Aircraft ROC Review

[witpqs]

I didn't realize that an adjustment hadn't made it in. That explains why the results I saw seemed like they were still lacking (IMO). I was one of the 'P-38 folks' who voiced concerns back then, BTW. I disagree that the review resulted in appropriate results without an adjustment. The impression that I have - and the recent citations by other posters support this - is that the P-38 should be much closer to the better single engine fighters in maneuver rating. I don't mean equal, I mean much closer than it is now.

BTW, no panic involved!

[el cid again]

Gunston says the P-38 "made up for slightly inferior maneuverability by its range and multi-role effectiveness." I regard that as a very interesting evaluation - given this discussion - in particular his use of the terms "inferior" and "maneuverability." Note these do NOT preent it from being "effective" in multiple rolls.

During the previous review, it was alleged that the P-38 had powered flaps of great significance. But it turns out these were not introduced before the L model, and that is not in any version of WITP. Further - David Donald's evaluation does not indicate any significant improvement was made by later models - and indeed that two German aircraft finally managed to overtake the P-38 in speed and ROC in the final period of hte war.

An aircraft can be a great achiever - and P-38 was indeed that - if used in ways appropriate to its strengths and weaknesses. This has a lot to do with how you as a player commit your aircraft. IF you use the P-38 against enemy aircraft that are not superb fighter planes, you should rack up impressive scores. The kill count notably does not say some kinds of planes don't count - au contrare all kills are kills. The P-38 is fantastic because it can go long distances - and it will tend to survive when other planes would not - particularly over such distances. That should not turn it into the fighter of choice for all applications.

I don't know what you expect in terms of "results" - and trying to meet a subjective standard is impossible - so I have no intention of trying. I also do not have ANY expectations of my own about what either ratings or results ought to be? I think the very same fighter used by one person will produce different results from those another person gets - due to differences in the roles and missions and tactics chosen. One person's experience - particularly if that person thinks this is a pure fighter superior to all else - is not really an indicator. It is a fighter superior in RANGE. It is a fighter superior in BOMB LOAD - and even TORPEDO LOAD - to other fighters. It is a fighter superior in DURABILITY - due to sheer size as well as multiple engines (Donald reports at the time it was first built it was bigger than US twin engine light bombers). It is an aircraft equal or superior to most in terms of forward gun firepower - with a 20mm (or 37mm) cannon and 4 MG (half or all .50s). That is a fairly impressive list - and our ratings give them all to you. There is no reason to think that it is superior in maneuverability - and considerable evidence it was not as maneuverable in several respects and flight regimes as many other aircraft. I am not interested in giving the plane a special rating because someone feels it was better where it was not. Which is not to say the rating cannot be improved - but the goal here is not to make it superior in maneuverability. And since our air combat routine is DOMINATED by maneuverability, that may force outcomes to be less than you will like.

We cannot devise a formula that will be "perfect" for all aircraft. We cannot know where our formula is slightly off - or in which direction? It is far more important to be fair and even handed with the data than to prejudice it because of some subjective opinions. If we went down that road, we would end up with a far less accurate simulation - and we would never end the debates about just how far to go in ratings. If there are NO standards, then there is NO limit to what a value can be set at. The most I ever hoped for was a formula that produced results in the right range for all types - and we have got that.

The P-38 partisans were never impressed by the necessity to consider ALL the fields when evaluating a fighter plane. For some reason they are willing to take superior durability - higher than any single engine type can have - very high range and rather high gun power - also reasonably high ROC - but STILL be upset that maneuverability was not right up there as well. This is unreasonable - and we can not ever satisfy a point of view that won't admit the plane is superior even when it really is - in terms of the totality of the data fields. We may make it slightly better in maneuverability - and I think we will do that with NO changes - just using the same ROC standard as we use for P-51s and P-47s. But we will NEVER be able to be honest and make it high enough to please people who ONLY focus on high maneuverability - which in fact was the principle weakness of this aircraft. In other words, it better be worse than single engine fighters, or we are not being honest.

