P-47 is poorly represented

[Eisenfaustus]

19 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Who out numbers who is not relevant.

We are not discussing scientifically conducted trials that tried to find out how many 20mm from what angle a P-47 could swallow before becoming unflyable - we are discussing anecdotes and statistics. There context is extremely important!

Statistics as posted by @oc2209 in fact only matter when put into context. Deep penetrating escort missions and attacking targets of opportunity on the way back is different from fighter bomber missions near the front lines. 
And anecdotes also have to be put into context as well. The side with fewer aircraft in a particular air fight will have fewer opportunities to line up a decisive burst and more rely on snapshots. The worse the enemy pilot is trained the less likely he is to send a concentrated burst into the centre of the mass and the more likely he is to spray some bullets all over the target instead. 
I‘m not saying the P47 is correctly or wrongly modelled as I am in no position to make an educated guess. I‘m just saying context is very important to this conversation. 
For example while the IL-2 was regarded a flying tank by many German pilots who tried to shoot it down I haven’t stumbled across similar stories about P47s from a German point of view yet.

[sevenless]

34 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

For example while the IL-2 was regarded a flying tank by many German pilots who tried to shoot it down I haven’t stumbled across similar stories about P47s from a German point of view yet.

 

Yep. Doesn´t look like the Höhengruppen (109 equipped) had significant problems of shooting them down.

Source: Page 74, P-47 Thunderbolt vs Bf 109G/K - Osprey Publishing

[Knarley-Bob]

40 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

We are not discussing scientifically conducted trials that tried to find out how many 20mm from what angle a P-47 could swallow before becoming unflyable - we are discussing anecdotes and statistics. There context is extremely important!

Statistics as posted by @oc2209 in fact only matter when put into context. Deep penetrating escort missions and attacking targets of opportunity on the way back is different from fighter bomber missions near the front lines. 
And anecdotes also have to be put into context as well. The side with fewer aircraft in a particular air fight will have fewer opportunities to line up a decisive burst and more rely on snapshots. The worse the enemy pilot is trained the less likely he is to send a concentrated burst into the centre of the mass and the more likely he is to spray some bullets all over the target instead. 
I‘m not saying the P47 is correctly or wrongly modelled as I am in no position to make an educated guess. I‘m just saying context is very important to this conversation. 
For example while the IL-2 was regarded a flying tank by many German pilots who tried to shoot it down I haven’t stumbled across similar stories about P47s from a German point of view yet.

At the beginning of the tread, that's pretty much what the discussion WAS about. It has since drifted.

Time to pop the canopy, count to ten and pull the rip cord...........

See ya on the ground.

KB

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour 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.

 

Which is very optimistic on the D-22's part.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-level.jpg

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

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.

 

Do the numerous other planes not count? Why?

 

Both the Typhoon and the Tempest didn't do half bad over the continent. The Hurricane wasn't a non-issue after 1940. Lots of Hurricanes flying around in the desert. And Tomahawks. And Kittyhawks. Yes, they were gradually replaced, but they were there when needed. There's more to an air war than shooting down airplanes.

 

You can't cherrypick when making the initial statement of "pound for pound the RAF was equal to the Luftwaffe", which is just false. On top, the RAF of 1942 or even 1943 was way different to the RAF in 1940, that was caught with their pants down. The RAF had a massive amount of new aircraft-types coming along. Many of which were top performers. Mind you, with P-51s coming in in quite large numbers and the USAAF taking care of the daylight raids into Germany, there was neither neccessity, nor a requirement to field long-range fighters. Those that were needed, could be meterialized through employing Mustangs. You know, the planes that were built for a RAF specification and was only getting really good by using a british engine?

 

Don't shoot down the Brits. They did lift a quite large bit of weight.

 

And then there's first Beaufighters and later Mosquitos flying around at night, shooting down german raiders or night-fighters. Or shooting down german long range fighters out over the ocean. Now those are two rather special sub-sets of the air war, granted. But it's still making an important dent in the overall numbers of available (and well-trained, IFR-capable) aircrew.

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

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.

