Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Best fighter in WW2???

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Best fighter in WW2??? Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 6:00:29 AM   
Doggie


Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


I know this thread has already appeared over at Madcowsteakhouse. And I for one don't appreciate it. That comment will no doubt earn me a few snide comments casting aspersions on my parentage or sexuality. But WE don't have to be inflamatory or act like residents in the monkey cage flinging monkey poo at passers bye.


Actually, the monkey poo usually gets slung right here. That's what get these threads noticed at MCS. It usually involves a series of personal insults being slung at people like me who aint even said nothing here, like the above, or the usual gang of axis fan boy "experts" who think the only opinions that should be voiced here are their own.

And these guys are usually the ones who can't engage in a conversation about history or aviation technology without resorting to "name calling and foul comments ". Just because some European college boy thinks everything manufactured in the United States is inferior to Master Race technology does not make him an "expert" or the rest of us "racists" and "morons".

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 271
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 6:21:50 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


I know this thread has already appeared over at Madcowsteakhouse. And I for one don't appreciate it. That comment will no doubt earn me a few snide comments casting aspersions on my parentage or sexuality. But WE don't have to be inflamatory or act like residents in the monkey cage flinging monkey poo at passers bye.


Actually, the monkey poo usually gets slung right here. That's what get these threads noticed at MCS. It usually involves a series of personal insults being slung at people like me who aint even said nothing here, like the above, or the usual gang of axis fan boy "experts" who think the only opinions that should be voiced here are their own.

And these guys are usually the ones who can't engage in a conversation about history or aviation technology without resorting to "name calling and foul comments ". Just because some European college boy thinks everything manufactured in the United States is inferior to Master Race technology does not make him an "expert" or the rest of us "racists" and "morons".

Actually I noticed it the other way around. But I am impressed that someone from the steakhouse came over to comment openly here, in the open. I am not European (unless you count that my ancestors came from there about eight or nine generations back) , and while I did go to college , I did it part time while in the service (so by the time I finally graduated I was hardly a boy) , I have never thought the USA as inferior in anything. While you might think me a "moron”, that's your prerogative, I would take great personal offense at being called a racist. There, does that cover it? What I find offensive, is for those who take discussions "here" to your forum "there". To transport what is said without ones knowledge or ability to speak for one's self. As a matter of fact, I find it cowardly. Most of the people here will do their best to limit personal attacks and call upon others to do the same. Does the Steak house? Maybe I've been reading the wrong posts? I haven't seen much evidence, so perhaps you'd be good enough to direct me? Then maybe I can apologize and point out what a shinning example the Steakhouse is in decorum. Please, enlighten me. I greatly look forward to it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 272
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 6:32:42 AM   
UniformYankee


Posts: 84
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


I know this thread has already appeared over at Madcowsteakhouse. And I for one don't appreciate it. That comment will no doubt earn me a few snide comments casting aspersions on my parentage or sexuality. But WE don't have to be inflamatory or act like residents in the monkey cage flinging monkey poo at passers bye.


Actually, the monkey poo usually gets slung right here. That's what get these threads noticed at MCS. It usually involves a series of personal insults being slung at people like me who aint even said nothing here, like the above, or the usual gang of axis fan boy "experts" who think the only opinions that should be voiced here are their own.

And these guys are usually the ones who can't engage in a conversation about history or aviation technology without resorting to "name calling and foul comments ". Just because some European college boy thinks everything manufactured in the United States is inferior to Master Race technology does not make him an "expert" or the rest of us "racists" and "morons".


But the "monkey poo" wouldn't start here if not first incited by SH Morons.

No bunch is perfect - WITPers included - but we don't go chasing the morons - they come chasing us. Jealousy I guess.



(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 273
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 8:08:13 AM   
Doggie


Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


Actually I noticed it the other way around. But I am impressed that someone from the steakhouse came over to comment openly here, in the open.


Huh? You might have noticed that us "morons" have been here a lot longer than you.
Doggie
Posts: 2881
Joined: 9/19/2001

mdiehl
Posts: 4786
Joined: 10/21/2000

AW1Steve
Posts: 928
Joined: 3/10/2007



So who are you to tell us to stay off "your" turf?