If you really want to experience this for yourself - try flying a P-38 (pick your version, or fly em all) - and then fly other fighters - and fly against P-38s as well as in them. Today we can do this economically and well. Once upon a time I was "spoiled" by working where we had unlimited access to flight simulators - but you can now do this on your own computer. [You can become quite elaborate - installing aircraft controls if you want to.] While the expensive simulators that move (with you inside them) and have moving things to watch out the windows are great "chrome" - the essential maneuvering models are dead on perfect - and you can come to terms with things like maneuverability without a horribly expensive simulator. [Or go to a nearby air base or contractor and talk your way into one] After a certain point - after a certain number of hours - you no longer care very much what the plane is you fly: you will tend to "win" an engagement with someone not in your experience league - as long as you fly observant of the limitations and strengths of your aircraft. You will find this works - but ONLY IF you are ruthlessly honest - and ADMIT the weaknesses of your mount. I have (in my other life, as a PLA specialist) - since the century turned - taken to flying J-7Es and J-7Gs - rewinged MiG-21s built in China - against US fighters of all types (except the F-22 - which is another story). It is not ideal - these planes have NO BVR weapons - and a US fighter must screw up to let you get a shot at all. But the norm is - US fighters lose. [I picked this up from a real world case: the commander of a fighter aggressor squadron at Nanking was told he was going to be given Su-27s. He objected, saying he wanted to keep his J-7Es. He challenged the most experienced regiment of Su's to a battle, single plane vis a loose duce (ie four planes). He shot two down and drove the other two from the sky. This pilot had in excess of 5000 flight hours, and his confidence was justified - and he was allowed to keep the J-7Es.] I can fly a P-38 and win. But I can fly almost anything else and win as well. Because - whatever I fly - I never forget either my mission - or the strengths and weaknesses of my plane. That is the key: Marines teach that it isn't how modern your weapons are - it is how well you use them. You will find the REASON US fighters lose against me interesting: quoting a friend who teaches at the US Naval War College - "my fighter pilot students say they don't have to study Chinese aircraft or tactics - they only have obsolescent junk and they don't fly enough to have any skills." The technical arrogance we have about modern China is rivaled only by that our ancestors had about WWII era Japan. "Knowing" they don't have any experience, they have never studied enough to know there is a cadre of pilots with THOUSANDS of flight hours. They don't know PLAAF norms are to have ten hours in a simulator for every one in the air, or that pilots are allowed UNLIMITED time in trainers and older types kept on hand just to "horse around" without risk of crashing the fancy, expensive, modern toys. They don't know that even helicopters and non-fighters have missiles designed to engage jet fighters - or that the Chinese have "blue" units which fly using OUR tactical methods - so they can train against what they might meet in the air. The point is this: what people "know" subjectively can get critically in the way of the truth. The truth in air combat is unpleasant: in spite of what fighter historical buffs like to believe, performance is NOT the main thing in determining victory. In "my war" (Viet Nam) we found ourselves facing aircraft three generations older and two orders of magnitude cheaper - but month after month we lost EVERY air air engagement (five months in a row in my first year there) - and our first effective counters were with very old aircraft not even designed as fighter planes (that is, A-1 Skyraiders = bombers with PROPELLERS). We had made some fundamental errors - no guns on fighters - no training to dog fight for fighter pilots - and no proper analysis of how to fight an enemy flying fast gunfighters. Ultimately we came back - but we didn't do nearly as well as our partisans like to claim or believe: USN eventually got to a 2:1 ratio - and USAF to a 1:1 ratio. But when I arrived, it was infinity to 1 against us - we lost every engagement - and decided not to engage as a countermeasure until we came up with some better stuff. It is often said that "PLA has no one old enough to remember losing a battle." But the truth is, the US has almost no one on active duty who can remember being fought hard - and out fought - particularly in the air. What makes your hair turn grey prematurely is coming to terms that ancient planes that should never have been competative by our way of thinking were not only competative - but winning - time after time. I also got to "advise" Israel in a bad situation - and I did well enough to get an official letter of thanks from the President of the country (at a time I didn't know Israel even had a President) - but we cannot go into details. All I can say is - winning is not a function of superior technology - it is a function of proper use of any technology - superior or not.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: el cid again



Would you mind breaking this posting down to its major points? Including non-WWII factors such as BVR air combat and such only clouds the issue.

