P-47 is poorly represented

[ROCKET_KNUT]

42 minutes ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

I just want to see it's strengths represented as much as its 'weakness' is in IL-2.

Well, there is always hope...

[Legioneod]

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Will we see the day, when the P-47 can be looked at objectively? It's just another airplane with strengths and weaknesses.

Of course but are those strengths and weaknesses accurately represented? I think that is all people want.

 

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The P-47 supposedly broke the neck of the Luftwaffe, so the P-51 could go on turkeyshooting.

I don't think anyone is saying the P-47 did all the work. I just think they're saying in regards to American aircraft (P-51 vs P-47) the P-47 bore the brunt of the workload (especially early on)

 

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

What's amusing me in those discussions about the relative merits of the three US fighter-types, people usually are ignoring that there was something called the "Royal Air Force", royally hacking away at the Luftwaffe. Since 1940. And yes, even though the initial "leaning into France" and Dieppe '42 was more of a blunderfest, it layed the foundation of allied airpower. The same is true for the MTO. It was the RAF that took a big swing and kicked the Luftwaffe in the plums first.

 

If you look at a german unit history (JGs 2 and 26), you can see that 1942 already had an accelerated rate of attrition. It was mostly the RAF that inflicted those losses, while the USAAF gradually grew from a sideshow to a major player.

 

The RAF was a great melting pot of people from all corners of the world back in those days. I think this also needs a bit more acknowledgement by modern popular (and scientific) history.

RAF did excellent work and I'd agree they are overshadowed today when they really shouldn't be.

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

And yes, even though the initial "leaning into France" and Dieppe '42 was more of a blunderfest, it layed the foundation of allied airpower. The same is true for the MTO. It was the RAF that took a big swing and kicked the Luftwaffe in the plums first.

 

If you look at a german unit history (JGs 2 and 26), you can see that 1942 already had an accelerated rate of attrition. It was mostly the RAF that inflicted those losses, while the USAAF gradually grew from a sideshow to a major player.

 

The RAF inflicted a sustainable loss rate on the Luftwaffe. Sustainable for at least a few more years, in theory. The Americans inflicted an unsustainable loss rate that took on apocalyptic proportions by 1944.

 

The reason why it's fair, and accurate, to separate the RAF contribution from the American, is that while the air forces were ultimately trying to accomplish the same things (force the Luftwaffe into the air, to then destroy it), only the Americans had the range and firepower to actually get the job done.

 

The British couldn't manage unescorted daylight raids. Even though America technically couldn't get away with unescorted raids either, the B-17/24 had a hell of a better chance of shooting down German attackers than the pea-shooting Lancaster. Between the caliber of its guns and its number of turrets and their locations, the Lancaster by day would have been torn to shreds circa 1943, compared to American bombers. Escorted or unescorted.

 

The only thing the RAF could do (besides night bombing and precision strikes with Mosquitos, of course), was the 'leaning in' to France. And by and large, those operations were failures in their intended purpose, and the RAF suffered far more than the Luftwaffe for very little gain.

 

Moreover, since the RAF operations over France were of a different nature than massed daylight raids, they didn't really teach the Americans anything useful. Americans had to learn everything over Germany, by daylight, through trial and error. If the lessons of the RAF in '41-'42 had been practically useful, it wouldn't have taken America until '44 to get all their ducks in a row (in terms of refining tactical doctrine).

 

I'm not saying that as a hoorah! American. I couldn't care less about national pride. I only believe in giving credit where it's due. Obviously the RAF did contribute greatly to the war effort, but it's also an undeniable fact that they lacked the capacity to deliver anything like 'the killing blow' to the Luftwaffe.

 

Which is why America, and specifically the P-47 and P-51, rightly get the lion's share of that credit.

Edited October 4, 2021 by oc2209

[Knarley-Bob]

Mr. Propeller,

  I don't understand, in a conversation about the P-47, that what England did in the war has any relevance. We are discussing ONE air craft, the P-47, which the Brits also flew. We are discussing how poorly the P-47 is represented, not how the RAF is represented. If one wants to talk of that fine. IN A DIFFERENT TREAD. I will be looking forward to that conversation in the future.

Regards,

Knarley

[Knarley-Bob]

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

3 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

I don't understand, in a conversation about the P-47

Without putting words in someone else's mouth, I think the point was to look objectively at the situation the P-47 was flying in during WWII.

 

The Luftwaffe was starting to be outnumbered in a serious way and from 44 (probably earlier) the air superiority of the allied forces was unbeatable. If you are flying with a 15/20 to 1 advantage any short comings of "any" aircraft would be negated to a large degree by sheer weight of numbers.

The P-47 weighs 10,000 lb "empty". By contrast a Spitfire weighs less than half that. It's a huge aircraft that performs great up high but not so great down low.

