What will counter the K4 up high?

[sevenless]

4 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

What major roles did the P-38 play over the ETO in late 44/45? How was it used historically?

 

IIRC groundpounding and recce with F4 and F5.

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html

[Bremspropeller]

Oh boy, not that Gabelschwanzteufel bullshit again.

[DSR_A-24]

3 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

As I said earlier with maneuver flaps deployed I can see the P-38 beating the P-51 in radius, esp. since the P-51 doesn't feature a particularly high Clmax airfoil. However I do not see the P-38 beating it in sustained turn rate, esp. not when both are at fighting weight. This was also confirmed in actual flight comparisons (not period calculations) between the P-51 & P-38, where the P-38 could not match the P-51 in either radius or rate below 12 kft. 

 

As for the 109, again it just isn't even close in either case. Keep in mind that modern pilots that have flown both describe the turning capability of the 109 as close to that of the Spitfire (not as good as or better mind you), so close infact that pilot skill would be the deciding factor, which should give some clue as to what level we're talking here. This is also what the math supports.

 

Finally versus the Japanese, you could fight the Zeke & Oscar effectively by keeping the speed high, but I doubt any sane pilot would ever attempt to turn fight with one for very long, be he in a F6F, F4U or P-38.  Even Spitfire pilots were advised to BnZ these two Japanese fighters. 

 

But you are ofcourse allowed to disagree, I just think you're setting yourself up for a major disappointment if you're actually expecting the P-38 to beat the premiere single engined fighters of the day, incl. the P-51, Fw190, Bf-109 & Spitfire.

I believe you're stuck on the idea that turn rate is the only thing that matters or at least it seems that way. No one seems to understand I said. That's my point, fighting against the German aircraft keep your speed high and that's exactly where the P-38 will shine greater than almost every other plane especially rate of roll. If turn rate was so important, because its the only thing I find you talking about ?. Then why were planes like the Fw-190 and Hellcat so deadly against their tighter turning adversaries? Again only the sim will tell, but so far the P-47 has come as a great surprise due to its amazing turning capabilities with flaps. I'm not saying its realistic, but neither is its high speed characteristics, ailerons ripping off and poor elevator control.

Your list of premiere fighters are subjective. The Spitfire is way too slow to compete with a Fw-190, nevermind the D9. The Bf-109K4 is a lot less scarier than when I first imagined. The plane handles like a dog at any reasonable speed and has nothing to offer but straight line speed and rate of climb. Which of course make it the best plane suited to 1v1 scenarios. However I believe the Fw-190, Tempest and P-51 make for much better air frames.

I'm just saying the P-38 will be up to par, I never suggest its going to hammer the competition into the ground. You'd be setting yourself up for disappointment if you believe the P-38 will not be competitive in any manner.

Edited December 2, 2018 by DSR_T-888

[Gambit21]

One thing I really like about the P-38 in the old sim was the guns right on the nose.

 

I scored some spectacular shots with that thing...an excellent gun platform.

[Panthera]

12 minutes ago, DSR_T-888 said:

I believe you're stuck on the idea that turn rate is the only thing that matters or at least it seems that way. No one seems to understand I said. That's my point, fighting against the German aircraft keep your speed high and that's exactly where the P-38 will shine greater than almost every other plane especially rate of roll. If turn rate was so important, because its the only thing I find you talking about ?. Then why were planes like the Fw-190 and Hellcat so deadly against their tighter turning adversaries? Again only the sim will tell, but so far the P-47 has come as a great surprise due to its amazing turning capabilities with flaps. I'm not saying its realistic, but neither is its high speed characteristics, ailerons ripping off and poor elevator control.

Your list of premiere fighters are subjective. The Spitfire is way too slow to compete with a Fw-190, nevermind the D9. The Bf-109K4 is a lot less scarier than when I first imagined. The plane handles like a dog at any reasonable speed and has nothing to offer but straight line speed and rate of climb. Which of course make it the best plane suited to 1v1 scenarios. However I believe the Fw-190, Tempest and P-51 make for much better air frames.

