Which modifications do you think we'll get for BoBP?

[Ehret]

35 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Yes a fine non-historical solution in a fantasy world where gun barrels don't heat up for pilots who can't shoot - we get it.

 

Lets go with one .22 cal gun.

You can cary 200,000 rounds and just leave the trigger depressed for the entire flight.

 

 

 

You may be very wrong - at higher altitudes and speeds overheating wouldn't be much of problem. They needed heaters, actually.

Long bursts were also very common in U.S. fighters - have you heard about "spray and pray" phrase? What do you think was the purpose of Jug's 425 rpg capacity, which was increased for the N variant? The Hellcat had 400 rpg, the F4u almost the same, the P38 500 rpg for 50 cals. Even the in game P40 has an option for 600 rpg, which is a huge amount. The extended rpg option was in the P51D for a reason - the fact that it was seldom used, doesn't change that.

 

And what about your ".22" pseudo-advice - it seems you are still angry about something, otherwise you wouldn't have written such a silly thing.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Ehret

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

juan fiddy octane fuel

[CrazyDuck]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Is "US Navy Airmen" based on this one comment by one pilot? (Thach)

Also yes pilots flying against Japanese aircraft might have a different perspective on the amount of lead needed per second.

 

I think the Grumman engineer would have reminded this pilot that it's about bullets on target per sec, not increasing the chances of a hit.

It's assumed you can shoot - now let's put more lead on target/less trigger time. Mr brick wall won't get that.

 

A citation from "Battle of Midway, Action report: USS Yorktown, Captain E. Buckminster to Admiral Chester A. Nimitz, 18 JUN 1942"

 

(c) F4F-4 Airplanes

The fighter pilots are very disappointed with the performance and length of sustained fire power of the F4F-4 airplanes. The Zero fighters could easily outmaneuver and out-climb the F4F-3, and the consensus of fighter pilot opinion is that the F4F-4 is even more sluggish and slow than the F4F-3. It is also felt that it was a mistake to put 6 guns on the F4F-4 and thus to reduce the rounds per gun. For the opposition now being encountered the combination of 4 guns and 450 rounds per gun is much superior to the 6 guns with 240 rounds per gun. Many of our fighters ran out of ammunition even before the Jap dive bombers arrived over our forces; these were experienced pilots, not novices. It is strongly urged that the Navy be supplied with a fighter that is at least equal of the Zero fighter. It is believed that 4-50 caliber fixed machine guns give sufficient fire power for carrier based fighters, especially in view of the loss of performance involved in adding two additional guns.

 

Entire report can be read here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/CV/cv5-Midway.html

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by CrazyDuck
grammar

[Gambit21]

Thanks Duck.

Makes sense in that theater.

[Mac_Messer]

21 hours ago, SCG_wtornado said:

 

 

A Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind or a Flakpanzer IV Ostwind flak  will be acceptable to shoot down cocky P-51D pilots.

Can`t stress that enough. Would be fun and realistic to man the vehicle to cover returning Schwalbe`s.

[CrazyDuck]

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Thanks Duck.

Makes sense in that theater.

 

Yeah, seems to be the case. Makes even more sense cosidering that 2 guns were actually added to the request of the Brits (in order to be able to fight Germans and Italians with enough punch), and also that the true replacement for the wildcat - the F8F bearcat was designed with "only" 4 guns.

[Ehret]

The K-14 gun-sight operational manual states that fire should be opened for at least 2 seconds when flying P51D or P47N. That is 170 rounds for the Mustang - quite an amount for the P51D.

[Gambit21]

15 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

You may be very wrong - at higher altitudes and speeds overheating wouldn't be much of problem. They needed heaters, actually.

Long bursts were also very common in U.S. fighters - have you heard about "spray and pray" phrase? What do you think was the purpose of Jug's 425 rpg capacity, which was increased for the N variant? The Hellcat had 400 rpg, the F4u almost the same, the P38 500 rpg for 50 cals. Even the in game P40 has an option for 600 rpg, which is a huge amount. The extended rpg option was in the P51D for a reason - the fact that it was seldom used, doesn't change that.

 

 

 

 

 

Nice try with "seldom".

 The fact that it was never  used says quite I think.

