater.
The planes sent to the UK were mostly long wing models and had the luxury of longer runways. Mission lengths were shorter too, compared to the Pacific and MTO. So 4000 lb bomb loads were quite common vs European targets.
