American Iron

[EAF19_Marsh]

Guys, it’s all immaterial (pun intended). Germany fought the war within the constraints of what they had, taking a lot of gambles and making some fairly major miscalculations. Barring a very different role of the dice, it is almost impossible that they could have done much very differently given the shortcomings of geography, economics and the ideology at the top.

 

You have to examine this from a contemporary position, not post-facto.

[MiloMorai]

On the Battle of the Atlantic

1939:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Sep39 48/178,621
Oct39 33/156,156
Nov39 27/72,721
Dec39 39/101,823
Tot39 147 (36.75/month)/509,321 (127,330.25/month)
British merchant ship construction capacity from 1939-1941 did not exceed 1.2 million GRT per year.
US merchant ship construction in 1939 was 0.242 million GRT.

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Aug39 19/2
Sep39 3/0
Oct39 13/3
Nov39 10/1/1
Dec39 5/1/1
Tot39 50/7/2 (an average of 10 patrols per month and 14% lost)

Thus for 1939, an average of 2.94 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 21 ships sunk (note that throughout these averages will be slightly inflated since they do not include the minor contribution of the Italian submarine fleet.)

1940:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan40 53/163,029
Feb40 50/182,369
Mar40 26/69,826
Apr40 6/30,927
May40 14/61,635
Jun40 66/375,069
Jul40 41/301,975
Aug40 56/288,180
Sep40 60/288,180
Oct40 66/363,267
Nov40 36/181,695
Dec40 46/256,310
Tot40 520 (43.33/month)/2,462,867 (205,238.91/month)
US merchant ship construction for 1940 was about 0.5 million GRT.

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan40 8/2
Feb40 10/3
Mar40 10/2
Apr40 19/3
May40 8/0/2
Jun40 18/3/1
Jul40 4/0
Aug40 16/2/1
Sep40 12/0
Oct40 13/2
Nov40 14/1
Dec40 6/0
Tot40 138/18/3 (an average of 11.5 patrols per month and 13% lost)

Thus for 1940, an average of 3.77 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 28.89 ships sunk.

1941:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan41 23/129,711
Feb41 47/254,118
Mar41 41/236,549
Apr41 41/239,719
May41 63/362,268
Jun41 66/325,817
Jul41 26/112,624
Aug41 27/85,603
Sep41 57/212,237
Oct41 28/170,786
Nov41 15/76,056
Dec41 23/93,226
Tot41 457 (38.08/month)/2,298,714 (191,559.5/month)
US merchant ship construction 1941 0.804 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan41 10/0
Feb41 18/3/2
Mar41 15/3/3
Apr41 14/2/2
May41 21/0/2
Jun41 22/2/3
Jul41 24/1/9
Aug41 42/5/9
Sep41 38/0/2
Oct41 37/0/6
Nov 41 27/5/5
Dec41 49/4/6
Tot 41 287/25/49 (an average of 23.9 patrols sailing per month and 8.7% lost)

Thus for 1941, an average of 1.59 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 18.28 ships sunk.

1942:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan42 56/310,224
Feb42 72/429,255
Mar42 93/507,514
Apr42 81/418,161
May42 129/616,835
Jun42 136/636,926
Jul42 96/467,051
Aug42 117/587,245
Sep42 96/461,794
Oct42 89/583,690
Nov42 126/802,160
Dec42 64/337,618
Tot42 1,155 (96.25/month)/6,158,473 (513,206.08/month)
British and Canadian merchant ship construction 1942 1.8 million GRT
US merchant ship construction 1942 5.433 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan42 50/2/5
Feb42 29/3/2
Mar42 32/2
Apr42 37/2/2
May42 23/3
Jun42 39/9/5
Jul42 45/7/3
Aug42 58/10/4
Sep42 52/8/8
Oct42 62/6/10
Nov42 54/8/6
Dec42 59/8/7
Tot42 540/68/57 (an average of 45 patrols sailing per month and 12.6% lost)

Thus for 1942, an average of 2.14 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 16.99 ships sunk.

