This was the most successful fighter of WW2.
>>30598827
no?
>>30598841
I lol'd
>>30598884
forgot pic
It was even an excellent Carrier fighter.
I wish every documentary would stop sucking the dick of late war fighters.
>P40
>Africa, Asia, and Russia
>extreme heat, extreme cold, extreme resistance
>any climate, she fights
>wing shot off, engine overheating, prop bent to shit, she gets you home
>BTFO 109E's over Africa
>BTFO KI-43's over Burma
>a war record you can't dispute
>P51 shakes her slutty two stage supercharger
>P51 called best plane of the war just because it can escort bombers
>>30598969
Really? How many Carriers did it fight?
>>30598827
Hellcat
>>30598827
Well it wasn't that one. The first twenty . series didn't get into squadron until April 1945. And they only made 120
>>30599963
I fell in love with the P-40 when I discovered The Flying Tigers
>>30598827
wrong
All it needed was a little more punch and resealing fuel tanks. She would be just as Terrifying, just as Beautiful.
>>30598827
By what definition?
Bf-109 had the most kills and aces.
No. This was the most successful fighter of WW2.
>>30603390
They did make one, called the A6M5.
Hellcats still chewed them up and spat them back out.
>>30598827
>Hawker Hurricane accounts for 60% of kills alone during Battle of Britain
And that's only one thing that the Spit is outclassed in.
>>30599963
Plus the fact the P-40 is sexy as fuck
>>30603743
It really is. shes curvy, dependable, and rugged.
And she gets a bad rap because docu faggots only wanna talk about the P51.
>>30603390
shit power
only turned well at slower speeds
basically every JDM car from the 90s.
>>30598827
I won't argue it's success, I just don't enough about it. I will say that it's one of the prettiest airplanes ever built.
https://youtu.be/7BJhUDHS8WY
>>30604137
>tiger tank
Looks more like a horse and guncarriage.
>>30604152
It's a carriage loaded with a huge water tank. And it's pulled by a tiger. Hence, Tiger Tank.
>>30604166
Not seeing it.
>>30604152
>>30600504
This.
It's the perfect American plane. The Japanese had fast little sportsters that could turn on a dime, while the US just sends in a heavily armored warhorse with some heavy ass guns.
And wipes the floor with it.
>>30599963
>P51 shakes her slutty two stage supercharger
>P51 called best plane of the war just because it can escort bombers
Kek'd my fucking ass off. Early-war fighters represent.
>>30600806
That's a 16 you dolt
>>30598827
You must have accidentally clicked on the wrong picture.
>>30604152
>horse and guncarriage
Looks like a Tiger tank to me.
>>30604270
>heavy ass guns.
>a couple of little .50's
No.
>>30604488
great plane, fucking tore shit up with its 30 and 20 canons
>>30604488
What are those strings on the back are for?
>>30605009
radio antenna probably.
>>30605009
it's an antenna
>>30603530
Kek
>>30603390
They had plenty of punch throughout the war. All A6M models carried two 20mm cannons. Ammunition count increased from 60 rounds per gun in the A6M2s to 125 per gun in the A6M5s. Self sealing fuel tanks weren't introduced in the A6Ms until the M6 model (which was too late for the war), but M5 models did receive CO2 fire extinguishers in their wing fuel tanks.
>>30603584
By the time the A6M5 came out, Japan's tiny prewar pool of trained pilots was mostly dead. I'm not surprised US pilots with better training from combat experienced instructors, with better logistical base and better maintenance crews, wiped the floor with pilots that lacked all of the above. You'd see those same obscene kill/loss ratios if the sides had switched planes.
>>30604061
>shit power
Only if you tried to fly a Hellcat with the same powerplant. A6Ms were half the weight of their F6F counterparts, with half the HP of the F6F at normal combat altitudes. Power was not the problem.
>only turned well at slower speeds
Only the A6M2, and only because high speed caused major stiffening on the ailerons. Pulling back on the stick was not an issue at high speed. The A6M3 had vastly improved roll rate at higher speeds, meaning maneuverability at high speed was not impaired in comparison to the F6F.
>>30599963
Probably because Americans don't like to talk about early war and start mentioning how they weren't involved in the fighting.
>>30604488
>FW-190A got BTFO by stopgap Spitfire mark IX
>by the time the 190D was out it was practically obsolescent already
>>30605814
>They had plenty of punch throughout the war.
Except they had poor ballistics, good luck hitting with one even with an increased ammunition count
>Bergerud quotes Sakai Saburo, the second highest scoring Japanese ace to survive the war: Our 20mm cannons were big, heavy and slow firing. It was extremely hard to hit a moving target. Shooting down an enemy aircraft was like hitting a dragonfly with a rifle! It was never easy to score ... our opponents were tough
>By the time the A6M5 came out, Japan's tiny prewar pool of trained pilots was mostly dead
It did not matter. The A6M5 is just a slightly faster and improved A6M. It's still the fragile Zero that everyone knows about. If you're looking at a plane that can go toe-to-toe with Hellcats/Corsairs with pilot skills equal, it's the Shiden Kai, Ki-84s and Ki-100s.
