Jump to content
II./JG77_motoadve

The gamer vs the sim/history buff P47

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, 216th_Retnek said:

Rall describes that incident in detail in his book (pp 166, German edition). His wingman Trepte later told him Ralls propeller cut through the La-5 plane wing near the fuselage. That pilot didn't make it out of the plane. The propeller of his 109 G-6 was damaged obviously and shook the plane badly. He was over enemies territory. Flying with adapted rpm to reduce the shaking as good as possible he made it back to the airstrip "Ugrim". After the "softest landing of his life" he discovered his 3 prop-blades in different stadium of damage. His belly fuselage was ripped off badly by the propeller of the La-5. 10 cm more and his fuel tank would have been cut open.

 

Fascinating. Thanks for writing those details up! 

 

And to think folks reckon it was only the P47 that could take this kind of damage! Complete and utter hysteria.

Edited by Bilbo_Baggins
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Fascinating. Thanks for writing those details up! 

 

And to think folks reckon it was only the P47 that could take this kind of damage! Complete and utter hysteria.

I don’t think anyone is crowning the P-47 as the sole aircraft capable of sustaining horrendous damage and returning to base. Quit trying to get a rise out of people. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lord_certalic said:

I don’t think anyone is crowning the P-47 as the sole aircraft capable of sustaining horrendous damage and returning to base. Quit trying to get a rise out of people. 

 

Pe-2 wins that award!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 11:27 PM, 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:
 

 

My my... look at those de-wings with (WHAT?!?!) .50 caliber ammunition... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

My my... look at those de-wings with (WHAT?!?!) .50 caliber ammunition... 

 

Yup, and (I believe) most (if not all) gun cam footage of de-winged aircraft are 190s which was likely due to ammunition explosions in the wing root that caused those wing rips. It was a peculiarity of the 190 that lead to those. It in all likelihood wasn't due to the bullets chewing through the structure. If somebody has an example of a 109 that doesn't include an ammo cook-off, I would love to see it. Gun cam footage from the german perspective can't be taken as a measure since all load outs after mid of BoB included mine shells.

 

The Brits investigated this stuff thoroughly during and shortly after the BoB and the conclusion was pretty sound: Under normal circumstances, 8mm and even non-mineshell 20mm calibers are not likely to damage internal or skin structures sufficiently to cause critical structural failures outside of very high volumes of concentrated fire.

Edited by Mauf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mauf said:

 

Yup, and (I believe) most (if not all) gun cam footage of de-winged aircraft are 190s which was likely due to ammunition explosions in the wing root that caused those wing rips. It was a peculiarity of the 190 that lead to those. It in all likelihood wasn't due to the bullets chewing through the structure.

 

The Brits investigated this thoroughly during and shortly after the BoB and the conclusion was pretty sound: Under normal circumstances, 8mm and even non-mineshell 20mm calibers are not likely to damage internal or skin structures sufficiently to cause critical structural failures outside of very high volumes of concentrated fire.

That 109 sure seemed to lose a quarter of his right wing quick and I guarantee no ammo was there. Im sure ammo explosions had a lot to do with de-wings but that does not eliminate them happening all together through simple structural failure. The impression i get out of some people here is they wont rest until structural failure de-wings from machine guns are brought down to 0% chance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I don’t think anyone is crowning the P-47 as the sole aircraft capable of sustaining horrendous damage and returning to base. Quit trying to get a rise out of people. 

 

This

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

That 109 sure seemed to lose a quarter of his right wing quick and I guarantee no ammo was there. Im sure ammo explosions had a lot to do with de-wings but that does not eliminate them happening all together through simple structural failure. The impression i get out of some people here is they wont rest until structural failure de-wings from machine guns are brought down to 0% chance.

Nearly all de-wingings with .50s were due to ammo explosion not the bullets chewing the the structure.

From the looks of it that 109 that you see lose part of it's wingtip was hit by a cannon round not .50s. You can even see what looks like the explosion from the cannon.

 

It is exceptionally rare for machineguns to de-wing an aircraft by themselves, there is nearly always another factor involved (ammo detonation most of the time).

 

And you can't really compare the wing on the 109 to that of the P-47, one is quite a bit stronger than the other and very well built.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

Nearly all de-wingings with .50s were due to ammo explosion not the bullets chewing the the structure.