1943:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan43 44/307,196
Feb43 67/362,081
Mar43 110/633,731
Apr43 50/287,137
May43 46/237,182
Jun43 17/76,090
Jul43 46/237,777
Aug43 20/92,443
Sep43 16/98,852
Oct43 20/91,295
Nov43 9/30,726
Dec43 8/55,794
Tot43 452 (37.67/month)/2,510,304 (209,192/month)

 

US merchant ship construction 1943 13.081 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan43 61/13/11
Feb43 72/8/9
Mar43 59/16/10
Apr43 95/35/18
May43 55/23/9
Jun43 46/23/9
Jul43 39/27/7 (49 total patrols of all types)
Aug43 33/12/6
Sep43 32/11/10
Oct43 62/23/9
Nov43 36/9/4
Dec43 31/10/2
Tot43 621/210/104 (an average of 51.75 patrols sailing per month and 33.8% lost)

 

Thus for 1943, an average of 0.73 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 2.15 ships sunk.

So, overall, the most successful year for the U-Boats was 1940, before the expansion of the force allowed for an increase of more than about a dozen patrols sailing per month, and well prior to the entry of the US and its shipbuilding capacity into the war. Worse, the performance of the U-Boat force in 1941 and 1942 never exceeded its performance in the first months of the war. And, after 1943 the U-Boat campaign became ever less relevant to the outcome of the war.

Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
 

Tot44 125/663,308
Tot45 63/284,476

 

US merchant ship construction for 1944 was 12.257 million GRT
US merchant ship construction for 1945 (through 1 May) was 3.548 million GRT

U-Boat Fleet to 1Sep42
On 19Aug39 there were 57 U-Boats in commission, 20 sea-going U-Boats and 18 ‘ducks’ were fully ready to put to sea
Total number U-Boats deployed to 1Sep42 275
Total number lost 94
Total number retired 10
Total number available 171

U-Boat Fleet 1Sep42 to 1May45
Total number deployed 1Sep42 to 1May45 531
Total number lost 1Sep42 to 1May45 568

British controlled merchant shipping over 1,600 GRT (number/in thousands of gross tons)
3Sep39 2,999/17,784
30Sep40 3,75721,373
30Sep41 3,608/20,552
31Dec41 3,616/20,693

Thus, despite the ‘success’ of the U-Boat force in 1940 (relative to its performance in 1941 and 1942) it had no appreciable effect in reducing the size of the British merchant fleet.

 

Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses)
1939 700/5 (7.1%)
1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%)
1941 5,923/153 (2.6%)
1942 4,798/80 (1.7%)
1943 5,667/87 (1.5%)
1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)

 

The operational U-Boat force from 1943-1945 never approached a "steady 400-500 boat." Rather, during 1942 the peak strength of boats assigned to combat flotillas (including those under repair for combat-damage and breakdowns, but excluding those assigned to school flotillas, experimental projects, or otherwise retired from combat) was 202, during November. The low in 1942 was 89 in January. The average monthly strength during 1942 was 143.83. The strength of the force peaked in May 1943 at 237. It had declined to a low of 159 by November. Average monthly strength during 1943 was 197.58. The peak strength during 1944 was 168 in February, the low was 146 in November. Average monthly strength in 1944 was 157.83. The peak strength in 1945 was April with 165, the low was May with 134, prior to the surrender. 

 

At that, these were much better than 1939 (average of 19.5 monthly), 1940 (average of 18.75 monthly) and 1941 (average of 47.5 monthly). OTOH, the 'bang for their buck' was probably highest in 1940, which was also arguably the U-Boats most 'successful' year in terms of ships sunk per patrol and U-Boats lost per ship sunk..
 

[Ehret]

16 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Guys, it’s all immaterial (pun intended). Germany fought the war within the constraints of what they had, taking a lot of gambles and making some fairly major miscalculations. Barring a very different role of the dice, it is almost impossible that they could have done much very differently given the shortcomings of geography, economics and the ideology at the top.