 

If I was flying with a 15 to 1 advantage, I'd be more than happy to fly the Jug but with even numbers, I'd want a P-51 or a Spit. Is it modeled 100% correctly? I don't think any aircraft in any sim will ever be modeled 100% correctly with the current technology. 

 

As mentioned recently, the devs are going to revisit the damage model and as they have shown previously they are happy to look at hard evidence that is presented and make changes when the schedule allows. Having said that, I have shot at and hit P-47's with multiple 30 mm rounds and they have just kept flying (in MP) Maybe I'm just a crappy shot?

 

Edit : - Hopefully, if they make any changes it will make the majority happy?

  

 

  

Edited October 5, 2021 by 6./ZG26_Custard
see Edit

[Knarley-Bob]

We, at least some of us, are trying to talk about the representation of a single aircraft, period. Who out numbers who is not relevant.

It is the performance of said aircraft that is the TOPIC, not how many there were. If one goes on to 'Quick Missions' flying a P-47, it STILL under performs. even tho it's the only one there. According to the 'History Channel' (see the video I posted) The P-47 was the most durable US warplane of that war. In this sim a flock of June bugs would take it down, and it doesn't matter how long any other country was in the war, because that is not what this thread is about.

If they do re-program the P-47 to a true representation, great. But it still won't matter whom else did what in the war, because we are talking about ONE aircraft. And how IT is represented.

If you want to compare one plane to another fine, that would be a different conversation. Same as comparing what say Australia did compared to Canada, again, different conversation. We are trying talking about an apple. We don't need people bringing up oranges or peaches...........

Knarley

[Pict]

3 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

According to the 'History Channel' (see the video I posted)

 

Just for your information, the video you posted is not available for viewing to everyone here. 

 

Edit; @Bremspropellerare you getting it in the HRE? 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Pict

[Bremspropeller]

58 minutes ago, Pict said:

Edit; @Bremspropellerare you getting it in the HRM? 

 

Nah, ze Internet is still uncharted territory - probaly somewhere "hinter den 7 Bergen bei den 7 Zwergen..."

 

6 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

If I was flying with a 15 to 1 advantage, I'd be more than happy to fly the Jug but with even numbers, I'd want a P-51 or a Spit.

 

That's not the point I was traying to make, even though the first series of Jugs weren't really ready for prime time.

 

I was trying to pre-empt that old "the P-47 broke the LW's neck" narrative, that usually gets thrown into the ring right about the time somebody starts quoting Robert Johnson.

 

11 hours ago, oc2209 said:

The RAF inflicted a sustainable loss rate on the Luftwaffe. Sustainable for at least a few more years, in theory. The Americans inflicted an unsustainable loss rate that took on apocalyptic proportions by 1944.

 

The reason why it's fair, and accurate, to separate the RAF contribution from the American, is that while the air forces were ultimately trying to accomplish the same things (force the Luftwaffe into the air, to then destroy it), only the Americans had the range and firepower to actually get the job done.

 

The British couldn't manage unescorted daylight raids. Even though America technically couldn't get away with unescorted raids either, the B-17/24 had a hell of a better chance of shooting down German attackers than the pea-shooting Lancaster. Between the caliber of its guns and its number of turrets and their locations, the Lancaster by day would have been torn to shreds circa 1943, compared to American bombers. Escorted or unescorted.

 

The only thing the RAF could do (besides night bombing and precision strikes with Mosquitos, of course), was the 'leaning in' to France. And by and large, those operations were failures in their intended purpose, and the RAF suffered far more than the Luftwaffe for very little gain.

 

Moreover, since the RAF operations over France were of a different nature than massed daylight raids, they didn't really teach the Americans anything useful. Americans had to learn everything over Germany, by daylight, through trial and error. If the lessons of the RAF in '41-'42 had been practically useful, it wouldn't have taken America until '44 to get all their ducks in a row (in terms of refining tactical doctrine).

 

I'm not saying that as a hoorah! American. I couldn't care less about national pride. I only believe in giving credit where it's due. Obviously the RAF did contribute greatly to the war effort, but it's also an undeniable fact that they lacked the capacity to deliver anything like 'the killing blow' to the Luftwaffe.

 

Which is why America, and specifically the P-47 and P-51, rightly get the lion's share of that credit.

 

Whether the loss-rate was sustainable or not is a matter of debate and might be interesting to get into. While Britain had a steady influx of aircrew, Germany was severely limited by the fact that most aircrew came from within it's borders. Again, if you take the unit-histories of JG 2 and JG 26, you'll see how many talented leaders and aircrew at this point were already killed in action and getting harder to replace by each passing day. That development shifted into high gear one year later, with the USAAF ramping up operations.

 

You'll need to be a bit more forgiving of the Brits, as they were at this point very much concerned with not being blockaded by the german Ubootwaffe, so Coastal Command and the FAA did a hell of a job, that didn't help the strategic bombing efforts* at all, but managed to keep that old unsinkable carrier afloat.