I'll grant you that a single recon bomber flying a maximum speed on the deck may possibly avoid detection by fighters. But we aren't talking single bombers. The game doesn't send single bombers out on attack missions. And altitude doesn't matter... only altitude differential. If both are at similar altitudes, the chance of interception is great. If there is a large divergence in altitude, then the lower aircraft is at a disadvantage in most cases, assuming its spotted.

When I say that fighters have the initiative it is because it is their performance factors relative to the bombers that will allow the fighter to decide if and when to engage. The bomber can not avoid combat where both attacker and defender have been spotted.

In any case where the numbers are large, the targets are known, and both sides fully intend to engage, evasion is not really a factor. But these are the minority of instances of air operations.

Air operations, yes. When you include mail runs and every other type of flight ever conducted. But that's going pretty far afield, don't you think? The majority of combats involved at least one side shooting at the other and I believe that's how the game handles it. So evasion, or lack thereof, is a pretty important factor IN THE GAME.

As to my "final thesis", to say that the bombers have the initiative to not close the target and thus avoid combat is true but that would also constitute a mission failure which could hardly be called a victory.

And I would submit to you that bombers in a defensive arrangement are generally safer than a single bomber when there is significant opposition.

Chez

Actually, I said what I said because it is germane to the issue - and ignoring what I said won't help you come to terms with the fundamentals. That BVR combat is not a dog fight is only an example I know you can grasp: you have missed the fundamental truth that ALMOST ALL AIR COMBAT has NO DOGFIGHTING!!!!

Let me back up again to the fundamental statistical truth:

when a plane is shot down in air combat, the vast majority of the time, the pilot of that plane had no idea he was even in an air battle!

EVERYTHING ELSE is a minority case.

The truth is - performance matters not a whit when the target is not evading - is not aware of the battle - and is not shooting back. And that is the MAJORITY case. UNTIL you come to terms with that, you cannot understand (in the statistical norms sense) the actual nature of air combat.

OK - now for some basics:

1) A POTENTIAL air combat situation exists whenever two or more aircraft (of hostile services) are in positions such that air combat is theoretically possible, but none of the planes has been detected by either side; Because we cannot know that no one will detect, the possibility exists that it might happen, and until all the planes move to positions where detection is impossible, that potential remains;

2) An OPERATIONAL air combat situation exists whenever two or more aircraft (of hostile services) are in positions such that air combat is theoretically possible, and AT LEAST ONE of the aircraft has detected the other side. The vast majority - not a simple majority - but something significantly greater than one sigma in all air wars - of the time, ONLY one side is aware of the other. That side has the initiative. The initiative is expressed in the choice "engage or evade" - and it is that simple. WHICHEVER choice is made, the side with the initiative wins 9 times in 10, regardless of wether one considers offensive or defensive air combat. This remarkable statistic was true in the very first air war - and remains true today. WWII lies in the middle of that period - and it certainly was true then.

3) When there is an operational air combat situation, several possible outcomes exist:

a) One side (90% of the time the side with the initiative) may evade the other, and no shots are ever fired. The vast majority of the time, the other side never even noticed the presence of the enemy. But a minority of the time they do notice. A subset of that, they tried to engage. Yet even when they do detect and try to engage, they FAIL TO DO SO most of the time.

[Here a digression: Your comments seem not to grasp that recon planes usually fly high - not low. A distant target - particularly five miles or so in the sky - is very hard to intercept. The usual outcome of such an attempt is that the interceptors fail to do so, and for a variety of reasons, both including failing to gain the range/altitude before running out of fuel, and losing the target altogether in various meterological conditions, including clouds, fog, sun, and darkness.
Other cases are somewhat less extreme, but the basic principle remains: aircraft move fast - and moving fast in the right direction usually prevents enemy fighters from reaching firing range - and not a small majority of the time.]

