[oldschoolie]

These are absolutely the dog's b*ll*cks...thanks for superb add-ons. Please can we have some more (no, I'm not Oliver Twist).

[fly_zo]

...moved to proper forum section

Z

[Trooper117]

You have these gunsights because it was proved that they were historicaly accurate for the types involved..
Not every aircraft had them introduced, not sure if there are other types it would apply to.

[Skullbiscuit]

You have these gunsights because it was proved that they were historicaly accurate for the types involved..
Not every aircraft had them introduced, not sure if there are other types it would apply to.

viewtopic.php?t=2201&highlight=gunsight+p38

Well let me say (with due respect to the work of all at this site to make this good simulation even better) that there apparently have been "editorial" decisions made regarding what aircraft ended up getting the gunsight and which did not --- now that I think about it almost like the "command decision" made during the war.

Case in point is the P-38J which there exists historical evidence (see link above) that the gunsight was introduced to this aircraft (probably as part of a test implementation for documenting future modifications at the factory or mod kits for the field) and that the reason that we do not have historical evidence of the gunsight latter appearing on that aircraft is because the Army Air Corps and War Dept. decided to put the new gyro sight on p-51D's which were being produced explicitly to replace and phase out the p-38's in the European Theater.

By the time P-51D's started showing up with these sights they are actively displacing P-38's (and P-47's) which are now being assigned ground support roles where the probability for air to air combat is likely far less than on bomber escort (now a role being done mainly by P-51's)

A footnote --- 38's began gradually disappearing from the ETO by the early summer of 44 so that by the end of the war they were entirely gone save one group in the MTO ---- most new production going to the PTO where PTO pilots loved the 38 because of two engines over long expanses of water and PTO 38's did not suffer the engine and cold cockpit problems which had given the ETO p-38J's a bad reputation),

If we are strictly going to stick to historical fielding in terms of mods on the site then I would say that there should be no "what if" or 1946 mods of any kind. If it did not have documented evidence of actual employment before end of hostilities 1945 then it should not be done.

Clearly that is not what is done here though. There are selective attempts to introduce what was "plausible" if different production priorities had been made, or the war had stretched out longer, or in some cases if there was a solitary example of a prototype which may even have never had entered construction or flew.

So when you take all of this into consideration, you can't continue to refuse a mod which has historical photographic evidence that it was fitted, though for reasons of fielding alternative aircraft and those aircraft receiving prioritization of the new equipment, but was never fielded in a manner that it could have been.

I have scoured p-38 books and have not found any more evidence than what I provided in the link above. I should add that Martin Caidin's book Fork Tailed Devil History of the P-38 does not mention gunsights at all --- in over 400 pages http://www.amazon.com/Fork-Tailed-Devil ... 0743479629 --- apparently the author did not think this piece of equipment was worth mentioning though he spends a lot of words on the engines and other flight characteristics to include discussing the problems the 38J had with the cold ETO climate. I think at the end of the day that should be enough evidence if you are inclined with the "plausible" argument which I have given above. If you want to be strictly literal (and thus contradict a lot of other decisions that have been made on mods) then I would say no gyro site for the 38 since it did not get:

1. The factory equipping and fielding priority that p-51D's enjoyed due to their role in displacing 38's and 47's as the primary bomber escort a/c (and from the Army Air Corps perspective the most likely to engage in air to air combat).

2. We still have a lack of documented proof that any 38's might have gained access to these gunsights through "redirection" of mod kits being sent mainly to the ETO.

3. Also I have read an account where some pilots did not like the new gyro gunsight because it could be fooled by doing a quick redirection (you are turning hard left or right and then turn back the opposite way --- this normally is a rookie error and get's you killed --- but the gyro site would have a momentary lapse here --- a shot down p-51 pilot in Japan actually told his captors about this limitation --- problem was when the Japanese sought to take advantage of this shortcoming they ran into aircraft that did not have the gyro site and several of them were shot down making this "rookie" error) So there may have been pilots who could have gotten the new sight installed via a mod kit and told their ground crew to forget about it; they'll stick with what they know and what works.

Regards

SB

[dderidex]

Even *aside* from the ETO considerations - the war kept going a bit longer in the Pacific, anyway. The USN deployed a K.14-like 'gyro' gunsight as the Mk18, obviously primarily in this theater.