The gamer vs the sim/history buff P47

[RedKestrel]

The other thing to consider is that Johnson literally states, several times in his book, that God was on his side and interceded on his behalf. It's possible God has it in for all the rest of us, which would also explain the interminable purgatory of flight and damage model threads. We're all being purged of our sin!

 

[HR_Zunzun]

50 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

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.

 

The a-c lost is after being hit. And in the first report split in being hit by a/c vs being hit by AAA. Pretty self-explanatory.

Regarding the sortie length, is restricted only to the 8th AF (8th fighter command). So, although they flew some CAS mission their primary one was the long-range escort.  So, same missions and thus with the average sortie length you can normalize your average sortie distance. Even with this, we are talking about 2h+ sorties. Average above 3hours.  If we compare their data for the p47 and the p51 in the second half the difference in sortie length is 3.7 vs 4.3 or around 15% in favour of the Mustang. The difference in loss rate per being hit is 19% vs 46% or 41% in favour of the P-47.

Obviously, everything is subject to interpretation but when you wake up with a musky feline smell,  see orange hairs on the floor and see human rest in the kitchen then your most logical assumption is that it may be a man-eater tiger in the surroundings.

20 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

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. 

He could have made many mistakes remembering things while in the plane due to the stress but he landed the plane, switch it off and then stop and took the time to count the 7.6mm holes stopping when reaching 100. He wasn´t being dragged in a stretcher and quickly giving a glimpse to the plane. He stopped and took his time to count the holes. Why is that making it less credible? Making mistakes. Not 21 but 15? why not? lying? possible but that is not a difficult task to do and he didn´t do it in a hurry as counting 100+ holes clearly takes time.

[Legioneod]

29 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

The other thing to consider is that Johnson literally states, several times in his book, that God was on his side and interceded on his behalf. It's possible God has it in for all the rest of us, which would also explain the interminable purgatory of flight and damage model threads. We're all being purged of our sin!

 

Whats does this have to do with anything?

[Bremspropeller]

46 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Obviously, everything is subject to interpretation but when you wake up with a musky feline smell,  see orange hairs on the floor and see human rest in the kitchen then your most logical assumption is that it may be a man-eater tiger in the surroundings.

 

Or a certain political figure...

 

Regarding the numbers: I guess one can't argue with the overall picture.

The numbers (percentage-ratio) are very odd, though, and don't fit with the later findings in Korea. There's got to be more to the story.

 

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The numbers (percentage-ratio) are very odd, though, and don't fit with the later findings in Korea. There's got to be more to the story.

 

Different conflict, statistics from Korea aren't applicable to ww2 imo.

[Bremspropeller]

Just now, Legioneod said:

Different conflict, statistics from Korea aren't applicable to ww2 imo.

 

The ground-fire was as fierce as in the ETO. Probably worse.

The tactics were the same.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The ground-fire was as fierce as in the ETO. Probably worse.

The tactics were the same.

Yes but the P-47 wasn't used at all, and aircraft losses in Korea were significantly less the WW2.

[Bremspropeller]

As written earlier, the F4U had similar loss-ratios to the F-51.
The general benefits of the P-47 are carried over to the Corsair: A reliable engine that can take a punch and keep on going and a good structural integrity.

Some engine accessories were more exposed to ground-fire on the Corsair than on the P-47, but that is just relative to where a random shot hits.

 

 

[RedKestrel]

49 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Whats does this have to do with anything?

Its a joke about how these threads usually go, and how we're all trapped here of our own volition. Also Johnson acknowledging in his own way that it wasn't always the inherent toughness of the P-47 that saved him, but some other factor - what some pilots called luck, fortune, and he attributed to Providence. Many, many P-47 jockeys took much less damage than he did and didn't return to tell the tale.

But mostly a joke.

 

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

The a-c lost is after being hit. And in the first report split in being hit by a/c vs being hit by AAA. Pretty self-explanatory.

Regarding the sortie length, is restricted only to the 8th AF (8th fighter command). So, although they flew some CAS mission their primary one was the long-range escort.  So, same missions and thus with the average sortie length you can normalize your average sortie distance. Even with this, we are talking about 2h+ sorties. Average above 3hours.  If we compare their data for the p47 and the p51 in the second half the difference in sortie length is 3.7 vs 4.3 or around 15% in favour of the Mustang. The difference in loss rate per being hit is 19% vs 46% or 41% in favour of the P-47.