 

The USAAF had their own period of ramp-ups over France. They didn't go right into Germany.

 

There was no "killing blow" to the Luftwaffe that had anything to do with the types used by the USAAF. The LW had been in overstretched operations since they had missed the chance of recovering after their early (!) 1940 campaigns into western Europe. They had continued fighting without being able to replace their losses, managing to update their engine-development and developing into a strategic air force that was necessary to project enough airpower to pull of what they wanted to achieve.

That includes dancing on the MTO party which had never been planned, covering a vast air-war over the Reich (mostly a RAF-only show) and last but not least, fighting in the vast steppes of the Soviet Union. The LW's decline had begun even before BoB. The strategic bombing campaign and the eforts to kill the LW merely accelerated that.

By 1944, the attrition had already eaten away enough aircrew that the LW was bound to lose.

 

Sorry for derailing the thread ?

 

Taking a swing back to the original topic:

I think the "three-letter-word" sim is making a better job of depicting the Jug.

____

* of which there have been debates whether going in "all-Mosquito" wouldn't have been a lighter load in terms of aircrew-losses vs. feats achieved

The "all-Mosquito" option would make a great thread in it's own.

[Knarley-Bob]

No, The P-47 wasn't the plane that broke the LW's back. Honestly, I have never heard that before, nor would I believe it. It took all forces combined.

I didn't realize that video was not available to all, I apologize for that. I was just wanting the aircraft to get a fair shake in the sim, as I would like to see that for ALL aircraft involved. I'm sure it is a daunting task, and with some time the programmers will get us there. Glad we are on the same page, and it's nice to have a level headed discussion about this of this nature....

Regards,

KB?

[357th_KW]

13 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Without putting words in someone else's mouth, I think the point was to look objectively at the situation the P-47 was flying in during WWII.

 

The Luftwaffe was starting to be outnumbered in a serious way and from 44 (probably earlier) the air superiority of the allied forces was unbeatable. If you are flying with a 15/20 to 1 advantage any short comings of "any" aircraft would be negated to a large degree by sheer weight of numbers.

The P-47 weighs 10,000 lb "empty". By contrast a Spitfire weighs less than half that. It's a huge aircraft that performs great up high but not so great down low.

 

If I was flying with a 15 to 1 advantage, I'd be more than happy to fly the Jug but with even numbers, I'd want a P-51 or a Spit. Is it modeled 100% correctly? I don't think any aircraft in any sim will ever be modeled 100% correctly with the current technology. 

 

As mentioned recently, the devs are going to revisit the damage model and as they have shown previously they are happy to look at hard evidence that is presented and make changes when the schedule allows. Having said that, I have shot at and hit P-47's with multiple 30 mm rounds and they have just kept flying (in MP) Maybe I'm just a crappy shot?

 

Edit : - Hopefully, if they make any changes it will make the majority happy?

  

 

  

The suggestion that P-47s were typically engaging German fighters at a 15:1 numerical advantage is laughable.  One simply has to look at the sortie totals flown by both forces on any particular day to see that the force disparity was nowhere close to that.

[Pict]

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I was trying to pre-empt that old "the P-47 broke the LW's neck" narrative, that usually gets thrown into the ring right about the time somebody starts quoting Robert Johnson.

 

Yes, well when I think of the P-47, unlike most people I tend to think more Glenn Miller than Robert Johnson, you know, Tuxedo Junction rather than Crossroads or Love in Vain, although a Johnson was credited for Tuxedo Junction I doubt if it was same fellow  

 

 

 

 

As like the P-47 it's BIG and initialy appears somewhat sedate, but if you spend some time learing the ropes the right way;

 

Spoiler

 

 

You can get some pleasure out of it and with a bit of confidence building practice you could even crank it up a few beats and impress lots of people  

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Pict

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The P-47 killed Tigers with its Guns and it was impervious to 20mm Guns because there was that one P-47 that returned with a lot of holes and a German Pilot waved at it.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[von_Tom]

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

The suggestion that P-47s were typically engaging German fighters at a 15:1 numerical advantage is laughable.  One simply has to look at the sortie totals flown by both forces on any particular day to see that the force disparity was nowhere close to that.

 

That wasn't suggested. 

 

Number of sorties may be misleading as a LW pilot flying 4 sorties a day could skew results compared with 1 for the RAF or USAAF.

 

Better would be to look at the total available aircraft to the allied side compared to the axis side.  That means the combined air forces of the RAF, USAAF, VVS and allied nations v Germany and whoever was left.

 

Even that may not help because the Eastern and Western fronts were very widely spaced.  Perhaps look at the RAF/USAAF numbers in the European theatre versus the Luftwaffe in Western Europe.