And we've been coming here to comment "in the open" quite a bit longer than you have.

quote:

I have never thought the USA as inferior in anything.


Your pal "Panzerjaeger" does. Here's a whole thread about your buddy and others telling us how much the U.S.A. sucks


quote:

While you might think me a "moron”, that's your prerogative, I would take great personal offense at being called a racist.


If you think the Japanese were the bad guys in World War II, then you're a racist, according to some of your "intellectual" friends from Sweden. In fact, you and everyone else in the United States are "morons," "liars" illiterates, and can't find your own country on a map, according to certain "enlightened" Europeans, in addition to being genocidal war mongerers and baby murdering fascists.

I take it you don't have any problems with such characterizations? Some of us take offense.


quote:

What I find offensive, is for those who take discussions "here" to your forum "there". To transport what is said without ones knowledge or ability to speak for one's self. As a matter of fact, I find it cowardly.


Who doesn't have the "ability to speak for one's self"? Nobody is stopping Hortland or anyone else from saying what ever he wants at the MCS. As a matter of fact, the MCS was created with the blessings of Matrix as a replacement for the now defunct AoW forum. You may have noticed repeated requests from the admin here to take your non gaming related political problems there, as we don't care if you're offended because everyone else don't agree with your agenda.


quote:

Most of the people here will do their best to limit personal attacks and call upon others to do the same.


Yeah, right. That's why my attention was called to remarks like:

"act like residents in the monkey cage flinging monkey poo at passers bye."

Perhaps you can provide me with a link to where I or some of the other several hundred residents of our "monkey cage" provoked you to make such a remark?


quote:

Does the Steak house? Maybe I've been reading the wrong posts? I haven't seen much evidence, so perhaps you'd be good enough to direct me? Then maybe I can apologize and point out what a shinning example the Steakhouse is in decorum. Please, enlighten me. I greatly look forward to it.


It appears you've been reading some of Hortland's posts at MCS He and everyone else is pretty much free to say anything he wants. We call that the "American Way".

As for "decorum," we have several different sub forums. Slinging monkey poo or anything else is strictly prohibited in the sections devoted to sports, movies, and gaming. There is an absolute zero tolerance policy for horse's asses hijacking gaming threads with their political agenda in our gaming sub forum, for example. Personally enforced by yours truly. As opposed to this particular Matrix sub forum, for example, where the "War in the Pacific" board seems to be a gathering place for annoying trolls.

quote:

But the "monkey poo" wouldn't start here if not first incited by SH Morons.

No bunch is perfect - WITPers included - but we don't go chasing the morons - they come chasing us. Jealousy I guess



UniformYankee
Posts: 75
Joined: 7/7/2007


So "we" came chasing you, noob?

And it "incites" you when Americans object to "enlightened" remarks about how much we suck? Too bad.


< Message edited by Doggie -- 12/5/2007 8:09:20 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 274
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 8:21:09 AM   
UniformYankee


Posts: 84
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie



Huh? You might have noticed that us "morons" have been here a lot longer than you.



No ... we don't think so ...


We belong here ... you do not ...


We have played Uncommon Valor for years .. then we have played WITP for years ... have you?

While we have played these games for years .. we have posted in these Matrix forums.

You (all) might have also posted in these forums .. but you have not played the games .. hence you are not really FROM HERE.

We are.

You can attack us. But you are not from here. You are from there. You attack from afar. We defend from here.

We have been here longer than you. And we are from here. You are from elsewhere.



(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 275
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 8:24:23 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
Would someone please explain to me just what all the preceeding "he said..., she said.., yo mamma wears army boots" nonsense has to do with "The Best Fighter of WW II" (Which is the subject of this thread).  Let's tone it down and get back to the subject at hand before some moderator shuts the thread and tosses everybody off the forum.

(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 276
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 8:37:45 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline
Do not get how this thread has become an argue so far... Please cut the tones down and go somewhere else to fight each other

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 277
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 8:47:40 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Doggie wrote:

"If you think the Japanese were the bad guys in World War II, then you're a racist, according to some of your "intellectual" friends from Sweden. In fact, you and everyone else in the United States are "morons," "liars" illiterates, and can't find your own country on a map, according to certain "enlightened" Europeans, in addition to being genocidal war mongerers and baby murdering fascists.

