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 8:54:13 PM   
NefariousKoel


Posts: 2930
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline
What happened to the SLAAK?  I think the pods got to him.

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 301
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 9:25:15 PM   
rtrapasso


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


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




Well, maybe they had fuel problems as well... i don't think the British Isles are colder or damper than the Aleutians!

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 302
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 9:26:47 PM   
niceguy2005


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

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


But aren't the Aleutians a pretty cold damp place? Was UK fuel having purity issues duding the war?

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 303
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 9:50:00 PM   
Dixie


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

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


But aren't the Aleutians a pretty cold damp place? Was UK fuel having purity issues duding the war?


British fuel was generally top quality 100 Octane, the Merlin was quite tempremental so dirty fuel would have caused problems for the RAF. Did the USAAF actually use British supplied fuel, or did they have their own shipped in?

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 304
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 10:01:46 PM   
MineSweeper


Posts: 653
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Nags Head, NC
Status: offline
I believe that the US supplied over 6 Billion barrles of oil out of the 7 Billion used by the allies....most likely most was US refined.


_____________________________





(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 305
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 10:09:27 PM   
Shawkhan

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/1/2006
Status: offline
...The British used US avgas of 100 octane, which gave their engines a decided performance boost over the 87 octane the Germans were stuck with using. If a spitfire had to use the same avgas as the Germans there would have been a huge difference in their results during the airwar.

(in reply to MineSweeper)
Post #: 306
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 11:09:21 PM   
rtrapasso


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

I believe that the US supplied over 6 Billion barrles of oil out of the 7 Billion used by the allies....most likely most was US refined.



Nobody really knows what caused the problems... it is POSTULATED that it was fuel, but why it should this should have been a problem is unknown since most did come from the USA. i personally have my doubts that it was fuel, but why the British Isle P-38s should have had more problems than (say) the Aleutians isn't really known.

(in reply to MineSweeper)
Post #: 307
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 11:22:38 PM   
Dixie


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

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

I believe that the US supplied over 6 Billion barrles of oil out of the 7 Billion used by the allies....most likely most was US refined.



Nobody really knows what caused the problems... it is POSTULATED that it was fuel, but why it should this should have been a problem is unknown since most did come from the USA. i personally have my doubts that it was fuel, but why the British Isle P-38s should have had more problems than (say) the Aleutians isn't really known.


More wear from the trek across the Atlantic?
Less capable engine fitters?
Pilot actions?
More stress from running at higher revs?
Dirty fuel?
Longer missions?
Ambient conditions?
Water in the fuel tanks from high altitude?

Probably a combination of some of the above.


< Message edited by Dixie -- 12/5/2007 11:23:29 PM >


_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 308
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 11:26:58 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

No, the whole thing started when Hawker made this thread. Everyone except him knew that it would turn out like this.


oh, he knew.


_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 309
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 11:28:12 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Yeah, I've been having my suspicions...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 310
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 11:29:10 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
BTW, good to see you, Nik! Guess you haven't been bad-weathered out of your home...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 311
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 11:33:16 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
thx.

no, not out of home though the workplace had to be shut down due to washing out of the roads around it.



_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 312
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/5/2007 11:49:00 PM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
Oh gee, I'll bet you are very upset by that.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 313
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 12:13:07 AM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


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).



I'm going to start a new tread.... hmmm how about Bismarck scuttletsunk, or Tigarsherman?

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 314
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 12:15:27 AM   
AW1Steve


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


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).



I'm going to start a new tread.... hmmm how about Bismarck scuttletsunk, or Tigarsherman?

How about English muffins (or even crumpets) againt the zero?

_____________________________


(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 315
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 12:53:15 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

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.


Doesn't air superiority also mean killing other fighters over enemy airspace so your bombers can do their work? With that in mind I think the Mustang should get the nod, because of its range. Honorable mention for the Pacific war goes to the F4U - as it was carrier capable it could project air superiority even further from allied bases.