 

Even that won't help the P47 though because whenever I've seen them they're usually in ground attack mode or flying around below 10,000ft in ones or twos and fighting very (virtually) experienced LW pilots with low fuel loads.

 

I can't comment on the damage modelling though, but do think that badly damaged single-engine fighters getting home was the exception rather than the norm.

 

von Tom

[sevenless]

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

There was no "killing blow" to the Luftwaffe that had anything to do with the types used by the USAAF.

 

Yep. For this I would refer to Operation Argument at Pointblank range. ? The blow only came to fruition once the USAAF big vans were able to reach out far enough into the Reich without 15% loss rates as they had at Schweinfurt, Regensburg and Oschersleben in 1943. After crossing the dutch/german and belgian/german border the bombers were on their own and the P47s had to return. And this could only be helped after the intro of the P51 en force at early 1944. After that date all went downhill very quickly for fat hermann and his luftwaffles. Big week (02/44) really marked the beginning of the end of the GAF in the west.

 

Operation Argument (‘Big Week’): The beginning of the end of the German Luftwaffe > Air Combat Command > Article Display

[6./ZG26_Custard]

2 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

One simply has to look at the sortie totals flown by both forces on any particular day to see that the force disparity was nowhere close to that.

Look at D-Day, the allies flew 20,000 sorties compared to the Luftwaffe's approx 900. By 44 the Luftwaffe was vastly outnumbered by allied air forces and that is a fact.  

[-332FG-Magic_Zach]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Look at D-Day, the allies flew 20,000 sorties compared to the Luftwaffe's approx 900. By 44 the Luftwaffe was vastly outnumbered by allied air forces and that is a fact.  

tbf you are comparing one coalition that had planned a combined arms invasion for over a year, to another that started its morning bird watching, and got caught mostly unprepared.  Not surprising that the disparity between the two is going to be most significantly marked on D-day

[6./ZG26_Custard]

9 minutes ago, -332FG-Magic_Zach said:

tbf you are comparing one coalition that had planned a combined arms invasion for over a year, to another that started its morning bird watching

No, what I'm comparing is that the allies had approximately 10000 aircraft available to around 400 available to the Luftwaffe on D-Day. At this point the allies had not so much air superiority but more or less complete air Supremacy. 

[ACG_Cass]

1 hour ago, von_Tom said:

Number of sorties may be misleading as a LW pilot flying 4 sorties a day could skew results compared with 1 for the RAF or USAAF.

 

Better would be to look at the total available aircraft to the allied side compared to the axis side. 

That's the opposite of what you'd want to do.

 

What was originally suggested:

16 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

If I was flying with a 15 to 1 advantage, I'd be more than happy to fly the Jug but with even numbers, I'd want a P-51 or a Spit.

 

Total numbers don't paint a picture of the engagement. Allied Escorts flying in shifts were often heavily outnumbered by the attackers in 1943. That can't be used as an argument as to the P47s legacy being false.

 

Anyway, I think there are probably just a few minor adjustments to the P47 and it will definitely be close to its IRL counterpart. It definitely shouldn't have parity with a K4 or D9 on the deck, but should be able to hold its own with a higher skilled pilot.

[Bremspropeller]

3 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

No, The P-47 wasn't the plane that broke the LW's back. Honestly, I have never heard that before, nor would I believe it. It took all forces combined.

I didn't realize that video was not available to all, I apologize for that. I was just wanting the aircraft to get a fair shake in the sim, as I would like to see that for ALL aircraft involved. I'm sure it is a daunting task, and with some time the programmers will get us there. Glad we are on the same page, and it's nice to have a level headed discussion about this of this nature....

Regards,

KB?

 

No worries - it's just the experience in countless and fruitless arguments on several forums of days gone by, that such a narrative will sooner or later come up.

It's very understandable, taken from a purely american perspective, but there was other people flying sorties, too. That's what tends to be forgotten sometimes.

 

9 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

Total numbers don't paint a picture of the engagement. Allied Escorts flying in shifts were often heavily outnumbered by the attackers in 1943. That can't be used as an argument as to the P47s legacy being false.

 

The total numbers do paint a very real stratecigal picture, though.

While one side had to take all the airplanes available and focus them into one or few attack(s), the other side had the airplanes, aircrew and avgas available to work in shifts and sharing the work. That includes flying diversionary attacks to split the enemy forces.

 

 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

27 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

Allied Escorts flying in shifts were often heavily outnumbered by the attackers in 1943

Yes, the P-47 Lost approximately 3500 aircraft during combat. Nearly 5000 B-17's that were escorted were shot down. It's reported that the P-47 was responsible for destroying 7000 enemy aircraft, half of that total was on the ground. So in very simplistic terms it was a one-for-one ratio "in the air". 