 

It is relevant, because without the RAF standing up to the LW, there'd be no 1944 neckbraking in the first place.

Derogating the Spitfire is a bit short-sighted, when it was precisely this type of aeroplane that was required in 1940 - not a 7t lump of flying metal.

And that's precisely the point: Different aircraft are required for different jobs and only their combination achieves the overall goal.

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

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.

 

The LW was spread out across the entire european continent and northern Africa. It was never designed or concieved to do that and was ill-equipped to handle it.

By early '41, the Balkans and Northern Africa were invaded, plus Barbarossa went on east a bit later. Now, the fighter units devised for Barbarossa were lacking, as there were units back at the Channel in that unresolved thing with Churchill. Then there's Bennito and his gang getting their rear-ends smoked, so they'd need a couple of fighter units to help them out. The bed-sheet was already stretching and way too short to achieve anything right then and there.

Plus, you'd have losses that the training-units couldn't cope with, because they'd thought everybody was going to be home by Christmas (TM).

 

Even though the Luftwaffe was doing fine to pretty good in the East, they were having losses nonetheless (and not too few of those either!). I think the idea of "breaking the LW's back" came from the fact that a lof of super-aces came from the East to command units in the West, where they'd quickly be shot down and couldn't be replaced.

It wasn't those guys that were most important, though. The important losses were the grinding attrition, that every once in a while took a Staffelkapitän with maybe 15 kills or another with maybe 4 kills. Pilots that weren't necessarily "successfull" by just the book-figures, but those that were good leaders in the air (and on the ground) that lead their squadron with care and an eye for the weaker pilots. And those guys died all the time. Their half-life was rather short on the channel.

 

Yes, a super-ace's death was more important for morale, but it was the "little guys" that mattered most.

 

The Luftwaffe wasn't neutralized in 1944. That didn't happen until early 1945. The fighting force was still there, and would rebound after a couple of weeks.

Naturally, the next iteration would be less performant than the previous one. I wouldn't count the Luftwaffe as dead in 1944.

There just wasn't much opportunity to shine against an enemy at odds of roughly 20:1, constantly roaming around the skies.

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

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.

 

The soviets. Killing Germans by the millions.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[BraveSirRobin]

27 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The soviets. Killing Germans by the millions.

 

Not in the air.  The Soviet Air Force mostly got it’s ass kicked.  The Soviet Army is what did most of the killing.  

[Gambit21]

33 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The soviets. Killing Germans by the millions.

 

This

 

Contrary to popular belief, the war was not won on the western front, but rather on the eastern front.

"No Simple Victory" by Norman Davies spells this out quite well I think.

 

 

[HR_Zunzun]

55 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Yep. Doesn´t look like the Höhengruppen (109 equipped) had significant problems of shooting them down.

Source: Page 74, P-47 Thunderbolt vs Bf 109G/K - Osprey Publishing

And that is supposed to mean? Because if you compare (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/index.html) the highest scoring aces against other types like mustang or p-38, the numbers are similar. With the spitfire is even higher but then they were fighting against them for longer.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

This

 

Only if you completely ignore the context of the post he responded to.  The Soviets were mediocre, at best, in the air war.  They won the ground war.  

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Only if you completely ignore the context of the post he responded to.  The Soviets were mediocre, at best, in the air war.  They won the ground war.  

 

They were mediocre on a micro, average pilot basis perhaps, (open for debate and not my area of knowledge) but on a macro scale they got the job done it seems.

Sheer numbers and all if nothing else? 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:

 

They were mediocre on a micro, average pilot basis perhaps, (open for debate and not my area of knowledge) but on a macro scale they got the job done it seems.

Sheer numbers and all if nothing else? 

 

Sheer numbers on the ground.   I’m not arguing that they didn’t win the war.  They absolutely did.  But not in the air.  They mostly got their asses kicked in the air.  

[sevenless]

29 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

And that is supposed to mean? Because if you compare (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/index.html) the highest scoring aces against other types like mustang or p-38, the numbers are similar. With the spitfire is even higher but then they were fighting against them for longer.

 

 

If you read closely it means that it wasn´t that hard to shoot down P47s. Nothing more nothing less.