I take it you don't have any problems with such characterizations? Some of us take offense."


I would too, if I had seen it here in the WITP forums. But I have never seen any such comments on this forum. So why would you characterize the WITP forum in such a manner? Especially in light of the comments made in the Saloon about members of this forum...

C'mon, Doggie, this thread had been pretty cordial throughout, with people even agreeing with MDiehl. Why do these threads always have to end up in mudslinging?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 278
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 9:26:42 AM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
I'm surprised this lasted until pages 9-10 until it went off topic and into the realm of name-calling....

Can we keep the discussion from the General Forum about The Evil Japanese vs The Evil Americans in the General Forum? And maybe we could even keep this one civilisied? Or am I asking too much?


< Message edited by Dixie -- 12/5/2007 9:29:33 AM >


_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 279
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 12:08:44 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Yes, you are...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 280
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 12:51:25 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I'm surprised this lasted until pages 9-10 until it went off topic and into the realm of name-calling....

Can we keep the discussion from the General Forum about The Evil Japanese vs The Evil Americans in the General Forum? And maybe we could even keep this one civilisied? Or am I asking too much?


Unfortunately , that's what started the whole thing when I asked for just that. Some people feel that the phrase "monkey poo" is more offensive than vulgar language that would make a old time drill sergeant blush.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 281
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 1:02:22 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
No, the whole thing started when Hawker made this thread. Everyone except him knew that it would turn out like this.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 282
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 1:49:19 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
So...about that best fighter.

I think most of us in here are comparing apples and oranges. Some are comparing kill/loss ratio, some are comparing general usefulness of the fighter, some are comparing impact on a theater of war, some are comparing relative numbers etc.

First we need to agree on the criteria for what constitutes the "best fighter". Is it
a) kill/loss-ratio?
b) hardware specs (here we also need to decide what is better, a BnZ-fighter or a TnB-fighter)?
c) impact on a period of time/theater of war?
d) the fighter you would chose to sit in if you had go to war, all other things being equal?
e) general industrial output of a nation combined with supply efficiency in that nation?

The problem with a) is that it depends too much on the opposition. Here we might arrive at the somewhat odd conclusion that the best fighter of the war as the Finnish Buffalo, or the Japanese Ki-27...simply because they fought against crap.

The problem with b) is that we need to agree on what fighter type is better. Thats a mighty tall order. We will also have to decide which fighter is best on a year to year (or perhaps, generation to generation) basis.

The problem with c) is that it depends heavily on the opposition and a myriad of other factors.

The problem with e) is that we are not comparing fighters anymore.


So...I think we should use criteria d).

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 283
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 2:19:31 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
Doggie , unless I’m mistaken, you seem to be most offended by my use of the phrase “flinging their poo”. Part of the problem is that I’m not going to use the sort of “color-full” language that Steakhouse posters tend to use. I think you will acknowledge that at the “Steakhouse” anything goes. I’m a little more restrained here , both by my own preferences and by custom and usage , here at the Matrix forums. Some of the folks at Steakhouse seem to delight in swearing at each other in the most color-full and entertaining ways. To me, it resembled the monkey cage at the zoo. If I offended you personally, I apologies.

I would not presume to tell you to “stay off our turf”. It is not “your Turf” or “my turf”. It belongs to Matrix. What I do ask is that you not “drag us over to your turf” , by bringing copies of this forum over there with out notifying other posters that you have done so , and therefore denying them the right to speak up for themselves. That’s not marking turf , that's kidnapping (Threadnapping?). If the Mad cow subscribers (of which I am not, as I’m sure you know) have a problem with something said here , then here it should be addressed here. In the reverse, we should not discuss a Mad cow post here , as the Mad cow subscribers (excepting people like yourself who subscribe to both) would have no way of knowing what was said about them behind their back. Surely common decency would demand that? Fair play is what I’m calling for . That’s what I call “the American Way”. In other words, if you have issue with something I said here , face me here , confront me here , and lets have it out here. Only a coward drags a copy of the post here then drags it back to where he and his friends can dismember it and salivate over a mis-statement here or a not necessarily precise figure there. I applaud you for doing it the right way and condemn those who don’t.

