Okay HT. Think of it this way.
Why don't you give the 109s and 190s the jettisonable rocket tubes?
No, it's not an Axis-Allied conspiracy thing. I'm bringing this up as an example because it's EXACTLY the same basic line of reasoning.
Hell, the rocket pods were jettisonable in real life, so why are the 109s and 190s denied that ability?
I don't remember the exact words, but IIRC the reason you gave us was that;
1) dumping rocket pods were emergency procedures
2) if anyone can just dump it at will, then there could be an exploit. The distinction between specialized jabo armament and normal armament becomes meaningless.
3) none of the 109s or 190s will suffer the disadvantages which it should, as everyone will just carry rockets, use it as jabo/A2A purpose, and then instantly revert to the clean condition by dumping pods
4) all in all, it's not represantative of reality
...
How's the use of half-empty fuel tanks with DTs any different with the rocket pods? Dumping DTs and dumping rocket pods were possible in real life and yet for some reason, a double standard is at work here.
Again, I'm not implying on a conspiracy, but rather an overlook which has existed for so long that many people just take it for granted instead of giving it any serious thought.
Jettisoning the rocket tubes was not a common practice, and unless the pilot was absolutely compelled, in most cases they would be recommended to carry it back to base.
Is it not also true for the fuel loading scheme? If a certain mission in certain planes were well inside the flight range with internal fuel, was it not a more common practice to load just as much fuel as needed, instead of needlessly strapping on a DT and wasting it for the sole purpose of aerial combat?
I've got no special love for the Las or Yaks but unfair is unfair.
Las and Yaks are forced to fly with heavy internal load, limiting their full potential in combat maneuvering - and even still they have a pitifully short range. As I recall your reasoning was for the pilots to use the fuel-conserving scheme as wisely as needed. So Okay, no beef with that fact.
But then why should some plane be exempt of the same conditions by using an uncommon method of loading fuel, which is hardly anything to be considered truly "represantitive" of reality?
DTs were to extend range when internal fuel was not enough for the purpose. In most cases, for example, a P-51 would be meeting a 109 with more than 60~70% internal fuel over the skies of Germany. But since it's the MA, they aren't pressed to fly long range escorts like in history, and they already have a free choice to choose as much internal fuel load as they want, unlike the shorter legged planes that don't have a choice at all.
So why should they receive another advantage just because they could carry DTs? What's so different with the DTs compared to the rocket pods on some planes?
I say if a P-51 or a P-38 or whatever plane wants to fly lighter and much suited for combat, then fine, they can fly that way freely, but under the same conditions - the need to conserve fuel/ the problem of burning fuel - as SAME as the other planes.
The DTs are an advantage and they should make a difference. But they should make a difference in total range that exceeds the internal fuel, not as a quickie-exploit for "carrying small fuel, at the same time avoiding all the problems of carrying small fuel".