 

What is this claim based on?

 

(Don't get me wrong, I'm expressing curiosity, not skepticism.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

This

 

 and that

Share this post


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

 

What is this claim based on?

 

(Don't get me wrong, I'm expressing curiosity, not skepticism.)

I will confess that I have no hard evidence besides guncam footage to back this up.

I'm not saying it was impossible (a few first hand accounts talk about dewinging aircraft with .50s) I'm just saying it's extremely difficult and unlikely in combat without other damage being caused.

 

It's like sawing through a tree with a machine gun, except the tree is moving, is  hundred to few hundred yards away, and is the width of a 2x4.

 

With single spar aircraft it becomes more possible sure, but with multi spar aircraft it's very hard to cause enough damage to the spars to cause failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can read through hundreds of after action combat reports at Williams' site. I admit I havent gone through all of them but I cant recall E/A losing a wing being mentioned. They're always mentioned to catch fire or smoke maybe lose some parts before they go down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

From the looks of it that 109 that you see lose part of it's wingtip was hit by a cannon round not .50s. You can even see what looks like the explosion from the cannon.


Sometimes .50 cal incendiary round impacts can look like cannon explosive rounds, for example in this footage that was posted some days ago on the forum:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 9:03 PM, Bremspropeller said:

So much for giving an accurate comparative account. Claiming the P-47 to be the best airplane around when not having any idea about the general and specific capabilities of the other airplanes (much less having even flown them) counts as painting with a pretty broad brush.

In other terms: The accuracy of his other statements can be doubted.

2

 

There is a subtle difference between R. Johnson making a wrong assumption (my plane is the best) with limited or wrong information compare to being unable to count 21 big size holes (counting them as 20mm damage) in his plane. Was he wrong in describing the fighting abilities of his plane compared to others? surely likely to a degree (he interpreted his own experience) but this can´t be related in any way to his ability to count big holes in his plane unless you considered him lying.

He was wrong about his statement about p-47 rolling characteristics being the best. But one thing to take into account is that rolling performance is not all about maximum degrees per second achieved. There is also acceleration into the maximum rolling speed and capability to change the direction of the roll quick. Sometimes banking 45-90º and quickly doing the opposite was more important tactically than achieving your maximum roll rate. That is the type of praising about rolling I have read about the p-47.

The speed at which this happens is also important in order to interpret Johnson description of the p-47 rolling abilities. 8th´s p-47 were flying up high and most of the time-fighting at speeds over 350mph. So for him, that was the speed at which he compared his plane which his enemies ones and possibly that influence why he made such a strong asseveration.

 

In essence, the P-47 ability to sustain heavy damage is sustained not only by a myriad of pilot accounts by also by a specific damage test performed with different armament. Regarding the survival bias, I will add the P-47 bias in the survival bias. You have more incredible stories about survivability coming from the p-47 compared to other American planes in the same theatre (p-51 or p-38). It is the same story when you compare the b-17 and the b-24. They fought in the same theatre and doing the same missions yet the bigger number of stories of planes returning to base with atrocious damage came from the b-17. Or if you count on the IL-2 is the same story.

 

Nothing of this means you have to model damage resistance based on the survival bias. To me, this means that comparatively those planes have plenty of evidence (both anecdotally and specific testing) they were more resistance than the rest and thus you should take it into account when tuning your damage model.

 

 

Edited by HR_Zunzun
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


Sometimes .50 cal incendiary round impacts can look like cannon explosive rounds, for example in this footage that was posted some days ago on the forum:
 

 

I know, the flashes from the incendiary do make it look like a cannon almost. The thing about that 109 clip though was yo didnt see any flashes as if it was being fired on by .50s, it looked more like a singular explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

One can read through hundreds of after action combat reports at Williams' site. I admit I havent gone through all of them but I cant recall E/A losing a wing being mentioned. They're always mentioned to catch fire or smoke maybe lose some parts before they go down.