There's a couple other possible criteria I thought of:

f) Best multi-role fighter. (Jug IMO)
g) Similar to (c) but not limited to one theater. Greatest overall impact to the war effort. This would take into account performance, range, ruggedness, numbers produced, length of service in the war, kill ratios, theaters served in, etc. I vote Bf-109.
h) Prettiest. The Spit!

PH is right - the OP's question is too general. If the question was "What was the best CAP fighter in WWII, based on its historical performance?" we could probably come up with a consensus a lot easier.

Edit - I thought about this a little more. I think the criterion for "best fighter in WWII" should be "best multi-role fighter in WWII". As the war played out you first needed air superiority but once the skies were clear of the enemy it was extremely useful to have those same planes flying CAS or strafing airfields and trains.

< Message edited by ctangus -- 12/6/2007 1:12:58 AM >

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 316
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 1:32:18 AM   
niceguy2005


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus
Doesn't air superiority also mean killing other fighters over enemy airspace so your bombers can do their work?


You are absolutely right. It means killing the enemy (Planes) wherever they need killing. Actually, I'm not sure air superiority was even a term that was used at the time. Basically, it is represented in witp by CAP and Sweep. Its CAP over your areas and sweeps of the enemy. Escort, intercept and close air support are considered different missions in RL.

I agree that range is a key factor, I'm not sure I would rate all models of the Jug though as too short ranged for CAP and sweep, but certainly for escort

quote:


Edit - I thought about this a little more. I think the criterion for "best fighter in WWII" should be "best multi-role fighter in WWII". As the war played out you first needed air superiority but once the skies were clear of the enemy it was extremely useful to have those same planes flying CAS or strafing airfields and trains.

Also a good point IMHO. Best all purpose fighter would be a good benchmark. In that case I might vote for the F4U.


_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 317
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 1:48:14 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus
Doesn't air superiority also mean killing other fighters over enemy airspace so your bombers can do their work?


You are absolutely right. It means killing the enemy (Planes) wherever they need killing. Actually, I'm not sure air superiority was even a term that was used at the time. Basically, it is represented in witp by CAP and Sweep. Its CAP over your areas and sweeps of the enemy. Escort, intercept and close air support are considered different missions in RL.

I agree that range is a key factor, I'm not sure I would rate all models of the Jug though as too short ranged for CAP and sweep, but certainly for escort


I knew intercept & close air support were considered different missions, but didn't realize that about the "escort mission". With that in mind I tend to agree with you that the best "air superiority" fighter was the Jug.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 318
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 1:55:11 AM   
niceguy2005


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus
Doesn't air superiority also mean killing other fighters over enemy airspace so your bombers can do their work?


You are absolutely right. It means killing the enemy (Planes) wherever they need killing. Actually, I'm not sure air superiority was even a term that was used at the time. Basically, it is represented in witp by CAP and Sweep. Its CAP over your areas and sweeps of the enemy. Escort, intercept and close air support are considered different missions in RL.

I agree that range is a key factor, I'm not sure I would rate all models of the Jug though as too short ranged for CAP and sweep, but certainly for escort


I knew intercept & close air support were considered different missions, but didn't realize that about the "escort mission". With that in mind I tend to agree with you that the best "air superiority" fighter was the Jug.

Well, that's what I seem to recall from my Air Force course work a long time ago. Someone else might have a different opinion.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 319
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 2:07:19 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
Someone else might have a different opinion.


Nah, not on this forum...

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 320
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 3:18:45 AM   
DD696

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline
The best fighter of WWII was indisputeably Joe Louis, at least for the heavyweight division. You guys try to make this so difficult.

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 321
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 4:38:36 AM   
Doggie


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


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?


Uh, Brad, everything was pretty cordial until people satarting referring to people like you and me as "morons" and such. Or don't they know you're also a "Steakhouse Moron", along with almost four hundred other people? How many people know one of the moderators of this forum is also my MCS techie? Is he a moron, too? Wouldn't want to embarrass him by naming him. And then there's one of the senior Admins here, who also happens to be a MCS modertor with his own sub forum.