{Perhaps xxx and xxxxx should tell you what it's like to engage in homosexual orgies in a Swedish Army barracks?}

This post, which was added to a sig line, I find disgusting, impossible to defend and simply reprehensible. The fact that you permit this to be posted is why I do not subscribe to Mad cow. While you can justify it as “freedom of speech” , and you are correct , we also have “freedom from speech”, Which means I shouldn’t have to go scrolling through posts like that to see if someone has “lifted” my quotes or posts . Sorry, maybe I’m just too sensitive, but phrases like that make me want to take a shower and sanitize my keyboard.

That, in a nutshell, is my complaint. There is no need to “wave the bloody shirt “of who is a racists, who is and is not a “good American”, or who was here first, has this thought or that thought. Frankly I don’t care. But if you insult me PERSONALLY, or steal from me, then I invite you and anyone else who thinks this behavior is acceptable to “step out into the alley” with me and discuss this issue. It doesn’t belong here.






AW1Steve@yahoo.com

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 12/6/2007 4:35:08 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 284
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 4:01:41 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

So...about that best fighter.

I think most of us in here are comparing apples and oranges. Some are comparing kill/loss ratio, some are comparing general usefulness of the fighter, some are comparing impact on a theater of war, some are comparing relative numbers etc.

First we need to agree on the criteria for what constitutes the "best fighter". Is it
a) kill/loss-ratio?
b) hardware specs (here we also need to decide what is better, a BnZ-fighter or a TnB-fighter)?
c) impact on a period of time/theater of war?
d) the fighter you would chose to sit in if you had go to war, all other things being equal?
e) general industrial output of a nation combined with supply efficiency in that nation?

The problem with a) is that it depends too much on the opposition. Here we might arrive at the somewhat odd conclusion that the best fighter of the war as the Finnish Buffalo, or the Japanese Ki-27...simply because they fought against crap.

The problem with b) is that we need to agree on what fighter type is better. Thats a mighty tall order. We will also have to decide which fighter is best on a year to year (or perhaps, generation to generation) basis.

The problem with c) is that it depends heavily on the opposition and a myriad of other factors.

The problem with e) is that we are not comparing fighters anymore.


So...I think we should use criteria d).



Thank you for returning to the topic. And for all the reasons above, I still maintain that it's the Bf109. Not because it's the absolute "best" at this or that..., but because it was a quite formidible opponant for longer than any other contestent. From the Spanish Civil War to VE day, a well-piloted Bf-109 in a current varient was a challange for anything else in the sky..., with only the Spitfire as a close second.

My personal favorite is the P-47..., but if I had to fly the same plane from Madrid to the ruins of Berlin I'd be in quite a pickle during the early part of the War.

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 285
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 4:25:49 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

So...about that best fighter.

I think most of us in here are comparing apples and oranges. Some are comparing kill/loss ratio, some are comparing general usefulness of the fighter, some are comparing impact on a theater of war, some are comparing relative numbers etc.

First we need to agree on the criteria for what constitutes the "best fighter". Is it
a) kill/loss-ratio?
b) hardware specs (here we also need to decide what is better, a BnZ-fighter or a TnB-fighter)?
c) impact on a period of time/theater of war?
d) the fighter you would chose to sit in if you had go to war, all other things being equal?
e) general industrial output of a nation combined with supply efficiency in that nation?

The problem with a) is that it depends too much on the opposition. Here we might arrive at the somewhat odd conclusion that the best fighter of the war as the Finnish Buffalo, or the Japanese Ki-27...simply because they fought against crap.

The problem with b) is that we need to agree on what fighter type is better. Thats a mighty tall order. We will also have to decide which fighter is best on a year to year (or perhaps, generation to generation) basis.

The problem with c) is that it depends heavily on the opposition and a myriad of other factors.

The problem with e) is that we are not comparing fighters anymore.


So...I think we should use criteria d).