 

Its also amusing that that you seem to think increased ammo count in other aircraft bolsters your point when in fact it does quite the opposite given the gun configurations on those aircraft.

 

[Ehret]

Just now, Gambit21 said:

 

Nice try with "seldom".

 The fact that it was never  used says quite I think.

 

Its also amusing that that you seem to think increased ammo count in other aircraft bolsters your point when in fact it does quite the opposite given the gun configurations on those aircraft.

 

 

Practically the same, except the Lighting. Do you know how often the P40' 600 rpg option was used, or incoming P39-L's 1000 rpg for 30 cals, back in the day?

Even the gyro sight manual advises longer bursts.

 

And would be a disadvantage for the users, to have the airplane recreated fully to its specification?

In the game we have the "empty" mod, too - hardly a historical thing.

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Ehret

[Gambit21]

5 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Practically the same, except the Lighting. Do you know how often the P40' 600 rpg option was used, or incoming P39-L's 1000 rpg for 30 cals, back in the day?

Even the gyro sight manual advises longer bursts.

 

And would be a disadvantage for the users, to have the airplane recreated fully to its specification?

In the game we have the "empty" mod, too - hardly a historical thing.

 

 

Isn't "empty" just nothing loaded?

Anyway my only point is that it's not something that was done in the field. Therefore I don't imagine the Devs will include it - simple as that.

[Ehret]

Just now, Gambit21 said:

 

Isn't "empty" just nothing loaded?

Anyway my only point is that it's not something that was done in the field. Therefore I don't imagine the Devs will include it - simple as that.

 

Dunno - the 37mm M80 AP rounds will be included after all - were they ever used by Soviets in actual combat? I was very surprised by a decision to include the M80.

For some of us extended rpg is beneficial - historically, average gunnery skills were even worse than we have in the game. At least in P51D the inner 50 cals pair will have longer endurance - not ideal, but will do.

[TP_Sparky]

22 hours ago, SCG_wtornado said:

I want a fully functional Tiger II tank with the Krupp turret with a MG 42 as the primary AA gun on the commanders hatch.

 

A Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind or a Flakpanzer IV Ostwind flak  will be acceptable to shoot down cocky P-51D pilots.

 

Too bad you don't have any fuel for that pig.  I just lit up the fuel bowser and an ammunition-laden truck at the road intersection two miles away.  You can see the smoke column from here.  

 

Smoke 'em if you got 'em boys and might as well make yourself comfortable on your 70 ton paperweight until the rocket-bearing Jabos come along.  No, wait.  Here they come.

 

Remember, you declared war on us.  How's that working out for you?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

3 hours ago, Cathal_Brugha said:

I read that .50 cal belt composition for planes in the western front changed from 3 standard (lead core) one armor piercing and one tracer, to four armor piercing, one tracer, for the tougher German planes, but they left the standard rounds in the belts in the pacific because the soft lead core bullets would mush and shatter the very light frames of the Japanese planes, where the armor piercing bullets would just punch a small hole. I can't remember where I read that but if I come across it I will post it.

Except that primary ammo composition since 1943 was M8 API round, on both fronts, due to not only armor piercing capabilities but also incendiary. Entire belt would be composed of those except for the last 30-40 rounds which would be tracer to indicate to a pilot that ammunition is low. 

 

 

[Rjel]

17 hours ago, Ehret said:

The P51D wasn't 1st Mustang with 6x 50 cals either.

 

 

What version would that have been? Other versions had six guns but a mixture of .30 cals, .50s or 20mm. I've seen a couple of mentions that a few late model B's that had six .50s but I doubt that is true as the wing was redesigned in the D. Standard load out was 1880 rounds in total for the six machine guns. In your scenario, you'd pick up 120 rounds. Longer burst time, but a lot less punch than the six guns would produce. None of it seems plausible.

 

[TP_Sparky]

IIRC, unlike P-39's used by Western Allies, all 37mm rounds supplied to the Soviets for their P-39's were HE.  As I recall, Soviets were not given 37mm AP rounds.  That might explain Soviet non-use of the P-39 vs German armor.

