Jump to content
II./JG77_motoadve

The gamer vs the sim/history buff P47

Recommended Posts

The P47 and arguments agains its durability can be resumed.

 

Gamer vs sim/history buff .

This are kind of opposite  people, and will have a hard time to agree, which is the reason so many arguments in the forums.

Gamer want to kill enemy planes, if they have a side , want their planes to perform better, get more kills, sometimes brag about it.

Dont care/understand history, model accuracy etc unless affects his team.Its a game.

 

Sim guy/history buff , is informed, have read the history about the planes/ conflict, wants the airplane as accurate as possible even if it means downgrade or upgrade it from what the sim is showing,and making it harder to fly/fight, cares about immersion/history feeling/uses the airplane gauges , no GPS, no techno chat. For him its a simulation.

 

Sim guy trying to explain gamer to reason about why this or that needs to be changed P 47 seems fragile compared to history and real pilots accounts = waste of time, gamer thinks he is whining and wants  advantage so he wants to make his plane better and get more kills.

I think there are a lot more gamers that joined lately than simulator/aviation /history enthusiasts, good for business,  they joined because its the best simulator and not arcade, but have gamer mentality.

 

Then there is the real pilots ,but  they know nothing :) dont listen to them, the gamer knows more.

So is the P47 a bit fragile? Seems to be compared to the reputation it had, that is all I can say.

 

Glad the dev team is passionate about the history and accuracy of this sim, and pay attention to details and always its improving it, keep the good work guys, I bet its difficult to make things balanced for the audiences.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd put the P47 above the IL2 right now for damage survival and less than the Pe-2.

It survives 30mm hits to the wing, something _most_ other planes can not. It also survives a 30mm hit to the tail something most other planes also don't take well.

 

Firing 20mm cannon at it, and the survivability looks impressive as well.  I've shot at a lot of planes over the last 4 years and the Jug is taking a lot more punishment than most.

 

I like the part where you practically call those that want the P-47 more durable as the Sim pilots/history buffs and everyone else gamers.

 

13 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Sim guy/history buff , is informed, have read the history about the planes/ conflict, wants the airplane as accurate as possible even if it means downgrade or upgrade it from what the sim is showing,and making it harder to fly/fight, cares about immersion/history feeling/uses the airplane gauges , no GPS, no techno chat. For him its a simulation.

 

Yep, that above sounds just like me - yet I think the P47 is not too far off the mark. Especially not "it needs fixing right now" levels of inaccuracy.

Edited by =EXPEND=Tripwire
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is currently in sim:

 

7.7mm rips wings off, and it loses ailerons at 500mph dive.

 

 

I think this is all we need to know at this point. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

As it is currently in sim:

 

7.7mm rips wings off, and it loses ailerons at 500mph dive.

 

 

I think this is all we need to know at this point. 

Needs more testing for sure but ailerons coming off in a dive is completely inaccurate, should never happen at the speeds the P-47 can actually dive.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

I'd put the P47 above the IL2 right now for damage survival and less than the Pe-2.

It survives 30mm hits to the wing, something _most_ other planes can not. It also survives a 30mm hit to the tail something most other planes also don't take well.

 

Firing 20mm cannon at it, and the survivability looks impressive as well.  I've shot at a lot of planes over the last 4 years and the Jug is taking a lot more punishment than most.

 

I like the part where you practically call those that want the P-47 more durable as the Sim pilots/history buffs and everyone else gamers.

 

 

Yep, that above sounds just like me - yet I think the P47 is not too far off the mark. Especially not "it needs fixing right now" levels of inaccuracy.

If you go read about the P 47  you will find amazing stories of how durable it was.

One example in the book Thunderbolt (great book BTW) Robert Johnson shot to pieces by a 190, and could not be brought down, the 190 pilot will go next to him, look at it , shake his head , go behind ,shoot again, and again.

 

Many other stories of pilots making it back with lots of damage, it gave the reputation to the P47.

 

In IL2 its just not reflecting this, doesnt seem specially durable, specially wing being detached easily, I bet that didnt happen as often.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that nothing needs to be tuned up (if the wing detaches too easily, maybe the devs can look into it), but you make it sound like this P-47 is made of paper.  I've done quite a few QMs against it so far, and think the idea of it being "fragile" in some threads is being overstated.  In one case I put 4 30mm shells into it, finally killing the pilot, but the plane flew on.   In most cases, it seems to be more durable than the Il-2, and in line with accounts I've read of it's legendary toughness.   I simply don't think it's as wimpy as some are making it sound.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO wing detachments are at least somewhat too frequent in general. Maybe 2/3 or so of my victories both online and in offline testing have been de-wingings.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You "the jugs fragility is a joke" guys should really consider that beside the fact that pilot accounts are subjective, the average shot/hit percentage is waaaaaaay higher in-game than it was irl. 