>Only if you tried to fly a Hellcat with the same powerplant
Of course it's going to be underpowered. The reason why an engine who didn't even break the 1000hp barrier can still carry the Zero was the Zero's lightweight. Even Jiro Horikoshi believes that the greatest flaw of his design was the use of a low power engine.
>The A6M3 had vastly improved roll rate at higher speeds, meaning maneuverability at high speed was not impaired in comparison to the F6F
Not so vast. Clipping the wings only gives a marginal increase in roll rate. Even a Wildcat still has a better roll rate at faster speed. Slow speed maneuverability is where the Zero's strength is, no matter which version they are. That is why Allied pilots are taught not to tangle with a Zero at low speeds.
>>30605814
>Only the A6M2, and only because high speed caused major stiffening on the ailerons. Pulling back on the stick was not an issue at high speed. The A6M3 had vastly improved roll rate at higher speeds, meaning maneuverability at high speed was not impaired in comparison to the F6F.
Their roll rate was still fucking horrid shit, however - because their roll rate STARTED out quite poor. Improving the roll rate at high speed was still a big improvement for the pilots, though; better a deficiency compared to the enemy than a massive deficiency.
Something often forgotten is that the Wildcat (and by extension the Hellcat) were frighteningly good turnfighters. It's ironic that they went up against one of the few aircraft that turned better than they did, and so it's not readily remembered by history - but a Wildcat could damn near turn with a Zero, which is kind of insane when you think about it.
>>30606110
>Except they had poor ballistics, good luck hitting with one even with an increased ammunition count
You're totally right about that. On the other hand, remember that most pilots couldn't make deflection shots at all. Aces tended to fall into three categories: great flyers, great tacticians (like Ritchofen) and great shots. Yes, even if you weren't a shit-hot stick just being good at deflection shooting could make you an ace; you'd hit things others couldn't hope to. The brawlers and tacticians set up shots where they filled their windscreen and couldn't miss. And, at least the Type 99 cannon accepted shit ballistics in exchange for the lowest weight of any 20mm cannon of the war (only twice the weight of a Browning .50 cal) which was a big performance boost to their aircraft.
Still, it did make shots harder - an ace would be more sensitive to that, and considering how highly trained the Japanese naval aviator corps were on entering the war, the equipment in the early war was probably holding them back a bit. The 60-round drum was the real issue!
>>30606597
Yeah. According to one Japanese veteran, a novice pilot could only get a couple of burst from their 20mms. A veteran can get 4 up to 6 controlled bursts. Also, the Japanese acknowledged that Allied pilots were good shots, since the USN emphasized deflection shooting in their training
>>30606624
>acknowledged that Allied pilots were good shots, since the USN emphasized deflection shooting in their training
I'll bet they did. It was suited to their weapons as well; the Browning had excellent ballistics. The Browning .50 cal gets dumped on as an aircraft gun a lot because it was heavy as hell, but it was extremely reliable, which was very important when you only had four guns in a plane (a little less crucial with midwar fighters that upgraded to six, but still.) They had good density/weight of fire plus a good long reach with good ballistics. The Japanese were picking aircraft like it was still WWI and turn-rate was everything; point-blank shots tended to be the only ones you took. And to be fair it was typical loadout of the era; Germans, Italians, Russians and others adopted two wing-root cannons and two MMGs in the cowling as standard armaments. Worked better in fast energy fighters like the 109 in my opinion; especially cannons with poor ballistics. Try a La-5 or La-7 in a simulator sometime; the cannons have shit ammo duration and shit ballistics but the thing moves like a fucking rocket; by the time you're ready to fire you're already at point-blank range. The guns in that situation were optimized for delivering sufficient boom in a tiny time frame.
>>30606677
I read that on Osprey's Imperial Japanese Navy Aces 1937-45. Contains some interviews from those who survived too and has some good information from the other side. For example, they pretty much agreed that the Hellcat was a tougher adversary than the Corsair, that American pilots were good shots, etc.
>>30606776
>I read that on Osprey's Imperial Japanese Navy Aces 1937-45. Contains some interviews from those who survived too and has some good information from the other side. For example, they pretty much agreed that the Hellcat was a tougher adversary than the Corsair, that American pilots were good shots, etc.
Hot damn, I'll pick that up on Amazon then, thank you.
>>30604152
Between 55k and 70k civilians in France were killed by allied forces, mostly during air raids.
My grandpa got straffed by americans as a kid near Brest while he was going to shelter with other kids. Also told me American pilots were a lot more indiscriminate than the Brits, he had a similar encounter with a RAF plane, the pilot flew low and waved them off.
Shitty war any way you look at it.
>>30598827
some cunt put a hurricane engine in a spitfire
pilot does not know
instant crash
>>30601887
Too many delays, high cost, lower combat effectiveness than the hellcat in the end.