Obviously, everything is subject to interpretation but when you wake up with a musky feline smell,  see orange hairs on the floor and see human rest in the kitchen then your most logical assumption is that it may be a man-eater tiger in the surroundings.

He could have made many mistakes remembering things while in the plane due to the stress but he landed the plane, switch it off and then stop and took the time to count the 7.6mm holes stopping when reaching 100. He wasn´t being dragged in a stretcher and quickly giving a glimpse to the plane. He stopped and took his time to count the holes. Why is that making it less credible? Making mistakes. Not 21 but 15? why not? lying? possible but that is not a difficult task to do and he didn´t do it in a hurry as counting 100+ holes clearly takes time.

He hauls himself out of his aircraft, bleeding from at least two separate wounds, having been convinced he was about to die for several hours and still hopped up on adrenaline, turned around to look at his aircraft, and as people tried to lead him away because he was obviously needing medical attention, in a daze he attempts to count the bullet and cannon shell holes in his plane. He stops counting after reaching 100. You ever try to count random dots on a page that are just scattered around, and lost count because you forgot where you were? Ever try doing that after being shot? He could have been standing there for 10 seconds or ten minutes, his perception of time would be absolutely shot ( a side effect of adrenaline rush).

I don't think he's lying, I think he's maybe not the most reliable counter when he's in an altered state of consciousness due to extreme combat stress. I certainly expect some muddling of his recall after the fact as well. Its a recognition of his humanity, not an insult. 

Was the P-47 more durable than other planes? Probably, if only because of the radial engine, and data bears that out. But people are expecting to live through what Johnson did online on a regular basis, and it just won't be the case. A couple 20mm shells in the vital area of a plane likely results in its loss or crippling. A couple lucky guys like Johnson make it through and live to tell of it - and we already see lucky guys online living through similar levels of punishment. Its a bell curve. For every guy who has a bullet miss him by an inch, there's a guy who takes it to the brainstem. 

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

......

 

In all likelihood he probably examined his aircraft after the fact and not right after landing.

 

Is the P-47 tough in-game? Yes but not in every way that it should be.

The P-47s ability to survive cannon hits seems decent and may even be a bit too high depending on your experiences. Currently I think it's ok but I need more time to compare it to the ballistic testing in the report above.

 

There are three main areas where the P-47 is severely lacking:

 

resistance to machineguns

engine damage

and losing ailerons in a dive when it shouldn't.

 

The P-47s resistance to machineguns is laughable, a good burst to the wing is all it takes to send the P-47 tumbling. The probability of that happening in reality is slim to none.

 

The engine is another area that seems lacking on the P-47, it gives up way to easily when taking minimal damage and doesn't seem anymore robust than the engines of any current aircraft.

 

Finally we have the dive speed at which P-47s lose ailerons. In reality they shouldn't lose ailerons at the speeds they attain in a dive. Structural failure wasn't the limiting factor with P-47 dive speeds, it was compressibility and the tendency for aileron reversals above 540+ mph, even past these speeds the P-47 didnt suffer loss of structure in reality.

 

These three things are basically the only things I really consider "wrong" with the P-47, most other things seem pretty accurate from my limited time in the Jug.

[AndyJWest]

One day in September 1848, Phineas Gage, a railroad costruction foreman, was working on the roadbed for the Rutland & Burlington Railroad near the town of Cavendish, Vermont. While using a tamping iron - a steel bar over three feet long and around 1 1/4 inches in diameter - to set blasting powder in a hole, Gage inadvertently caused a spark. The powder exploded, and the tamping iron went clean through Gage's skull, entering between his upper jaw and his cheekbone, and exiting through the top of his head, before landing some 80 feet away. To the surprise of everyone, including no doubt the man himself, Gage was not only alive after this incident, but conscious, though he later became comatose, no doubt due to having lost a significant part of his brain along with one eye. Despite his injuries Gage went on to live for another twelve years, at one point being employed as a 'living exhibit' at Barnum's American Museum in New York before leaving the States for Chile, where he worked for some time as a stagecoach driver.

 

Phineas Gage, with his tamping iron.