[BraveSirRobin]

There is probably a pretty good argument to be made that the Luftwaffe should have moved most of the aircraft used to intercept US and British bombers to the eastern front.  I’m not sure it would have helped.  And it definitely was not an option politically.  But that is definitely where the war was won.

[357th_KW]

To provide some specifics to the point I was making earlier about numbers:

 

March 6th 1944 - target Berlin.  The USAAF put 672 bombers over the target along with 801 escort sorties (all 13 8th AF FGs plus 4 9th AF FGs).  Against this force, the Luftwaffe mounted 463 sorties.  Only 332 of those German sorties were credited as having made contact with the enemy.  If we do some similar math for the American fighters (looking at squadrons that made claims or suffered losses to get an estimate), only about 400 of the US fighters actually encountered the enemy that day.  400:332.

 

March 23rd 1944 - targets in North Central Germany.  707 Bombers over the target, 841 escort sorties.  327 German fighter sorties, but only 173 made contact.  Again, doing the same math for the US fighters gets us roughly 140 fighters in contact.  140:173

 

April 11th 1944 - targets Oschersleben, Rostock, Stettin.  828 Bombers over the target, 819 escort sorties.  428 German sorties, with 310 making contact.  US fighter sorties making contact, roughly 320.  320:310

 

These are just a handful of missions I chose (fairly randomly after the Berlin mission) to demonstrate that the German tactic of the period - focusing its fighters onto one part of the bomber stream either through vectoring or forming into a large battle group - resulted in fairly equal numbers at the point of contact.  But if you keep flipping through mission after mission you generally see the same pattern - on missions where the Luftwaffe put up an intercepting force, they did a good job of concentrating their forces to a small part of the bomber stream.  The 20:1 ratios you see from monthly or quarterly sortie totals don't take that into consideration.  In some cases the US managed almost 2:1, but often it was less than that, and in many cases the Luftwaffe managed local superiority. 

 

Numbers were sourced from Donald Caldwell's "Day Fighters in Defence of the Reich", Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth War Diary" and Kent Miller's "Fighter Units and Pilots of the 8th AF"

Edited October 6, 2021 by VBF-12_KW

[HR_Zunzun]

8 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

If you read closely it means that it wasn´t that hard to shoot down P47s. Nothing more nothing less.

Well, I read closely enough to infer that for the bunch of numbers that you posted you can't get to such conclusion (nor the contrary). The only thing that proves is that it wasn't invulnerable and that if you put enough bullets in the right places, you can shot down any plane. In essence, I think It doesn't help in any way to compare p-47 vulnerability against the vulnerability of other fighers. 

[BraveSirRobin]

If you’re getting a combat ratio of 1/1 over your own cities with an enemy that is flying from hundreds of miles away, and that enemy can replace fighter and pilot losses faster than you, then you’re getting your ass kicked.

[sevenless]

6 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Well, I read closely enough to infer that for the bunch of numbers that you posted you can't get to such conclusion (nor the contrary). The only thing that proves is that it wasn't invulnerable and that if you put enough bullets in the right places, you can shot down any plane. In essence, I think It doesn't help in any way to compare p-47 vulnerability against the vulnerability of other fighers. 

 

You are more than invited to show us a better source which underlines one or the other. Maybe you can come up with something convincing?

[HR_Zunzun]

13 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

You are more than invited to show us a better source which underlines one or the other. Maybe you can come up with something convincing?

Be my guest:

 

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

If you read closely it means that it wasn´t that hard to shoot down P47s. Nothing more nothing less.

By this logic the Il2 was easy to shoot down because they shot down far more Il2s than they did P-47s.

 

I've been reading through the kill claims of the German aces and so far only I've only come up with 243 P-47s shot down by aces in aerial combat. Clearly there has to have been more P-47s shot down but the numbers so far are few in comparison the the total amount killed/destroyed. (3500 or so)

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[HR_Zunzun]

8 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

By this logic the Il2 was easy to shoot down because they shot down far more Il2s than they did P-47s.

