On the topic of Thunderbolts

[ShamrockOneFive]

Nice Shamy.

Looking forward to you joining our (small but growing) ranks with the current editor.

 

I'm trying to get started by chewing off very small chunks. I'm getting a little more familiar with the UI and I've now placed a flak battery on the ground and given it something to do. And I've only had a handful of minutes to get into things so far but I hope to learn more over the holidays.

 

Looking forward to what you might do with a P-47 campaign. I'd have fun with that! A lot of fun!

[Rebel_Scum]

The P-47M would make a great collector plane.

 

[Rjel]

The P-47M would make a great collector plane.

 

 

Yup. Then when we get to the Pacific, the N would be a nice addition.

[DSR_A-24]

The P-47M would make a great collector plane.

 

P-47Ms really only saw combat during the last months of the war due to engine difficulties. Only 130 of them were built and only one fighter group received them, the 56FG. The 56FG didn't even participate in bodenplatte. When you start adding planes like the P-47M the other team will suggest planes like the Ta-152 and then you're just stepping into fantasy land with everyone is trying to get their hands on uber props. <- Makes for corny gameplay. The P-47M during the altitudes that most dogfights take place will preform equal to the P-51D. The P-47M is really only exceptional at high altitude basically maintaining its crown away from the K-4.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The P-47M would make a great collector plane.

 

 

The 130 or so P-47M's put into production were P-47D-30's pulled off the production line and fitted with a specially tuned engine and turbosupercharger. It wouldn't need a whole new aircraft. Just an engine modification ala the La-5 or Spitfire V.

[DSR_A-24]

The 130 or so P-47M's put into production were P-47D-30's pulled off the production line and fitted with a specially tuned engine and turbosupercharger. It wouldn't need a whole new aircraft. Just an engine modification ala the La-5 or Spitfire V.

 

Sham, a new turbo, propeller hub and engine is not a modification. Nor were these even considered field modifications during war time. There's a reason why its called the P-47M and not the P-47D-50.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Sham, a new turbo, propeller hub and engine is not a modification. Nor were these even considered field modifications during war time. There's a reason why its called the P-47M and not the P-47D-50.

 

DSR, as far as the game engine is concerned it could be easily done as a modification the same way that the La-5 has a M-82F engine modification and the Spitfire Vb has Merlin 45 and Merlin 46. The fact that its the identical airframe of a P-47D-30 (the likely variant for BoBP) makes this ideal.

 

I'm talking about the sim...

Edited December 8, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[Rebel_Scum]

P-47Ms really only saw combat during the last months of the war due to engine difficulties. Only 130 of them were built and only one fighter group received them, the 56FG. The 56FG didn't even participate in bodenplatte. When you start adding planes like the P-47M the other team will suggest planes like the Ta-152 and then you're just stepping into fantasy land with everyone is trying to get their hands on uber props. <- Makes for corny gameplay. The P-47M during the altitudes that most dogfights take place will preform equal to the P-51D. The P-47M is really only exceptional at high altitude basically maintaining its crown away from the K-4.

 

"P-47Ms really only saw combat during the last months of the war due to engine difficulties. Only 130 of them were built and only one fighter group received them, the 56FG. The 56FG didn't even participate in bodenplatte."

A P-47M collector plane will fit very nicely in a BoX version of il2 1946...along with all the other strange and unusual aircraft that came too late to play a significant part in the war.  I don't know about you, but I'd like to see the current incarnation of the il2 franchise evolve in generally the same direction as its predecessor.  

 

 

"When you start adding planes like the P-47M the other team will suggest planes like the Ta-152 and then you're just stepping into fantasy land with everyone is trying to get their hands on uber props. <- Makes for corny gameplay."

Fantasy land?  Corny gameplay?  I'll make you a deal--I'll refrain from criticising your simulated aircraft choices if you'll refrain from criticising mine.  Is that okay with you?

 

 

"The P-47M during the altitudes that most dogfights take place will preform equal to the P-51D. The P-47M is really only exceptional at high altitude basically maintaining its crown away from the K-4."

That and the fact that it's a rare and an interesting aircraft are all good reasons why it would make a great collector item, i.e. an item you're not forced to purchase as part of an established plane set.  