 

What has this got to do with the survivability of P-47's in combat, you might ask? Nothing at all, but possibly also quite a lot. Clearly whatever Gage was built of, it wasn't finest U.S. aircraft-grade aluminum. One cannot use the effects of tamping irons on human skulls as a means to assess the effects of machine guns or cannon on piston-engined fighter aircraft. One can however take note of the interest Gage's case aroused in the U.S. media, and the interest of the Barnum concern in the affair. Unlikely tales of survival (particularly ones involving explosives) sell newspapers, and attract customers to exhibitions. And while I'm not sure that Gage's experience would really have done much for the morale of railroad construction crews, I'm quite sure that pictures of P-47s which returned home with cannon holes clean through the propeller would have given some comfort to those tasked with flying them over occupied Europe. The morale of pilots matters to an air force, and no doubt the Rosy the Riveters etc back home were also impressed by such images.

 

The U.S. military thus seems to have embraced Hollywood and other mass media (newspapers, radio etc) in a way unmatched by other combatants, and knew what it was doing. But what exactly was it doing? In a few words, fighting a war via the careful use of photographic images. And they were good at it. I wouldn't for one minute suggest that such images were fake, but they are clearly selective. Selective for a start since smoking holes and aircraft crash-landed in occupied areas aren't available to photograph. But also selective because they are used to show - like photos of Gage - that survival is a possibility. One cannot however use photos of survivors to assess the average level of damage necessary to bring down a railroad worker. Or a P-47. At best, one can, if presented with enough evidence of different events, conclude that P-47s apparently survived a cannon shell through the propeller more often than railroad foremen survived a steel spike through the skull. That isn't quantifiable data for survivability rates though. We know for example that the B-17 bomber could on occasion survive horrendous battle damage and make it back to base. There is ample photographic evidence to back this up. Unfortunately the statistics also show that a large number of B-17s failed to return. The statistics make for grim reading, and more so because they can't really be argued with. Photos on the other hand can, because they don't tell the whole story.

 

I've little doubt that the P-47 was a tough aircraft, but one shouldn't ignore the Barnum factor when looking at historical sources. The U.S. knew how to tell tales through pictures - not just of tough aircraft but of tough Rosy the riveters - and it did so as well and as often as it could. Other combatants seem to have allocated fewer resources to this particular aspect of warfare, either because they lacked such resources to spare, or possibly because they didn't have the faith in Barnum that America did. Accordingly, I'd be sceptical about even asserting that the relative lack of photographs of  Spitfires, or Zeros, or Fw 190s with cannon shells through the propeller was an indication of anything special about the quality of the aircraft. It might be. It might not. If one wants to model relative damage rates realistically, one needs verifiable data, not selective anecdote-via-photography. And one needs to be careful not to read more into the data than it actually supports, if the motivation (probably unconscious) behind this is to reinforce the tales that Barnum tells. A proper historical tribute to those who built and flew the P-47 would be to represent it as accurately as possible, rather than as a Hollywood version which turns the hardship of war into a tale of mythical invincibility where victory was a foregone conclusion..  

[HR_Zunzun]

32 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

One day in September 1848, Phineas Gage, a railroad costruction .........

1

That would be a nice narrative if it wasn´t by the fact that there are, at least, three documents that clearly indicated that the p47 was more resistance to damage than other planes of its time and that were doing same or very similar tasks. Those documents were created after the war when it was already won and they were USAF internal document without any Hollywood involvement.

When you add to that fact the presence of that numerous graphical evidence of uncommon but extraordinary examples of survivability that has come to our days. And that happened to occur mostly in the same type of plane (I suppose Hollywood was biased to the p-47) then is far from unreasonable to think that the p-47 was indeed one of the most tougher fighters of the war. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Try finding any 'real' combat imagery published pre 1944, good luck.  Plenty of it was shown later, when it was in the bag and no one could object.  The effort was to keep it contained, especially the cockup in the Pacific.

[AndyJWest]

19 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

That would be a nice narrative if it wasn´t by the fact that there are, at least, three documents that clearly indicated that the p47 was more resistance to damage than other planes of its time and that were doing same or very similar tasks. Those documents were created after the war when it was already won and they were USAF internal document without any Hollywood involvement.

When you add to that fact the presence of that numerous graphical evidence of uncommon but extraordinary examples of survivability that has come to our days. And that happened to occur mostly in the same type of plane (I suppose Hollywood was biased to the p-47) then is far from unreasonable to think that the p-47 was indeed one of the most tougher fighters of the war. 

