Jump to content
E69_pienoir

we want to see the Curtiss

Recommended Posts

i cant wait to see it !!!!! (Kittyhawk or tomahawk)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-40C/Tomahawk II and P-40E/Kittyhawk IA 3D models are complete, (and images have been showed in our updates numerous times)

 

We will show video of them after their import into the game is complete and all their animations and flight models are correct.  😉

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

We know...


you want it too
regards

 

Spoiler

 

 

3 hours ago, Larry69 said:

you are sure?

 

tumblr_lc738lDRh31qe0eclo1_r1_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh :P i would rather see some tropical bf110 or ju87

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/5/2019 at 6:19 PM, InProgress said:

Meh :PAGpreferiría ver algunos bf110 o ju87 tropicales

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

ju87r-2tropt6dphubertplz6stg2libia1-jpg.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by E69_pienoir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excuse my ignorance but.... don't we already have the P40? what will be the difference? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Luriael said:

excuse my ignorance but.... don't we already have the P40? what will be the difference? 

 


Good
For starters it won't be the same context
The aircraft will be modeled with great detail and will only have to be measured at BF-109, G-50, Bf110 and airplanes of no more than 1941

According to the standard of this simulator
It will be pampered to the smallest detail and will be the most realistic P-40 found in the market

If you have not flown Cliffs of Dover, it is useless to explain

 

 

52865C1C25A058E7999B07D204B72FCCD20D6565

 

 

?imw=1024&imh=576&ima=fit&impolicy=Lette

 

 

401.jpg

 

 

 

 

I can assure you it won't be like BOX's It will not be a "collector's plane", it will be a protagonist of the simulator

 

 

EDIT:

 

gentlemen of TF do not leave me with my ass in the air please!!:thank_you:

Edited by E69_pienoir
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very sorry, did not see that this was CoD... will teach me to navigate the recent activity tab without paying attention

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 12:07 PM, E69_pienoir said:

 


Good
For starters it won't be the same context
The aircraft will be modeled with great detail and will only have to be measured at BF-109, G-50, Bf110 and airplanes of no more than 1941

According to the standard of this simulator
It will be pampered to the smallest detail and will be the most realistic P-40 found in the market

If you have not flown Cliffs of Dover, it is useless to explain

 

 

52865C1C25A058E7999B07D204B72FCCD20D6565

 

 

?imw=1024&imh=576&ima=fit&impolicy=Lette

 

 

401.jpg

 

 

 

 

I can assure you it won't be like BOX's It will not be a "collector's plane", it will be a protagonist of the simulator

 

 

EDIT:

 

gentlemen of TF do not leave me with my ass in the air please!!:thank_you:

The P-40C/E Tomahawk II/Kittyhawk IA's will be very dangerous opponents at lower altitudes, especially under 5,000 ft/2500 meters where the Allison V-1710 engine developed most of its power.

 

The P-40 was the best "...close in dogfighter" of all the US fighter aircraft types... it got a negative reputation as a dogfighter from the Pacific Theater stories of it matched up against the A-6M Zero... which made any aircraft, including a Spitfire, look silly in a dogfight.

 

The P-40 had excellent speed/acceleration at low altitudes, an extremely good rollrate at all speeds... excellent turn/stall characteristics at all speeds, was a good gun platform, had a dive speed and acceleration better than the 109's or Spitfires, and was extremely durable.

 

Over 10,000 ft/3000 meters performance falls off fast... over 14,000 ft/4500 meters it will be sadly lacking... due again to the characteristics of the Allison's power curve.  When/if TF gets around to modeling the the P-40F/Kittyhawk II, with its Packard Merlin V-1650-1, (the two speed copy of the Merlin XX) then this version of the P-40 will be better at higher altitudes.  But the drag characteristics of the aircraft are such that even these models were not very fast.

 

At high altitudes, i.e. over 20,000 ft/6000 meters, a 109F will run circles round a P-40 and play with it like a cat plays with a mouse.

 

But the 109 pilot who commits to low altitudes should beware.... lest the nasty Shark turns and bites a big chunk off him.  ☠️

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent thanks
I understand that it is to always have it below 3000m
In work jabo "will not have problems, and also will be competent teaching teeth.

A few years ago, at the height of Clod, I think it was normal to patrol the canal always at more than 6000m, and from there up

This has changed, and I think that as in BOX, in TF5 it will be much lower than 3000,3500m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, E69_pienoir said:

excellent thanks
I understand that it is to always have it below 3000m
In work jabo "will not have problems, and also will be competent teaching teeth.

A few years ago, at the height of Clod, I think it was normal to patrol the canal always at more than 6000m, and from there up

This has changed, and I think that as in BOX, in TF5 it will be much lower than 3000,3500m

TF 5.0 will be much more focused on Ground Attack and attack on shipping.