Edit: Numerical advantage played a significant part from 44 onwards. 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[ACG_Cass]

15 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The total numbers do paint a very real stratecigal picture, though.

While one side had to take all the airplanes available and focus them into one or few attack(s), the other side had the airplanes, aircrew and avgas available to work in shifts and sharing the work. That includes flying diversionary attacks to split the enemy forces.

Completely agree. It had a massive impact strategically and no doubt would have had an effect on the performance of the pilots as well (although the extra experience probably helped)

 

I don't think those numbers can be used in the context of the individual engagements though. P47s went up against their counterparts on parity or outnumbered and weren't wholesale slaughtered like they can be in IL2 sometimes. The USAAF campaigns in them are unplayable if you want a historically accurate experience.

[357th_KW]

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Look at D-Day, the allies flew 20,000 sorties compared to the Luftwaffe's approx 900. By 44 the Luftwaffe was vastly outnumbered by allied air forces and that is a fact.  

That couldn’t have anything to do with the fact the almost the entire jagdwaffe was based elsewhere at dawn on June 6th could it?  The bulk of German day fighters were based in Germany at that point in the war, vainly attempting to stop the US daylight campaign.  If you look through the bombing campaign US sortie numbers are significantly higher, primarily because the US would go up in almost any weather and flew on many days where the Luftwaffe (who generally provided little or no instrument flying training to day fighter pilots) was stuck on the ground.  The force disparity in terms of fighters went from the Luftwaffe having the advantage in mid 1943 to the US having an advantage in 1944.  But of course the US didn’t know which bomber stream or what part of it would be attacked, and fighters couldn’t fly near the duration of the bombers.  So they had to split their fighters up and relay them to attempt to cover the entire stream.  A ratio of 900 vs 500 fighters that looked favorable to the Allies, stops looking so good when often half or more aren’t going to see the Luftwaffe during any specific day.  To say that the P-47’s successes were only the result of massive numerical superiority completely ignores the tactical realities of combat at that time.

 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

6 minutes ago, VBF-12_KW said:

To say that the P-47’s successes were only the result of massive numerical superiority completely ignores the tactical realities of combat at that time.

Yes, the tactical realities for the Luftwaffe was they trying to shoot down bombers. It still doesn't take away the fact that from 44 onwards the allies had Air Supremacy. That's the reality. 

8 minutes ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 To say that the P-47’s successes were only the result of massive numerical superiority completely ignores the tactical realities of combat at that time.

I'm sure that successes were just not totally down to numerical advantage but it certainly was very useful. 

[MiloMorai]

Thought I would throw this in,

thtrloss.gif (762×713) (don-caldwell.we.bs)

[HR_Zunzun]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Yes, the P-47 Lost approximately 3500 aircraft during combat. Nearly 5000 B-17's that were escorted were shot down. It's reported that the P-47 was responsible for destroying 7000 enemy aircraft, half of that total was on the ground. So in very simplistic terms it was a one-for-one ratio "in the air". 

Edit: Numerical advantage played a significant part from 44 onwards. 

 

That is not correct. The losses in combat accounted for all causes. And the majority were while doing A-G missions. I do not have the data here but from the top of my head I think that its win/losses ratio in A-A combat was something in line with 4.5/1. Very far from 1-1.

 

And as other has pointed out, numerical advantage played a role in the strategic final result. It doesn't depict how the tactical engagement were. If you read pilot reports you find many quotes on a few p-47 jumping into whole LW squadrons. Not saying it was the norm but it wasn't just unicorn situations. The way the USAAF escort worked was in relays. The whole fighter available didn't escort at once. Individual groups/squadrons did escort a section of the bomber stream for a limited period of time and then another group/squadron would take over and continue with the escort. The LW, on the contrary, would try to mass as many fighters as possible to attack one specific section of bombers and thus, overwhelm the defences. Not that always that was the situation but they were the general tactics for both sides.

In the end, the numerical advantage of the allies meant that they have more numbers to replace the losses and more important, more experienced pilots to do so. Also, meant that the LW had to face allies fighters allies and have losses as a result of it even if they won that particular engagement.

In any case, those numbers discrepancy don't explain in any way how the p-47 fared agains the LW as individual planes. Or how it flew then and how it compares to the sim that is what the thread is about.

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

I've done some quick missions in a P-47D against a 109 G-14 starting head to head at 10,000m and I could maintain a turn with it but could not make any ground even with an alt advantage. After disengaging the G-14 had no problem slowly closing the distance of about 1.7km I created in a short dive to about 25k ft while flying away from him in a straight line.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 minute ago, HR_Zunzun said:

That is not correct. The losses in combat accounted for all causes. And the majority were while doing A-G

And that is why I said in very simplistic terms. 

P-47 accounted for roughly 3500 air targets during the course of the war. And one would assume that would be on all fronts. 