 

Which documents are you referring to? I may have missed something but I've not seen any sources linked in this thread which compare survivability of say the Fw 190 with the P-47.  

 

As for anyone being 'biased to the P-47' I see no reason to assume that at all. It was in service earlier than the P-51, and accordingly would have presented photo opportunities earlier. And even a relative P-47 vs P-51 bias, if it existed, would tell us nothing about how they compared to other aircraft less targeted by Hollywood. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by AndyJWest

[unreasonable]

8 hours 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. 

 

.........

 

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.

 

If quantification of issues like battle damage was pointless no-one would ever do operations research studies: but they do. It is far from pointless, it is merely difficult.

 

It would be perfectly possible to set up some test missions in the ME where you can compare the ratio of lost/hit vs ground fire of any kind you choose to put in: indeed I used my earlier flak test mission to do exactly that for the 109 vs the Yak against various flak types. Someone could run it again a few times using P-47s and compare against the 109s and Yaks I used: although these may have also to be run again if the DM or gunner AI has been tweaked since.

 

Given that SuperEtendard has already done some tests showing the hits required to de-wing a P-47 are higher than for other planes - but not hugely higher - I would expect running the flak test mission to show P-47s getting a lower lost/hit ratio as well vs 20mm AA or MGs.  I also expect it to take more hits: it is just a bigger target. Which factor has a greater impact on the loss/sortie ratio I have no idea. 

 

The means to test this systematically are all available for anyone who wants to spend the hours doing so.  It is simply absurd to demand DM changes on the back of MP anecdotes which could well just represent the natural variability of results when using a RNG.

[ironk79]

On 11/23/2018 at 7:24 PM, LeLv76_Erkki said:

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.

When playing 1vs1 QMB 109 G6 vs P47, 80% of kills are with its wings flying of, happens with both, 30mm and 13mm. But i am in no position to judge how accurate it is.

 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

1 minute ago, ironk79 said:

When playing 1vs1 QMB 109 G6 vs P47, 80% of kills are with its wings flying of, happens with both, 30mm and 13mm. But i am in no position to judge how accurate it is.

 

 

Yes its the same thing for all planes. P-47 is durable in comparison to other fighters, its just that the general fragility and easily lost wings that apply to all planes make it feel fragile. When everything dies to relatively short bursts and small number of hits, being 20 or 50 or something % more durable doesnt mean much.

 

Its especially bad when you fly something big and durable and get disintegrated by 1-2 AA light autocannon hits that seemingly never damage you but always remove wing, tail or kill the crew.

[HR_Zunzun]

6 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

If quantification of issues like battle damage was pointless no-one would ever do operations research studies: but they do. It is far from pointless, it is merely difficult.

 

It would be perfectly possible to set up some test missions in the ME where you can compare the ratio of lost/hit vs ground fire of any kind you choose to put in: indeed I used my earlier flak test mission to do exactly that for the 109 vs the Yak against various flak types. Someone could run it again a few times using P-47s and compare against the 109s and Yaks I used: although these may have also to be run again if the DM or gunner AI has been tweaked since.

 

Given that SuperEtendard has already done some tests showing the hits required to de-wing a P-47 are higher than for other planes - but not hugely higher - I would expect running the flak test mission to show P-47s getting a lower lost/hit ratio as well vs 20mm AA or MGs.  I also expect it to take more hits: it is just a bigger target. Which factor has a greater impact on the loss/sortie ratio I have no idea. 

 

The means to test this systematically are all available for anyone who wants to spend the hours doing so.  It is simply absurd to demand DM changes on the back of MP anecdotes which could well just represent the natural variability of results when using a RNG.

I am sorry I didn´t explain my self properly.  I meant it was pointless to seek an exact figure like when you are doing, for instance, a speed test. With those, you can be accurate to 1%. With a DM, even the best-designed test won´t cover all the possible situations and damage that a plane can suffer; different ammo, different distance, different angle, different structure, single vs repeated impact with all the previous variable involved again.........basically infinite possibilities. Whatever the result we achieve, it will need to be subjected to some form of statistic analysis and the net results interpreted to some degree.

Having said that, I agree with you that testing with some sort of controlled condition is the only way to prove in game sensations.

Edited November 27, 2018 by HR_Zunzun

[Legioneod]

9 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

.....