 

I've been reading through the kill claims of the German aces and so far only I've only come up with 243 P-47s shot down by aces in aerial combat. Clearly there has to have been more P-47s shot down but the numbers so far are few in comparison the the total amount killed/destroyed. (3500 or so)

or the B-17s

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/viermot.html

The highest scoring LW ace killed 36 of them, Almost 3 times more than the p-47 top scorer. If killing a jug "wasn't that hard" then killing a b-17 would have been a piece of cake if judging by the same standards.

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

5 hours ago, oc2209 said:

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

 It was in a D28 don't recall the fuel loads but they were around 50% for both. I took extra ammo. I was trying to simulate meeting a 109 after climbing and patrolling for a while. The D28 in particular seems like its underperforming even up high. Wow this thread has gone completely off the rails.

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Hurricane wasn't a non-issue after 1940. Lots of Hurricanes flying around in the desert. And Tomahawks. And Kittyhawks. Yes, they were gradually replaced, but they were there when needed.

 

No, the Hurricane was a joke after 1940. Malta was wiped out when only the Hurricane was available to defend it. Only the Spitfire could save Malta from German air raids.

 

As for the other second rate planes the British were forced to use in the desert... it's more a testament to the Germans being spread too thin than it is to the quality of the planes mentioned.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if the Germans hadn't been slightly distracted in Russia, there's no way the British would've been able to fend them off in North Africa prior to Torch. Not a snowball's chance in hell.

 

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

It is relevant, because without the RAF standing up to the LW, there'd be no 1944 neckbraking in the first place.

Derogating the Spitfire is a bit short-sighted, when it was precisely this type of aeroplane that was required in 1940 - not a 7t lump of flying metal.

 

Nope, because the BoB's outcome didn't actually determine whether or not Germany could invade Britain. Germany was in no position to invade, something even Hitler realized. The BoB was a battle of willpower more than it was a battle of life and death for the British empire. When the British will to resist didn't shatter as Hitler wanted/expected, then he moved on with other plans. An invasion was never possible, because it was never logistically supported and properly planned. Even if every single Spitfire had been shot down, the outcome would be the same.

 

Germany couldn't half-ass an invasion of Britain any more than the British could get away with half-assing the Dieppe raid. Did the Germans in 1940 have the combined Allied invasion armada that made D-Day a sure success in '44? No? Then it wasn't going to happen.

 

Also, where are you getting the idea that I'm insulting the Spit? All I said was its range was too short to go far and wide over German airspace and force the Luftwaffe to fight or attack it on the ground. Which is what the massive numbers of American fighters accomplished.

 

You're making this much more complicated an argument than it needs to be.

 

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I wouldn't count the Luftwaffe as dead in 1944.

 

Well, I would. Specifically after D-Day I would decisively call it dead. Whatever resistance it gave was wholly inadequate to what was needed of it; therefore, it was ineffective, unable to significantly inhibit enemy activities in the air or on the ground, which is another way of saying dead.

 

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The soviets. Killing Germans by the millions.

 

Christ almighty, I already argued that the Russians won the war by body count in another thread a few months back. Why are you telling me this like I wouldn't agree, like it's news to me? Where did you ever get the impression I was flag waving and shouting 'U-S-A! U-S-A!', just because I stated the obvious that the Americans caused more damage to the Luftwaffe than the British and the Russians?

 

This discussion is strictly limited what killed the Luftwaffe, and more specifically, what did it the fastest.

 

Do you have some numbers on RAF air-to-air claims over France/Germany between '43 and '45? I don't. If anyone does, feel free to chime in. Otherwise this debate's going nowhere. Compare RAF claims to American claims in the same time period. If my assumption is wrong, I'll eat crow. Case closed.

Edited October 6, 2021 by oc2209
Another bad merge.

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

 It was in a D28 don't recall the fuel loads but they were around 50% for both. I took extra ammo. I was trying to simulate meeting a 109 after climbing and patrolling for a while. The D28 in particular seems like its underperforming even up high.