b) One side (90% of the time the side with the initiative) may intercept the other, and achieve firing position against it.
The vast majority of the time, the other side never even noticed the presence of the enemy (notice a pattern here), made no attempt to evade, and did not shoot back before the first firing pass. But a minority of the time, they do notice. A subset of that they tried to engage. IF the other side TRIES to engage, you get an opposed air combat situation, one in which both sides are actively maneuvering and (if they can) firing weapons. Another minority of the time, they do notice, but they try to evade. Depending on the distance, time, relative altitude, etc of the situation, the chances of evasion are far less than in case 1 above (where the enemy is unaware of them). Here performance matters a great deal. So also do visibility conditions. If there are enough clouds, or a fog bank, or approaching night in a certain direction, they may just pull it off even without vastly superior performance. But the sum total of ALL these possibilities is less than 10%.

c) Both sides may intercept the other (or one side may continue on a non-evading course toward its target/objective and the other is permitted a non-evaded intercept course of its choice). If both sides are trying to intercept each other OR IF one side is closing the base (task force) that the other side is coming from - this case virtually always results in a firing battle of the sort most air enthusiasts think in terms of. If one side is continuing towards its target or objective but that is NOT the base (or behind the base) of the other side, but rather the course is a crossing angle, this option often results in a firing battle. If the course of one side actually is significantly opening of the range from the other base, this option sometimes (but not a majority of the time) results in a firing battle.

The details of astrophysics make getting close enough to shoot - in particular with guns - that is - a few hundred yards (ineffectively) or 1-2 hundred yards (effectively) - something very hard to achieve EXCEPT when both sides are working on making it happen. It is difficult when one side is just opening the range but not actually evading as scuh. It is almost impossible when one side is deliberately evading - unless the distances are not great and/or the visibility is almost completely unobstructed. Things like cloud, fog, impending darkness, or the option to go upsun of the enemy mean you can very often lose em - even though they saw you.

Another basic principle is that, at great range, it is impossible to identify the aircraft you "see." Radar also does not identify its targets at all (although IFF may help - IFF did not at first exist at all - and it was never - and is not now - wholly effective). In good visibility an aircraft appears as a dot no brighter than a first order magnitude star is in daylight - and most observers will never see it at all (unless you give them a telescope on the right bearing - mainy if you are on the ground - as with NASA tracking cameras). This can occur at ranges on the order of 100 nautical miles. Jump back to the norms for most observers - it depends greatly on conditions - you will find in clear air that air targets are visible at ranges proportional to target size (thus a gigantic bomber stream is visible at tens of miles, but a single small aircraft might only be visible half as far, for observers not trained to focus on infinity - ie non JNAF observers). Even so - it is entirely different to say "I see something" and "I can identify what I see." A fighter CAP leader - or a ground control station listening to spotters - is likely NOT to engage every distant target detected. For lots of sound reasons, you wait and see, and IF the potential target closes, you get more information to work with. Any exceptional policy - 'always engage every speck you see' - is very unwise tactics. It could be exploited to draw off your CAP/interceptors prior to a major raid for one thing. It could also be exploited to draw some of your fighters into a trap. Just because you see it does not mean you know if it is friendly, neutral or enemy. And even if you know it is enemy, it does not mean you will or should attempt to engage. For one thing, attempting to intercept at tens of miles is a great way to wear out your planes, run down your fuel stocks, tire your pilots, and fail entirely to engage most of the time. Engaging closing targets is much more likely to pay off.

There are lots of reasons a plane in the sky is not going to want to participate in air combat. Most flights are not armed. Many flights have non-combat objectives - transfer - training - transport - name it. There is no justification for most flights to attempt to engage even if they spot and identify the enemy. There is great justification for most flights to attempt to evade if they spot and identify even possible enemy aircraft. Every time wheels (floats, skis, etc) leave the ground (or water or ice) we say it is a sortee. This is proper. But every time a sortee is in an air combat situation it is not proper to try to turn it into a shooting engagement. When an aircraft that should NOT be engaging enemy aircraft is in an air combat situation, we can properly say it is a "victory" if that aircraft survives at all, as surely as it is a "defeat" if it is shot down. I don't care what kind of plane it is - or what the reason is it should not try to fight - this remains true. Having good judgement about this is the sort of thing that wins not only engagements, but wars (if you can teach enough of your fellows to exercise similar judgement). The more lopsided an air combat situation is (that is, the more fighter like one side is, and the less fighter like or armed or well performing the other side is), the MORE it becomes true that it is a victory merely to survive. And the most critical factor to survival in an air combat situation is simply to be aware of the enemy. The sooner you become aware, the better. IF you are first, you almost always can evade. If you are not first, you still can usually evade - the worse the visibility obsticles - the greater usually becomes. Engagement is NOT primarily a matter of aircraft performance (speed, ROC) - although in SOME situations these become very critical - and in many situations they may be good enough that it won't be clear the evasion will succeed for a long time.