I aint the one who started the "mudslinging". I rarely am. I simply respond to it.

Get it?


_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 322
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 4:44:27 AM   
Doggie


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: UniformYankee


quote:



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


I don't care what you think


quote:

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


Think again.



quote:

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.


So you got a private investigator telling you what games everyone else owns? How in the hell do you know who plays what?

quote:

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


Uh, the information beneath your username says otherwise. And you aint gonna tell me or anyone else where we belong and where we don't, you little fascist. WTF do you think you are?


_____________________________


(in reply to UniformYankee)
Post #: 323
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 5:00:09 AM   
UniformYankee


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



ORIGINAL: Doggie

<snip.... you little fascist. WTF do you think you are? ... <snip>



Poor ole dude .. you're so excited you couldn't even push the buttons right ... you got the quote tags all mis-aligned ... I expect better of you!


(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 324
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 5:22:12 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie
Uh, the information beneath your username says otherwise. And you aint gonna tell me or anyone else where we belong and where we don't, you little fascist. WTF do you think you are?



Doggie. About the only thing you seem to bring to this forum is bile and a nasty juvenile urge to drag everything and everyone down to your level. It's with great delight and satisfaction I'm turning you off..

(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 325
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 5:26:09 AM   
Doggie


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

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

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.


Nah, I'm offended when registered users at my forum are told they're morons and such simply because they post there. And no, anything does not go at MCS. As the co admin, I ought to know. It is the most tolerant game related forum you'll find anywhere, but there are limits. Like I said, there's zero tolerance for monkey poo slinging of any sort on five of the seven sub forums.


quote:

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.


Ask Bradkay how I dealt with people who directed their unprovoked monkey poo at him. There's two obscene trolls who are no longer welcome, and neither of them is lokale verbot because their opinions don't jibe with mine. It's because they were obnoxious trolls.

quote:

I would not presume to tell you to “stay off our turf”. It is not “your Turf” or “my turf”. It belongs to Matrix.



Well, that's refreshing. There are some people here who seem to think this is their own private little preserve.

quote:

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.


In case you ain't noticed, I'm right here in front of you.

quote:


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.


See, the problem is people here like to engage in what we call "sniping from the mosque". They hurl their monkey poo and then hide behind some moderator's skirt when someone objects. Don't start nothing and there won't be nothing.

quote:

(Perhaps Mjk and Sarge 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.


And who added it to a sig line? Not me. Never mind that it's a partial quote, taken out of context by a troll, but the point is it's not my sigline, so why are you complaining to me about it?

And yeah, as a MCS Admin, I could remove it from the troll's sigline over there, but the reason he uses it is so he can complain that the Admin at MCS, (me) is "restricting his freedom of speech" should I remove it. I believe in letting poo lie, so everyone is aware who dealt it.


quote:

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.


Hey, there's lots more where that came from. Check out just about everything the troll wrote in the Iwo thread a couple of subforums above. What I don't understand is why you think it's my fault he's a troll?

quote:

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.


Like I keep telling you, your problem is not with me. Why noit address your issues to the people who are responsible for your complaint? I'm the guy who's been called a "racist" for suggesting the Japanese were the sadistic murderers they actually were. That is simply a matter of historical fact. I aint the guy telling you anybody who don't agree with my views is a "racist", a "moron", or "doesn't belong here.


quote:

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.


Yep, it doesn't belong here. So why don't you object when people keep slinging it here? I notice you did chastise our mutual troll, but you seem to think I'm responsable for his actions. You're perfectly welcome to take any objections or complaints here, where the management (me) will personally guarantee your right to say anything you want without interference.

That's the same right anyone else has there. Or is free speech a little too much for you to handle? Nobody will lock your threads, nobody will tell you what you can or cannot say, and nobody will tell you you aint welcome there. There are a few simple guidlines posted at the top of each forum. I'm not personally responsible for what everyone there has to say. I don't agree with what everyone there says. But I don't presume to impose my views on everyone else, which seems to be the ways some of your pals would like things to be here.