More shells hit and more shells hit weakspots.

Oh and don't run around, discrediting other users while claiming your point is the only one acceptable. Not only is it lame, it also shows your inability to put effort in a discussion. 

Edited by Memphis
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone have recording of reliably detaching wings with MG fire? Even .50 are now pretty bad at doing any sort of structural damage, so if its 'easy' that does sound unintended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

I'd put the P47 above the IL2 right now for damage survival and less than the Pe-2.

It survives 30mm hits to the wing, something _most_ other planes can not. It also survives a 30mm hit to the tail something most other planes also don't take well.

 

Firing 20mm cannon at it, and the survivability looks impressive as well.  I've shot at a lot of planes over the last 4 years and the Jug is taking a lot more punishment than most. 

 

 

+1000

 

I think its durable more than enough

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the developers wasted all of their time reading sources, looking at surviving and restored aircraft. They should just have come here and got the info that they needed from all the P-47 experts. Could have saved them all that time, money and research. Guess while they were busy trying to get the engine particulars as close as they could they overlooked the small little know fact that the P-47 was suppose to be a durable plane.

Edited by =SqSq=CrazyGman
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, =SqSq=CrazyGman said:

I guess the developers wasted all of their time reading sources, looking at surviving and restored aircraft. They should just have come here and got the info that they needed from all the P-47 experts. Could have saved them all that time, money and research. Guess while they were busy trying to get the engine particulars as close as they could they overlooked the small little know fact that the P-47 was suppose to be a durable plane.

 

 

Yeah, m8t, it i am sure all the surviving and restored P-47 are without ailerons become none of them would have them if 500mph IAS was enough to rip them off....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in Berloga I've set more p47 on fire via a single hit in to the engine/nose than ripping their wings off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

Yeah, m8t, it i am sure all the surviving and restored P-47 are without ailerons become none of them would have them if 500mph IAS was enough to rip them off....

Well considering in game you can dive past that by a large margin just fine and that is only the recommended never exceed speed i'll wait for you to actually do some homework for your next comment

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP - like always in such cases, all these "feelings", "beliefs" and "suspicions" mean nothing if they are not backed up by evidence (which isn't equal to popular opinion - a million people can still be wrong). Bring up some reliable, repeatable, objective tests of this sim DM (for example with non-moving aircraft on the ground, shooting them in the same spot with different weapons etc.), which clearly shows an error or inaccuracy compared to historical tests or data - and only then you'll be able to hope for attention from the right people.

Edited by CrazyDuck
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much love of the carefully-crafted national mythos attached to these aircraft that it's unusual to actually find stable, even-minded people who have, as duck says, reliable, repeatable, objective test results and historical data to back up their requests for alterations.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Then there is the real pilots ,but  they know nothing :) dont listen to them, the gamer knows more.

That has nothing to do actually. Except if you talk about a pilot with good amount of experience (while still maybe doesnt have experience flying WWII birds). I myself have (not so much) flying experience, but I really doesn't consider me an expert over "gamers" people. After all, nor me nor they have flown something like the beast P-47 is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

To the OP - like always in such cases, all these "feelings", "beliefs" and "suspicions" mean nothing if they are not backed up by evidence (which isn't equal to popular opinion - a million people can still be wrong). Bring up some reliable, repeatable, objective tests of this sim DM (for example with non-moving aircraft on the ground, shooting them in the same spot with different weapons etc.), which clearly shows an error or inaccuracy compared to historical tests or data - and only then you'll be able to hope for attention from the right people.

How exactly are you going to aim the cannons of a plane at another while the nose is pointed up while sitting on the ground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

That has nothing to do actually. Except if you talk about a pilot with good amount of experience (while still maybe doesnt have experience flying WWII birds). I myself have (not so much) flying experience, but I really doesn't consider me an expert over "gamers" people. After all, nor me nor they have flown something like the beast P-47 is.

I was being sarcastic, I have 2,000 hrs as a pilot and fly a warbird, of course we know our stuff. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

How exactly are you going to aim the cannons of a plane at another while the nose is pointed up while sitting on the ground?

 

Why aim entire plane at all - and not a single gun, precisely where you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

The P47 and arguments agains its durability can be resumed.