Edited December 8, 2017 by Rebel_Scum

[imaca]

 

- even the 4 cannons of the Tempest cannot compete with the 8 .50's on the Jug for sheer destructive volume and energy of rounds on target. 

 

This guy (and the US navy) disagree ;-)

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

 

[Gambit21]

Arbitrary - apples and oranges data and a bit of guesswork presented in chart form.

Reducing real world efficacy to a game of Dungeons and Dragons - but interesting as far as it goes.

Thanks for posting.

[Gambit21]

...also not "attached" as it were.

Kinetic energy and explosive/chemical energy are difficult to compare.

 

A short burst from a Jug resulted in the equivalent of a 15lb projectile impacting the target at a high mach number.

Cannons are a different ball game. More destructive energy per round, but far fewer rounds fired, and fewer still on target.

Also talking mud-moving where target coverage helps on soft targets.

 

In the end hard to argue with either.

[Tomsk]

Arbitrary - apples and oranges data and a bit of guesswork presented in chart form.

Reducing real world efficacy to a game of Dungeons and Dragons - but interesting as far as it goes.

Thanks for posting.

 

Yeah I've read that analysis before and I think it's really interesting, but I agree it's really hard to compare the merits of cannons vs machineguns. In the end my personal view is that 8 .50 cals were a very effective package in the role that they were employed. The .50 has great ballistics, and carries a large ammunition load that allowed P-47 to often open up from fairly long ranges. That said 4 Hispanos was also a formidable weapons package, and the Hispano also has good ballistics. I suspect the author of that website is right and in terms of destructiveness per unit of weight carried the nod would have to go to the Hispanos. However, both were powerful and effective weapons systems and the US definitely gained benefits logistically from using a very common round.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Tomsk

[VeryOldMan]

This guy (and the US navy) disagree ;-)

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

 

 

 

In fact even  with a little bit of basic terminal ballistic  anyone would disagree.  The amount of energy DELIVERED by a projectile is roughly proportional to the impulse (not the kinetic energy, because the more mass a projectile has the easier it is for it to transfer energy to the other object .When the object is  too small to transfer energy  efficiently it spends the energy  by shattering small parts of itself or in heat). 

 

When you add explosive rounds, the advantage of cannons(against soft targets)  skyrocket (because besides kinetic energy there is a very efficient on point chemical energy application). A 109 with Mk108 alone would  deliver roughly same destructive power against soft skin targets as the 8 guns in a Jug did. There is a reason  tanks need large rounds and not an array of  40 machine guns

 

That means that a 20mm cannons is roughly 3 times more efficient at delivering energy as a .50 was.   

[DressedWings]

When you add explosive rounds, the advantage of cannons(against soft targets)  skyrocket (because besides kinetic energy there is a very efficient on point chemical energy application). A 109 with Mk108 alone would  deliver roughly same destructive power against soft skin targets as the 8 guns in a Jug did. There is a reason  tanks need large rounds and not an array of  40 machine guns

 

 

 

Sure but 3400 .50s kills a lot more than 65 30mm rounds

 

neither are gonna be effective against proper armoured targets though, did the mk108 even have AP rounds?

 

E: not that 30mm HE won't mess up something like an M3 half track.

Edited December 8, 2017 by DressedWings

[Tomsk]

When you add explosive rounds, the advantage of cannons(against soft targets)  skyrocket (because besides kinetic energy there is a very efficient on point chemical energy application). A 109 with Mk108 alone would  deliver roughly same destructive power against soft skin targets as the 8 guns in a Jug did.

 

Very possibly, although it is worth noting the Mk 108 was generally not considered a great anti-fighter weapon due to the low rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, poor ballistics, limited ammo supply and the fact the round is kind of overkill against a fighter. Against slower moving bombers though it was extremely effective.

 

 

That means that a 20mm cannons is roughly 3 times more efficient at delivering energy as a .50 was.   

 

Yes, that's the number I understood the US air force used as its "rule of thumb", which seems plausible.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Tomsk

[VeryOldMan]

Sure but 3400 .50s kills a lot more than 65 30mm rounds

 

neither are gonna be effective against proper armoured targets though, did the mk108 even have AP rounds?

 

E: not that 30mm HE won't mess up something like an M3 half track.