 

The thing is, the P-47 does indeed have scientific data determining probability of a kill/survivale when hit with different ammo types. The problem is no other aircraft seems to have this data, if they did then we can get a pretty accurate comparison to the relative durability of different aircraft.

 

You can chock it up to propaganda if you'd like or a very rare occurrence, but the data and first hand accounts/evidence prove you wrong.

 

And if hollywood made any aircraft larger than life it would be the P-51 not the P-47. Men who flew the P-47 are the reason it has the reputation it does, they experienced first hand and know the facts. Hollywood had nothing to do with it.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

13 hours ago, Legioneod said:

There are three main areas where the P-47 is severely lacking:

 

resistance to machineguns

engine damage

and losing ailerons in a dive when it shouldn't.

 

Looking at all this from a P47 standpoint is absolutley wrong IMO.

After Super‘s test regarding damage the voices saying that P47s are fragile AF seem to have quieted down by a lot and shifted to saying it’s machine gun damage which is problematic. The specific vulnerability of small caliber hits to saw off wings has been the reason for a lot of discussion of this forum before the P47 arrived and is probably related to a broader issue of AP vs HE structural damage and probably has less to do with the P47 specifically. So linking this to the P47 alone is just due to it getting heightened attention by players who are fans of it. According to my experience it is not fragile at all, but in case there is evidence pointing the other way I do not have any problem with it. I am however sceptical about the hit/kill data that was provided since it lacks the detail to be applied to the game’s damage model.

 

I do not know how much engine damage the P47 should take. I guess any tests you do, to provide proof that the current model is wrong, can only be so vague that Devs won’t accept it. I’m not saying it’s right I’m just saying it’s a hard case to make.

 

Regarding the ailerons coming off you might have the best chance to get it changed. The only thing that will get changed in my opinion though is that the speed limit will increase. You will not get them to turn it off completely. Why? Because it is a gamey mechanic of the game. They need to limit dive speed by something since the model is complex but simply does not encorporate all the high speed effects as of yet. As long as we don’t have e.g. aileron reversal or compressibility effects specific to material such as wood vs metal the loosing parts is the best next thing we get. The doctrine for that happening has been manual values + a margin. If that margin is reached pieces fall off. It’s simplified but it’s reasonable in its own right.

Usually that margin is 100kph

IIRC it was 150 for the lagg due to pilot accounts reporting it. If you can show that there is evidence the P47 went faster than that regularly they might accept it. However I can understand that they implemented that rule to set up a dive speed limit, since other effects limiting dives aren’t modeled and data on when things went bad are scarce for obvious reasons. So if you claim that the P47 never lost a part no matter how fast it went, you have to consider how this will manifest itself in the current game set up. Additionally I don’t think there are many cases of 190s loosing parts in dives yet it does in game. None the less a dive speed limit was there for a reason in every manual and the risk you take exceeding  it should be represented in the game in some way or the other

Edited November 27, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Legioneod]

21 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Looking at all this from a P47 standpoint is absolutley wrong IMO.

After Super‘s test regarding damage the voices saying that P47s are fragile AF seem to have quieted down by a lot and shifted to saying it’s machine gun damage which is problematic. The specific vulnerability of small caliber hits to saw off wings has been the reason for a lot of discussion of this forum before the P47 arrived and is probably related to a broader issue of AP vs HE structural damage and probably has less to do with the P47 specifically. So linking this to the P47 alone is just due to it getting heightened attention by players who are fans of it. According to my experience it is not fragile at all, but in case there is evidence pointing the other way I do not have any problem with it. I am however sceptical about the hit/kill data that was provided since it lacks the detail to be applied to the game’s damage model.

 

I do not know how much engine damage the P47 should take. I guess any tests you do, to provide proof that the current model is wrong, can only be so vague that Devs won’t accept it. I’m not saying it’s right I’m just saying it’s a hard case to make.

 

Regarding the ailerons coming off you might have the best chance to get it changed. The only thing that will get changed in my opinion though is that the speed limit will increase. You will not get them to turn it off completely. Why? Because it is a gamey mechanic of the game. They need to limit dive speed by something since the model is complex but simply does not encorporate all the high speed effects as of yet. As long as we don’t have e.g. aileron reversal or compressibility effects specific to material such as wood vs metal the loosing parts is the best next thing we get. The doctrine for that happening has been manual values + a margin. If that margin is reached pieces fall off. It’s simplified but it’s reasonable in its own right.