 

Extra ammo is kind of a no-no as far as I'm concerned. All that extra wing weight means you'll stall constantly at high altitudes. Also, the D-22 is a bit lighter and more agile than the D-28. Also, the razorback gives the 22 more aerodynamic stability in certain maneuvers. This is why later bubbletops eventually needed to be fitted with a dorsal fin of sorts. Bubbletops are, strictly speaking, aerodynamically inferior.

 

59 minutes ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

Wow this thread has gone completely off the rails.

 

It's more fun this way, trust me.

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

yea im aware of the yaw instability caused by the fuselage shape of the bubble top jugs which lead to the dorsal fin being added later, however I fly the ball and turn as efficiently as i can. Also the D-28 is heavier but mostly due to larger internal fuel capacity which is less of an issue with less fuel. The D-28 specifically seems slower than it should be, the 22 not so much but I still get caught regularly after attempting to exit a fight when a good opportunity presents itself. As I mentioned before with the 150 it seems to be performing more like it should but without it the plane feels like its hamstrung. It feels lacking in power. This became even more apparent to me after flying the DCS 47. Even without 150 octane fuel the USAAF had good quality fuel that provided great power in all allied engines.

[Legioneod]

41 minutes ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

yea im aware of the yaw instability caused by the fuselage shape of the bubble top jugs which lead to the dorsal fin being added later, however I fly the ball and turn as efficiently as i can. Also the D-28 is heavier but mostly due to larger internal fuel capacity which is less of an issue with less fuel. The D-28 specifically seems slower than it should be, the 22 not so much but I still get caught regularly after attempting to exit a fight when a good opportunity presents itself. As I mentioned before with the 150 it seems to be performing more like it should but without it the plane feels like its hamstrung. It feels lacking in power. This became even more apparent to me after flying the DCS 47. Even without 150 octane fuel the USAAF had good quality fuel that provided great power in all allied engines.

What altitude were you flying at? The Il2 P-47 drops in power too quickly and you end up having less horsepower than you should above 23,000ft.

I go into more detail in this thread. Hopefully the devs look at it and see what needs fixing.

I've never actually tested the DCS P-47 to see how accurate it is in this regard, gonna have to do a comparison one of these days to see if DCS is correct or not.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

yea im aware of the yaw instability caused by the fuselage shape of the bubble top jugs which lead to the dorsal fin being added later, however I fly the ball and turn as efficiently as i can. Also the D-28 is heavier but mostly due to larger internal fuel capacity which is less of an issue with less fuel. The D-28 specifically seems slower than it should be, the 22 not so much but I still get caught regularly after attempting to exit a fight when a good opportunity presents itself. As I mentioned before with the 150 it seems to be performing more like it should but without it the plane feels like its hamstrung. It feels lacking in power. This became even more apparent to me after flying the DCS 47. Even without 150 octane fuel the USAAF had good quality fuel that provided great power in all allied engines.

 

For the record, according to in-game stats, the D-28 is about 200lbs heavier than the 22, empty. So yeah, not a huge deal, but when you're weird about saving weight like I am, it matters.

 

As for the D-28 being underpowered, I tried it at 10,000m against the same 109G-14 as usual:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I did not use 150 octane here. I did have the same fuel load, 500L, I had with my D-22 runs. No extra ammo.

 

Aside from my lazy maneuvering and non-existent tactical foresight that put me under the AI's guns on two different occasions, I was able to keep up with him quite easily.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the 150 octane be more noticeable at lower altitudes, in the P-47's case specifically? As in, where it really needs the extra speed.

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

For the record, according to in-game stats, the D-28 is about 200lbs heavier than the 22, empty. So yeah, not a huge deal, but when you're weird about saving weight like I am, it matters.

 

As for the D-28 being underpowered, I tried it at 10,000m against the same 109G-14 as usual:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

I did not use 150 octane here. I did have the same fuel load, 500L, I had with my D-22 runs. No extra ammo.

 

Aside from my lazy maneuvering and non-existent tactical foresight that put me under the AI's guns on two different occasions, I was able to keep up with him quite easily.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the 150 octane be more noticeable at lower altitudes, in the P-47's case specifically? As in, where it really needs the extra speed.