 

Yes. I have gone through many accounts but recalled more fires, big smokes and likely pilots kills. Sometimes even explosions but not taking wings off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

There is a subtle difference between R. Johnson making a wrong assumption (my plane is the best) with limited or wrong information compare to being unable to count 21 big size holes (counting them as 20mm damage) in his plane. Was he wrong in describing the fighting abilities of his plane compared to others? surely likely to a degree (he interpreted his own experience) but this can´t be related in any way to his ability to count big holes in his plane unless you considered him lying.

He was wrong about his statement about p-47 rolling characteristics being the best. But one thing to take into account is that rolling performance is not all about maximum degrees per second achieved. There is also acceleration into the maximum rolling speed and capability to change the direction of the roll quick. Sometimes banking 45-90º and quickly doing the opposite was more important tactically than achieving your maximum roll rate. That is the type of praising about rolling I have read about the p-47.

The speed at which this happens is also important in order to interpret Johnson description of the p-47 rolling abilities. 8th´s p-47 were flying up high and most of the time-fighting at speeds over 350mph. So for him, that was the speed at which he compared his plane which his enemies ones and possibly that influence why he made such a strong asseveration.

 

In essence, the P-47 ability to sustain heavy damage is sustained not only by a myriad of pilot accounts by also by a specific damage test performed with different armament. Regarding the survival bias, I will add the P-47 bias in the survival bias. You have more incredible stories about survivability coming from the p-47 compared to other American planes in the same theatre (p-51 or p-38). It is the same story when you compare the b-17 and the b-24. They fought in the same theatre and doing the same missions yet the bigger number of stories of planes returning to base with atrocious damage came from the b-17. Or if you count on the IL-2 is the same story.

 

Nothing of this means you have to model damage resistance based on the survival bias. To me, this means that comparatively those planes have plenty of evidence (both anecdotally and specific testing) they were more resistance than the rest and thus you should take it into account when tuning your damage model.

 

 

IIRC Johnson mentioned being quite stout as a factor in being able to roll his aircraft quickly at speed. This is not a factor in our game, where presumably the same force is being applied to the stick at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

What is this claim based on?

 

(Don't get me wrong, I'm expressing curiosity, not skepticism.)

 

This is what makes this topic so difficult to nail down. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence. Most statements on the topic (mine included) are based on extrapolation. What I particularly extrapolate from: gun cam footage of dewinged planes are mostly 190s around the I would guess ammo storages. Few reports mentioning wing offs on the allied side. British research on the topic. 

 

Now, maybe they are not impossible but what I'm definitely going to say: the dewinging with small calibers in this game seems too damn high in the light of what historical info I've seen on the subject. 

 

Pending new info that I have not seen yet, I'll stick to that opinion for the time being.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some guys ask for evidence, proof etc.

We dont have a P47 and a 20mm gun to fire at the wing to prove it, what evidence do they actually want? On the other hand gives us evidence that what is modeled its actually correct then.

 

Opinions are based on what it has been written in books and historic first hand accounts of pilots, and the P 47 doesnt feel as robust as the reputation it had, and wing detachment happens too easily, engine kill also easy.

In this books you never read time after time, this P47 got shot at at the wing detached.(its happens in IL2 too frequently).

 

Non believers please go and read about the P47 you will be impressed by what it has been written, definitely not my favorite plane, but its a bit arcade to be so easy to bring down.

We all want a realistic sim right? not an arcade type where you shoot and wing detaches easily, specially at the root, which is the case here.

 

Now it might be true all of us are panicking, its just early access, I am sure this plane will get updates, the throttle already has been updated.

 

Share this post


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

 

......Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.....

 

 

Every time this is repeated an elf is born.  I woke up this morning, and there was no musty feline smell in the bedroom. No orange or black hairs on the stairs, the kitchen was free of spoor containing partly digested human bones.  But some people would have us believe that my flat shows no evidence of the absence of a man eating tiger.

 

Absence of evidence is most certainly evidence of absence in cases where one might reasonably expect presence to be accompanied by evidence of presence. What it is not is proof of absence, an entirely different thing. 

 

So perhaps despite the clear evidence of the absence of a man eating tiger, I have missed it lurking in the pantry. Let me just check - GRRRR - Arrrgh! 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

So perhaps despite the clear evidence of the absence of a man eating tiger, I have missed it lurking in the pantry. Let me just check - GRRRR - Arrrgh! 