The statistical truth about air combat - in all ages - is that it is likely to reach a shooting engagement only when both sides want it to occur (there is more than one sense of want here - not being willing to evade being one flavor of it) - OR when one side wants it to occur and the other is unaware of the threat. Otherwise, it is NOT likely shots will ever be fired, no matter how ernestly the fighters on one side try to make it happen. It can happen - but without suprise or cooperation from the other side - it won't happen most of the time.

[m10bob]

Somewhat off-topic, but the discussion on the P 38 shook off some cobwebs.
I remembered reading the early P 38's suffered really severe vortex problems in dives, and pilots were lost until the cause of the problem was detected, and countered.
Pilots were unable to pull out of dives till they reached a certain altitude, but this was not realized for some time.
Anyway, while doing a google-search, I found this nice group of charts.:

http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331Lecture13.pdf

[el cid again]

Our in game P-38 recon variant - the F-4 - appears too soon. It appears on 12/41. Yet "In March 1942 the USAAF recieved the first deliveries of the reconnaissance version, the F-4 (converted from P-38Es)." Donaldson (American Warplanes of World War II).

So does the P-38 recon variant - the F-5C. IF we call it the F-5B - is might be closer to the right date. Since the F-5B is a P-38J - it also means we have a better sense of its statistics if we convert to using that model. If we keep the C - we have to delay it.

And the P-39J is dated from production - not operations - which is to say - also too soon.

So in date terms, at a minimum, all forms of WITP - including RHS - are prejudiced in favor of the P-38 already.

[herwin]

Pretty much accurate. That's the reason pilot experience was much more important (16+ to 1) than the technical qualities of the aircraft (usually 2-4 to 1). One interesting point is that what WWII fighter pilots learned over their first eight combats was how to avoid being shot down.

[el cid again]

The earlier P-38 - G model -- has an initial ROC of 2850 fpm. This does not change the maneuverability rating of 16.
However, armament was changed to 2 times 1000 pound bombs - or 2 times 110 gal drop tanks. Endurance rating is 259 minutes (plus 220 for the drop tanks) and cruising speed 219 mph. This results in a range of 27 hexes (9 extended, 6 normal). Because the armament and endurance changed, this is treated as eratta and backfitted to Levels 5 and 6.

[el cid again]

F-4A Recon variant of P-38F.

Manueverability estimated at 2900 fpm. Max speed increased to 400 mph. These increase maneuverability to 16 (up from 14). Cruising speed increased to 219 mph and endurance to 280 minutes (= 500 minutes with drop tanks) - so this aircraft now can transfer 30 hexes (= 10 hexes extended range and 7 hex normal range, or one more than the P-38G in both cases). Treated as eratta and backfitted to Levels 5 and 6. Date of availability set back from 12/41 to 4/42. Replacement rate doubled from 2 to 4. [5.8 were made per month, but some went to other theaters]

[el cid again]

P-38J new data: max speed 420 mph, cruising speed 186 mph, endurance 319 minutes (plus 410 minutes for drop tanks),
initial ROC 3076 fpm yields maneuerability of 17 (up from 15). Armament increased - ten 5 inch rockets (vice 3 inch) - 2 x 1000 pound bombs - 2 x 205 gal drop tanks - max load 4000 pounds. Treated as eratta and backfitted to Levels 5 and 6. Transfer range = 37 hexes (extended range = 12 hexes, normal range = 9 hexes).

P-38 L and F-5 variants when I wake up.

[Dili]

P-38s changed much from F to late models. Everyone says first models  F-H? were mediocre fighters.
 

It is a fighter superior in DURABILITY - due to sheer size as well as multiple engines (Donald reports at the time it was first built it was bigger than US twin engine light bombers).

 
I do you account for it's size(much easier to hit), subpar reability and logistic tail and a more step learning curve?  I think only with durability.