Edited March 9, 2018 by slparker17

[Ehret]

Just now, Rjel said:

 

What version would that have been? Other versions had six guns but a mixture of .30 cals, .50s or 20mm. I've seen a couple of mentions that a few late model B's that had six .50s but I doubt that is true as the wing was redesigned in the D. Standard load out was 1880 rounds in total for the six machine guns. In your scenario, you'd pick up 120 rounds. Longer burst time, but a lot less punch than the six guns would produce. None of it seems plausible.

 

 

The A36 - 2x 50 cals in a nose and 4x 50 cals in wings.

 

We are virtual pilots here - in a game it is easier to get hits then it was historically. Soviets were considering two heavy machine-guns as adequate - perhaps the center mount was much more accurate irl.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Ehret

[TP_Sparky]

But Soviets pulled P-39 wing guns for maneuverability, right?  Against the FW-190 with it's exceptional roll rate you'd probably do anything to increase your agility.

[LukeFF]

27 minutes ago, slparker17 said:

IIRC, unlike P-39's used by Western Allies, all 37mm rounds supplied to the Soviets for their P-39's were HE.  As I recall, Soviets were not given 37mm AP rounds.  That might explain Soviet non-use of the P-39 vs German armor.

 

AP rounds were supplied, but only in very small quantities.

[Ehret]

Just now, slparker17 said:

IIRC, unlike P-39's used by Western Allies, all 37mm rounds supplied to the Soviets for their P-39's were HE.  As I recall, Soviets were not given 37mm AP rounds.  That might explain Soviet non-use of the P-39 vs German armor.

 

The P39 was much more potent as a fighter, than as an attacker - it would be a waste to use it that way.

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

2 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Except that primary ammo composition since 1943 was M8 API round, on both fronts,

 

 

I meant to say they used the standard round composition longer in the pacific, and switched to the API composition sooner in Europe. I missed some words in the original that didn't make that clear. I am not sure how much "longer" or "sooner" is, but if I can find the book and place I read that I will share.

 

2 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

except for the last 30-40 rounds which would be tracer to indicate to a pilot that ammunition is low. 

 

 

Also read that some pilots didn't like that since they thought the enemy would know they were almost out of ammo and go after them. Since the belts were assembled by the plane's armorer the pilot could request a different composition or load order. 

One armorer was heard keeping time with his turning of the crank assembling the links of the belt, "One Two Three, Another Jap for me" I can't remember where I saw that either, but I think it was on Guadalcanal.

[Eicio]

3 hours ago, slparker17 said:

But Soviets pulled P-39 wing guns for maneuverability, right?  Against the FW-190 with it's exceptional roll rate you'd probably do anything to increase your agility.

 

Well you should have said 109 because a massive sturmovik is still more "agile" than those 190. So removing 4 mgs is not really that necessary.

 

[TP_Sparky]

48 minutes ago, Eicio said:

 

Well you should have said 109 because a massive sturmovik is still more "agile" than those 190. So removing 4 mgs is not really that necessary.

 

 

No, the FW-190 was an energy fighter but it's legendary for it's phenomenal roll rate.  If you remove guns from any fighter mid-wing you increase its roll response.  Remember your physics, the weight of the guns acting on the moment arm way out there from the center of gravity.   Some fighters turn well.  The FW-190 shouldn't try to out-turn anyone but to maneuver it rolls and pulls. 

Edited March 10, 2018 by slparker17

[DSR_A-24]

K-14 gunsight for P-51 and P-47.

Dorsal fin for P-47
G-suit

150 grade fuel

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Wouldn't make any sense to have your game based off only a 1 day battle while completely ignoring the most important air force that was specifically for combating the luftwaffe throughout the entire war.

[bzc3lk]

'beschleunigungs ventil'  option on my Me 262 

[Stig]

10 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

Wouldn't make any sense to have your game based off only a 1 day battle while completely ignoring the most important air force that was specifically for combating the luftwaffe throughout the entire war.

 

[TP_Sparky]

12 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

the most important air force that was specifically for combating the luftwaffe throughout the entire war.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The Polish?  The only others were the French and British pilots who fought the entire war.  Soviets and the US joined in1941.

[Eicio]

I think that he meant that he'd like to have more mods for the planes than the ones available at the sole day of bodenplatte.

[TP_Sparky]

I think the module with model winter/spring fighting from January on, not just the operation.