 

 

The type of target indeed is very relevant. When you are dealing with   targets that can or cannto withstand the ammunition   any round that has low chance of  penetrating protection is  effectively worth nothing.

 

After that..  the rounds that can  kill a target in a single hit  nearly 100% of time are worth "Absolute kill"  value. Any roung that  is more powerful than that. is worth exactly the same.

 

So if you are trying to kill cows.. a .50 is as effective round per round as a Mk108 30mm or a Flak 88 ...

 

But if the target  has a reasonable probability of surviving   several  hits of the less powerful weapon that  number of shots needed to reach near 100%  kill effect  is the number of times that smaller round is less powerful than the  "absolute kill" value. So if you are trying to kill a  b17.. that is way less likely to die to a single shot  than a cow is..  that is when the Mk108  suddenly becomes  much more effective.

 

Most fighters can  survive  1 or 2 .50 hits (in fact surviving 5-9 rounds  was not that rare). Surviving 2 Mk108 shots would need a miracle. On other hand it is obviously much easier to do deflection shots with a .50

 

For that reason that 20mm  cannons were the better balanced weapons of the war. Very high kill efficiency even with 1 or 2 shots, while  much  easier to make small and with good ballistics than a 30mm   or 37mm gun). That size is so critically well placed that  for all 20th century it became a near standard(with soviets  upscaling a bit to 23mm).

 

Also Mk108 did not had low rate of fire(  about the same as early M2 .50 had). It had  low velocity projectile  that made very hard to hit things..

Edited December 8, 2017 by VeryOldMan

[DSR_A-24]

Don't get me wrong I'd love to see the P-47M, its my favourite aircraft next to the P-47N. But for gameplay's sake, its best if we don't. There's a reason why War thunder's entire simulator battles community moved to BoS in a heart beat.

The P-40's firepower is insane in BoX. I'm surprised no one has called for a nerf yet. When bodenplatte comes out it's definitely going to be a hot top on the forums.

[PainGod85]

The P-47M would make a great collector plane.

 

 

Oh yes please.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

P-40 firepower in BoM is very strong indeed. Whenever possible, I use four guns with extra ammunition instead of six guns. This seems to be one of best armaments for certain missions because it destroys targets rather quickly and carries essentially unlimited ammunition.

[VeryOldMan]

P-40 firepower in BoM is very strong indeed. Whenever possible, I use four guns with extra ammunition instead of six guns. This seems to be one of best armaments for certain missions because it destroys targets rather quickly and carries essentially unlimited ammunition.

Well it is not like the Germans will not have the Me262 to compete on the firepower department

[DressedWings]

The type of target indeed is very relevant. When you are dealing with   targets that can or cannto withstand the ammunition   any round that has low chance of  penetrating protection is  effectively worth nothing.

 

After that..  the rounds that can  kill a target in a single hit  nearly 100% of time are worth "Absolute kill"  value. Any roung that  is more powerful than that. is worth exactly the same.

 

So if you are trying to kill cows.. a .50 is as effective round per round as a Mk108 30mm or a Flak 88 ...

 

But if the target  has a reasonable probability of surviving   several  hits of the less powerful weapon that  number of shots needed to reach near 100%  kill effect  is the number of times that smaller round is less powerful than the  "absolute kill" value. So if you are trying to kill a  b17.. that is way less likely to die to a single shot  than a cow is..  that is when the Mk108  suddenly becomes  much more effective.

 

Most fighters can  survive  1 or 2 .50 hits (in fact surviving 5-9 rounds  was not that rare). Surviving 2 Mk108 shots would need a miracle. On other hand it is obviously much easier to do deflection shots with a .50

 

For that reason that 20mm  cannons were the better balanced weapons of the war. Very high kill efficiency even with 1 or 2 shots, while  much  easier to make small and with good ballistics than a 30mm   or 37mm gun). That size is so critically well placed that  for all 20th century it became a near standard(with soviets  upscaling a bit to 23mm).

 

Also Mk108 did not had low rate of fire(  about the same as early M2 .50 had). It had  low velocity projectile  that made very hard to hit things..