 

H. had believed that after getting rid of... "parasitic ethnic elements" a "hidden" potential of Germans would be "freed". The atomic physics were "Jewish sciences" to him... That's the mentality of the German leader who had the last word in all affairs. Keeping that in mind and talking about (d-)efficiencies... but something can be said for sure - only the Nazi leadership could be so efficient at getting Germany burned to crisps. No one else could done better.

[Aap]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

If they could not bomb enemies (like the US) then they could not win the protracted total war. Then, they should not indulge in one.

 

Good to see that you have finally come to this conclusion, too. That's why Germany was not looking for a prolonged "resource war" and strategic bombings and all that. Their doctrine was about achieving quick and decisive victory on the battlefield, often referred as blitzkrieg. Not much to add to that really.

 

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

It's hilarious, really - claiming that "strategic bombing was senseless because it wasn't economically viable!"

 

It was not economically viable for Germany. I have said it several times that it was expensive, but allies could afford it, because they had way more resources than Germany. (Even if these resources could have been spent more efficiently.) You suggested that Luftwaffe should have done strategic bombing instead of tactical warfare. That was not economically viable, as Germany was not in a position to win a prolonged resource war, like you also seemed to understand finally.

Edited November 8, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[LeLv76_Erkki]

37 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Their doctrine was about achieving quick and decisive victory on the battlefield, often referred as blitzkrieg. Not much to add to that really.

 

I'd like to add what you too probably think, that is, that this doctrine of waging a quick, decisive war was not an intenvention popped out of thin air, but rather a necessity out of realizing economical differences between Germany and her potential adversaries. The Japanese, also realizing they might end up fighting war against US and the British, must have gone through a very similar thought process and ended in the "decisive battle" doctrine I believe in the 1920s already.

Edited November 8, 2018 by LeLv76_Erkki

[JtD]

10 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Although the bomber crews took large percentage casualties, the absolute numbers were trivial compared to those of massive ground operations.

 

~10% of military losses of the UK & Commonwealth forces were lost by the Bomber Command alone.

~25% the US Army total losses came from the USAAF (that includes tactical warfare, too).

 

It's not really trivial if you consider that for the first four years of war, these forces achieved very little.

11 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The idea, however, that the British could have launched a second front in Europe in 1942 - or even in 1943 - is a complete fantasy.

 

Yes, because a load of resources went into the strategic bombing campaign. Had the same effort been spent on other things, the British could have had hundreds of extra ships and thousands of extra tanks (probably better ones, too) - with supporting infrastructure, crew and everything else you need to operate them. And the figures are no exaggeration.

 

If that would suffice for a second front by the end of 1942, is of course arguable. OTOH, one could argue that with all the extra equipment available in 1940, the Dunkirk scenario might have turned out a lot better for the British than it historically did.

 

(Up to 1945 ~600 million £ were spend on bomber command aircraft alone - sufficient for 100 battleships, 1000 destroyers or 60000 Cromwell tanks.)

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

On 11/7/2018 at 3:19 PM, ZachariasX said:

It will be cannon fodder for a 190D9.

 

About the P-38F

 

g.    While the rate of climb is superior to all other types tested to date, this is not as great as required, especially below twenty-thousand (20,000) feet, and all excess weight in the structure and installations not vital to combat operations should be reduced or eliminated whenever possible.

                 h.    Cooling capacity of the intercooler is not sufficient to allow maximum horsepower to be extracted from the engine at altitude.

                 i.    The guns will not feed properly during maneuvers which create a pull of greater than 3-1/2 G’s.

 

Slightly more of a careful wording about the "superior climb", especially since the intercooler is dimensioned not sufficienty. You will notice that in climb first.

 

About the P-38J, where

 

a.    All conclusions and recommendations applying to the P-38F, apply to the P-38G.

 

and

 

b.    Inasmuch as the general maneuverability of this aircraft is probably the lowest of any type of current fighter aircraft, and in view of the competition facing the P-38G in the European Theatre, all possible effort should be made to improve its rate of climb and high speed.