 

Gamer vs sim/history buff .

This are kind of opposite  people, and will have a hard time to agree, which is the reason so many arguments in the forums.

Gamer want to kill enemy planes, if they have a side , want their planes to perform better, get more kills, sometimes brag about it.

Dont care/understand history, model accuracy etc unless affects his team.Its a game.

 

Sim guy/history buff , is informed, have read the history about the planes/ conflict, wants the airplane as accurate as possible even if it means downgrade or upgrade it from what the sim is showing,and making it harder to fly/fight, cares about immersion/history feeling/uses the airplane gauges , no GPS, no techno chat. For him its a simulation.

 

Sim guy trying to explain gamer to reason about why this or that needs to be changed P 47 seems fragile compared to history and real pilots accounts = waste of time, gamer thinks he is whining and wants  advantage so he wants to make his plane better and get more kills.

I think there are a lot more gamers that joined lately than simulator/aviation /history enthusiasts, good for business,  they joined because its the best simulator and not arcade, but have gamer mentality.

 

 

 

A rediculous over-generalisation of people and throwing labels onto people which will just end up devisive.

 

7 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

 

So is the P47 a bit fragile? Seems to be compared to the reputation it had, that is all I can say.

 

 

I think the wings fall off too much in my limited time in it, but so do most of the other aircraft. Most times I hit fighters it seems they crumple up at the wing root chord, it looks a bit weird to see it so often.

 

My limited reading of pilot accounts has not ever mentioned seeing fighters fall apart like this to my recollection, it always seems to be that they or their buddies (who may not survive) are mostly trying to put down after getting critical engine or control damage or on fire, or in a spin*. But, yes this is not based on much knowledge or research.

 

* Maybe because most of the accounts I've read are early war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesnt everyone stop arguing and let people post test result? Instead of trying to get this thread locked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Why aim entire plane at all - and not a single gun, precisely where you want?

And how do you plan on doing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

And how do you plan on doing that?

 

There have been two ways this has been done.

  1. A map setup specifically with planes placed on a slope etc for hits.

  2. Modding the guns on a bombers gunner positions to fire the rounds you want to test.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

I was being sarcastic, I have 2,000 hrs as a pilot and fly a warbird, of course we know our stuff. :)

Yes, I saw the sarcasm. Just wanted to say that not many pilots would really be able to say if the P-47 is well modeled or not. 

Now, being you that experienced and even able to fly a warbird, damn, my respects man, I kinda envy you.

 

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

Yes, I saw the sarcasm. Just wanted to say that not many pilots would really be able to say if the P-47 is well modeled or not. 

Now, being you that experienced and even able to fly a warbird, damn, my respects man, I kinda envy you.

 

Cheers

P 47 feeling of flight feels real good to me.

Have a friend who owned a P47 D, he might get a more accurate input, will have him try the sim in VR, I bet he will be blown away :)

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that pilots who own/fly real war-birds are useless, they obviously can lend great insight.

However they don't/can't fly the aircraft at, or anywhere near the edge of the flight envelopes that would yield the most useful information in many cases.

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true many warbird owners dont fly the plane to the edge of flights envelopes, I think they do not fly them often enough or dont have the acro training, some do get in trouble too.

But some do fly them a lot, my friend did, I asked him and he told me he stalled the P47 , rolled it, looped it, split S, Immelman , all warbird  stuff,he also raced Reno in the P51 and won the warbird category more than once.

Pretty acomplished pilot with thousands of hrs in warbirds

 

If you ever been to Reno races, its a full speed dive into turn one and pull hard turns at fast speeds, (looks and sounds like a dogfight) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reno races are nuts. I enjoyed it way more than any Red Bull thing.

Edited by TheKillerSloth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

If you go read about the P 47  you will find amazing stories of how durable it was.

One example in the book Thunderbolt (great book BTW) Robert Johnson shot to pieces by a 190, and could not be brought down, the 190 pilot will go next to him, look at it , shake his head , go behind ,shoot again, and again.

 

Many other stories of pilots making it back with lots of damage, it gave the reputation to the P47.

 

In IL2 its just not reflecting this, doesnt seem specially durable, specially wing being detached easily, I bet that didnt happen as often.

 

The Focke Wulf pilot was shooting him with 7.9mm ammunition, not 20mm cannon on the second encounter.

 

The first pass by an Fw 190 firing 20mm cannon initially sent his aircraft tumbling out of control and the second encounter after regaining control involved an Fw190 out of 20mm cannon ammo and limited to 7.9mm ammo.

