Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanker1985
Hi guys, I just survived a Jap air raid. They launched so many fighter and bombers at us. I had to bail after shot down 1 Zero and 2 Torpedo bombers.
I tried the energy tactics you guys told me, that Zero was bough down like that. However, during that charge, I didn't slow down my speed and did NOT bank hard, one of the Zero still manage to catch me after I shot down that one. Which I had no choice but to started heavy maneuver. I got away because 2 of friendly fighter came to save me, but I still got cornered by 3 Zero in the end and they shot my instruments and roll control all to hell. So I had to bail. Also since we are being raided, they had altitude advantage since the beginning, and they have been using this tactic on me. 
I just wonder, why DIDN"T they use P-40s?? P-40 had way better maneuverability and better speed as well. And F4F's gun fire like a shotgun. I went so close and aim at Zero for like 3 seconds straight and I could see only few shots hit it. If it was a P-40, I could have bought down 2 Bf-109 already (which has better armor than Zero). But I can't shot down Zero because this gun fires like a shotgun. The bullet trajectory spread so large.
When I was piloting MiG-3, I can notice there is a difference in maneuver and acceleration if I only give MiG-3 70% (or less) fuel. But I have only given my F4F 30% fuel and I can't feel any differences.
Anyway, but it is fun. I have uploaded that mission so everyone can have a try and enjoy the sea battle.
Also to everyone who have been helping me so far: Thanks guys and anymore suggestions?  |
Your question about why the Navy and Marines didn't use P-40s has a very simple answer: it was an ARMY plane (never mind that for the first 18 months of the war, there just weren't enough of them to go around). In addition, the P-40 lacked the higher altitude performance that the F4F had due to its supercharged engine; the Allison was a very good engine up to around 4000m or so, but it lost a lot of what we cowboys like to refer to as 'oomph' above those heights, where the Wildcat had the same marginal performance right up to about 9000m. The Zero at those altitudes still had better performance, but the gap was not nearly as great.
This was extremely important at Guadalcanal, where airborne sneak attacks by either side were hard to achieve, because both sides had observers stationed on the islands between the major Japanese bases around Rabaul and the American held islands to the south and east some 500 (about 800km) miles away. When warned of an incoming strike the Marine and Navy Wildcats would take an hour to get up to altitude (most fuel efficient climb, I suspect) to be ready for the Japanese raiders, and there were still occasions that the Japanese came in higher than the Americans.
In real life, the Wildcat was considered more maneuverable than the Warhawk, and a better gun platform because the pilot's view was not obstructed by the nose and the carburetor intake; this allowed for easier deflection shooting, and US naval aviators were heavily trained in high-deflection tactics. They would have
hated P-40s, never mind the better top speed.
cheers
horseback