 

I would not place too much hope in maneuver flaps. Any D9 driver worth his pay knows that he better be fast to trade blows. Flaps never help you to be fast. Besides, they still are careful about the climb. It may be a tad higher than the competition, but being all around slower than the competition this is of little consolation.

 

Also that the guns jam at around pulling 3.5 g is not so cool. But we won't get failures like that.

 

Cool story, but we are not talking about P-38F, or Gs powered by engines rated at 1150 and 1320hp, we are getting a P-38J(-25 hopefully) which has a rated power of 1600hp, has intercoolers moved to the engine chin pod for better efficiency (something which plagued the P-38H and early with their aerodynamic intercoolers that struggled with maintaining CAT) and hydraulically boosted ailerons.
Sure I expect the D-9 to be the faster aircraft in low-mid altitudes and it will roll faster definitely until about 350-400mph. But judging on how the A-20 performs ingame, the P-38 should be a much more agile and faster version of that.

[ZachariasX]

11 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

has intercoolers moved to the engine chin pod for better efficiency

I quote:

 

  h.    The lack of sufficient intercooling holds down the performance of the P-38G as well as the P-38F.

 

Edit:  P-38J, yes.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by ZachariasX

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

I quote:

 

  h.    The lack of sufficient intercooling holds down the performance of the P-38G as well as the P-38F.

 

 

We're not getting an F or G so how is this relevant?

Edited November 8, 2018 by Legioneod

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

It was not economically viable for Germany. I have said it several times that it was expensive, but allies could afford it, because they had way more resources than Germany. (Even if these resources could have been spent more efficiently.) You suggested that Luftwaffe should have done strategic bombing instead of tactical warfare. That was not economically viable, as Germany was not in a position to win a prolonged resource war, like you also seemed to understand finally.

 

I understood that from the very start. What is ridiculous that Germans pushed for a total war, anyway. They should sue for peace in the 42/43 and try to renegotiate the stuff when they were still held good positions. However, Nazis could not because they would have to face the responsibility of atrocities they committed. The latter were by their choice and their choice only. After that they were necks deep in a full all or nothing war.  It simply doesn't fit anything "tactical" after that - a place they dig themselves in.

[Bremspropeller]

JtD, do you possibly have a source on the percentage of losses among Luftwaffe crews (maybe even fighter pilots)?

I've heard they were second to U-Boot crews. Might have been a myth, though.

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

(Up to 1945 ~600 million £ were spend on bomber command aircraft alone - sufficient for 100 battleships, 1000 destroyers or 60000 Cromwell tanks.)

 

British had a strong navy, already. There are diminishing returns and money doesn't work like that... After trying to built those 100s and 1000s of ships there could be material/production bottlenecks and costs would skyrockets. Boats and tanks, unlike airplanes, couldn't reach deep into the enemy territory, at least not immediately. Going for bombers was the quickest way to hurt the enemy and a premium had to be payed for the ability.

 

It payed back, later. Not only with inefficient flak AA around cities; H., just for psychological/propaganda reason indulged in Vengeance projects like the V-2 - that was an extreme waste of resources. The combined bombers and escort fighters raids helped to cripple the LW. It all had to start from somewhere.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Ehret

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

 

~10% of military losses of the UK & Commonwealth forces were lost by the Bomber Command alone.

~25% the US Army total losses came from the USAAF (that includes tactical warfare, too).

 

It's not really trivial if you consider that for the first four years of war, these forces achieved very little.

 

Yes, because a load of resources went into the strategic bombing campaign. Had the same effort been spent on other things, the British could have had hundreds of extra ships and thousands of extra tanks (probably better ones, too) - with supporting infrastructure, crew and everything else you need to operate them. And the figures are no exaggeration.

 

If that would suffice for a second front by the end of 1942, is of course arguable. OTOH, one could argue that with all the extra equipment available in 1940, the Dunkirk scenario might have turned out a lot better for the British than it historically did.