 

http://acepilots.com/usaaf_rsj.html

 

The above story was also verified by another publication from the National Air And Space museum publication ISBN 0-87474-885-2, Focke Wulf Fw 190 "Workhorse of the Luftwaffe" Pg 53.

If the Focke pilot had 20mm ammo left ,Robert Johnson wouldn't be here to tell this story.

Edited by bzc3lk
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bzc3lk said:

 

The Focke Wulf pilot was shooting him with 7.9mm ammunition, not 20mm cannon.

 

http://acepilots.com/usaaf_rsj.html

 

The above story was also verified by another publication from the National Air And Space museum publication ISBN 0-87474-885-2, Focke Wulf Fw 190 "Workhorse of the Luftwaffe" Pg 53.

If the Focke pilot had 20mm ammo left ,Robert Johnson wouldn't be here to tell this story.



Also, the following video whilst showing the INCORRECT aircraft quite often (it's about Hartmann but mostly shows FW190's being shot down...)

Watch the scene from 23 seconds onwards, it to me appears to be a P47:
 

 

Edited by novicebutdeadly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One would think  "When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had 21 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets."  would be enough to send the P-47 down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve raked P-47s with a gun designed to down B-17s and seen them keep flying. Seems tough enough to me. Now if it is that resistant to 30MM cannon fire but the wings are coming off for LMG fire then that is a problem. But IF that is indeed happening then obviously it is a bug with that specific scenario and not a deliberate developer decision to make the Jug fragile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, bzc3lk said:

 

The Focke Wulf pilot was shooting him with 7.9mm ammunition, not 20mm cannon on the second encounter.

 

The first pass by an Fw 190 firing 20mm cannon initially sent his aircraft tumbling out of control and the second encounter after regaining control involved an Fw190 out of 20mm cannon ammo and limited to 7.9mm ammo.

 

http://acepilots.com/usaaf_rsj.html

 

The above story was also verified by another publication from the National Air And Space museum publication ISBN 0-87474-885-2, Focke Wulf Fw 190 "Workhorse of the Luftwaffe" Pg 53.

If the Focke pilot had 20mm ammo left ,Robert Johnson wouldn't be here to tell this story.

 

He did get shot up with 20mm at first though and he counted quite s few hits from 20mm.

 

46 minutes ago, novicebutdeadly said:



Also, the following video whilst showing the INCORRECT aircraft quite often (it's about Hartmann but mostly shows FW190's being shot down...)

Watch the scene from 23 seconds onwards, it to me appears to be a P47:
 

 

 

Those are all 190s and 109s. I have seen guncam footage of P-47s getting shot up, though I'm not sure if they ever survived or not.

 

25 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

One would think  "When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had 21 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets."  would be enough to send the P-47 down.

 

He almost did get shot down, and probably would have if he wasn't forced to stay in his aircraft due to the 20mm hit locking the canopy.

 

Cannon DM seems pretty good to me, I've had it to where I've got one shot by a cannon and I've also been able to survive a few hits from them, whats not correct though is when machinguns are doing just as much damage as a cannon and taking wings off.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

machinguns are doing just as much damage as a cannon and taking wings off


And this is new?

 

Russian UB?

US .50 Calibre?

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:


And this is new?

 

Russian UB?

US .50 Calibre?

 

 

 

Aswell as all other small caliber non-mineshell weapons in the game, german types included. The brits during BoB did several tests on that topic and they all concluded that small caliber guns did not do sufficient damage to plane structure or skin to bring down a plane outside of ridiculous volumes of fire that even 8 brownings didn't deliver. Even 20mm non-mineshells had little effect on overall structure integrity. This is part of the reason why loadouts focussed on AP and incendiary types.

 

To me, this current DM behaviour is prob the last black mark this game has. And I still hope they will address this at some point.

Edited by Mauf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was hit twice into the engine section with machine gun (bullet or two hit the engine) and it goes into flame immediatelly following with explosion and disintegration seconds after.

(Ground machine gun hits)

Engine seems very fragile and damage unforgiving.

Should it be that way i honestly don't know, i would expect engine slowly dying and smoking.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:


And this is new?

 

Russian UB?

US .50 Calibre?

 

 

 

 

Yeah, if i had a choice, i would mount G-14 with 3 German heavy machine guns in the nose and leave off the cannon. 

 

Machine guns destroy wings like no tomorrow. 

 

 

only exception to this is British 303, and that is prolly more due to poor placement in wings. 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×