P40 Vs. Bf-109 dogfight

[SRFriso94]

suck

[davidm1911]

what game is that

[hcpsspearsnb]

Contrary to belief the P-40 was a better plane then what people have actually said. The P-40 actually outperformed the P-51 in some cases. The Yak-3 was actually one of the best fighters of the war. Yak-9 was in production before the Yak-3 was believe it or not. BTW FW-190 A-5 were better then the spitfire MK V, the MK IX was the variant to replace it. Bet no ones heard of the LA-5FN or LA-7? hehe.

[eclipser2004]

The p-40 with a single stage supercharger was not able to compete head to head with a Bf-109 usually. The P-40 was not much good against them above 12,000 ft or so. The 109's were more powerful with a 2-stage intercooled supercharger and the FW-190A had that plus greater manouverability as well.

[OakIslandBandit]

Is this a Bf-109 Emil?

[vascoa]

Greatest game ever :)

[jsmaye]

Yawn - some kid playing a game...

[merrymusicman]

Mk. XII spitfire, rolls royce merlin supercharged enging max speed of 435 KMPH 4 Vickers .50's and two Hispano 20mm Cannons. lol nuff said lol could out run out gun and most importantly out turn anything in the sky



[ssmusic214]

@merrymusicman Not Me-262.

[lemonite1]

@merrymusicman The Spitfire Mk XII had a Rolls Royce Griffon engine. Also, 435 Km/h is VERY slow. Also, I can think of a few planes that can easily out turn a Spit.

[Hendrixwinter]

I think that Targetware might look better with that old film texture. And to all the people who are saying that the P-40 was terrible-"A fighter is only as good as it's pilot." The Polish Air Force in 1939 shot down more Germans than the Germans shot down Poles-that proves my point.

[1makermovie]

the p-40 is one of my favorite plane/fighter

[agumon12]

I think it was funny how England and the Soviets tried so hard not to use the american bought P40's, P39's, and P-51's too much and used their own Spitfires and Yakalov 9's instead.

[ahz123]

@agumon12 Early model P51s were weak. P40s vs Me109? No thanks. P-39? I'd rather have a P40. Spitfire and YAK-9 were good aircraft.

[killerkirbydude]

@ahz123

Hey, now. While the P-39 might not have been the best, its successor, the P-63 King Cobra, was used to GREAT effect by the Soviets.

[Blenderhead71]

Early in the war, the P-39 and P-40 compromised over half of the US fighter force. As an aside, the P-39, which could have been a world-class fighting machine, was castrated by the decision to delete a super-charger. Had this omission not been decided upon, it would have made easy marks of Messerschmitt fighers of the day. Such as it was, the P-40 and P-39 did see their share of aces (most of the Soviets) taking down their fair share of Bf.109s. generally speaking, though, this was an exception

[Blenderhead71]

Yes, yes, the Bf. 109 was superior to the Allison-engined P-40, which was primarily used as an army-cooperation aircraft (low altitude, ground attack role, which it excelled at). The first Merlin-28 engined aircraft appeared in 1941 (thanks to those folks we Yanks have a Special Relationship with, the British). This model (both the British modification and the later American-built ones with Packard-built licensed Merlin copies) did see combat (much of it in the Pacific theater).

[darkmossie633]

it never ceases to amaze me, how Germany lost the Battle of Britain, never managed

to invade Malta, with such superior air-power, as what you read from ME/BF109

fans, suggests that Spitfire and Hurricane were totally inferior

[BuddyFantastic]

@darkmossie633 Inferior to the 109? Yes...but as we all know, the Hurricane was a tough aircraft, due to it's primitive metal tubing and fabric structure. Plus, it could out-turn a 109. Germany lost the Battle of Britain, because they switched from bombing airfields to bombing major cities. Many stories differ as to why they changed tactics...the end result was just the same......a major blunder.

[rdx506]

@darkmossie633 By 1941, the Bf-109 was inferior to the Spitfire, but was cheap to build, so production continued until the war;s end.

[ahz123]

@rdx506 The Bf-109 (Me-109?) was a fine aircraft.

[ahz123]

@darkmossie633 It was a leadership fail, not a fighter fail

[Afterburner8004]

is this Warbirds?