 

(Up to 1945 ~600 million £ were spend on bomber command aircraft alone - sufficient for 100 battleships, 1000 destroyers or 60000 Cromwell tanks.)

 

On the percentage losses - the Bomber Command losses were a significant percentage of the total losses precisely because the total losses were reasonably low.  Compare total British military casualties in WW2 with WW1 - they are about halved.  

 

The RN did not really need more battleships: it had enough forces to deal with the German and Italian surface threat and a large battleship force in the Pacific would probably just have been sunk by the Japanese.  It could have done with a few more destroyers or even better smaller dedicated ASW escorts, but you cannot build loads more ships if your shipyards are all full and your skilled ship building workforce fully employed (or on strike).

 

Before Dunkirk the resources spent on  (edit -  any kind of) bombers were relatively limited and there were no heavy bombers: Fighter Command had priority. BC was limited strictly to military targets and leaflet dropping.  You could argue that more might have been done for the Army - but  given the enormous British investment in the RN the battle on land was always going to be primarily a French task.  Since the Germans broke the French front anyway it is just as likely that a larger tank force would have simply meant more abandoned tanks in France.The cabinet decided that rearmament would be fighters first, and this worked out pretty well.

 

We can all second guess what should have been done:  but we simply do not know what the outcome of different choices would have been.

 

 

 

  

Edited November 8, 2018 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

36 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

We're not getting an F or G so how is this relevant?

You were faster than me crossing it out. You are right. Still, I'd opt for a 190D9 in a fight.

 

However, very much looking forward to that plane.

 

That siad, anyone know how many of the P-38J were fitted with the hydraulic ailerons? Do we get the P-38J-5-LO or 25-LO? If I understand correctly, they were were retrofitted in the field together with the dive flaps for the 5-LO? Could this be a mod for the plane? That'd be cool.

[unreasonable]

Is flying the P-38 going to feel odd because it had a yoke rather than a joystick?  Does it make much difference?

[Psyrion]

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Is flying the P-38 going to feel odd because it had a yoke rather than a joystick?  Does it make much difference?

It should feel completely normal as the inputs are still the same. There´s already planes like the a20 with a wheel but it does not change anything for a player.

[MiloMorai]

Strange that the original poster who commented on BC has not said a word to back up his statement.

 

Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1939-1945

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/index.html#index

[JtD]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

We can all second guess what should have been done:  but we simply do not know what the outcome of different choices would have been.

 

Clearly we don't, and that's part of the fun.

 

I've put quite some thought into the matter before arriving at my current opinion, but of course it's impossible to validate in any way. And before we go back and forth repeating our point of view, I think I'll leave it at that.

 

Though clearly, American aircraft were made of mostly aluminium - so if we were to talk about American iron, we could say that with the effort spend on production of BC bombers, the M4 Sherman production could have easily been doubled. Some last steel for thought.

[=621=Samikatz]

10 hours ago, JtD said:

 M4 Sherman production could have easily been doubled. Some last steel for thought.

 

Or every Sherman could've been twice as big ?

[unreasonable]

25 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

Or every Sherman could've been twice as big ?

 

In which case they might not have fish-tailed as much as the real McCoy, and saved everyone a lot of trouble.

[Garven]

A tank twice the size of a Sherman would be twice the logistics headache.  Supply lines were stretched and bottle-necked in the fall of 1944 to the point where having twice the number of Shermans available would have done little good.  

[BlitzPig_EL]

We had all the Shermans we needed as it was.  In fact we had more than enough of everything, such was the amazing ability of US industry and logistics expertise.

 

Now, can we please get back to discussing aircraft?

[D3adCZE]

STOP!
Who would fly the Thunderbolt of Death
Must answer me
These questions three
Ere the sacred plane he see.

 

What...is your name?

What...is your quest?

What...is your favorite aircraft?

 

Now to the topic I cannot wait to fly P47 and the Ponies. They are slick looking hell of'a death machines. I NEED THEM!