I'm just saying the P-38 will be up to par, I never suggest its going to hammer the competition into the ground. You'd be setting yourself up for disappointment if you believe the P-38 will not be competitive in any manner.

 

Roll rate is definitely important, I'm not trying to say it isn't. The reason we are primarily talking about turning is because that's what kickstarted this whole discussion, the claim that the P-38 was supposedly impressive in this department and therefore would constitute a change vs the LW players in relation to the P-47, something the math just doesn't support. 

 

But I was never trying to emply that the P-38 is without teeth though, or that has nothing to work with, because it certainly has, just like the Jug has. But I'm quite certain that just like the P-47, the P-38 will have to rely mostly on B&Z tactics to be effective ingame. Remember the P-47 is no slouch at rolling either, esp. at speed, yet it is definitely suffering vs the more dedicated fighters ingame atm, mainly because of the speed & altitude at which most fights are taking place ingame. 

[JG13_opcode]

On 11/27/2018 at 10:09 AM, blackram said:

5k+

You know, finally we have a server for grownups which can allow that. Thankfully.

 

5k isn't "high altitude".

5 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

I believe you're stuck on the idea that turn rate is the only thing that matters or at least it seems that way. No one seems to understand I said. That's my point, fighting against the German aircraft keep your speed high and that's exactly where the P-38 will shine greater than almost every other plane especially rate of roll. If turn rate was so important, because its the only thing I find you talking about ?. Then why were planes like the Fw-190 and Hellcat so deadly against their tighter turning adversaries? Again only the sim will tell, but so far the P-47 has come as a great surprise due to its amazing turning capabilities with flaps. I'm not saying its realistic, but neither is its high speed characteristics, ailerons ripping off and poor elevator control.

Your list of premiere fighters are subjective. The Spitfire is way too slow to compete with a Fw-190, nevermind the D9. The Bf-109K4 is a lot less scarier than when I first imagined. The plane handles like a dog at any reasonable speed and has nothing to offer but straight line speed and rate of climb. Which of course make it the best plane suited to 1v1 scenarios. However I believe the Fw-190, Tempest and P-51 make for much better air frames.

I'm just saying the P-38 will be up to par, I never suggest its going to hammer the competition into the ground. You'd be setting yourself up for disappointment if you believe the P-38 will not be competitive in any manner.

 

P-38, if modeled well, should be one of the best energy fighters.

 

There used to be a trick on the old sim where you'd pop out flaps and the speed brakes and plink Fw 190 pilots from 500m+ when they thought they could beat you in a flat scissors.  You just didn't play their game and punished them for their insolence.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

"What will counter the K4 up high?"

 

All the guys actually playing the objectives down low.

[Legioneod]

21 minutes ago, JG13_opcode said:

P-38, if modeled well, should be one of the best energy fighters.

P-47 should be good as well but with some of the current inaccuracies/limitations in the model it can't capitalize as much as it should.

P-38 will be fun but I'm curious how it will be modeled.

[=621=Samikatz]

3 hours ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

"What will counter the K4 up high?"

 

All the guys actually playing the objectives down low.

 

I mean that's historical, isn't it? The Allies destroyed or damaged huge portions of German industry to the point where they couldn't field enough combat-ready K-4s for them to be relevant. That's something the ME is easily capable of replicating. Have an airfield where the K-4 can spawn and set it to disable when X objects around it (fuel tanks, ammo dumps, whatever) are destroyed.

 

Edit: I suppose in a way the best counter for the K-4 would've been the Typhoon. Very fast down low, and with 12 60lb RP-3s it has the potential to blow up a good number of soft targets per sortie

Edited December 3, 2018 by =621=Samikatz

[TWC_Ace]

3 hours ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

"What will counter the K4 up high?"

 

All the guys actually playing the objectives down low.

Oh there are many folks at higher alts.