[hexseeker]

p 40 was piece of junk. Most of ww2 planes using Merlin engine would overheat after few minutes of full gas. Bf109 and fw190 will remain kings of the skies. forever

[BarbarianKickass]

@hexseeker dude p40 had allisons btw as did early ponys and spitfires and tempests had merlins, and later ponys had merlins. allisons were not meant for high alt flight, thats why they suck.

[hexseeker]

@BarbarianKickass Thanks for info. Maybe I am just too negative towards these planes. Only p50 was something I really like. But Germans were so advanced and I can't stop looking both interior and exterior of FW 109. It is more confortable and better designed than plane I am flying now produced just 10 years ago.

[vetitoe362]

@hexseeker P-40s used in combat didnt have Merlin engine.

[warhawk40]

@vetitoe362 The P-40F and L models were powerd by Packard built Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650-1 engines that were used in the North African and Italian campaigns by US, British and Free French Air Forces.

[fidan2fast]

the P-40 might be a fascinating plane, but the Me/Bf 109 did what the allies needed 100 different types of planes to do, and was used on all fronts, while the allies had a different plane for every place on the earth

and the P-40 is one of the weakest american planes in WW2, they've had much better (P-51, F6F, P-47 and other)

[GrigoriZhukov]

what you simbots don't seem to understand is that from about 1939 to 42/43 few aircraft could turn with or out fly the P-40. When the P-40 sticks to the proven hit and run tactics and AM65 is unlikely to ever survive. It simple can't dive with it and the zero can't turn left in high speed dive. That and the zero is severly under gunned.

[hexseeker]

@GrigoriZhukov Zero was ultra light and could not match p40 due to P40s heavy guns. But p40 was really piece of junk. If flies full gas,after few minutes was overheating and needed longer time to cool down. Manuverbillity was terrible. Same as spitfire or Australian Seafire. heavy pice of shit. f6f and p51 were far better but came far later

[GrigoriZhukov]

@hexseeker uh, totally totally bogus and wrong. Now devlopmentally yes...the P40 had issues. It could and did manouver with a zero under iirc 15,000ft and could out dive it at will. Calling the spitfire and it's variant the seafire heavy poor handling airframes prooves you haven't a CLUE about which you speak...

[hexseeker]

@GrigoriZhukov I know very well what I am speaking about. Of course I am calling into comparation spitfire and its variants because they were using same technology. And the issue here was trying to prove that German planes (bf 109 or fw190) were far better then any American/English. Anyway, they were better even then your Russians. Pieces of junk

[GrigoriZhukov]

@hexseeker yeah right...fucking troll. Then why oh great one were the luftwaffen pilots ORDERED to not engage the Yak-3 in a dogfight? Hmm? Oh yeah because it was better. 8^) Let's not forget that under 14,000(i did some checking) the P40 would and did out turn and out handle the 109. Only thing the 109 had going for it was speed. It was an outdated design in 42' and by late 43' had been devoloped to the airframes limits. Nice try nazi lover...when you get a clue tell someone that gives shit.

[AugustusLarch]

@GrigoriZhukov

The 109 had a better power to wait ratio than all other makes at all altitudes. That was the big advantage. The 109 could go vertical longer before stalling. The 109 also is an excellent gunning platform. Longer range, no need to harmonize, and rock stable controls made the 109 tops for shooting well.

The 109 pilot here doesn't use any of the advantages of the machine.  The 109 proved deadly only in the hands of an expert.

[SaturnVII]

@hexseeker Weight has a limited factor in it. It's all about horsepower, the P40 was underpowered, it really just needed a better engine. It actually had more horsepower than a A6M but the fact that it was armored up like crazy and underpowered for the weight of the aircraft. It's why Me109s smoked these things in Africa.

[Raistlin222]

What I wonder is, if men on both sides of the coin were to come forward and play a game to relive the past like they fought it some 65 years ago could it, or would it be the same. Or would they argue just as much we do now. And if IT WAS THE SAME...who now would win. Equipment is only so good. But the will of man to me, is much better.

[JosephHallenbeck]

@Raistlin222 No It would be the same. In game You could met more enemies than in life. And If You die You could fly again so your overal skills goin' higher and higher. In real life You've got only one attempt. No save or load....