[oc2209]

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

There was no "killing blow" to the Luftwaffe that had anything to do with the types used by the USAAF. The LW had been in overstretched operations since they had missed the chance of recovering after their early (!) 1940 campaigns into western Europe.

 

Of course the Luftwaffe was dying a slow death. So was Germany the moment it invaded Russia (and arguably, the moment it invaded Poland). But that's beside the point.

 

Early '44 is the clear breaking point when things went from bad to worse for the Luftwaffe; and that period coincided perfectly with the Americans finally getting their operations and aircraft up to an efficient and deadly standard.

 

It wasn't the RAF, and it wasn't the VVS, that directly caused the sudden and massive loss of Luftwaffe assets in '44. That's all it boils down to.

 

Pound for pound, the RAF was roughly equal to the Luftwaffe. The Spitfire was almost identical to the 109 in terms of strengths and weaknesses (including the critical range flaw), and the Tempest/Typhoon were roughly similar to the Fw-190.

 

The VVS was equally tactically oriented as the Luftwaffe, caring only about low-level performance and covering ground ops; the overall destruction of the Luftwaffe wasn't its goal or within its capability.

 

Only the Americans brought something relatively unique to the table (and in massive numbers). The P-47 was essentially the master of boom and zoom, recreating the Luftwaffe's preferred tactics throughout the war when it was facing air forces with planes that were slower but more agile than the 109. Once the '47 got the paddle prop, it was agile enough at high altitudes, fast enough at medium to low altitudes to be able to effectively dictate how and when it fought. The P-51 was much the same, but lacking two extra guns made its firing passes a bit less devastating than a '47's single passes would be.

 

American planes were dangerous at the highest altitudes, and unlike the Spitfire, had the range to be dangerous across a far larger swathe of territory. No other Allied planes could claim the same. This altitude advantage, as well as high top speeds, made them, as I said, masters of boom and zoom. And B&Z was pretty much the Luftwaffe's bread and butter; it's how you accumulate massive kill counts in short periods of time. Not by dogfighting, of course, which is inefficient and has a much higher attrition rate.

 

2 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

Anyway, I think there are probably just a few minor adjustments to the P47 and it will definitely be close to its IRL counterpart. It definitely shouldn't have parity with a K4 or D9 on the deck, but should be able to hold its own with a higher skilled pilot.

 

Agreed. As some have said already, if the '47 needs any adjustment in this sim, I think it's chiefly in mid to upper altitude performance and/or agility.

[HR_Zunzun]

7 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

And that is why I said in very simplistic terms. 

P-47 accounted for roughly 3500 air targets during the course of the war. And one would assume that would be on all fronts. 

That's why the W/L is more important and it was in line with the figures I posted. 

The more successful group (56th) had a final claim figure of about 670 A-A victories while 128 fighters were lost to all combat causes. Even accounting for over claiming the record it is miles away far from 1:1.

While claiming that the p-47 broke LW's back is an hyperbole, so it is the notion that the p-47 so be sluggish because it was "heavy". It was closer to a fw190 than to an IL/2 that is what many people think of it in terms of agility.

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

I've done some quick missions in a P-47D against a 109 G-14 starting head to head at 10,000m and I could maintain a turn with it but could not make any ground even with an alt advantage. After disengaging the G-14 had no problem slowly closing the distance of about 1.7km I created in a short dive to about 25k ft while flying away from him in a straight line.

[Legioneod]

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Yes, the P-47 Lost approximately 3500 aircraft during combat. Nearly 5000 B-17's that were escorted were shot down. It's reported that the P-47 was responsible for destroying 7000 enemy aircraft, half of that total was on the ground. So in very simplistic terms it was a one-for-one ratio "in the air". 

Edit: Numerical advantage played a significant part from 44 onwards. 

 

Except 3500 P-47s weren’t shot down in aerial combat. That number includes losses to things like ground fire.

 

P-47 lost less in the air than it destroyed. The 56th FG is a good example of this.

they shot down over 600 in the air and only lost around 40 P-47s in aerial combat in the entire war.

That’s around a 15:1 ratio in favor of the P-47. (At least in the 56th)

Edited October 5, 2021 by Legioneod

[Bremspropeller]

45 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Early '44 is the clear breaking point when things went from bad to worse for the Luftwaffe; and that period coincided perfectly with the Americans finally getting their operations and aircraft up to an efficient and deadly standard.

 

It wasn't the RAF, and it wasn't the VVS, that directly caused the sudden and massive loss of Luftwaffe assets in '44. That's all it boils down to.

 

Again, those sudden losses didn't come without a preface. "The Luftwaffe" was under pressure everywhere and never had enough assets to counter all theaters in the first place. Something had to give sooner or later. And it did.

