# I Beseech thy Mods



## comiso90 (Feb 16, 2007)

I’m relatively new to this forum and I am often frustrated by the loose semantics.

“Best”, and "Worse”!!! How about some basic categorization? 
Night aircraft vs. Day
Carrier vs. Land Based
Western European Front vs. Eastern European
Pacific vs. Europe
1937 – 1943 and 1943-1945
Medium bomber vs. Heavy
High altitude, med , low

As you know, the environments directly influence development and deployment.

Too many discussions are pointless without the proper context. It’s like arguing about the “best color” ... best color for what?

I know it’s tough to police and in the interest of creative discourse, u cant be too stringent but there has to be a solution.

BTW, I think the best carrier based night fighter in the pacific was the Corsair with radar.

AARGH!... thanks for listening..................

This is the first forum I've ever signed up with and I think it's awesome... thanks to all the knowlegable peeps!


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 16, 2007)

How about starting a new thread or two with some of ur ideas then..


----------



## evangilder (Feb 16, 2007)

There are several threads of discussion that are really unresolvable. "Best Fighter", "Best Bomber", etc will never have a definitive answer. People will have their own biases based on any number of things, including the aesthetic aspect. There are really too many variables to formulate a "mathematical definite" as far as best, worst, etc. But it leads to interesting discussion. I often read through them without posting and I usually learn something along the way.

The categories are about as good as they can get without having volumes of sections, which, I, for one don't like the layout of. 

I am a member on another forum that has way too many sections which actually make sknowing where to post something, or find something difficult and confusing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2007)

You can not stop people form there opinions and what they wish to talk about it. Only if it gets out of hand can something be done about it.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 16, 2007)

Not a mod but I understand where C is coming from. His point bothered me for a short time but now I consider it a strength of the forum, not a detriment. 

The loose verbage is intentional, it leads to an open ended discussion. Need it for a decent discussion. The idea is not that there is a definitive answer, most of the questions asked are designed not to produce an answer, but discussion about options. 

If a question is asked, "What is the best day fighter with a Merlin engine between the years 1943 and 1944 based on loss rate?", the answer becomes a question of refining details. It is a finite answer. 

By asking questions without defining the criteria, the discussion doesn't get refined to a point and generally wanders a bit. In terms of discussion, it allows the exploration of ideas and posters are free to put their own criteria out for whatever the question.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 16, 2007)

timshatz said:


> If a question is asked, "What is the best day fighter with a Merlin engine between the years 1943 and 1944 based on loss rate?", the answer becomes a question of refining details. It is a finite answer.
> 
> By asking questions without defining the criteria, the discussion doesn't get refined to a point and generally wanders a bit. In terms of discussion, it allows the exploration of ideas and posters are free to put their own criteria out for whatever the question.




I agree.. I just get frustrated when peeps compare italian land based fighters to Japanese carrier planes ect... and defend a stance with blind indignation without taking all the data into consideration... I was mostly venting.

Are there any computer programmers out there? How about developing a Relitive Worth Index? 

How good was the P-47?

(scale: 1 - 10)

rate of climb over 10,000... 7
rate of climb under 10,000... 6
fixed armemment... 7
Max Range... 7
Durability... 8
Role rate... 6
load out for type ... 7

ect... develop a list of 100+ criterea, punch in the data and a Relative Worth Index is returned..

For entertainment an discussion facilitation only. I'm not suggesting a definitive means to declare "Best" or Worse"... Humans will have to decide that.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 16, 2007)

Someone out there has a spreadsheet with a scoring system in one of the best fighter threads, I think it is John Goldberg, but I am not sure of the top of my head.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I agree.. I just get frustrated when peeps compare italian land based fighters to Japanese carrier planes ect... and defend a stance with blind indignation without taking all the data into consideration... I was mostly venting.
> 
> Are there any computer programmers out there? How about developing a Relitive Worth Index?
> 
> ...





I understand what you are trying to say but what you are suggesting is not possible. The reason it is not is b/c if you can't get 5900 members of our site to agree which is the best day light fighter between 1940-45 how are you going to get them to agree on the worth of each of your suggested ratings, can't be done.

You might value fire power more than me, I might value speed more than you etc etc etc.

Like people above have said "which is the best (insert whatever you want here)", is completely subjective. But what a thread like that does is gets people talking about their ideas and hopefully everyone walks away from the thread with more knowledge then they had before (so it really is a good thing).

Certainly we can all use common sense to eliminate many fighters from being the "best", but there is a good many fighters that are very close to each other (depends on what each of us values the most in the fighter we are talking about, lose rate? kill ratio? speed? fire power? roll rate? dive rate? range? the list just goes on and on).

Personally I don't get too involved in the "best ever" threads b/c its very very subjective and you can waste alot of time debating with each other and never convience anyone. But they are cool to read to gain knowledge, many members here are crazy numbers people (they are a great pool of knowledge even if they can't agree LOL).

Certainly you could make your own worth index for yourself but it would mean very little to anyone else b/c no one will place the exact same values as you do on each category.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 16, 2007)

The "best" threads are all about personal biases - but they're fun discussions. Hunter pretty much summed it up.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 16, 2007)

And when it all comes down to slinging lead, the man in the cockpit can be the deciding factor. Filipino pilots proved that by shooting down Zeros while flying P-26 peashooters! On paper, there is no way that a P-26 should come out on top of that engagement, but it happened. Same with the Brewster Buffalo flown by the Finns.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 16, 2007)

evangilder said:


> And when it all comes down to slinging lead, the man in the cockpit can be the deciding factor. Filipino pilots proved that by shooting down Zeros while flying P-26 peashooters! On paper, there is no way that a P-26 should come out on top of that engagement, but it happened. Same with the Brewster Buffalo flown by the Finns.



100% agree. Ever country in WW2 had inferior planes at one point during WW2 and yet they still had "some" success b/c of the pilots (and the tactics they used) they had flying them. 

Or on the flip side of it you can say every country had superior planes at one point that were shot down by inferior planes b/c the enemy pilots were better (or used better tactics).

There is just so many damn varibles to consider you just can't say this is the "best plane" because. No index will work either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2007)

timshatz said:


> The loose verbage is intentional, it leads to an open ended discussion. Need it for a decent discussion. The idea is not that there is a definitive answer, most of the questions asked are designed not to produce an answer, but discussion about options.
> 
> If a question is asked, "What is the best day fighter with a Merlin engine between the years 1943 and 1944 based on loss rate?", the answer becomes a question of refining details. It is a finite answer.
> 
> By asking questions without defining the criteria, the discussion doesn't get refined to a point and generally wanders a bit. In terms of discussion, it allows the exploration of ideas and posters are free to put their own criteria out for whatever the question.



Exactly...

If someone wishes to post a definitive question or thread they may do so as well. These are just basic threads. More indepth threads are allowed as well.


----------