 

 

Yes but a good broad side from the 8 fiddies are gonna bring down any luftwaffe fighter or disable any heer truck. I think that's the most important bit here. The US wasn't having to deal with German bombers, so the advantage of large caliber cannons (>20mm) are a bit lost. The Navy did adopt many cannon equipped fighters in the war, and the USAAF did have its P-38. But dealing with small fighters, the fifty did fine.

 

The AN/M2 outdoes the mk 108 by about 150rpm as well, but that isn't much of a difference. 

[DSR_A-24]

P-40 firepower in BoM is very strong indeed. Whenever possible, I use four guns with extra ammunition instead of six guns. This seems to be one of best armaments for certain missions because it destroys targets rather quickly and carries essentially unlimited ammunition.

I prefer 6 guns as my aim is dogshit and I need all the firepower I can get in a short amount of time. The P-47 will bring 32 seconds of unprecedented freedom.   Finally we'll have a stable platform to fire our guns from instead of the wobbly P-40E.

 

[DSR_A-24]

Well it is not like the Germans will not have the Me262 to compete on the firepower department

 

Yup, nothing to compare when it comes to firepower. The Me-262 just has to look at you and you're dead.

 

Yes but a good broad side from the 8 fiddies are gonna bring down any luftwaffe fighter or disable any heer truck. I think that's the most important bit here. The US wasn't having to deal with German bombers, so the advantage of large caliber cannons (>20mm) are a bit lost. The Navy did adopt many cannon equipped fighters in the war, and the USAAF did have its P-38. But dealing with small fighters, the fifty did fine.

 

The AN/M2 outdoes the mk 108 by about 150rpm as well, but that isn't much of a difference. 

The same way BF-109 pilots make due with poor visibility they'll make due with poor muzzle velocity with their MK 108. Look at DCS for example, K4 pilots are dominating.

Edited December 8, 2017 by DSR_T-888

[DressedWings]

The same way BF-109 pilots make due with poor visibility they'll make due with poor muzzle velocity with their MK 108. Look at DCS for example, K4 pilots are dominating.

 

Mustang and K-4 seem to be on par, but the K-4 is just ungodly fast in the straight line thanks to being all engine. 

 

If they made a MkXIVe Spit instead of LF Mk9 the Spit would actually be competitive to the K-4.

[Rebel_Scum]

Don't get me wrong I'd love to see the P-47M, its my favourite aircraft next to the P-47N. But for gameplay's sake, its best if we don't. There's a reason why War thunder's entire simulator battles community moved to BoS in a heart beat.

The P-40's firepower is insane in BoX. I'm surprised no one has called for a nerf yet. When bodenplatte comes out it's definitely going to be a hot top on the forums.

 

"But for gameplay's sake, its best if we don't. There's a reason why War thunder's entire simulator battles community moved to BoS in a heart beat."

Whether or not a P-47M suits my play style is something I'd like to decide for myself, thank you very much.  

[Rebel_Scum]

Most fighters can  survive  1 or 2 .50 hits (in fact surviving 5-9 rounds  was not that rare). Surviving 2 Mk108 shots would need a miracle. On other hand it is obviously much easier to do deflection shots with a .50

 

The Mk108 has always reminded me of the Mk 19 grenade launcher.  I spent much of the previous decade doing reliability and maintainability testing on combat automotive systems at the US Army's Yuma Proving Ground, much of which included systems integration tests involving the Mk 19 grenade launcher.  I've never seen a Mk108 in action, but I can only assume it's destructive force somewhat approaches that of the Mk 19...which is absolutely terrifying!  I can't begin to image what it must have been like for the pilot and co-pilot of a B-17 whose cockpit is struck by even a single Mk108 projectile.

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Rebel_Scum

[DSR_A-24]

Mustang and K-4 seem to be on par, but the K-4 is just ungodly fast in the straight line thanks to being all engine. 

 

If they made a MkXIVe Spit instead of LF Mk9 the Spit would actually be competitive to the K-4.

If they added the XIV the K4 would only posses a minor speed advantage and nothing else. Spitfire IX with a higher boost will make [edited] more competitive gameplay IMO.

 

"But for gameplay's sake, its best if we don't. There's a reason why War thunder's entire simulator battles community moved to BoS in a heart beat."