 

he was trying to reiterate the brilliance of mr Dick Cheney and his statement about the unknown unknowns. They are there. Just unknown and waiting to be known. Then put in the box with the known unknowns so then you'll go and say: "Here. These are all of the known unknowns we need to solve for."

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

There is a subtle difference between R. Johnson making a wrong assumption (my plane is the best) with limited or wrong information compare to being unable to count 21 big size holes (counting them as 20mm damage) in his plane. Was he wrong in describing the fighting abilities of his plane compared to others? surely likely to a degree (he interpreted his own experience) but this can´t be related in any way to his ability to count big holes in his plane unless you considered him lying.

He was wrong about his statement about p-47 rolling characteristics being the best. But one thing to take into account is that rolling performance is not all about maximum degrees per second achieved. There is also acceleration into the maximum rolling speed and capability to change the direction of the roll quick. Sometimes banking 45-90º and quickly doing the opposite was more important tactically than achieving your maximum roll rate. That is the type of praising about rolling I have read about the p-47.

The speed at which this happens is also important in order to interpret Johnson description of the p-47 rolling abilities. 8th´s p-47 were flying up high and most of the time-fighting at speeds over 350mph. So for him, that was the speed at which he compared his plane which his enemies ones and possibly that influence why he made such a strong asseveration.

 

In essence, the P-47 ability to sustain heavy damage is sustained not only by a myriad of pilot accounts by also by a specific damage test performed with different armament. Regarding the survival bias, I will add the P-47 bias in the survival bias. You have more incredible stories about survivability coming from the p-47 compared to other American planes in the same theatre (p-51 or p-38). It is the same story when you compare the b-17 and the b-24. They fought in the same theatre and doing the same missions yet the bigger number of stories of planes returning to base with atrocious damage came from the b-17. Or if you count on the IL-2 is the same story.

 

Nothing of this means you have to model damage resistance based on the survival bias. To me, this means that comparatively those planes have plenty of evidence (both anecdotally and specific testing) they were more resistance than the rest and thus you should take it into account when tuning your damage model.

 

First of all:

I'm not debating that the P-47 was a tougher bird than some other airplanes.

 

However:

The problem starts when people try quantifying stuff that can not be quantified.

"XYZ is too weak", "ABC causes too little damage" - all those claims are based on little more than faith or subjective interpretation of combat reports that are in turn subjective interpretation of an experience. I don't want to start a study in human factors here, but what is taken as "evidence" has gone through a lot of subjective filters.

 

Another problem is lack of precision in statements that cause issues: He (Johnson) very well might have meant the airplane rolls well in excess of 400mph - did he specificly mention that factoid?  Not really. Has he ever flown another airplane for a substantial time-frame to assess it's relative performance to the P-47? He hasn't.

He's writing down his opinion based on very little data and experience on other airplanes - mostly heresay and a couple of mock-encounters.

One can pick some factoids from that (with a little prior knowledge of other airplanes' strengths and weaknesses), but as a testimony of the airplane's relative performance, it is of little use. Especially when we know that he flew a souped up airplane and that he ran the airplane outside of approved limits. He might have gotten away with it because he was so experienced, but John Doe would probably have ended in the ditch after effing with his engine too much.

 

He could have counted a large number of holes and either misidentify damage or just forgetting the real number of damage and write down a wrong number some years later.

Also, most pilots (and people) are full of crap and won't let facts get in the way of a good story. I'm not saying this is necessesarily the case - I wouldn't be surprised, though.

 

The bigger number of stories might just be due to the larger exposure - the P-47 flew more hazardous A-G missions, so it was exposed to more ground-fire, so it had more chances to bring back funny looking airplanes. A survey made in Korea showed that F4Us and F-51s had VERY similar loss- and survivability-rates in A-G missions. It would be interesting so see the AD and the british birds, but I would be surprised if their numbers are any different.

Bottom-line: While the airplane might have had a lower overall loss-rate per sortie, it would be interesting to see the used base-data and have a deeper look if that result isn't just a statistical quirk.

 

Again: I'm not saying the airplane wasn't good at bringing back the pilot - I'm just a little (very) skeptical about it's mythical fame. The latter is usually blown way out of proportion.