 

47 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Pound for pound, the RAF was roughly equal to the Luftwaffe. The Spitfire was almost identical to the 109 in terms of strengths and weaknesses (including the critical range flaw), and the Tempest/Typhoon were roughly similar to the Fw-190.

 

That's not true. There was no equal airplane to either the Halifax or the Lancaster in the Luftwaffe. The He 117 couldn't do the job, neither could the Fw 200 or Ju 290.

There was no similar airplane to the Mosquito or the Hurricane. There was no comparable airplane to the P-40 and P-51. And that's not even starting talking about the Coastal Command with it's vast assets (including an imperial duckton of Liberators).

 

50 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The VVS was equally tactically oriented as the Luftwaffe, caring only about low-level performance and covering ground ops; the overall destruction of the Luftwaffe wasn't its goal or within its capability.

 

The Luftwaffe had a better grasp at the operational level. They flew long range recce missions and generally had an idea that wasting their air force tactically as a winged artillery wasn't going to defeat the Soviets. They didn't have the airplanes to go far enough into Joe's backyard to hassle soviet production or to bring up an effective interdiction campaign, though.

 

All the VVS had over the Luftwaffe was numbers.

 

52 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Only the Americans brought something relatively unique to the table (and in massive numbers). The P-47 was essentially the master of boom and zoom, recreating the Luftwaffe's preferred tactics throughout the war when it was facing air forces with planes that were slower but more agile than the 109. Once the '47 got the paddle prop, it was agile enough at high altitudes, fast enough at medium to low altitudes to be able to effectively dictate how and when it fought. The P-51 was much the same, but lacking two extra guns made its firing passes a bit less devastating than a '47's single passes would be.

 

What exactly? The P-47 wasn't fast enough down low and it lacked in climb, compared to the german Methplanes (or the RAF superfighters/ 150 octane Mustangs).

It did the job and would have succeeded anyways, but that's mostly due to the overall strategical situation.

 

55 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

American planes were dangerous at the highest altitudes, and unlike the Spitfire, had the range to be dangerous across a far larger swathe of territory. No other Allied planes could claim the same. This altitude advantage, as well as high top speeds, made them, as I said, masters of boom and zoom. And B&Z was pretty much the Luftwaffe's bread and butter; it's how you accumulate massive kill counts in short periods of time. Not by dogfighting, of course, which is inefficient and has a much higher attrition rate.

 

American planes also took a full two years to become competitive over Europe, while the Brits were holding the Luftwaffe at bay with the Spitfire. It is questionable whether the USAAF with only it's available fighters in 1940 could have performed the BoB scenario as well as did the RAF. It all comes down to how you want to skin the cat.

 

 

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

...

What exactly? The P-47 wasn't fast enough down low and it lacked in climb, compared to the german Methplanes (or the RAF superfighters/ 150 octane Mustangs).

It did the job and would have succeeded anyways, but that's mostly due to the overall strategical situation.

 

It's sustained climb was average overall and not bad. What it did really well was in the zoom but in-game this isn't really the case. It loses it's energy far too quickly to be effective and lacks elevator authority. DCS has a far better representation of this imo(from the few times I've flown it), it zooms very well in DCS and can hold it's energy.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

46 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Except 3500 P-47s weren’t shot down in aerial combat. That number includes losses to things like ground fire.

I understand that.

46 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

they shot down over 600 in the air and only lost around 40 P-47s in aerial combat in the entire war.

That’s around a 15:1 ratio in favor of the P-47. (At least in the 56th)

It's interesting to note that 498 of those victories were from the period  January 1944 till April 1945 so I wonder if numerical advantage helped to achieve those numbers? After D-Day the allies could operate in the air more or less at will. 

 

Edit: Air supremacy is what really mattered in the end. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Legioneod]

9 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I understand that.

It's interesting to note that 498 of those victories were from the period were from January 1944 till April 1945 so I wonder if numerical advantage helped to achieve those numbers? After D-Day the allies could operate in the air more or less at will. 

Certainly possible. Their greatest success was in Jan-June of 44. They shot down around 300 in that short amount of time. Their victories started to drop after that.
Jan 43 - June 44 they shot down 467 aircraft was that because of numerical superiority? It all depends on how you slice the numbers, you can make it look one way or the other, it's best to look at smaller blocks of time instead of one large timeframe (Jan 44 - Apr 45, or Jan 43 - June 44 are too large to make an accurate judgment imo)

Edited October 5, 2021 by Legioneod

[ACG_Cass]

54 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

It did the job and would have succeeded anyways, but that's mostly due to the overall strategical situation.

No, it was a match for the Luftwaffe planes it fought against. The strategic situation helped with its overall success but would not have impacted the even or outnumbered engagements it fought in where it came out on top.

 

59 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The P-47 wasn't fast enough down low and it lacked in climb, compared to the german Methplanes

D22 we have is faster than everything bar the K4 down on the deck, it also climbs better than a DC K4 above 3000m and is enormously faster up high.