Whether or not a P-47M suits my play style is something I'd like to decide for myself, thank you very much.  

?

Edited December 11, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin
lenguage

[Tomsk]

Mustang and K-4 seem to be on par, but the K-4 is just ungodly fast in the straight line thanks to being all engine. 

 

IMO it's hard to argue the Mustang and the K-4 are on par in DCS. The K4 is faster at virtually all altitudes and the WEP lasts much longer, it climbs much better, it turns better (at slow and medium speeds). The .50 cals in DCS are very underpowered, so the K4 definitely wins on the armament side, even if the Mk 108 is a little hard to use. The Mustang's only advantages are that it handles better at high speeds, and it has better cockpit visibility ... but that's about it.

 

 

Don't get me wrong I'd love to see the P-47M, its my favourite aircraft next to the P-47N. But for gameplay's sake, its best if we don't. There's a reason why War thunder's entire simulator battles community moved to BoS in a heart beat.

 

I might agree, except that we already have the Me 262, the Fw 190 D9 and the Bf 109 K4 ... all of which are incredibly powerful, and were relatively rare. So I can't see adding the P-47M would change things very drastically ... 

 

That said, I'm very much hoping that most servers won't frequently allow most of those planes. I'd much rather see the much more common line up of P-51Ds, P-47Ds, Spitfire Mk IXs, Bf 109 G6s, Fw 190 A8s and so on :-)

[DressedWings]

IMO it's hard to argue the Mustang and the K-4 are on par in DCS. The K4 is faster at virtually all altitudes and the WEP lasts much longer, it climbs much better, it turns better (at slow and medium speeds). The .50 cals in DCS are very underpowered, so the K4 definitely wins on the armament side, even if the Mk 108 is a little hard to use. The Mustang's only advantages are that it handles better at high speeds, and it has better cockpit visibility ... but that's about it.

 

The K-4 should only have an acceleration advantage, overall top speed should be in the Mustangs favour or near identical unless at some point they gimped the P-51D. The issue with the Mustang in DCS is that they are not clear what block it is, and under what engine settings they are intending it to be flying with, fuel quality, etc. Not familiar with the different WEP times though.

 

The Mustang can definitely turn with the K-4 though thanks to the better wing loading.

 

The K-4 for sure has the advantage with its cannon though thanks to EDs lack of care for the fifty.

[Gambit21]

Sure but 3400 .50s kills a lot more than 65 30mm rounds

 

neither are gonna be effective against proper armoured targets though, did the mk108 even have AP rounds?

 

E: not that 30mm HE won't mess up something like an M3 half track.

Yep...and we're talking about mud moving here against supply convoys, marshaling yards and such,

They're mostly all cows to use the geezer's analogy.

 

Here's another analogy - it's a bit silly but it fits.

What is more destructive to your face, an 85mph fast ball or a 60mph fastball?

The 85 mph fastball of course.

 

Now, would you rather take a single 85 mph fastball to the nose or 40 60 mph fastballs?

 

A tank uses a single large round because of what it's shooting at and where it's shooting from (slow or stationary, large, armored target) and that is another apples to oranges

comparison frankly.

 

There's a reason the A-10 is equipped how it is, and why it was named the Thunderbolt after all.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Gambit21

[Tomsk]

The K-4 should only have an acceleration advantage, overall top speed should be in the Mustangs favour or near identical unless at some point they gimped the P-51D. The issue with the Mustang in DCS is that they are not clear what block it is, and under what engine settings they are intending it to be flying with, fuel quality, etc. Not familiar with the different WEP times though.

 

The Mustang can definitely turn with the K-4 though thanks to the better wing loading.

 

The K-4 for sure has the advantage with its cannon though thanks to EDs lack of care for the fifty.

 

Top speed is fairly close, and without WEP the P-51 is at a slight advantage. But on WEP the K4 has the edge, and it has a lot more WEP time as well due to the MW injection. That MW injection is a huge boost for the K4, it really isn't nearly as potent without it. Additionally the K4s fluid-coupled supercharger is also better suited to the low-medium altitude combat of DCS as it gave peak power at a much wider range of altitudes. It's certainly true though that the P-51 is modelled at quite conservative engine settings, and the K4 is not. That said this is also likely an artifact of the fact at this stage in the war the allies had total air surpremacy anyway, so why stress the engine unnecessarily? Also it's hard to model the poor manufacturing quality that the K4 was subject to, DCS does model a "perfect" K4 .. something that likely hardly ever existed in the field at this stage in the war.