 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 8:45 PM, 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.

this one ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

First of all:

I'm not debating that the P-47 was a tougher bird than some other airplanes.

 

However:

The problem starts when people try quantifying stuff that can not be quantified.

"XYZ is too weak", "ABC causes too little damage" - all those claims are based on little more than faith or subjective interpretation of combat reports that are in turn subjective interpretation of an experience. I don't want to start a study in human factors here, but what is taken as "evidence" has gone through a lot of subjective filters.

 

Another problem is lack of precision in statements that cause issues: He (Johnson) very well might have meant the airplane rolls well in excess of 400mph - did he specificly mention that factoid?  Not really. Has he ever flown another airplane for a substantial time-frame to assess it's relative performance to the P-47? He hasn't.

He's writing down his opinion based on very little data and experience on other airplanes - mostly heresay and a couple of mock-encounters.

One can pick some factoids from that (with a little prior knowledge of other airplanes' strengths and weaknesses), but as a testimony of the airplane's relative performance, it is of little use. Especially when we know that he flew a souped up airplane and that he ran the airplane outside of approved limits. He might have gotten away with it because he was so experienced, but John Doe would probably have ended in the ditch after effing with his engine too much.

 

He could have counted a large number of holes and either misidentify damage or just forgetting the real number of damage and write down a wrong number some years later.

Also, most pilots (and people) are full of crap and won't let facts get in the way of a good story. I'm not saying this is necessesarily the case - I wouldn't be surprised, though.

 

The bigger number of stories might just be due to the larger exposure - the P-47 flew more hazardous A-G missions, so it was exposed to more ground-fire, so it had more chances to bring back funny looking airplanes. A survey made in Korea showed that F4Us and F-51s had VERY similar loss- and survivability-rates in A-G missions. It would be interesting so see the AD and the british birds, but I would be surprised if their numbers are any different.

Bottom-line: While the airplane might have had a lower overall loss-rate per sortie, it would be interesting to see the used base-data and have a deeper look if that result isn't just a statistical quirk.

 

Again: I'm not saying the airplane wasn't good at bringing back the pilot - I'm just a little (very) skeptical about it's mythical fame. The latter is usually blown way out of proportion.

 

 

You can read ballitics/durability testing they did on the P-47 and many other allied air frames to determine the likelihood of a shootdown.

After reading those reports it's pretty evident that the P-47 in-game isnt performing as it should. Even though those test are based off of probability of a shootdown, it's still a good starting point.

 

You can claim the P-47 wasnt as durable as legend states but the fact is you weren't there, and neither was I. All we have to go on is first hand account, photographs, and some testing that was done during the war.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You can read ballitics/durability testing they did on the P-47 and many other allied air frames to determine the likelihood of a shootdown.

After reading those reports it's pretty evident that the P-47 in-game isnt performing as it should. Even though those test are based off of probability of a shootdown, it's still a good starting point.

 

How so?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the report, or at least one of them (not sure if there is more)

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf

 

4 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

How so?

 

 

 

Machineguns taking the wing off with very few rounds, engine dying after getting hit by a few rounds of machinegun fire, etc.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, I have seen so much video of wings being blown off that I could not say one way or the other that wing failure is too frequent.  Specific to the P-47, there are German pilot accounts of wings being blown off of P-47s.  Take it for what it's worth.

 

Yes, there are many tales of of P-47s coming home with really significant structural damage.  Far fewer tales of P-47s not coming home ... is that because it didn't happen or is that because dead men don't tell tales.  

 

Seeing accounts in game of P-47s taking really significant hits and still flying.  Other accounts of wings folding too easily.  The ailerons coming off does seem suspicious.  If you think that the wings are too weak then make videos of them being blown off by 2x 7.7mm and present it.  It may take time but if you make a proper case for it the devs will do something.  The P-47 was one hell of a tough plane, but it was not indestructible.  Robert Johnson was almost certainly the exception and not the rule.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Banzaii said:

P47 wings are attached by freedom, definitly need to be indestructable.