Thank you for returning to the topic. And for all the reasons above, I still maintain that it's the Bf109. Not because it's the absolute "best" at this or that..., but because it was a quite formidible opponant for longer than any other contestent. From the Spanish Civil War to VE day, a well-piloted Bf-109 in a current varient was a challange for anything else in the sky..., with only the Spitfire as a close second.

My personal favorite is the P-47..., but if I had to fly the same plane from Madrid to the ruins of Berlin I'd be in quite a pickle during the early part of the War.


Thank you both for returning to topic. Might I suggest that all of us remember that there is no "right answer". What is the best fighter in ww2 (in your opion and why might be a better way to fram the question--which I'm guessing was what was the intention of the questioner....How about it Hawker , was that what you meant?

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 286
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 5:01:39 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
He's hiding somewhere well away from this monster he's created...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 287
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 5:10:34 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

He's hiding somewhere well away from this monster he's created...

Poor guy. Come on out Hawker! It's safe. We don't blame you (much).

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 288
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 5:44:43 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I'm surprised this lasted until pages 9-10 until it went off topic and into the realm of name-calling....

Can we keep the discussion from the General Forum about The Evil Japanese vs The Evil Americans in the General Forum? And maybe we could even keep this one civilisied? Or am I asking too much?


I think we were definitely off topic by the time we got to sliced bread...name calling was inevitable when certain folks show up to post. Was a fun thread for a while.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 289
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 5:52:42 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I'm surprised this lasted until pages 9-10 until it went off topic and into the realm of name-calling....

Can we keep the discussion from the General Forum about The Evil Japanese vs The Evil Americans in the General Forum? And maybe we could even keep this one civilisied? Or am I asking too much?


I think we were definitely off topic by the time we got to sliced bread...name calling was inevitable when certain folks show up to post. Was a fun thread for a while.

As one of the alledged name callers , I'd like to see it return to fun. I'm game if everyone else is ? All in favor?

_____________________________


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 290
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 5:53:13 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

So...about that best fighter.

I think most of us in here are comparing apples and oranges. Some are comparing kill/loss ratio, some are comparing general usefulness of the fighter, some are comparing impact on a theater of war, some are comparing relative numbers etc.

First we need to agree on the criteria for what constitutes the "best fighter". Is it
a) kill/loss-ratio?
b) hardware specs (here we also need to decide what is better, a BnZ-fighter or a TnB-fighter)?
c) impact on a period of time/theater of war?
d) the fighter you would chose to sit in if you had go to war, all other things being equal?
e) general industrial output of a nation combined with supply efficiency in that nation?

The problem with a) is that it depends too much on the opposition. Here we might arrive at the somewhat odd conclusion that the best fighter of the war as the Finnish Buffalo, or the Japanese Ki-27...simply because they fought against crap.

The problem with b) is that we need to agree on what fighter type is better. Thats a mighty tall order. We will also have to decide which fighter is best on a year to year (or perhaps, generation to generation) basis.

The problem with c) is that it depends heavily on the opposition and a myriad of other factors.

The problem with e) is that we are not comparing fighters anymore.


So...I think we should use criteria d).

Well thought out post. I agree in general and that (d) is the criteria I stated earlier in the Thread I would use. However, I also think the role the fighter was used in needs to be taken into consideration. IMO the first role of a "true fighter plane" is air superiority. This primarily means killing other fighters and anything else that dares enter "your airspace". I think this should leave out planes used primarily as interceptors and planes used primarily as fighter bombers.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 291
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 5:58:38 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
If you are using criteria D - we also need to specify where you are going to be flying... is it over Europe? On a mission over the Pacific?

If the latter, i think i'd go for the P-38L - nothing like an extra engine to get you back if one fails for some reason.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 292
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 6:04:25 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
 Not to add to the confusion , but p-47s , p-39's,and p-38's wer examples of planes used in rolls that they were not designed. P-38s were originally long ranged interceptors (as was the p-39). The p-47 was an air superiority fighter that bacame used as ground support when there wasn't much to shoot down. Any ideas on how to break this down?

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 293
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 6:58:30 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Not to add to the confusion , but p-47s , p-39's,and p-38's wer examples of planes used in rolls that they were not designed. P-38s were originally long ranged interceptors (as was the p-39). The p-47 was an air superiority fighter that bacame used as ground support when there wasn't much to shoot down. Any ideas on how to break this down?