 

You might think the Mustang would out-turn the K4, it does have a (slightly) lower wing loading ... but turn times are not just wing loading but also power-to-weight can have a big effect. You can turn hard in the P-51 but it burns energy like crazy, and the P-51 can't replace that energy nearly as well as the K4 does. So in practice in DCS trying to turn fight a K4 is a losing strategy unless you can seal the deal very quickly.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Tomsk

[DSR_A-24]

I might agree, except that we already have the Me 262, the Fw 190 D9 and the Bf 109 K4 ... all of which are incredibly powerful, and were relatively rare. So I can't see adding the P-47M would change things very drastically ... 

 

That said, I'm very much hoping that most servers won't frequently allow most of those planes. I'd much rather see the much more common line up of P-51Ds, P-47Ds, Spitfire Mk IXs, Bf 109 G6s, Fw 190 A8s and so on :-)

Here's my number crunching post on the rarity of specific variants. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/32444-spitfire-ix-discussion/page-5?do=findComment&comment=542409

 

"Total Serviceable Gustavs  : 233(G14) + 89(Other G series) = 322

Total Serviceable Kurfursts : 82

 

So that's about a 4:1 Gustav to Kurfurst Ratio. Or 3:1 if not including G-10s.

 

Total Serviceable Antons : 247(A8) + 23(A9) + 72(F8) = 342

Total Serviceable Doras  : 157

 

2:1 Anton to Dora ratio. 1.5:1  A8 to D9.

 

I included the F8, because IIRC they had the same engine as the A8. So I'd expect similar performance.

 

After counting its interesting to see that the Dora was chosen as a collectors plane rather than the Me-262 or Bf-109K4"

 

24 operational Me-262s, so you could argue for the P-47M. However the P-47M was issued to the 56FG which didn't participate in bodenplatte. 

 

The P-47M is a very competitive plane to add if anything its not even that special considering pilots were already flying P-47Ds boosted to 2700hp+ all the way back in late 1943. The problem is people think the P-47M is some uber hot rod game changer. The P-47M is really just the logically successor to the P-47D just like how the Fw-190A9 is an upgrade of the Fw-190A8 or G14 to K4, etc. The problem is it opens the doors to planes like the Ta-152H which is a game changer even though its performance is equal to the P-47M on paper.

 

 I'd prefer a common line up to but as you said that's not going to be the case if servers don't limit plane selection.

[Gambit21]

Quoting the 365th history. Dorr and Jones.

Not to prove or disprove anything...just interesting stuff.

 

"The Thunderbolt's eight .50-caliber Browning M2 or "Ma Deuce" machine guns, backed with about 350 rounds apiece, were able to deliver

a withering barrage of five pounds of copper-jacketed lead slugs per second...at a rate of 2800 rounds per minute.

Each 2 inch long slug weighed about a tenth of a pound and left the barrel at 2800 feet per second. When he squeezed the trigger, a P-47

pilot could put nearly fifty bullets per second into a cone of fire that converged 300 yards in front of his cockpit. A three second burst put a fifteen

pound bolt of lead into the target at Mach three, the kinetic energy equivalent of a six ton truck traveling at over 80 miles per hour.

 

That tornado of metal would literally blow a 6x6 truck off the road, the cab and cargo already afire from the armor-piercing indendiary rounds comprising

two of every five bullets in the ammo belts"

 

 

[Ghost666]

The Mk108 has always reminded me of the Mk 19 grenade launcher.  I spent much of the previous decade doing reliability and maintainability testing on combat automotive systems at the US Army's Yuma Proving Ground, much of which included systems integration tests involving the Mk 19 grenade launcher.  I've never seen a Mk108 in action, but I can only assume it's destructive force somewhat approaches that of the Mk 19...which is absolutely terrifying!  I can't begin to image what it must have been like for the pilot and co-pilot of a B-17 whose cockpit is struck by even a single Mk108 projectile.