Usually that margin is 100kph

IIRC it was 150 for the lagg due to pilot accounts reporting it. If you can show that there is evidence the P47 went faster than that regularly they might accept it. However I can understand that they implemented that rule to set up a dive speed limit, since other effects limiting dives aren’t modeled and data on when things went bad are scarce for obvious reasons. So if you claim that the P47 never lost a part no matter how fast it went, you have to consider how this will manifest itself in the current game set up. Additionally I don’t think there are many cases of 190s loosing parts in dives yet it does in game. None the less a dive speed limit was there for a reason in every manual and the risk you take exceeding  it should be represented in the game in some way or the other

 

From the very beginning I've been saying that the machineguns are doing too much damage, it's never been about cannons. I've never seen the test you mentioned so I can't form an opinion on it.

 

Once/if they fully model compressibility they can and should remove the ailerons coming off completely and leave it for aircraft that historically suffered from it.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Legioneod

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

I wasn’t referring to you!

Agree on the second part, but in turn that only means what we have now is the only viable way to implement given data within the game as it is.

My conclusion is that all this is far less about the P47 than general game mechanics, and you seem to agree, yet it comes across as if the P47 were a totally falsely modeled plane where actually all the points are broader game points and are actually not as dire and P47 specific as they are made out to be.

Edited November 27, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Guest deleted@134347]

with all of these arguments on the table does anyone actually have any idea why the p47 is weaker than expected?

 

Why as in what's in the Damage Model that is not modeled properly for this particular aircraft?  Is the aluminum skin too thin and therefore the MG fire penetrates it too easily? Or the underlying spars and other structural elements are too thin so they break easily? Does Il2 Damage Model even consider these physical properties of the model structure?  

 

It would actually be extremely educational to understand how Il2 DM works and then draw the conclusions based on DM's specifications rather than using 70 year old books that have absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of the simulation in itself.

[Legioneod]

10 minutes ago, moosya said:

with all of these arguments on the table does anyone actually have any idea why the p47 is weaker than expected?

 

Why as in what's in the Damage Model that is not modeled properly for this particular aircraft?  Is the aluminum skin too thin and therefore the MG fire penetrates it too easily? Or the underlying spars and other structural elements are too thin so they break easily? Does Il2 Damage Model even consider these physical properties of the model structure?  

 

It would actually be extremely educational to understand how Il2 DM works and then draw the conclusions based on DM's specifications rather than using 70 year old books that have absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of the simulation in itself.

 

From my observation (no real evidence of this) the DM uses large hit boxes with no internal structures modeled. This is one of the reason you can hit nowhere near the wing spars yet have the whole wing fall off.

 

If they had a damage modeled with internal hitboxes modeled I'm sure we would have a more accurate simulation.

 

This is the DM for a different game but I have reason to believe the DM in Il2 is similar.

Spoiler

 

The one of the right would be the current Il2 DM (imo based on observation) and the one on the left with all the internal hitboxes modeled would be a far superior DM but I understand that this would probably cause problems with resource loads and stability etc.

 

If they wanted to they could simplify this quite a bit yet still retain a more accurate DM than just having large hitboxes.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Legioneod

[Guest deleted@134347]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

  Hide contents

 

The one of the right would be the current Il2 DM (imo based on observation) and the one on the left with all the internal hitboxes modeled would be a far superior DM but I understand that this would probably cause problems with resource loads and stability etc.

 

 

I've seen that pic about a year ago from that other sim, yes. I can tell you Il2's DM model is far more advanced than the one on the right, again, purely based on my own observations.

 

In all though, this is going to end up as another guessing game. It'd be nice to actually have a proper spec based discussion. I wish 1C-777 were a bit more transparent on these topics and help the community to extinguish its internal fires.

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, moosya said:

 

I've seen that pic about a year ago from that other sim, yes. I can tell you Il2's DM model is far more advanced than the one on the right, again, purely based on my own observations.

 

In all though, this is going to end up as another guessing game. It'd be nice to actually have a proper spec based discussion. I wish 1C-777 were a bit more transparent on these topics and help the community to extinguish its internal fires.

Agreed though I still feel that the DM is similar to the one on the right. It's all rng imo to determine if a spar, or control rod, or one of the other systems get damaged. None of the actual internals are modeled like the in left pic.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Do test yourself, make mission with ME , spawn p47 , spawn Camel with pistol ,shoot at wing tip see results. Use unlimited ammo if necessary.

