Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005



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 [:D]

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 [:D]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

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 [:D]

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

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.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

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.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

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). [:'(]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

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?[:D]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

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.

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

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.

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

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

ORIGINAL: ctangus

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

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.

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
Someone else might have a different opinion.