 

 

The MK19 is just the best!  As USAF Security Police we would employ one at the end of the runway, as anti-highjacking. NO aircraft would leave the base with out permission.   

[DressedWings]

If they added the XIV the K4 would only posses a minor speed advantage and nothing else. Spitfire IX with a higher boost will make fuck more competitive gameplay IMO.

 

?

 

Well I figure if we have a late 1944 109 it may as well have its RAF counterpart 

 

The way things are, the Spit should just get its experimental 25lb boost for DCS.

 

As for the Mustang vs K4 stuff in the other replies, I'm just going off of how it usually goes for me in MP. The lower P:W balances with the better wing loading, but I haven't touched DCS WW2 recently besides fiddling with the LF MK9.

[=RvE=SirScorpion]

 

 

 

I would love to see some napalm/incendiary bombs on the P47, I honestly cant remember any game that did incendiary well "both visually and game play as well" I think the current fireball effect of an aircraft hitting the ground and fire effects in IL2:BOX will simply look amazing in game if used with bombs. create a small effect that does damage over time or fire damage "also a mechanic in game from what i can see" I dont think it will be that technicality impossible and would make for some amazing clips.

 

 

As for what type of 47 D30 seems to be the stadnard though it looks like there where some D40,28,25 and even some razorbacks. the "N" and "M" are in time frame as well maybe we get an upgrade down the line, But I would rather see the entire plane set go into 43 time frame, since LW is quite fleshed out in that time frame i think it will allow tons of allied aircraft to be made, and flesh out more the LW line up.

[VeryOldMan]

Quoting the 365th history. Dorr and Jones.

Not to prove or disprove anything...just interesting stuff.

 

 

 

That  kinetic energy compare is way off. WAY off. 

 

People  tend to misuse a lot kinetic energy   when  trying to   explain how hard something hit other thing.   What is wrong is the udenrstanding that  havign a lot of kinetic energy means   all. Kinetic energy is what a body carries. The damage is caused by  how much  energy the OTHER object absorbs. 

 

That after you  apply a lot of complex physics means that Velocity does NOT increase damage with the square of its value. It is much closer to linear.  Between  Thompson model, Reinhmetal model  Krupp model, and  the japanese model whose name I cannot pronounce,   Most  models (based on extensinve testing) put the effect of speed  with  an exponent   that goes as high as 1.2 and as low as 0.8.

 

If your vehicle (imagine an armored APC for example...) is hit by a speeding truck you are going to absorb WAY more damage.. WAY more..  just because the truck is able to  transfer much more of it.  A spraying  p47 would not kill a post war APC save sheer luck. But a 6 ton truck at 80 mph woudl kill anyone inside the APC with the impact

[Tomsk]

People  tend to misuse a lot kinetic energy   when  trying to   explain how hard something hit other thing.   What is wrong is the udenrstanding that  havign a lot of kinetic energy means   all. Kinetic energy is what a body carries. The damage is caused by  how much  energy the OTHER object absorbs. 

 

Indeed, which sort of becomes intuitive if you just keep reducing the mass further and further. So a 6 tonne truck travelling at 80mph has about the same energy as a milligram projectile travelling at 1/10th the speed of light. However one of those is going to cause severe damage, and the other is just going to pass straight through making a tiny hole.

 

Of course this is entirely off the topic of the P-47 and its .50 cals, which seemed to work very well at destroying light aircraft :-)

[=RvE=SirScorpion]

If your vehicle (imagine an armored APC for example...) is hit by a speeding truck you are going to absorb WAY more damage.. WAY more..  just because the truck is able to  transfer much more of it.  A spraying  p47 would not kill a post war APC save sheer luck. But a 6 ton truck at 80 mph woudl kill anyone inside the APC with the impact

 

I get your idea about KE, but 8 .50s will take out about all APC i can think off aside from addon armored ones and IFV

 

[VeryOldMan]

 

Of course this is entirely off the topic of the P-47 and its .50 cals, which seemed to work very well at destroying light aircraft :-)

 

You should know that absolutely NOTHING is off topic  in the old tradition of  0.50 machine gun threads. Ask any old timer from  original Il2.  I have seen things from  train resilience  to lightning bolts to "how fast could Jesus dodge a .50 m2 if he needed to" in    .50 threads!