 

But the prowess of the broom of freedom is made up of many tiny freedom strands. Maybe they simply come undone. The partisan influence of the enemy propaganda.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PatrickAWlson said:

In general, I have seen so much video of wings being blown off that I could not say one way or the other that wing failure is too frequent.  Specific to the P-47, there are German pilot accounts of wings being blown off of P-47s.  Take it for what it's worth.

 

Yes, there are many tales of of P-47s coming home with really significant structural damage.  Far fewer tales of P-47s not coming home ... is that because it didn't happen or is that because dead men don't tell tales.  

 

Seeing accounts in game of P-47s taking really significant hits and still flying.  Other accounts of wings folding too easily.  The ailerons coming off does seem suspicious.  If you think that the wings are too weak then make videos of them being blown off by 2x 7.7mm and present it.  It may take time but if you make a proper case for it the devs will do something.  The P-47 was one hell of a tough plane, but it was not indestructible.  Robert Johnson was almost certainly the exception and not the rule.

 

No-one is saying it's indestructible and I agree that the P-47 is tough against canons to an extent but not against machineguns, it's engine is even weaker.

 

Stories like Johnson's arent all that uncommon, especially when it comes to the P-47.

 

First hand accounts say it was common for the P-47 to come home with cylinders missing and other serious battle damage, they said it happened everyday, there is a reason the P-47 lost so few aircraft per mission yet flew over twice as many sorties as the next highest fighter (the P-51).

 

First hand accounts, the test report above, photographic evidence, etc, all can be combined together to get an accurate picture of what kind of damage the P-47 was capable of sustaining.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a change in damage models across the board a while back. I'd have to dig around to fine the actual timeline but it became fairly obvious that wings started coming off all aircraft at a much higher rate. They need to ammend the damage model and strengthen ALL of the main spars for ALL of the AC. The rest of the damage modeling appears to be pretty good. I haven't flown the P-47 enough to make broad statements there-  but it is early in the process and, if people make good/supported arguments, things like engine hardiness and ailerons will be looked at. Main spars, however, absolutely need a general rework.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

There was a change in damage models across the board a while back. I'd have to dig around to fine the actual timeline but it became fairly obvious that wings started coming off all aircraft at a much higher rate. They need to ammend the damage model and strengthen ALL of the main spars for ALL of the AC. The rest of the damage modeling appears to be pretty good. I haven't flown the P-47 enough to make broad statements there-  but it is early in the process and, if people make good/supported arguments, things like engine hardiness and ailerons will be looked at. Main spars, however, absolutely need a general rework.

Yep I think this is key and also being discussed at the russian forums.

Share this post


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

No-one is saying it's indestructible and I agree that the P-47 is tough against canons to an extent but not against machineguns, it's engine is even weaker.

 

Stories like Johnson's arent all that uncommon, especially when it comes to the P-47.

 

First hand accounts say it was common for the P-47 to come home with cylinders missing and other serious battle damage, they said it happened everyday, there is a reason the P-47 lost so few aircraft per mission yet flew over twice as many sorties as the next highest fighter (the P-51).

 

First hand accounts, the test report above, photographic evidence, etc, all can be combined together to get an accurate picture of what kind of damage the P-47 was capable of sustaining.

 

I would argue that just a bit.  I would not draw conclusions until I had the other side of the story - what made the planes actually crash.  Unfortunately there is much less photographic evidence of that.  

 

Back to my original comment - I'm not suggesting that you are wrong.  I'm just not convinced, nor would I be completely sure as to what to do about it.  Exactly how should the wing be strengthened?  Make videos that demonstrate your case.  Such a demonstration might be very helpful to the developers to key in on what is wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after reading trough these posts recently, I cant wait what kind of S will hit the F when the wonderweapon p51 and p38 will release... (for the latter I cant wait! Being my favorite Western Allied plane).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

First of all:

I'm not debating that the P-47 was a tougher bird than some other airplanes.

 

However:

The problem starts when people try quantifying stuff that can not be quantified.

"XYZ is too weak", "ABC causes too little damage" - all those claims are based on little more than faith or subjective interpretation of combat reports that are in turn subjective interpretation of an experience. I don't want to start a study in human factors here, but what is taken as "evidence" has gone through a lot of subjective filters.