 

For one, the opposing sides ground units are actually in contact.

 

There will be artillery.... the German 105mm artillery has a range of approx. 11,000 meters, the British 25lber has a range of approx. 12,000 meters.  So let them get too close and your airfields will be under fire from artillery.  We also hope to see the ships able to fire on airfields and ground targets... the big 15 inch weapons on the British Queen Elizabeth and Revenge Class battleships and the 8 inch/203mm guns on the Italian Heavy Cruiser have ranges over 30,000 meters.  A 15 inch shell landing on an airfield will destroy any unprotected aircraft.

 

 There will be columns of ground vehicles moving... if you do not destroy the enemy tanks/vehicles, they will over-run your positions and take control of the front... maybe even over-run your own airfields.  One of the strengths of CoD is its ability to have a lot of ground vehicles on the map.

 

Aircraft which can destroy enemy tanks will become more important.... objectives will not just be bombing enemy airfields as is often the case in CoD.  (although targeting airfields with bombing raids was a part of the conflict in N Africa)

On 8/6/2019 at 10:44 AM, E69_pienoir said:

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

ju87r-2tropt6dphubertplz6stg2libia1-jpg.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There will be tropical versions of all the aircraft... including Ju-87/88 and Bf-110.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not much of a fighter pilot so mud moving is more up my street, good to know TF 5.0 will focus more on that.;)

 

Thank you very much for continuing to update us with new info, really appreciated.:drinks:

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.:biggrin:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically, the P40 always fared incredibly well against the Japanese air force. When it came into the war with the AVG, it dominated the early aeroplanes. I did a quick search but couldn't find decisive numbers, but as an example during the Rangoon defense they downed 75 aeroplanes in 3 days vs 6 of their own. In the later war, the P40 had lost its edge and was transformed more into a bomber and rarely face Zero's, although, by that time, most Japanese veterans were no longer flying (either dead or wounded) and the quality of the Nippon air corps was mediocre at best. The few accounts of P40 vs Zero were in the Kittyhawk favor.

 

Now, in a game ecosystem where you have skillful pilots on either sides I wouldn't want to face a good pilot in a Zero with a P40 on equal terms. You really need to take advantages of what make the P40 a fearsome aeroplane. Great diving ability, incredible turn rate but loose energy very quickly and doesn't regain it fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 2:20 PM, Luriael said:

When it came into the war with the AVG, it dominated the early aeroplanes. I did a quick search but couldn't find decisive numbers, but as an example during the Rangoon defense they downed 75 aeroplanes in 3 days vs 6 of their own.

 

Yep and on the 15th. September 1940 the RAF really did shoot down 185 German aircraft too!:wacko:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 11:20 PM, Luriael said:

When it came into the war with the AVG, it dominated the early aeroplanes. I did a quick search but couldn't find decisive numbers, but as an example during the Rangoon defense they downed 75 aeroplanes in 3 days vs 6 of their own

 

Generally it is a good idea to divide those claims by 4x to get a more accurate picture of what really happened.  I'm reading a day by day history of the 1940-41 phase of the Malta campaign at the moment, and overclaiming on both sides was often as high as 8x the actual number destroyed.  That doesn't even include the claims that were downgraded from destroyed to probable or damaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

Generally it is a good idea to divide those claims by 4x to get a more accurate picture of what really happened

I'm well aware of propaganda, as stated I did a quick search and those were the only numbers I could find, but with your way of calculating that is 18.75 (so let's say 18) to 6. Those are still impressive numbers. The point of the matter still stands; in the early war the P40 was facing inferior aeroplanes and when the Zero came to, the Kittyhawk was more of a bomber than a fighter. 

 

If anyone have better numbers to bring forth, be my guest and go ahead. In no way would I want to boast fantastically what the AVG did in Burma. 

Edited by Luriael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Luriael said:

Those are still impressive numbers.

They are not. If most if not all of these kills were bombers then what's so great about it? Especially if japanese did what they wanted to do and bombed that place.

 

According to Japanese records, seven K-21 Mitsubishi bombers were shot down and an additional twin-engine bomber crashed on the return journey during the December 23 raid. Japanese pilots and gunners always bragged that they shot down 41 Allied fighters; Allied combat claims were also excessive. No loss can be attributed to the Buffaloes but four Tomahawks were shot down and two pilots were killed in the air battles.

 

So everyone thought they shot down tons of planes but in reality both sides did not shot much of anything.

 

3 hours ago, E69_pienoir said:

According to the RAF, 176 enemy aircraft were destroyed

They know very well that never happend, but good propaganda is good propaganda. Had something to write in newspapers about and lift morale of people. You can even look at simple wikipedia, germans lost more less 50 planes and british 24 + 47 on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, InProgress said:

Especially if japanese did what they wanted to do and bombed that place.

