Author Topic: Best Heavy Fighter  (Read 33749 times)

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15733
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #465 on: November 24, 2013, 11:28:07 PM »
Brooke,
Those Droop Snoots didn't fly alone you know,
& those were mass-type medium bomber missions..

Tempests  never flew them..

It is irrelevant as to whether or not the P-38 or Tempest were good fighters.  They could have been used as target towers -- it doesn't matter at all to the discussion at hand.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #466 on: November 24, 2013, 11:37:39 PM »
Ok, Brooke,

The Tempests,

- in the tactical role - were specifically tasked to shoot down German jets.

'Rat catching' it was called & they did it, successfully.

P-38 got zip, zero, nix, nada, nil... jets..

While the P-38 got the sorry medium bomber gig.

Guess that shows relative performance attributes huh..
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #467 on: November 24, 2013, 11:45:04 PM »
& '100 out of 10,000' ..

I don't think there were that many P-38s in the ETO.

But - did Droop Snoots operate anywhere else?
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #468 on: November 24, 2013, 11:49:58 PM »
No, P-38s were superior to LW twin engine types in A2A combat,

109s & 190s, not so much..

As a 109 and 190 pilot in the game, I have to say you're an absolute moron to assert as much. The 190 had problems maneuvering at altitude, and both were slower untill the high altitude As verisons came out, and the 190D was introduced.

The P-38 can hold its own against the 109K at high altitude as well, and is superior to all other 109's.

At mid altitude, it is my opinion that the P-38J/L are the equal or better of all but the 109K. At medium altitude, the P-38 is obviously the equal or better of any 190, save the Ta-152, and possibly the 190D.

At low altitude, the P-38 J/L is inferior to the K4, equal to the G-14, and slighty superior to the G-2 and G-6. It is the equal of the 190A-5, superior to the A-8 and F-8, and is inferior to the Ta-152 and 190D.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15733
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #469 on: November 24, 2013, 11:53:58 PM »
Ok, Brooke,

The Tempests,

JAW, I'm not arguing that the Tempest isn't great.  I *agree* with you on the Tempest being awesome and admirable.

I'm arguing that the P-38 was a decent fighter, a good long-range escort, and a great fighter bomber, not that it is better than a Tempest in all regimes (which isn't so).

By your own stats, it held its own against 109's and 190's (and so was at least as good as they were in fighting and thus a decent fighter), was one of the few aircraft that could do long-range escort (the Spit, Typhoon, Bf 109, and FW 190 couldn't do that, and the P-47 couldn't initially do that, so it was clearly good in that capacity compared to the other aircraft), and it was a sturdy plane that had a successful history of *a lot* of fighter bomber work in the ETO, MTO, North Africa, and PTO (so was a great fighter bomber).

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #470 on: November 24, 2013, 11:55:41 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 08:34:26 AM by Skuzzy »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15733
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #471 on: November 24, 2013, 11:59:29 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 08:35:06 AM by Skuzzy »

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #472 on: November 25, 2013, 12:00:59 AM »
Brooke, those stats are - by USAAF standards - pretty shocking,
compare them to how well the P-38 did in the PTO..

& on a cost analysis alone, it shows a significant win for the LW..

They could not do that against the top fighters,
& [from memory] the Spit XIV was running 'bout 7-1 ahead..
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #473 on: November 25, 2013, 12:01:39 AM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 08:37:23 AM by Skuzzy »
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #474 on: November 25, 2013, 12:04:55 AM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 08:35:34 AM by Skuzzy »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #475 on: November 25, 2013, 12:07:13 AM »
See Rules #2, #4
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 08:36:46 AM by Skuzzy »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #476 on: November 25, 2013, 12:39:36 AM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 08:37:33 AM by Skuzzy »
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #477 on: November 25, 2013, 01:47:43 AM »
Pretentious,  - Moi?

L.O.L.....
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline SirNuke

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #478 on: November 25, 2013, 02:18:42 AM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 08:37:41 AM by Skuzzy »

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #479 on: November 25, 2013, 03:14:34 AM »
P38 was good in its role as an escort fighter in ETO , and as an attack plane.

190 and 109 pilots knew they could always dive away from the p38s when at disadvantage, escaping the p38 meant they could not attack the buffs, in return making the 38 successful as an escort fighter.

Germans always preferred to fight the P38 at low altitude from 1943 onwards compared to other allied fighters.
Source jg26 war diaries.

JAW, I'm not arguing that the Tempest isn't great.  I *agree* with you on the Tempest being awesome and admirable.

I'm arguing that the P-38 was a decent fighter, a good long-range escort, and a great fighter bomber, not that it is better than a Tempest in all regimes (which isn't so).

By your own stats, it held its own against 109's and 190's (and so was at least as good as they were in fighting and thus a decent fighter), was one of the few aircraft that could do long-range escort (the Spit, Typhoon, Bf 109, and FW 190 couldn't do that, and the P-47 couldn't initially do that, so it was clearly good in that capacity compared to the other aircraft), and it was a sturdy plane that had a successful history of *a lot* of fighter bomber work in the ETO, MTO, North Africa, and PTO (so was a great fighter bomber).
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 03:57:27 AM by save »
My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera