P-38 classification query

[el cid again]

P-38 is/was classified as a fighter bomber

WITP code is wierd and makes this "not as good as a fighter and not as good as a bomber" (WITP Manual)

P-38 went through a major change with the introduction of powered flaps for late models

should we reclassify only the L as a fighter (which still drops bombs)

or all the models as fighters?

The earlier models show very similar maneuverability - but the L a dramatic increase in maneuveraiblity

some RHS scenarios were missing the L (and somehow had two lines of P-39D instead) but we will put the L in all now

[JeffroK]

Fighter.
 
I think WITP penalises Fighter-Bombers too much.

[Elladan]

I vote for fighter-class for all models.

[m10bob]

Fighter..all models...

[dwbradley]

I have reached April '44 in a Level 5 EOS PBEM game. I have no hard data to present on this issue but I will offer my observations on the performance of the P38.

The G and J models are good matches against Oscars and A6M2 Zekes. That is, they hold their own and the circumstances of the encounter will determine the result. But it is roughly an even match. Not so with later Japanese planes such as the Tojo and George. The P38 cannot compete with these planes and losses are high when they meet. The L model is not yet in production so I cannot speak to any differences there.

Is this correct? I am not competent to say. My gut feeling is that the P38 is a tad underperforming here. This is in sharp contrast to the P51B and P47D a/c which knock down anything they run into ( so far). So these a/c are maybe a bit too "hot"

Again, this is not supported by data but by my accumulated impressions over hundreds of turns, so this is not a very reliable guide but I hope it is of value in evaluating RHS performance.

Dave Bradley

[Buck Beach]

I am in favor of all as fighters.

[el cid again]

I went for fighter for the last two models. The most air combat successes occur in them. The first two have very similar statistics and it will help spread them apart. And it models better tactical doctrine evolution. We can evaluate this and reconsider - assuming there is a next time. I wish I had realized this sooner - because I think this is the right sort of classification and will help code to do right by this plane relative to others.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: dwbradley

I have reached April '44 in a Level 5 EOS PBEM game. I have no hard data to present on this issue but I will offer my observations on the performance of the P38.

The G and J models are good matches against Oscars and A6M2 Zekes. That is, they hold their own and the circumstances of the encounter will determine the result. But it is roughly an even match. Not so with later Japanese planes such as the Tojo and George. The P38 cannot compete with these planes and losses are high when they meet. The L model is not yet in production so I cannot speak to any differences there.

Is this correct? I am not competent to say. My gut feeling is that the P38 is a tad underperforming here. This is in sharp contrast to the P51B and P47D a/c which knock down anything they run into ( so far). So these a/c are maybe a bit too "hot"

Again, this is not supported by data but by my accumulated impressions over hundreds of turns, so this is not a very reliable guide but I hope it is of value in evaluating RHS performance.

Dave Bradley

In an RHS CAIO v7.7788 (IIRC), I reached late '42 and the P-38's (G model) were performing very much on par with the P-40E's. As you say it's very hard to quantify in game results as this is not a controlled test. Not sure what version you were testing, maybe there was is difference between the two versions?