[el cid again]

Redesignated F-5 B/C, both are variations of the P-38J. 200 x F-5Bs were built from scratch. 118 x F-5Cs were conversions. Also included but not named (because different statistics) were 180 F-5A - variations of P-38G. The replacement rate was increased from 12 to 16 (21 were built, but some went to other theaters and to training).
Max speed remained 420 mph, initial ROC increased to 3100 fpm, which does not change the maneuverability rating of 17. Cruising speed changed to 186 mph and endurance to 365 minutes (plus 410 for drop tanks) = 40 hex transfer range (13 hexes extended, 10 hexes normal = 1 more than P-38J). Max load increased to 4000. This is treated as eratta and backfitted to Levels 5 and 6.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

P-38s changed much from F to late models. Everyone says first models  F-H? were mediocre fighters.

It is a fighter superior in DURABILITY - due to sheer size as well as multiple engines (Donald reports at the time it was first built it was bigger than US twin engine light bombers).

I do you account for it's size(much easier to hit), subpar reability and logistic tail and a more step learning curve?  I think only with durability.

Well - durability IS a function of size - the square root of empty equipped weight is a factor. And that is about the right proportion - as weight increases, target area increases as a root function. So - yes - size is in durability.

But size is also in maneuverability - empty equipped weight is part of the wing loading factor and maximum take off weight is part of the power loading factor. As size increases, we penalize an aircraft for maneuverability - slightly. And vice versa. I was looking at a Soviet fighter (Yak 3) - it was a cut down Yak-1 - and its ROC increased from 3940 fpm to 4265 fpm on the same engine. German Luftwaffe ordered ALL fighters to avoid it below 5000 meters - period - in spite of its tiny armament, which gives some sense of what maneuverability and speed can mean. The Soviets elite fighter regiment equipped with Yak-9s "upgraded" to the Yak-3! [Gunston data, but from the Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft, not from his Combat Aircraft of World War II]

Not sure what you are looking for here - but size is present in both durability and maneuverability ratings in RHS. I don't think it is formally in the stock rating systems - although it might be in durability in some sense - in the sense that a bigger plane tends to have a higher durability.

[Dili]

First i apologise for my bungled english in last post.
 
What means Durability or better what should mean Durability? Even if despite being a big plane it is plagged by maintenance problems where we factor that? A clear case is the HE 177 2(4)engine German bomber plagged by constant problems. P-38 also had it's share of troubles and was more problematic and logistical heavier than other fighters.

[el cid again]

Researching P-38L (why do we even need it - the J is so great?) OK - here is one reason - our J is wrong in re rockets. They were introduced on the L - wonder why some references say they were on the J??? And our J should have a maximum speed of 414 - not 420. That should not change maneuverability any. We will give the J two 2,000 pound bombs and no rockets.

I came across this (David Donald):

"Shortcomings in the fighter-versus-fighter combat role proved largely academic with the build up of P-47 and P-51 squadrons in Euripe, and henceforth the P-38 tended increasingly to be committed to ground-attack tasks in this theater. In the Pacific and Far East, however, the P-38 continued to give unsurpassed service as a long-range fighter."

Clearly it was not ideal in pure fighter combat. Clearly it was just about ideal for long range work. Another author goes on at some length about how much safer it was to have two engines when far out at sea. And of course, fatal damage to an engine in a single engine fighter is a great deal more of a problem than in a two engine one. At great distances P-38s are likely to run into unescorted enemy aircraft - and while that may not be fair - a kill still counts. This probably has something to do with its high score. They sent 16 P-38s after two bombers acting as transports to kill Adm Yamamoto - Adm Ukagi was also present but survived. 16 fighters vs 2 twin engine bombers is not a fair fight. But those two kills still count - and in the scheme of things - one of them counted big time. It was the relative maneuverability and firepower between P-38G and Japanese bombers that was decisive - not the relative maneuverability between P-38G and some fighter which was not there. FYI in RHS rockets work against AIR targets, not just surface targets. An aircraft with 10 rockets as well as guns is formidable in terms of firepower.