If the allies didn't have the means to properly defend the place and in the end failed to prevent the invasion, does it rub the soldiers of what they did? I guess it can be debatable, but not everything can be like Thermopylae where 300 men fight off an invasion. 

 

I just tried to add some trivia about what the P40 faced in the Pacific Theater as it was never really intended to fight against a Zero, nor did it see many of those in combat considering the Zero came in much later. Never meant this thread to derail 

Share this post


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

I guess it can be debatable, but not everything can be like Thermopylae where 300 men fight off an invasion

Dont learn about history from the movies. They can be nice way to introduce someone to some topic but they are in 99% pure made up and twisted events. There was 7000 soldiers from different greek cities not 300 spartans alone. It's like making movie about north Africa and completely ignoring that Italians were there too. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/6/2019 at 9:07 PM, E69_pienoir said:

According to the standard of this simulator

It will be pampered to the smallest detail and...

...cui bono?

Edited by Brano
latin

Share this post


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

cui bono?

 

 

 

The whole community, my friend

 

2 hours ago, InProgress said:

They know very well that never happend, but good propaganda is good propaganda. Had something to write in newspapers about and lift morale of people. You can even look at simple wikipedia, germans lost more less 50 planes and british 24 + 47 on the ground.

 

 

Of course
it was a way to show how reliable the casualty numbers are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I for 1 am looking forward to flying a P40 against planes it actually flew against in a theatre it was used extensively.

 

The flight model for the the P40 in IL-2 GB  has some problems like landings. The P40 did not land 3 point for example .I'm curious to see how its going to work out in NA (it was a main wheels landing which is impossible in IL-2 GB as the tail sags to much at correct landing speed and  if you come in at speed to attempt a correct landing configuration its far to fast.

 

I'm also not clear how accurate the energy retention is modelled in and out of (especially out it should be much better) a dive either in IL-2 GB. I feel the plane under performed somewhat as its currently modelled. (I think heavy planes like this and P47  don't retain energy as good as they should in GB)

 

Especially considering the it replaced the hurricane in NA it feels under modelled in GB after flying a hurricane in IL-2 COD

 

Other then dive energy retention and landing (and roll rate) it seems reasonable  in GB. When flown against the emil and early friedrich when using correct tactics you can get kills.

 

 

On 8/13/2019 at 1:20 AM, Luriael said:

Historically, the P40 always fared incredibly well against the Japanese air force. When it came into the war with the AVG, it dominated the early aeroplanes. I did a quick search but couldn't find decisive numbers, but as an example during the Rangoon defense they downed 75 aeroplanes in 3 days vs 6 of their own. In the later war, the P40 had lost its edge and was transformed more into a bomber and rarely face Zero's, although, by that time, most Japanese veterans were no longer flying (either dead or wounded) and the quality of the Nippon air corps was mediocre at best. The few accounts of P40 vs Zero were in the Kittyhawk favor.

 

Now, in a game ecosystem where you have skillful pilots on either sides I wouldn't want to face a good pilot in a Zero with a P40 on equal terms. You really need to take advantages of what make the P40 a fearsome aeroplane. Great diving ability, incredible turn rate but loose energy very quickly and doesn't regain it fast. 

 

 

The P40 is all about the dive performance (and roll, turn and elevator are better at speed than a 109). The zero is far more nimble. If u can't catch it you  can't kill it.

Its also more durable.

 

QUOTE (WIKI)
 

The 49th Fighter Group was in action in the Pacific from the beginning of the war. Robert DeHaven scored 10 kills (of 14 overall) in the P-40 with the 49th FG. He compared the P-40 favorably with the P-38:

"If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. [It] could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. [...] The real problem with it was lack of range. As we pushed the Japanese back, P-40 pilots were slowly left out of the war. So when I moved to P-38s, an excellent aircraft, I did not [believe] that the P-40 was an inferior fighter, but because I knew the P-38 would allow us to reach the enemy. I was a fighter pilot and that was what I was supposed to do."
Edited by =RS=Stix_09
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

try landing like this in IL-2 GB in  a p40, it ain't happening...

 

 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

the p40 is an air war icon
Who cares if it was superior to other planes or not
Is it really worth discussing about it?
80% of pilots who fly online may not be good enough to squeeze the qualities or advantages of their aircraft
So a meeting between two aces pilots who know how to squeeze a second of advantage to your device, is really unlikely, even if it happens sometimes
What I mean is that I see it absurd to opt for an airplane because I believe that its technical advantages will make you win a fight


the variables to win or lose a fight are many
there is nothing more to see as very mediocre planes take down very superior opponents technically on many occasions
The only determining variable in combat is the speed to escape it.