The thing is, this is a sim, and a game. Not the real WW2. We dont have strategic bombers so P51 would do what? Counter the K4. But Im happy with what we have. Its the closest we can get. Strategic bombers would take ages to built in current quality standards and Im not sure IL2 netcode can hold this.

Edited December 3, 2018 by blackram

[Kurfurst]

5 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

I mean that's historical, isn't it? The Allies destroyed or damaged huge portions of German industry to the point where they couldn't field enough combat-ready K-4s for them to be relevant.

 

Kindly refer to this thread for production and allocation of K-4s.

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

Kindly refer to this thread for production and allocation of K-4s.

 

Of course production does not equal delivered, on hand does not equal serviceable.

 

Which bit is the 1,600 1.98 K-4s? ?

[MiloMorai]

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Kindly refer to this thread for production and allocation of K-4s.

 

 

 

On Jan 1 1945 the establishment strength of the JGs that flew the K-4s during Bodenplatte was suppose to be 820 a/c. On that  date there was 165 K-4s on hand and ONLY 90 K-4s serviceable. A 10.9% serviceable rate to establishment strength. Up to that date 835 K-4s had been produced.

 

For the

G-10 > ES 752, OH 89, S 52

G-14 > ES 884, OH 184, S 141

G-14/AS > ES 412, OH 172, S 118

 

Total ES should have been 2868 a/c but ONLY 401 were serviceable. ie 14% of ES 

Edited December 3, 2018 by MiloMorai

[=621=Samikatz]

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Kindly refer to this thread for production and allocation of K-4s.

 

 

 

Just because the airframes have been constructed doesn't mean they're in any position to actually take off

[EAF19_Marsh]

Indeed, that graph - tempered by reference to other facts - is extremely ‘educational’.

 

The synthesis does indeed show that that aircraft were in reality quite ‘rare’. Though if the Luftwaffe had not been so short of fuel they might at least have become ‘medium’.

[Bremspropeller]

Airplanes delivered was never the problem for the Luftwaffe.

Airplanes serviceable, airplanes fuelled and airplanes manned with competent personnel was, however.

 

I'm also seeing a lot of people setting themselves up for disappointment, when the P-38 comes out.

Sure, it became better than it's reputation when some of the late fixes came to the line, but the general shortcomings of the airplane were never fixed:

 

- large, easy to see, identify and hit

- a crappy visibility in many directions (most obvious the engines and booms)

- the Mustang could fly faster, farther and do it with less cost and fewer engines

- not competitive in terms of max speed or tactical Mach number up high - no, the dive flap didn't cure this (not at all)

 

I will enjoy flying it (especially digging through some mud), but it won't hold all the answers for anybody.

It'll be an aircraft that is extremely rewarding for a competent person, but it certainly won't be an acemaker.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[NZTyphoon]

On 12/4/2018 at 6:08 AM, Bremspropeller said:

Airplanes delivered was never the problem for the Luftwaffe.

Airplanes serviceable, airplanes fuelled and airplanes manned with competent personnel was, however.

 

I'm also seeing a lot of people setting themselves up for disappointment, when the P-38 comes out.

Sure, it became better than it's reputation when some of the late fixes came to the line, but the general shortcomings of the airplane were never fixed:

 

- large, easy to see, identify and hit

- a crappy visibility in many directions (most obvious the engines and booms)

- the Mustang could fly faster, farther and do it with less cost and fewer engines

- not competitive in terms of max speed or tactical Mach number up high - no, the dive flap didn't cure this (not at all)

 

I will enjoy flying it (especially digging through some mud), but it won't hold all the answers for anybody.

It'll be an aircraft that is extremely rewarding for a competent person, but it certainly won't be an acemaker.

I've often wondered why Lockheed didn't redesign the cockpit enclosure to incorporate a frameless, blown 'Malcolm' canopy, similar to that used by later F4U-1s or some P-51B/Cs and pre dash 25 P-47Ds: along with a new canopy, raising the seat a few inches would, at least, have helped alleviate bad visibilty.