In EOS we could substitute the P-58 for the P-38L. It had two 20mm plus four .50s in the nose - or alternately a 75mm gun (which we fly on a B-25 model and it is in our data set) - and had two 3000 hp engines.

[el cid again]

Wow. What a plane.

Same top speed as P-38J. Initial ROC = 4750 fpm. This results in a maneuverability rating of 21 (up from 20).
By far the best two engine aircraft rating in RHS.

It carries ten 5 inch FFAR, and the same guns as other P-38s. 290 mph cruising speed, 128 minute endurance (plus 410 for drop tanks) = 43 hex transfer range (14 hex extended range, 10 hex normal range).

What a plane.

treated as eratta and backfitted to Levels 5 and 6

FYI the significantly higher cruising speed will help this aircraft on some missions.

[el cid again]

Initial ROC of 3240 fpm does not change = 35.

F6F-5N initial ROC of 3200 fpm also does not change maneuverabilty = 35.

These values were too high before - but now are right.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Gunston says the P-38 "made up for slightly inferior maneuverability by its range and multi-role effectiveness." I regard that as a very interesting evaluation - given this discussion - in particular his use of the terms "inferior" and "maneuverability." Note these do NOT preent it from being "effective" in multiple rolls.

I notice that he used the adjective "slightly inferior" (emphasis mine).

During the previous review, it was alleged that the P-38 had powered flaps of great significance. But it turns out these were not introduced before the L model, and that is not in any version of WITP.

Yes it is. It has major production in RHS as a matter of fact.

We cannot devise a formula that will be "perfect" for all aircraft.

Of course not. That is why it is important to use the formula first, then make any meaningful modifications needed. Being slaved to the results of a formula is a mistake.

The P-38 partisans were never impressed by the necessity to consider ALL the fields when evaluating a fighter plane.

False. I contend that the maneuverability rating should be appropriate (reflect historical capabilities) for each aircraft. Period. Ad hominin accusations of 'partisanship' are wrong, as was your earlier mis-characterization of 'panic'.

I quote my own earlier post:

The impression that I have - and the recent citations by other posters support this - is that the P-38 should be much closer to the better single engine fighters in maneuver rating. I don't mean equal, I mean much closer than it is now.

[emphasis added]

Clearly you are wrongly characterizing my position on this matter. You are insisting on sticking to the results of a formula that cannot yield accurate final results for all important cases (and the case of the P-38, especially the L model is a very important factor in WITP). A simple adjustment is appropriate.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

During the previous review, it was alleged that the P-38 had powered flaps of great significance. But it turns out these were not introduced before the L model, and that is not in any version of WITP.

Yes it is. It has major production in RHS as a matter of fact.

Yes - I found it - and indeed it was the major production model of all. And it is rated above. It managed to pick up a maneuverability point - and range as well. I will take all you don't want - it is a superb aircraft!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

We cannot devise a formula that will be "perfect" for all aircraft.

Of course not. That is why it is important to use the formula first, then make any meaningful modifications needed. Being slaved to the results of a formula is a mistake.

Actually, this is backwards: being "slaved" to the results of a formula that works reasonably well is a matter of principle, of fairness, and not being swayed by emotional perceptions of anyone is a very good idea.

My position is significantly different - but does allow us to agree - because you used the word "meaningful." For me - the burdon of proof is on an advocate of why this or that model is a "meaningful" enough exception to break the rule. It is a high hurdle - so we don't have every fanboy jumping in for his favorite just because he likes it. You need to have a basis for such a change.

Here - now I have given you the current ratings for all P-38 flavors we use - I suggest you review them - and see if you find them reasonable - which I suspect you will. If so - end of discussion. If not - well the burdon is on you - what is not reasonable - to what extent - and why? I don't think you can use these planes in WITP in any reasonable way and not regard them as effective. They have EXACTLY what P-38s ought to have - great protection - powerful armament for both air and surface targets - the best durability of all - and fabulous range. They also vie with each other for the title of "best maneuverability rating for a two engine aircraft" - as time passes the record simply passes from one P-38 variant to another. I don't think you can face them in WITP and not have your heart sink when they appear on your screen.

[witpqs]

Thank you. Based on the comparisons I saw earlier, I doubt that 1 point is adequate (for the L model), but how to convince you?