[=475FG=_DAWGER]

On 11/8/2018 at 12:25 PM, ZachariasX said:

You were faster than me crossing it out. You are right. Still, I'd opt for a 190D9 in a fight.

 

However, very much looking forward to that plane.

 

That siad, anyone know how many of the P-38J were fitted with the hydraulic ailerons? Do we get the P-38J-5-LO or 25-LO? If I understand correctly, they were were retrofitted in the field together with the dive flaps for the 5-LO? Could this be a mod for the plane? That'd be cool.

The Dora is an awesome aircraft but its performance margins are not high enough for most online "aces" to take advantage of very effectively. And very few know how to use superior roll rate to advantage. Most guys online are looking for the "trump" card performance aspect that always allows them to dictate the fight. The Dora speed is seen as that trump card but when they start dying to guys in "slower" aircraft they get very upset with the "biased" modeling.

 

Speed and altitude are useless unless you know how to capitalize on them.

 

The boosted ailerons and dive flap production started in the P-38J-25-LO. The first batch of retrofit kits was shot down by the Brits but a bunch of earlier J models did get converted. No one seems to no how many but it would have been mid-1944.

 

Since the P-38J-25-LO and P-38L are nearly identical we can probably assume the IL2 version will not be a 25-LO but I hope that is incorrect.

 

I just hope the P-38 is modeled accurately. If it is it will surprise a lot of people.

 

 

 

Quote

"The P-51 was a new airplane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 had kept us on our toes and constantly busy--far more critical to fly. You never could relax with it. We were disappointed with the 51's rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, the rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped the coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing yet to do. The 38 was an interceptor and if both engines (were healthy), you could outclimb any other airplane, and that's what wins dog fights. When you are in a dog fight below tree tops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics and, for that matter at any altitude."

 

 

[CountZero]

and thats why its best suted for ground attack role, but biggest problem is its so big target so when someone gets on your six and thats inevitable yours elevators are out and your cut in half in most cases. In 1946 i play with it a lot and you could easy outurn 190s and turn on par with late 109s, but it lacked speed and if you try to outclimb enemy you better be more then 1km from him or hell easy shoot at you and hit you.

 

i expect p-38 used mostly as ga, p51 as fighter and p47 as decoration in hangar, especialy when it seams it will not be so great high alt performer from speed info in last dd, if hes peeking that low at 700kmh

 

i just hope they dont make tempest with rockets, so ga guys dont take it, i expect that one will be fighters favorit

Edited November 10, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

and p47 as decoration in hangar, especialy when it seams it will not be so great high alt performer from speed info in last dd, if hes peeking that low at 700kmh

 No 109 will ever follow you in a zoom climb at altitude. It is a very good aircraft up there. Just give it some room and you will be easily above German prop planes. Your roll is much better than the 109 at higher speeds. And you really can dive that thing.

[Legioneod]

21 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

p47 as decoration in hangar, especialy when it seams it will not be so great high alt performer from speed info in last dd, if hes peeking that low at 700kmh

It's faster than that and I'm sure it will be represented in-game, he was just giving a generalization imo, not it's max speed. Our top speed with 64" should be around 438-443 mph.

 

If we get 70" it would add about 7-8 mph to that figure.

 

The P-47 is no slouch but it will demand to be flown to it's strengths, it's not a noob friendly aircraft.

The P-47 will still be one of the fastest aircraft up high.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Legioneod

[BlitzPig_EL]

I was a bit surprised by Han's figure of 700kph, to be honest, but still that is 435 mph.

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I was a bit surprised by Han's figure of 700kph, to be honest, but still that is 435 mph.

So was I but it's faster than that at higher altitudes, 7000m is not it's critical altitude.

 

The P-47 is fast, it'd be even faster with 70" and a Hamilton prop but the top speed isn't what really concerns me when it comes to the P-47 since it's gonna be fast either way.