[JosephHallenbeck]

@JosephHallenbeck It wouldn't be same

[mickellemastra]

which game is that?

[macronaria]

the p-40 might not be as good as more advanced fighters like the p51 and p47, but it sure looks fucking awesome.

[warhawk40]

@macronaria The P-40 would have been a better fighter plane if it's Allison engine had a two stage two speed supercharger like the Rolls Royce Merlin had in the Spitfire and P-51 Mustang.

[Buemmo]

U ever noticed how bad all those american fighter are? They are at last averagely good planes, but seriously: I can kill 5 to 10 american planes online if im in a Zero or 109. The Ace AIs arent luckier. I can kill as much of them as players online

[Buemmo]

@Buemmo Maybe they are better in those cheap wanna-be flight sims like Blazing Angels but if you play something realistic like IL2 you will soon see how bad they are compared to english german russian or japanese fighters

[Renshen1957]

@Buemmo You might want to read Ace Robert Johnson (with Marticn Caidin) Thunderbolt. He did a simulated dogfight against a Spitfire with a pre-paddle blade P-47D and outmaneuvered the opposing Spit. There was a dogfight between Russian 2 Yak-9s and 2 P-38s during WW2. The Yaks intercepted the 38's when the Rusky Army didn't mark their lines and the P-38 went into ground attack mode. The Yaks got slaughtered. As to Russian P 39s; some aces preferring them. Pilot, tactics, altitude play a role

[Renshen1957]

@Buemmo Sims aren't real life. The overwhelming majority of RNZAF P-40 victories were scored against Japanese fighters, mostly Zeroes. RNZAF P-40 squadrons were successful in air combat against the Japanese between 1942 and 1944. Their pilots claimed 100 aerial victories in P-40s, whilst losing 20 aircraft in combat. 5 to 1 ratio isn't

[P51F86F4F15F22]

wat would everybody rather P-51H r Bf-109

[Xenoku]

@P51F86F4F15F22 Bf109 what? K4? I would take the K4 over any pony.

[P51F86F4F15F22]

but think of the speed of the mustang almost 500 miles per hour more munevuearable easier to handle

[Xenoku]

Its true that the pony was easier to handle, but the K4 was faster than the pony at very altitude, had a vastly superior rate of climb, a vastly superior rate of acceleration, and had a better turning radius and rate. But, it was definitely not easier to handle. This is why green pilots of the k4 were not much more than cannon fodder to the allied pilots. But just on stats it was a better plane than the pony.

[P51F86F4F15F22]

how fast was the K4 and the turning radius on the mustang was improved much greater thanks to its much ligher airframe stronger wings and slightly longer wings and the mustang can climb much better than any Me109 because it has a 2,000hp engine in H model and other models

[Xenoku]

Bf 109K-4 Statistics: Engine: Daimler Benz DB-605D with MW-50 boost. Power: 2,000 HP. Max. Speed: 727 km/h. (452 mph.) Max. Climb: 1,470 m/min (4,823 ft/min.) Empty Weight: 2,673 kg. (5,298 lbs.) Loaded Weight *Clean*: 3,148 kg. (6,940 lbs.) Max. Weight: 3,373 kg. (7,438 lbs.) Wing-Span: 9.97 m. (32.7 ft.) Wing-Area: 16.4 sq.m. (176.6 sq.ft.) Armament: 2x 13mm HMG's (MG 131) & 1x 30mm cannon (MK 10. Sustained Turn Radius: ~700 ft (no flaps)

[Xenoku]

The H model never saw combat, so while it was without a doubt a better plane than any 109, I would hesitate to compare it with WWII war birds as it did not actually participate in WWII. When I compare the pony to any other WWII plane I usually hold the P51D model as the top of the line WWII pony.

[P51F86F4F15F22]

yes it did in april the H model began flying over Europe and saw limited combat in Korea

[Xenoku]

Actually, the 51h did not see any action in any war at all. All of the ponys used in Korea were of the D model, and although they were handed out to squads in very late WWII, none saw combat there. You can read about its service record on wikipedia, mustangsmustangs and numerous other sites.