Yes. You won’t really notice the 150 above 21-23k ft. Above that you’re gonna have similar speed to standard 64”(non 150)

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[ACG_Cass]

7 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Which is very optimistic on the D-22's part.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-level.jpg

 

Well looks like it's 60kmh too fast on the deck. Can't believe the devs got it that wrong...

 

D42 came with bomb racks as standard. A clean D22 with the Hamilton prop running 70" will be a damn sight faster and you've no idea what conditions those actual tests were under.

6 hours ago, sevenless said:

If you read closely it means that it wasn´t that hard to shoot down P47s. Nothing more nothing less.

It should be harder than other planes though. A Spitfire (unless you hit the tail with 1 13mm round) is currently harder to shoot down than a P47. It's currently the most susceptible to AP ammunition and it's speed loss is monstrous when hit by HE, it's actually easier to shoot down a P47 with .50s than it is a 109...

[Legioneod]

45 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

 

Well looks like it's 60kmh too fast on the deck. Can't believe the devs got it that wrong...

 

D42 came with bomb racks as standard. A clean D22 with the Hamilton prop running 70" will be a damn sight faster and you've no idea what conditions those actual tests were under.

It should be harder than other planes though. A Spitfire (unless you hit the tail with 1 13mm round) is currently harder to shoot down than a P47. It's currently the most susceptible to AP ammunition and it's speed loss is monstrous when hit by HE, it's actually easier to shoot down a P47 with .50s than it is a 109...

I've never been able to get close to the speed you posted on the deck, it's definitely fast if you managed that speed.

How did you get those speeds?

 

That 150 fuel test (the one that reads 70" in the chart above)

 

Full Fuel load

full ammo

wing racks

70" @ 2700rpm (dont overboost it.)

 

Test it like this and see what speeds you get. One thing to note is that the P-47 in that test used a different prop and engine than what the D-22 uses, so the speeds may be slightly different.

 

It's reasonable to assume that the P-47 would be faster than in those test if running without wing racks, a Hamilton prop, and with lighter fuel load.

Just running without wing racks and with the Hamilton prop should get you anywhere from 8-15mph increase in speed compared to the test.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[sevenless]

5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

By this logic the Il2 was easy to shoot down because they shot down far more Il2s than they did P-47s.

 

Nope. It only shows that the P47 wasn´t something like a flying tank as some online mythdreamers fantasize.

[Legioneod]

9 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Nope. It only shows that the P47 wasn´t something like a flying tank as some online mythdreamers fantasize.

By that standard neither was the Il2. Just because an aircraft was shot down doesn't mean it was an easy thing to do. Just as many, if not more Il2s were shot down than P-47s were yet no-one argues that the Il2 was easy to kill. All those numbers prove is that it was an aircraft that could die when you do enough damage to it. The numbers prove nothing in regards to how easy it was to bring down.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[Pict]

8 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The numbers prove nothing in regards to how easy it was to bring down.

 

Does anyone have any solid proof about how easy or difficult it was to bring down a P-47 outside of Luftwaffe records like the one that @sevenlesshas provided?

 

This is what the OP was mainly about, alluding that the in game P-47 was misrepresented in that it couldn't sustain as much damage as it real life counterpart.

 

I don't see that in game and I've yet to see any solid proof that it was super tough either.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Pict

[Legioneod]

19 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

Does anyone have any solid proof about how easy or difficult it was to bring down a P-47 outside of Luftwaffe records like the one that @sevenlesshas provided?

The US Military did a ballistics test to find out the probability of a kill when hit with various weaponry. There is a link posted somewhere in these forums.

The test aren't concrete and it's just probability but it gives you a starting point on what kinds of damage the P-47 could "possibly" take.

 

The thing that @sevenless isn't considering is that he has no idea how long or how many rounds it took to shoot down those P-47s. It could be one hit or it could have been many hits, we don't truly know.

 

I'll use an example.

 

(these numbers aren't real, just for the sake of discussion)

109s shoot down 5000 Il2s, on average it takes 5-10 hits to bring it down.

109s shoot down 1000 P-47s, on average it takes 2-3 hits to bring it down.

 

What aircraft was more difficult to kill, the one with more losses or the one with less? 