 

A few minor tweaks to either the stick forces or FM and it would be more than match in game as well.

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

That's not true. There was no equal airplane to either the Halifax or the Lancaster in the Luftwaffe. The He 117 couldn't do the job, neither could the Fw 200 or Ju 290.

There was no similar airplane to the Mosquito or the Hurricane. There was no comparable airplane to the P-40 and P-51. And that's not even starting talking about the Coastal Command with it's vast assets (including an imperial duckton of Liberators).

 

None of those differences are applicable. We're talking about which fighter was responsible for decisively killing a lot of Luftwaffe pilots and/or shooting down a massive number of Luftwaffe planes in a relatively short amount of time.

 

The RAF's overall ability to shoot down large numbers of Luftwaffe planes and, more importantly, kill Luftwaffe pilots (as opposed to destroying empty planes on the ground or in factories) boils down to the Spitfire alone. The Hurricane is a non-issue after 1940. Neither the Tempest nor the Typhoon were optimized for high-alt combat, and so weren't capable of exploiting B&Z to the same level as the P-47 and P-51. The British use of the Mustang can't be compared to the American numbers produced.

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

American planes also took a full two years to become competitive over Europe, while the Brits were holding the Luftwaffe at bay with the Spitfire. It is questionable whether the USAAF with only it's available fighters in 1940 could have performed the BoB scenario as well as did the RAF. It all comes down to how you want to skin the cat.

 

Obviously the USAAF in 1940 would have its ass handed to it. Again though, it's not remotely relevant. We're talking about what plane(s) are most responsible for 'breaking the Luftwaffe's back' circa '43 and '44. You can say the back was broken by the amount of skilled, veteran pilots who were lost in a short amount of time, as opposed to a slow bleed. That's the criteria. Even if the Luftwaffe took severe losses in the BoB in 1940 that it never fully replaced qualitatively, you can't claim that it was neutralized as an effective fighting force. It clearly still had plenty of life left in it. Only by the middle of '44 could you say the Luftwaffe was well and truly dead.

 

You're clouding this issue in what seems to be a misconception; that by saying the P-51/47 did the most damage to the Luftwaffe in '44, that suddenly means I want to totally ignore the RAF and devalue it. No. That's not the point at all.

 

The question is: who delivered the heaviest, most crippling blow? I would think that award belongs to the planes that could utterly dominate all the air above ~15,000 feet between Normandy and Berlin.

 

2 hours ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

I've done some quick missions in a P-47D against a 109 G-14 starting head to head at 10,000m and I could maintain a turn with it but could not make any ground even with an alt advantage. After disengaging the G-14 had no problem slowly closing the distance of about 1.7km I created in a short dive to about 25k ft while flying away from him in a straight line.

 

What were your fuel loads? And D-22 or D-28? I'm assuming you didn't carry extra ammo.

 

I did 3 tests with me in a D-22 with 43% fuel load, 150 octane. The 109 had 75% load and was otherwise stock. Starting alt was 7500m. In all instances I was able to hang on him; he didn't get his guns on me once. Granted, I know AI is easier than a human opponent, blah blah blah, but all other things being equal, I was able to stay on his tail from 7500m all the way down to 1000m. This includes turning inside his turns at most altitudes in that range.

 

This clip is from an 8 minute chase:

 

Spoiler

 

 

It's boring to watch, which is why I cut it as short as I could. My gunnery is sh** as well, but the point is that he couldn't escape. I came close to blacking out only once in a high speed turn after following him through a split-S.

Edited October 5, 2021 by oc2209
Unintentional merge of posts

[Legioneod]

11 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

...

 

D22 we have is faster than everything bar the K4 down on the deck, it also climbs better than a DC K4 above 3000m and is enormously faster up high.

 

A few minor tweaks to either the stick forces or FM and it would be more than match in game as well.

I haven't found this to be the case (haven't flown in a long time though) From what I remember it was faster than the D-28 down low but still wasn't as fast as P-51 or the German props. It's also not much faster up high (at least not as much as it should be, it's power drops too quickly). Overall though its speed is decent I agree.

Imo the stick forces, elevator effectiveness/dive and its inertia/energy retention are the main things that need a look at. 

[ACG_Cass]

7 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I haven't found this to be the case (haven't flown in a long time though) From what I remember it was faster than the D-28 down low but still wasn't as fast as P-51 or the German props. It's also not much faster up high (at least not as much as it should be, it's power drops too quickly). Overall though its speed is decent I agree.

D28 is no slouch. Admittedly both P47s absolute top speed on the deck comes from overboost so you only have a few minutes at that. You're correct, both have their critical altitudes far too low in game, the turbo modelling in general needs another pass.

 

D22 is no slouch either...

Edited October 5, 2021 by ACG_Cass