What I'm really worried about is the engine limitations and the way it will be modeled.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Legioneod

[Zirashi]

Yeah that’s something that seems to get overlooked by people who are focusing purely on the top speed number. The P-47 top speed itself is not what is amazing, it’s the altitude it achieves it at.

 

Sure it might not be faster than the K4 at 7km, but go up just 1 or 2 km more and while everyone else is starting to gasp for air, the P-47 is settling in to its domain. Queue the LoTR “You have no power here” sound byte.

 

That being said, unless the gameplay shifts to those extremes for some reason, CountZero might be right that most players will pass on it.

 

I sure as hell will be in it, though!

Edited November 10, 2018 by Zirashi

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

and thats why its best suted for ground attack role, but biggest problem is its so big target so when someone gets on your six and thats inevitable yours elevators are out and your cut in half in most cases. In 1946 i play with it a lot and you could easy outurn 190s and turn on par with late 109s, but it lacked speed and if you try to outclimb enemy you better be more then 1km from him or hell easy shoot at you and hit you.

 

The Lighting is not that much bigger than the P-47 - it's wider at 15.8m to Jug's 12.4m and has slightly bigger wing area of 30.4m*m than the Jug's 27.9m*m; length is almost the same and height is lower for the P-38.

 

However, the Lighting can not dive as hard as the P-47 and that's worrisome. A shame really considering the former is not only heavier but offers better power-loading thus higher acceleration and climb.

 

The question is: will we be getting diving flaps and boosted ailerons for the P-38?

[Legioneod]

13 minutes ago, Zirashi said:

Yeah that’s something that seems to get overlooked by people who are focusing purely on the top speed number. The P-47 top speed itself is not what is amazing, it’s the altitude it achieves it at.

 

Sure it might not be faster than the K4 at 7km, but go up just 1 or 2 km more and while everyone else is starting to gasp for air, the P-47 is settling in to its domain. Queue the LoTR “You have no power here” sound byte.

 

That being said, unless the gameplay shifts to those extremes for some reason, CountZero might be right that most players will pass on it.

 

I sure as hell will be in it, though!

Thats why I'm hoping for some more objective types that encourage high altitude flying. The patrol objective I mentioned above would accomplish this goal and whatever other objectives people can think of.

3 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

The Lighting is not that much bigger than the P-47 - it's wider at 15.8m to Jug's 12.4m and has slightly bigger wing area of 30.4m*m than the Jug's 27.9m*m; length is almost the same and height is lower for the P-38.

 

However, the Lighting can not dive as hard as the P-47 and that's worrisome. A shame really considering the former is not only heavier but offers better power-loading thus higher acceleration and climb.

 

The question is: will we be getting diving flaps and boosted ailerons for the P-38?

I really hope for boosted ailerons at the least since it is a dog without them. The P-38 has one of the best roll rates above 400 mph with boosted ailerons.

I can live without dive flaps but boosted ailerons are a must imo.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Legioneod

[Talon_]

6 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

I just hope the P-38 is modeled accurately. If it is it will surprise a lot of people.

 

 

The plane that was hated by pilots in the ETO?

[Ehret]

24 minutes ago, Zirashi said:

Yeah that’s something that seems to get overlooked by people who are focusing purely on the top speed number. The P-47 top speed itself is not what is amazing, it’s the altitude it achieves it at.

 

The potential energy capacity of the P-47 (and the P-38) is even more overlooked. As long there is some altitude left, no 109/190 will catch you, because you will get more from shallow dives than frames weighting only half as much. It works for the P-40 very well, now; should be even better with the P-47/P-38.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Ehret

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

The plane that was hated by pilots in the ETO?

It was a good aircraft performance wise and it did well in other theaters but I think the main reasons it did poorly in northern Europe was the climate and training.

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Even more overlooked is the potential energy capacity of the P-47 (and the P-38). As long there is some altitude left, no 109/190 will catch you, because you will get more from shallow dives than frames weighting only half as much. It works for the P-40 very well, now; should be even better with the P-47/P-38.

I've read the same thing. It was a great diver all around but it really excelled at shallow dives.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Poor cockpit heat was a big issue in the ETO.