The point it that kill count alone can't tell you how difficult an aircraft is to kill, you need to know how long and how many rounds it actually took to bring the aircraft down.

 

Sevenless is saying just because the P-47 suffered losses means it must not have been hard to bring down. This is exactly the same thing as saying just because the Il2 lost 100s -1000s of aircraft it means it was easy to bring down as well ,yet plenty of people say how difficult it was to bring down the Il2.

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[Pict]

A link would be good, but as it's a probability study rather than a study of data like how many were shot down and or how many were shot up and RTB'd it's not really that useful, is it?

 

===============

 

Without solid proof it's just a speculation fest.

 

We can then speculate that the P-47 has been the victim of an over active advertising / propaganda gland. And if we consider that it cost twice as much as a P-51 and was say half as effective, then that looks like a real possibility. 

 

==============

 

But that's just speculation and we should avoid that, no?

Edited October 6, 2021 by Pict

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, Pict said:

A link would be good, but as it's a probability study rather than a study of data like how many were shot down and or how many were shot up and RTB'd it's not really that useful, is it?

I'd be glad to see that data if anyone has anything like that, until then number of losses alone can't accurately tell you the durability of an aircraft.

Edited my post above to explain what I mean.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[354thFG_Panda_]

59 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I've never been able to get close to the speed you posted on the deck, it's definitely fast if you managed that speed.

How did you get those speeds?

 

That 150 fuel test (the one that reads 70" in the chart above)

 

Full Fuel load

full ammo

wing racks

70" @ 2700rpm (dont overboost it.)

 

Test it like this and see what speeds you get. One thing to note is that the P-47 in that test used a different prop and engine than what the D-22 uses, so the speeds may be slightly different.

 

It's reasonable to assume that the P-47 would be faster than in those test if running without wing racks, a Hamilton prop, and with lighter fuel load.

Just running without wing racks and with the Hamilton prop should get you anywhere from 8-15mph increase in speed compared to the test.

Try this using Kuban map Autumn sea level.

Compare your settings speed to speed when rpm is lowered to 2550. If you haven't already use full mixture and 50% intercooler. Shutters and oil closed. Turbo full

Edited October 6, 2021 by LR.TheRedPanda

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, LR.TheRedPanda said:

Try this using Kuban map Autumn sea level.

Compare your settings speed to speed when rpm is lowered to 2550. If you haven't already use full mixture and 50% intercooler. Shutters and oil closed

I know you can do some tricks to get better speeds than what’s in the test. I was just wondering if you’d get similar speeds when conducting it using the test parameters. I tested it a long time ago to see but I can’t remember what my results were.

I don’t really like gaming the game just to get better speeds, (unless it’s a realistic thing pilots did.)

 

Either way the P47 shouldn’t get 615-620kmh (382+Mph) on the deck as far as I’m aware.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[Bremspropeller]

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

No, the Hurricane was a joke after 1940. Malta was wiped out when only the Hurricane was available to defend it. Only the Spitfire could save Malta from German air raids.

 

As for the other second rate planes the British were forced to use in the desert... it's more a testament to the Germans being spread too thin than it is to the quality of the planes mentioned.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if the Germans hadn't been slightly distracted in Russia, there's no way the British would've been able to fend them off in North Africa prior to Torch. Not a snowball's chance in hell.

 

The Hurricane wasn't "a joke". It was a valuable asset, and even when it wasn't top notch anymore, it was much better than nothing at all (or Gloster Gladiators).

The Hurri did well in other roles. Shooting down other fighters is just a fraction on an airplane's jobs. I'm not going to discuss this any further with you.

This preoccupation with only the top performing airplanes of a period is quite annoying.

 

Germany wasn't "distracted" in Russia. It was their main and only goal in the war. The distraction happened in the West and South.

 

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Nope, because the BoB's outcome didn't actually determine whether or not Germany could invade Britain. Germany was in no position to invade, something even Hitler realized. The BoB was a battle of willpower more than it was a battle of life and death for the British empire. When the British will to resist didn't shatter as Hitler wanted/expected, then he moved on with other plans. An invasion was never possible, because it was never logistically supported and properly planned. Even if every single Spitfire had been shot down, the outcome would be the same.