 

 

EDIT:In favor of Clod I will say that the flight becomes more complex because if you walk with the controls very relaxed and you do not have the engine in its parameters you will break the plane. What is so obvious in Clod is not so much in BOX,that is much more permissible in that aspect

In Clod you really have to be looking at the clocks and knowing how far you can always carry it with a knot in the throat if you are truly in combat and you have to demand the engine everything its potential

 

 

.

Edited by E69_pienoir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 4:20 PM, Luriael said:

Historically, the P40 always fared incredibly well against the Japanese air force.

 

That is quite a new perspective of things for me. Are there any links or references to it? I have always had the perception that P40 was no match against agile Japanese fighters and wikipedia just states that "USAAF P-40 squadrons suffered crippling losses on the ground and in the air to Japanese fighters such as the A6M Zero and Ki-43 Oscar", so would be quite interesting to see references to this new perception that it actually fared incredibly well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.historynet.com/curtiss-p-40-warhawk-one-of-ww-iis-most-famous-fighters.htm

 

 

The AVG owed its success to the tactical doctrines developed by its leader, Colonel Claire Lee Chennault. A former USAAC fighter pilot who had carefully observed Japanese aircraft over China, Chennault understood the strengths and weaknesses of both the Japanese and American fighters. Using that knowledge, he established an advance warning system, which involved Chinese observers relaying information to AVG air bases, giving his pilots prior intelligence on what Japanese forces were coming and when they would arrive. He also drilled three fundamental rules into his pilots. First, never ever try to turn with a Japanese fighter in a dogfight, since it could maneuver its way onto a P-40's tail within two turns; instead, use the P-40's superior diving speed to escape, then climb and re-engage. Second, Chennault advocated head-on passes, because the Curtiss, with its two .50- and four .30-caliber machine guns, could outgun its Japanese army counterparts, which were still armed with only two 7.7mm weapons. The third rule was to harass the Japanese planes after they retired — since they lacked self-sealing fuel tanks, a few holes in their tanks would probably cause them to run out of fuel before they reached their home bases. These rules were the secrets of the Flying Tigers' success.

The AVG never had more than three squadrons of 18 P-40s at any time. Flying their first combat mission on December 20, 1941, the Flying Tigers operated under extremely difficult conditions at the end of the world's longest supply line — and with the war's lowest supply priority. Nevertheless, by the time the group disbanded six months later, its pilots had shot down 286 Japanese aircraft. During a period in the war when everybody else in the Far East was being soundly defeated by the Japanese, their achievements were truly phenomenal.

 



The first USAAC ace of World War II was 1st Lt. Boyd D. Wagner, a P-40E pilot of the 17th Squadron, 24th Pursuit Group, in the Philippines. During a surprise attack on the Japanese army’s 50th Sentai, newly arrived at Aparri airfield on December 12, Wagner was attacked by four Nakajima Ki.27 fighters. He evaded two, then suddenly cut his throttle to make the other two overshoot him and shot down both. After strafing five to seven Japanese planes on the ground, Wagner was attacked by three more Ki.27s but managed to shoot down two of them and then escaped

 

 

 

Edited by E69_pienoir
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

He compared the P-40 favorably with the P-38:

 

It is interesting to see this as "favorable" comparison. Basically he said that P-40 "could" outturn P-38, when P-38 was never intended to be a turn-fighter and turning was not the way to beat agile Japanese fighters anyway. He does not bring up any other "favorable" qualities of P-40 over P-38 and even that better turning is questionable, as "some pilots" did not realize it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes as with all planes they have to be flown to their strengths while minimising the opposing planes ones. I don't thing anyone in a p38 or p40 for example with some experience is going to get into a turning match with a zero, that is not how these planes were used. The engagements we see in computer sims are not often going to be anything like what was occurring in ww2.

 

Flight and damage models (and even veteran experience) are not the only factors that determine an outcome. Much of the scenarios that fights occurred under just can't be simulated in a computer game... There was  a lot more going on than just these factors that you can't simulate in a game , and especially when you start comparing numbers of kills in IRL to a game.

 

 So yes real life battles  vs game is not really realistic to do. Its a very rough comparable at best...

Edited by =RS=Stix_09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

big-20539996363.gif?v=21

 

Please
give me a P40
I want to fly from tobruk to derna with my wing partner
I want to glide gently between the dunes to the west while the sun crumbles in front of me
the Mediterranean is at three and my nine the vast desert
roar, roar my little P40 and take me home again when I tell you!!

 

 

.

 

 

Edited by E69_pienoir

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

×
×
  • Create New...