 

Of course this will be meaningless to us as we sit in our comfy homes and sip our favorite beverages whilst we play at being fighter pilots.

[ZachariasX]

47 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I've read the same thing. It was a great diver all around but it really excelled at shallow dives.

Steinhoff considered the P-38 the nastiest opponent in the Med. He said if they were above you, you had a hard time. I guess this was very much because as you say. You can dive, but you‘ll have a hard time running away.

 

15 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Poor cockpit heat was a big issue in the ETO.

 

Of course this will be meaningless to us as we sit in our comfy homes and sip our favorite beverages whilst we play at being fighter pilots.

Getting the heat to the cockpit was one thing, but AFAIK sealing of the canopy was also not as it could have been.

[=475FG=_DAWGER]

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

 

The plane that was hated by pilots in the ETO?

The things that made the early P-38 have a bad reputation generally aren't modeled online.  The cold cockpit and complex operation procedures aren't a factor online. The fear of real death preventing extreme nose low dives also isn't present.

 

By the P-38J-25-LO all of those issues were resolved. The USAAF educated pilots on how capable the P-38 is and those flying the J and L loved it. In many ways it out performed the P-51 but the Pony was half the price to produce with similar performance. By 1944, the Luftwaffe wasn't fielding high quality pilots in large numbers. The USAAF concentrated on numbers.

 

Online we always face high quality opponents and we tend to dogfight since we have no fear of real death. The P-38 excels in that environment.

[ICDP]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

The potential energy capacity of the P-47 (and the P-38) is even more overlooked. As long there is some altitude left, no 109/190 will catch you, because you will get more from shallow dives than frames weighting only half as much. It works for the P-40 very well, now; should be even better with the P-47/P-38.

 

It really all depends on the scenario.  It would be a very dangerous game to assume a P-47D will always outdive a 109 or 190 as some get out of jail free card (not claiming you are stating this).  We see this already in the game with yaks and LaGGs diving with 190s during the initial stages and this is as it should be.

 

A P-47 may have twice the weight of a 109 but it doesn't have twice the HP (1700hp vs 2600hp), so power to weight ratio favours the contemporary 109G14 by a decent margin.  This means acceleration favours the 109 and 190, at least until higher speeds.  So if both planes are at low - medium speed during a dogfight and the P-47 decides to shallow dive away without evasive maneuvers, he would be a sitting duck for a very long time.

 

A US dive test with a P47D against a captured Fw190-A (or G) had both planes enter a dive from cruise speeds at 10,000ft.  The 190 initially left the P-47D behind and it took the P-47D until 3,000ft (7,000ft of altitude) to catch and overtake the 190.  When that happens in game I expect a lot of P-47D pilots to complain loudly.

 

I can't find the original report, but here is a link to some quotes made on another forum.

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=1113

 

Edited November 10, 2018 by ICDP

[Ehret]

36 minutes ago, ICDP said:

A P-47 may have twice the weight of a 109 but it doesn't have twice the HP (1700hp vs 2600hp), so power to weight ratio favours the contemporary 109G14 by a decent margin.  This means acceleration favours the 109 and 190, at least until higher speeds.  So if both planes are at low - medium speed during a dogfight and the P-47 decides to shallow dive away without evasive maneuvers, he would be a sitting duck for a very long time.

 

That's why you don't start engagements at low speeds. You really want that 0.5*V*V going to make most of the *m from the start. Once there you are "free" - no "free card" should be needed; only just enough discipline to bug off when facing an energy trap.

 

Unlike the P-40 the Jug has great rate of fire and ammo reserves; both at the same time and the gyro sight should help, too. Thus, per single bounce the P-47 will be deadlier; it will be possible to open fire from afar, keep it and move like a directed beam.

(which is possible in the Kittyhawk but only with 4 guns + extra ammo mod; the Jug will have 8x guns @ +400rpg...)

 

The P-38 might be even more interesting but... harder to use.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Ehret