Now maybe you could encourage them to try discussing the various technical aspects of historical aircraft without resorting to calling everyone who doesn't see things their way "racists' and "morons", or telling people who've been here for years that they don't belong here.








< Message edited by Doggie -- 12/6/2007 5:31:46 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 326
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 5:56:35 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Why Matrix hasn't banned these goobers is beyond me.

Something to consider on multi-purpose fighters: that rather puts the Axis at a disadvantage as they had little opportunity to exploit any such capabilities there might have been due to the demands of the war.

(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 327
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 5:58:26 AM   
UniformYankee


Posts: 84
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline
Hey Doggie - much better job with the buttons this time!


We should not disgrace our armed forces by pretending to "fight" on the internet. This is cyber-space the land of the whimps. I'd venture to bet that the guys who pretend to be "men" on forums would shrivel into the corners if there were chances of true face to face encounters. So my assumptions is that the bigger the internet bully - the bigger the real life whimp. Do you disagree?

(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 328
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 6:42:13 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Something to consider on multi-purpose fighters: that rather puts the Axis at a disadvantage as they had little opportunity to exploit any such capabilities there might have been due to the demands of the war.



Oh - that's a good point...

On the other hand most of the Axis fighters at least had a small window of opportunity to show their proficiency in multi-purpose roles. The Malaya campaign comes to mind first.

I'll start to think out loud - a fighter ultimately needs to control the skies, and that should probably be the primary measure to judge it from. But it should still be useful after the skies are controlled. If a fighter isn't useful in secondary roles, it makes air superiority less important and thereby makes the air superiority role less important. And so on... Hope I'm making a little bit of sense here.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 329
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/6/2007 7:06:23 AM   
bradfordkay

 

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

ORIGINAL: Doggie


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


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?


Uh, Brad, everything was pretty cordial until people satarting referring to people like you and me as "morons" and such. Or don't they know you're also a "Steakhouse Moron", along with almost four hundred other people? How many people know one of the moderators of this forum is also my MCS techie? Is he a moron, too? Wouldn't want to embarrass him by naming him. And then there's one of the senior Admins here, who also happens to be a MCS modertor with his own sub forum.

I aint the one who started the "mudslinging". I rarely am. I simply respond to it.

Get it?



Doggie... I just went through the whole thread again, and nowhere in it is anyone called a "steakhouse morin" or anything approaching that. In fact, people were fairly cordial in the discussions with MDiehl, several agreeing with him in this thread and others attacking his opponent for unfair comparisons.

The closest I could find to what you are describing was this comment by AW1Stev: " Maybe we should get a little less personal. This isn't the Madcowsteak house. Debates are encouraged here. Discussion is expected. Name calling and foul comments do not belong here. Panzerjager , that sig line is definately over the top , even if you are quoting someone else. I personally would greatly appreciate it if you would change it to something less inflamatory and in better taste. Let's cool things off guys."

In that he was admonishing a WITPer, not MDeihl or Slaakmeister. I will agree that he may have confused your Saloon with the Steakhouse, where abuse is less tolerated (though still far more prevalent than here).

So why does the Steakhouse have such a repuation here at Matrix? Could it be that it is the direct descendant of the AOE forum that became too hot for Matrix? We were told that if we wanted to act like children we should find somewhere else to play and so Vinny, you and others setup the Steakhouse and its associated forums.

I will agree that you have stood up for people with whom you usually disagree, but noone at the Steakhouse is innocent of the crime of namecalling. What AW1Steve said was that we are trying to maintain a higher standard here and that namecalling is not acceptable. He then went on to chide a regular WITPer for a sig line that he felt was unacceptable here.

If you go back and review this thread in the WITP forum (I will not defend any other Matrix forum except maybe for UV and WPO) you will see that we have tmainly achieved a standard that does not include namecalling (some sarcasm maybe, but that is nothing compared to what we find in the saloon on a constant basis).



_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 330
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

0.938