1

Well, with DM is all about interpretation. Agree to you that quantify this is pointless but what I think has been raised as a complaint is the fact that the way you normally perish on this p-47 is, in my experience, either by losing a wing or having your engine die in just a few seconds. When being hit from 6 o'clock with a decent volley then is nothing short of fair to being shot down but when happens just by a snapshot also consistently then makes you raise your brow. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Another problem is lack of precision in statements that cause issues: He (Johnson) very well might have meant the airplane rolls well in excess of 400mph - did he specificly mention that factoid?  Not really. Has he ever flown another airplane for a substantial time-frame to assess it's relative performance to the P-47? He hasn't.

He's writing down his opinion based on very little data and experience on other airplanes - mostly heresay and a couple of mock-encounters.

One can pick some factoids from that (with a little prior knowledge of other airplanes' strengths and weaknesses), but as a testimony of the airplane's relative performance, it is of little use. Especially when we know that he flew a souped up airplane and that he ran the airplane outside of approved limits. He might have gotten away with it because he was so experienced, but John Doe would probably have ended in the ditch after effing with his engine too much.

10

Basically what I said. We agree that a single pilot account must be taken always with a pinch of salt especially when making broad assumptions on complex subjects.

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

He could have counted a large number of holes and either misidentify damage or just forgetting the real number of damage and write down a wrong number some years later.

Also, most pilots (and people) are full of crap and won't let facts get in the way of a good story. I'm not saying this is necessesarily the case - I wouldn't be surprised, though.

1

Here we are facing a simple task. Counting big holes (against small ones) counted as a 20mm hit. He could have remembered the whole thing wrong but this happened after he landed and he took the time to count them. He gave a specific figure. It was that kind of moment that you don´t forget easily. Basically, I don´t see how this can be unreliable unless you think he was exaggerating it. Possible? obviously yes but then raise the question of what could have been the real figure. "Only" 10? 15? 3?

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The bigger number of stories might just be due to the larger exposure - the P-47 flew more hazardous A-G missions, so it was exposed to more ground-fire, so it had more chances to bring back funny looking airplanes. A survey made in Korea showed that F4Us and F-51s had VERY similar loss- and survivability-rates in A-G missions. It would be interesting so see the AD and the british birds, but I would be surprised if their numbers are any different.

Bottom-line: While the airplane might have had a lower overall loss-rate per sortie, it would be interesting to see the used base-data and have a deeper look if that result isn't just a statistical quirk.

 

Again: I'm not saying the airplane wasn't good at bringing back the pilot - I'm just a little (very) skeptical about it's mythical fame. The latter is usually blown way out of proportion.

 

 

Regarding survivability of the p47 compared to the p51 and p38 there is a report from USAAF (RM 402) comparing them (and also some of the navy):

Against AAA: they calculated % of AC lost vs AC hit and found that p47 was 10%, p51 29%, p38 25%.

Against Enemy AC: Same parameter. P47 37%, P38 49% and P51 46%.

There was another study by VIII Fighter command assessing damage and lost as to mission type. They found the % of AC damaged every 1000 sorties, Ac lost every 1000 sorties and most interesting for our discussion, % A/C lost/hit. The p-47 was 25%, p38 was 44% and p51 was 41% from June 43 to May 44. From then on was 19% for the jug, 30 for the lighting and 41% for the Mustang.

There are at least three different independent studies (the losses studies and the specific about damage) made by the same air force to aeroplanes flying in the same theatre and against roughly the same enemy that found the p47 had smaller rate of losses compared to the other two. Specifically, the report from the VIII fighter command compared the planes fighting the same enemies and although the mustang and p38 flew longer missions (4.2 and 4.4 hours from  51/38 compared to 3.2h for the 47 and in the second period 3.7 for the 47 for 3.9 for p38 and 4-3 for the mustang), they all flew more than 2 hours so any damage sustained had to be nursed over a long distance and period of time in order to be able to land at home.

 

Again, I am not advocating with this that the DM of the 47 has to be something mighty but according to the vast amount of evidence presented the p47 was comparatively tougher than other planes and that has to be taken into account when tunning the DM.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did they come up with the "A/C lost" figure?

Did they assume every aircraft lost was brought down to enemy fire, or did they factor in operational losses (weather, CFIT, birdstrikes, striking stuff and diging in, etc.) as well?