With a great deal of care. I think you have to look at how the plane was actually used, not its intended design, but you also have to take into account what was going on in the war. Just because the late model P-47s spent increasing amounts of time in ground support missions doesn't mean they weren't effective in air superiority. Otherwise we'd have to look at late war German AC purely as interceptors.

The P-39 was probably a much better air superiority AC than it was interceptor. I have read accounts of bomber pilots from Rabaul and Lae laughing at the futility of the P-39s trying to scramble from PM to climb and intercept. I'm not sure that in those cases, the 39s ever made a successful intercept.

The P-38 was a great air superiority fighter for the Pacifc. Even after planes like the P-47 started coming online, which had better performance characteristics, a lot of Pacific army pilots didn't want to give up their 38s because with that much water around they liked the extra range and additional engine.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 294
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 7:06:18 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Not to add to the confusion , but p-47s , p-39's,and p-38's wer examples of planes used in rolls that they were not designed. P-38s were originally long ranged interceptors (as was the p-39). The p-47 was an air superiority fighter that bacame used as ground support when there wasn't much to shoot down. Any ideas on how to break this down?

With a great deal of care. I think you have to look at how the plane was actually used, not its intended design, but you also have to take into account what was going on in the war. Just because the late model P-47s spent increasing amounts of time in ground support missions doesn't mean they weren't effective in air superiority. Otherwise we'd have to look at late war German AC purely as interceptors.

The P-39 was probably a much better air superiority AC than it was interceptor. I have read accounts of bomber pilots from Rabaul and Lae laughing at the futility of the P-39s trying to scramble from PM to climb and intercept. I'm not sure that in those cases, the 39s ever made a successful intercept.

The P-38 was a great air superiority fighter for the Pacifc. Even after planes like the P-47 started coming online, which had better performance characteristics, a lot of Pacific army pilots didn't want to give up their 38s because with that much water around they liked the extra range and additional engine.


Not sure about the performance characteristics - if you believe half of what is written, the P-38 turning stats were as good as (if not better than) any other US fighter - but, the plane was more expensive to build which is why they used P-51s and P-47s. Until the latter models, P-38s also sufferered from compressability issues (others did as well, but it was much more prevalent in the '38s.)


EDIT - in the ETO, the P-38s also had a lot of engine problems, apparently due to fuel problems (it is thought).

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 12/5/2007 7:08:43 PM >

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 295
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 7:08:13 PM   
SLAAKMAN


Posts: 2725
Joined: 7/24/2002
Status: offline
Er....actually I must assume some of the responsibility for the feuding between MC and this thread. My sense of humor gets "misinterpreted" by too many and then all of a sudden a feud erupts. I only wanted everyone to enjoy the photos. My humble apologies to all.

_____________________________

Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 296
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 7:15:16 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Er....actually I must assume some of the responsibility for the feuding between MC and this thread. My sense of humor gets "misinterpreted" by too many and then all of a sudden a feud erupts. I only wanted everyone to enjoy the photos. My humble apologies to all.

I certainly did! You sir , are guilty of levity in the 1st degree! Please keep it up!

_____________________________


(in reply to SLAAKMAN)
Post #: 297
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 8:26:57 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Not sure about the performance characteristics - if you believe half of what is written, the P-38 turning stats were as good as (if not better than) any other US fighter - but, the plane was more expensive to build which is why they used P-51s and P-47s. Until the latter models, P-38s also sufferered from compressability issues (others did as well, but it was much more prevalent in the '38s.)


EDIT - in the ETO, the P-38s also had a lot of engine problems, apparently due to fuel problems (it is thought).

Well, I could be remembering my readings incorrectly. I seem to recall reading that Kenney with the 5th Air Force was working hard to get the P-40s replaced (at least not have to rely on them for air superiority). He was trying to get more P-38s but couldn't as at the time a fair number were going to Europe. That's when he heard about the P-47 becoming available. He wasn't thrilled with the AC because the short range didn't seem adequate for the missions they were flying. However he took a squadron of P-47Cs (I think the were Cs, could have been Ds). The first mission was such a smashing success that Kenney pursued getting as many of the AC as he could. I seem to recall that the P-47s were so much faster and had such firepower that the engagement was more of a massacre than a "dogfight". I think the idea is that the speed and power of the Jug allowed the Allies to push even further the notion of don't get into turning fights with Japan, use speed, firepower and armor.