Edited November 27, 2018 by 307_Tomcat

[unreasonable]

4 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

From my observation (no real evidence of this) the DM uses large hit boxes with no internal structures modeled. This is one of the reason you can hit nowhere near the wing spars yet have the whole wing fall off.

 

If they had a damage modeled with internal hitboxes modeled I'm sure we would have a more accurate simulation.

 

This is the DM for a different game but I have reason to believe the DM in Il2 is similar.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The one of the right would be the current Il2 DM (imo based on observation) and the one on the left with all the internal hitboxes modeled would be a far superior DM but I understand that this would probably cause problems with resource loads and stability etc.

 

If they wanted to they could simplify this quite a bit yet still retain a more accurate DM than just having large hitboxes.

 

That is absolutely not right.  There are internal structures modeled, even in the wings: hit the ammunition storage area in a Spitfire for instance and get a huge explosion.  Pilot, fuel tanks: you can damage the tires on the wheels if you take off and shave an object.   Wing spars - I do not know, judging from the sort of tests people have done I would say not.

 

[Legioneod]

Just now, unreasonable said:

 

That is absolutely not right.  There are internal structures modeled, even in the wings: hit the ammunition storage area in a Spitfire for instance and get a huge explosion.  Pilot, fuel tanks: you can damage the tires on the wheels if you take off and shave an object.   Wing spars - I do not know, judging from the sort of tests people have done I would say not.

 

I agree with you on the fuel and other larger details but on the smaller ones like spars and controls rods I can say with complete confidence that they are not modeled and rely on more rng mechanics to determine if they are damaged.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Control rods do have dm model. It's something else , all other parts (excluding ammo, fuel tank)  just wing plane could have cumulative effect. Weekending overall structure of wing , this with G load make it's not stand stress and broke. This simulation is correct given engine  constraint.  Just how much it can absorb before critical point  can be adjusted to better simulate RL I think.

Edited November 27, 2018 by 307_Tomcat

[AndyJWest]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

The thing is, the P-47 does indeed have scientific data determining probability of a kill/survivale when hit with different ammo types. The problem is no other aircraft seems to have this data, if they did then we can get a pretty accurate comparison to the relative durability of different aircraft.

 

You can chock it up to propaganda if you'd like or a very rare occurrence, but the data and first hand accounts/evidence prove you wrong.

 

And if hollywood made any aircraft larger than life it would be the P-51 not the P-47. Men who flew the P-47 are the reason it has the reputation it does, they experienced first hand and know the facts. Hollywood had nothing to do with it.

 

You start by pointing out that we lack data to compare aircraft, and then claim 'proof'. Proof of what, exactly?

 

[Legioneod]

Just now, AndyJWest said:

 

You start by pointing out that we lack data to compare aircraft, and then claim 'proof'. Proof of what, exactly?

 

I said we lack proof to compare other aircraft durability vs the P-47, not the P-47s overall durability which we most certainly have proof of.

[AndyJWest]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

I said we lack proof to compare other aircraft durability vs the P-47, not the P-47s overall durability which we most certainly have proof of.

 

No, we don't have proof of 'overall durability', because we have no standard to measure it by. 

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

 

No, we don't have proof of 'overall durability', because we have no standard to measure it by. 

Probability and statistics.

We have test documenting the probability of the loss of aircraft when hit with x type of ammunition.

We also have statistics of Loss per sortie which can help us get a relative (not exact) idea of which air frames were indeed safer.

 

We don't need to measure the P-47s durability with that of other aircraft because it simply doesn't matter, we need to measure the durability against certain ammunition/weapon types which is what really matters.

[AndyJWest]

Just now, Legioneod said:

Probability and statistics.

We have test documenting the probability of the loss of aircraft when hit with x type of ammunition.

We also have statistics of Loss per sortie which can help us get a relative (not exact) idea of which air frames were indeed safer.

 

We don't need to measure the P-47s durability with that of other aircraft because it simply doesn't matter, we need to measure the durability against certain ammunition/weapon types which is what really matters.

 

Make your mind up. First you say there is 'proof' of something, then you say it doesn't matter. 

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Make your mind up. First you say there is 'proof' of something, then you say it doesn't matter. 

Your reading comprehension needs work. I'm not gonna argue with you.

[unreasonable]

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Probability and statistics.