[P51F86F4F15F22]

it said that in a book i read a while back ill check it out thanks and do u think the thunderbolt should have serve in korea besides the mustang

[Xenoku]

Given the role that the mustang had in Korea, it should probably never have been sent there. The p47 was superior to the mustang in all respects when in the ground attack role. If p47s were used instead of mustangs it probably would have saved many American lives.

[P51F86F4F15F22]

agreed

[Buemmo]

@Xenoku Yeah and the MK108 cannon can blow a pony apart with one well placed shot

[christof139]

When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... if you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. That left you in control of the fight.

[christof139]

Contrary to conventional wisdom, with sufficient altitude the P-40 could actually turn with the A6M and other Japanese fighters, using a combination of nose-down vertical turn with a bank turn, a technique known as a low yo-yo. Robert DeHaven describes how this tactic was used in the USAF 49th Fighter group:

You could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. ...

[christof139]

1971Copperhead1968, Yeah, you're right the P-40F/L series had Packard-Merlin engines. Clive Caldwell, RAAF, said the plane had almost no vices except it was a little hard to control in terminal velocity. It was an excellent low altitude fighter.

[christof139]

Various model P-40s were indeed a match for Bf-109 E & F as proven in North Africa. Australian & New Zealand pilots also developed a method whereby the P-40 could out turn a Zero. Soviet pilots also had good success with the P-40 and liked it.

[HANS5726]

Could you please tell me more about that method of the New Zealand pilots to turn out Zero's. Would really be great help for when I fly IL2.

~S~

[christof139]

Yes, you can find it on the inet by Googling: 'New Zealand Aces', 'Australian Aces', P-40 in the New Zealand Air Force', 'P-40 in the Australian Air Force' etc. I believe but am not sure that the speed would be cut & the nose raised, not sure. I found this not long ago & the NZ or Aussie ace made a definitive positive statement concerning this, he also said you really had to know what you were doing. P-40 was much more agile than many people think.

[HANS5726]

Thanks.

[1971Copperhead1968]

P-40 was the most under-rated fighter of the war. It was a formidable fighter in the hands of a skilled pilot, especially when the Packard- Merlin engine was installed. The Allison engines were lacking a supercharger and the installation of the Packard-Merlin resolved this issue.

[RSprtn117]

@1971Copperhead1968 I completely agree, most people forget that the P-40 was produced from the begining of the war and had the highest number of fighters produced. It was a rugged aircraft that pilots could bet their life on.

[DTGTEX]

Sorry but this is silly. A 109 was 40 mph faster, has 1000 ft. higher ceiling and out climbs a P40 by 1245 ft. per minute. The P40 would be dead every time in a real dog fight with a BF 109.

[CADPATKrieger]

il2 is better

[soyhemorroide]

ya ni la amuelan la mierda del p-40 ni siquiera era capaz de enfrentarse al viejo emil, es mas no podia ni entablar combate a 500km/h, ( bueno ningun aparato de su epoca), por cierto en africa solo 90 bf-109f de la jg-27, dieron espectaculares palizas a la raf equipadad con esa porqueria del p-40, juntos a la basura de tela hurricani y los bastante faltos de maniobrabilidad en combate cerrado spitfire, completamente inutiles para combatir a muy baja velocidad y la velocidad normal de 500km/h

[frontmann7]

It's a totally new game in which flying is actually difficult...used to cfs2 easy take offs? forget'em: taking off and flying WWII and WWI planes was difficult and IS difficult in this game (Game?).Chuck Yeager would like it...what else can i say ?? Just one thing: i subscribe SpotterOz opinion, change the music. By jove Nirvana Have been grossly overestimated!!!

[HayateAce]

Can you folks not read? Video info says the game is "TargetWare."

[toonsis]

Nice vid & fight. there are audio clues I would rather hear then some high school drop outs top 40 hit

[shiner69er69]

this game is janes world war 2 fighters i have it its old but i like it alot

[patriot91101rip]

no its not That game did not have the P40 it had the P47

[sgs8]

let me guess,thats il-2 sturmovik forgotten battles ace

[engasal]

hell no, il2 out-coolnesses this. but this is alright

[tipsypo]

Yo Doug and Klug, and what do you mean needs different music thats fine, only way it could be better was if it was Mudhoney instead.

[SpotterOz]

needs differents music Not bad otherwise

[klugov]

coool!