The next obstacle he faced was getting his pilots to switch. A lot of the pilots wanted to hang onto their P-40s until 38s were available.

I thought I had read that the P-38 had cold weather problems. Maybe icing up? Which certainly made it better suited to the South Pacific.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 298
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 8:38:04 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Not sure about the performance characteristics - if you believe half of what is written, the P-38 turning stats were as good as (if not better than) any other US fighter - but, the plane was more expensive to build which is why they used P-51s and P-47s. Until the latter models, P-38s also sufferered from compressability issues (others did as well, but it was much more prevalent in the '38s.)


EDIT - in the ETO, the P-38s also had a lot of engine problems, apparently due to fuel problems (it is thought).

Well, I could be remembering my readings incorrectly. I seem to recall reading that Kenney with the 5th Air Force was working hard to get the P-40s replaced (at least not have to rely on them for air superiority). He was trying to get more P-38s but couldn't as at the time a fair number were going to Europe. That's when he heard about the P-47 becoming available. He wasn't thrilled with the AC because the short range didn't seem adequate for the missions they were flying. However he took a squadron of P-47Cs (I think the were Cs, could have been Ds). The first mission was such a smashing success that Kenney pursued getting as many of the AC as he could. I seem to recall that the P-47s were so much faster and had such firepower that the engagement was more of a massacre than a "dogfight". I think the idea is that the speed and power of the Jug allowed the Allies to push even further the notion of don't get into turning fights with Japan, use speed, firepower and armor.

The next obstacle he faced was getting his pilots to switch. A lot of the pilots wanted to hang onto their P-40s until 38s were available.

I thought I had read that the P-38 had cold weather problems. Maybe icing up? Which certainly made it better suited to the South Pacific.


That was the engine problem/fuel problem i alluded to... lots written on this, but people mostly scratched their heads... this showed up in the planes in England, but the P-38s in the Aleutians did OK, so the "conclusion" was it was the fuel in England.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 299
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 8:54:04 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Not sure about the performance characteristics - if you believe half of what is written, the P-38 turning stats were as good as (if not better than) any other US fighter - but, the plane was more expensive to build which is why they used P-51s and P-47s. Until the latter models, P-38s also sufferered from compressability issues (others did as well, but it was much more prevalent in the '38s.)


EDIT - in the ETO, the P-38s also had a lot of engine problems, apparently due to fuel problems (it is thought).

Well, I could be remembering my readings incorrectly. I seem to recall reading that Kenney with the 5th Air Force was working hard to get the P-40s replaced (at least not have to rely on them for air superiority). He was trying to get more P-38s but couldn't as at the time a fair number were going to Europe. That's when he heard about the P-47 becoming available. He wasn't thrilled with the AC because the short range didn't seem adequate for the missions they were flying. However he took a squadron of P-47Cs (I think the were Cs, could have been Ds). The first mission was such a smashing success that Kenney pursued getting as many of the AC as he could. I seem to recall that the P-47s were so much faster and had such firepower that the engagement was more of a massacre than a "dogfight". I think the idea is that the speed and power of the Jug allowed the Allies to push even further the notion of don't get into turning fights with Japan, use speed, firepower and armor.

The next obstacle he faced was getting his pilots to switch. A lot of the pilots wanted to hang onto their P-40s until 38s were available.

I thought I had read that the P-38 had cold weather problems. Maybe icing up? Which certainly made it better suited to the South Pacific.


That was the engine problem/fuel problem i alluded to... lots written on this, but people mostly scratched their heads... this showed up in the planes in England, but the P-38s in the Aleutians did OK, so the "conclusion" was it was the fuel in England.


IIRC quite a few American engines had problems operating in the UK. I'm pretty sure this was down to the weather rather than the fuel. Most US aircraft were designed with the American climate rather than the cold, damp British weather


_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Best fighter in WW2??? Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.563