We have test documenting the probability of the loss of aircraft when hit with x type of ammunition.

We also have statistics of Loss per sortie which can help us get a relative (not exact) idea of which air frames were indeed safer.

 

We don't need to measure the P-47s durability with that of other aircraft because it simply doesn't matter, we need to measure the durability against certain ammunition/weapon types which is what really matters.

 

No reason not to do both: arguably the comparison against other planes is more important. If certain ammo types are over or under performing against their alternatives it does not really matter as long as the damage they inflict is consistently applied.  

 

The US damage tests were done at one specific distance and angle, but even so they do give the single shot probability of a kill on a P-47 for various ammunition types.  The specifics of the test were IIRC from 500 yards, in front and 20 degrees below the P-47, perhaps a good angle to determine damage from a bomber's defensive fire or from ground fire.  Not easy to set up a test to replicate this in game but with some imagination and a lot of patience it should be doable.

 

Given that we do not have the same statistics for other fighters it makes complete sense to compare P-47 durability with that of other types. This is also easy, although time consuming, using the Flak test mission. This can be used to generate loss and hit rates that can be compared to the figures you quoted from war time OR.  They do not have to be exact: but if you find that the P-51 suffers a lower ratio of losses/hits than the P-47 then something would be wrong. 

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

No reason not to do both: arguably the comparison against other planes is more important. If certain ammo types are over or under performing against their alternatives it does not really matter as long as the damage they inflict is consistently applied.  

 

The US damage tests were done at one specific distance and angle, but even so they do give the single shot probability of a kill on a P-47 for various ammunition types.  The specifics of the test were IIRC from 500 yards, in front and 20 degrees below the P-47, perhaps a good angle to determine damage from a bomber's defensive fire or from ground fire.  Not easy to set up a test to replicate this in game but with some imagination and a lot of patience it should be doable.

 

Given that we do not have the same statistics for other fighters it makes complete sense to compare P-47 durability with that of other types. This is also easy, although time consuming, using the Flak test mission. This can be used to generate loss and hit rates that can be compared to the figures you quoted from war time OR.  They do not have to be exact: but if you find that the P-51 suffers a lower ratio of losses/hits than the P-47 then something would be wrong. 

Agreed. But first I think we should set a baseline for what damage ammo/weapons types should do. For this I think the P-47 test report above can help. After this is done we can test against various aircraft and compare.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Legioneod

[AndyJWest]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

Your reading comprehension needs work. I'm not gonna argue with you.

 

Given that your arguments so far have demonstrated nothing beyond the fact that you don't understand the concept of proof (which can only be applied to statements which are falsifiable), that's no great loss.

[Bremspropeller]

5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

The thing is, the P-47 does indeed have scientific data determining probability of a kill/survivale when hit with different ammo types. The problem is no other aircraft seems to have this data, if they did then we can get a pretty accurate comparison to the relative durability of different aircraft.

 

If you read the document closer, the data give is just for one specific firing angle (20° from below, 20° off-bore) and the probability of one random shot taking out the airplane.

Some data, like engine survivability wasn't even taken directly from the airplane, but was extrapolated from trials with an entirely different engine:

 

Quote

The firing against engines was conducted with the engines running
and after each round an assessment was made for the damage from that round and also another independent
assessment was made of the cumulative damage up to and including that round. The figures used
here for the probabilities that a hit on the engine results in a kill are the averages of the single shot assessments
and do not include the cumulative effect from more than one hit. Each of the rounds was aimed randomly
over the projected area of the engine (which includes the accessory section). Since P-47 structure
but not P-47 engine information was available in the case of the cal. 0.60 Inc. T36E2, the 20mm Inc. M96
and the 3cm German thin-walled HE rounds, estimates of P-47 engine damage for these rounds were made
from similar firings conducted against B-25 engines. The B-25 engine is of the same general type as the
P-47 but has two banks of 7 cylinders each instead of two banks of 9 cylinders each as in the P-47. Also
the oil cooler is located in the wing instead of underneath the engine. Tables Cl and C4 illustrate the differences
in vulnerability of these two engines.

 

 

The data of that study indicates very little on it's own and should be taken with an ounce of salt.

 

The data consisting of losses vs damages is very basic (read: not properly normalized for circumstances) and will probaly yield slightly different and less spectacular numbers in favor of the P-47 when normalized or run with different entry-parameters.