 

It wasn't about invading Britain but to force a truce. That's all they wanted the Brits to do. The Brits (well, Churchill) said "up yours" and they were were successfully pulling through. Whether they could have done that with an aircraft the likes of a P-47 is highly debatable.

 

That was quite a feat when facing a seemingly unbeatable army that has overrun any enemy they'd faced so far.

BTW: The real danger for Britain was hiding underneath the waves of the Atlantic. It wasn't so much the Luftwaffe (concieved too tactically) and certainly not the Heer.

 

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Also, where are you getting the idea that I'm insulting the Spit? All I said was its range was too short to go far and wide over German airspace and force the Luftwaffe to fight or attack it on the ground. Which is what the massive numbers of American fighters accomplished.

 

You're making this much more complicated an argument than it needs to be.

 

You've brought up the comparison with the supposedly unable Spitfire. It was the only game in town for quite some time and it killed a royal crapton of Luftwaffe aircraft and pilots. Deal with it.

 

Having Spitfires might have been helpful for the USAAF in the early Pacific war, too. But that's just a sidenote.

 

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Well, I would. Specifically after D-Day I would decisively call it dead. Whatever resistance it gave was wholly inadequate to what was needed of it; therefore, it was ineffective, unable to significantly inhibit enemy activities in the air or on the ground, which is another way of saying dead.

 

Resistance isn't all that easy when being cornered by several major combattants ad odds of about 20:1.

Reverse the numbers and watch the western allies crumble. Especially when your major assets are bound in another, atrocious battleground a thousand miles away.

It's that simple.

 

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

This discussion is strictly limited what killed the Luftwaffe, and more specifically, what did it the fastest.

 

So now you're putting in the constraint of "fastest". How do you measure that and how do you separate it from the fact that the killing of the Luftwaffe had been an ongoing process for the last 2-3 years? You can't.

 

You also can't just pull a random event and decide it's the single most important ingrediant.

And again: The USAAF didn't kill the Luftwaffe. It merely accelerated the inevitable outcome. Accept it and move on.

 

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Do you have some numbers on RAF air-to-air claims over France/Germany between '43 and '45? I don't. If anyone does, feel free to chime in. Otherwise this debate's going nowhere. Compare RAF claims to American claims in the same time period. If my assumption is wrong, I'll eat crow. Case closed.

 

So you're still preoccupied with western allied kill-claims.

Do you want the numbers for daytime klims or for the night?

 

 

I think everything that can be said has been said. Don't bother answering - we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

[sevenless]

51 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Sevenless is saying just because the P-47 suffered losses means it must not have been hard to bring down. This is exactly the same thing as saying just because the Il2 lost 100s -1000s of aircraft it means it was easy to bring down as well ,yet plenty of people say how difficult it was to bring down the Il2.

 

Nope. I am not saying this. Repeating it doesn´t help your argument.

[Legioneod]

9 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Yep. Doesn´t look like the Höhengruppen (109 equipped) had significant problems of shooting them down.

Source: Page 74, P-47 Thunderbolt vs Bf 109G/K - Osprey Publishing

 

8 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

If you read closely it means that it wasn´t that hard to shoot down P47s. Nothing more nothing less.

 

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

Nope. It only shows that the P47 wasn´t something like a flying tank as some online mythdreamers fantasize.

 

11 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Nope. I am not saying this. Repeating it doesn´t help your argument.

This is pretty much what you said.

 

If this isn’t what you mean the how did you come to the conclusion that the P47 must not have been hard to bring down?

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

It should be harder than other planes though. A Spitfire (unless you hit the tail with 1 13mm round) is currently harder to shoot down than a P47. It's currently the most susceptible to AP ammunition and it's speed loss is monstrous when hit by HE, it's actually easier to shoot down a P47 with .50s than it is a 109...

 

The problem is, that you need some kind of causal relationship for that, else it can´t be modelled in a flight-sim. We might have to wait for a rework of the damage model and see were that leads us.