 

Averaged sortie length alone is also misleading.

Flying 8h Munich-and-return is somewhat different than flying CAS in the Falaise pocket (yes, those are two extremes, but you get the picture). The 9th AF usually operated closer to friendly territory than the 8th AF escort fighters. An otherwise non-critical fuel-tank hit could easily ruin your day, when the next friendly base is farther away than your remaining gas.

To normalize that difference, you'd have to factor in average mission distance to target.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

  I woke up this morning, and there was no musty feline smell in the bedroom. No orange or black hairs on the stairs, the kitchen was free of spoor containing partly digested human bones.  But some people would have us believe that my flat shows no evidence of the absence of a man eating tiger.

 

Very well stated.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E4GLEyE said:

after reading trough these posts recently, I cant wait what kind of S will hit the F when the wonderweapon p51 and p38 will release... (for the latter I cant wait! Being my favorite Western Allied plane).

 

Whilst i love the 51 and am really looking forward to it, i think i'll give the forums a miss for a month or so after release i think....

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Well, with DM is all about interpretation. Agree to you that quantify this is pointless but what I think has been raised as a complaint is the fact that the way you normally perish on this p-47 is, in my experience, either by losing a wing or having your engine die in just a few seconds. When being hit from 6 o'clock with a decent volley then is nothing short of fair to being shot down but when happens just by a snapshot also consistently then makes you raise your brow. 

 

 

Basically what I said. We agree that a single pilot account must be taken always with a pinch of salt especially when making broad assumptions on complex subjects.

 

Here we are facing a simple task. Counting big holes (against small ones) counted as a 20mm hit. He could have remembered the whole thing wrong but this happened after he landed and he took the time to count them. He gave a specific figure. It was that kind of moment that you don´t forget easily. Basically, I don´t see how this can be unreliable unless you think he was exaggerating it. Possible? obviously yes but then raise the question of what could have been the real figure. "Only" 10? 15? 3?

Regarding survivability of the p47 compared to the p51 and p38 there is a report from USAAF (RM 402) comparing them (and also some of the navy):

Against AAA: they calculated % of AC lost vs AC hit and found that p47 was 10%, p51 29%, p38 25%.

Against Enemy AC: Same parameter. P47 37%, P38 49% and P51 46%.

There was another study by VIII Fighter command assessing damage and lost as to mission type. They found the % of AC damaged every 1000 sorties, Ac lost every 1000 sorties and most interesting for our discussion, % A/C lost/hit. The p-47 was 25%, p38 was 44% and p51 was 41% from June 43 to May 44. From then on was 19% for the jug, 30 for the lighting and 41% for the Mustang.

There are at least three different independent studies (the losses studies and the specific about damage) made by the same air force to aeroplanes flying in the same theatre and against roughly the same enemy that found the p47 had smaller rate of losses compared to the other two. Specifically, the report from the VIII fighter command compared the planes fighting the same enemies and although the mustang and p38 flew longer missions (4.2 and 4.4 hours from  51/38 compared to 3.2h for the 47 and in the second period 3.7 for the 47 for 3.9 for p38 and 4-3 for the mustang), they all flew more than 2 hours so any damage sustained had to be nursed over a long distance and period of time in order to be able to land at home.

 

Again, I am not advocating with this that the DM of the 47 has to be something mighty but according to the vast amount of evidence presented the p47 was comparatively tougher than other planes and that has to be taken into account when tunning the DM.

As far as the Johnson quoted number...I reread that book recently. His account of his experience when his plane was so heavily damaged is harrowing, and its pretty clear that he would have been under severe stress. For long passages he talks frankly about being panicky, oddly detached, or not noticing details. He was under extreme combat stress, and was under it for several hours. I don't see why that makes his account more credible, rather than less credible. He'd just been through a hellish experience, and we expect him to accurately assess the damage to his crate? He didn't even realize he'd been shot through the thigh and taken a glancing round off his head or something crazy like that!

Obviously the Jug could take some punishment but combat accounts can't be taken as gospel. They have to be read as narratives from people who are undergoing prolonged traumatic experiences, often repeatedly, at a  time when we didn't fully understand the impact that kind of trauma has on people' mental states and health. 

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

×