P47 video

[Bemused]

Is this just hyperbolic nonsense: 

 

 

I expect pilots to speak fondly of the plane they mostly flew in, but the claims that it can absorb more damage than other fighters doesn't ring very true in my experience in IL2. The first comment states "My granddad flew a P-47 Thunderbolt in Europe WW2, bubble canopy , he told my dad, he would fly straight at the German BF 109s, and FW 190s, and they would always peel off, because the 47 was a wrecking machine with heavy armor and 50 cal guns and cannons, and it always brought him home".  Leaving aside the "cannons" I'm genuinely curious about this.  Is it an interesting reflection on broad brush-stroke media that tells a good story or is it ruggedness under-represented in IL2?

 

I know a big difference is in the historical vs the game context e.g. outnumbered Luftwaffe with more poorly trained pilots; most P47 combat happening at high altitude where the 47 would have an advantage....it's just the "ruggedness" I find meh (to quote the kids nowadays). 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

From the Smithsonian

https://www.si.edu/object/republic-p-47d-30-ra-thunderbolt%3Anasm_A19600306000

 

"Of the 15,683 P-47s built, about two-thirds reached overseas commands. A total of 5,222 were lost-1,723 in accidents not related to combat. The Jug flew more than half a million missions and dropped more than 132 thousand tons of bombs."

 

So of the ones that made it overseas 33% lost to combat.

 

I think my math is ok 100*(5222-1723)/(0.67*15683).

 

EDIT, I think this just the D model but give an idea

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by -TBC-AeroAce

[[CPT]Crunch]

Whats wrong with games is the tempo of war, giving a false sense of extreme danger.  In actual war the pace is much slower, you might have a thousand plane raid with massive slaughter going on one day, but it would be another month and a half before another could be planned and patched together.  There was a deliberate command plan to spread and limit the hardship and danger exposures for aircrews based on sorties and time flown. 

 

To be entertaining a game has a different plan and agenda, not much point in running comparisons, completely different environments.  Your opponents ain't in it for survival nor are they concerned with winning any war.

[Skycat1969]

Anecdotal stories tell of P-47s sustaining incredible battle damage and returning home. Robert Johnson's getting repeatedly blasted at and then saluted by an incredulous Luftwaffe pilot is probably the most famous, but there are tales of pilots returning home with several cylinders shot out, or propellers bent, rudder cables severed, cannon shells embedded in fuel tanks, etc. To paraphrase a pilot adage of the time, "Fly a P-51 if you want to get the girls. Fly a P-47 if you want to get home."

 

And then there is the game which gives the P-47 a glass jaw. You can literally shoot it down with a WWI biplane if you're persistent enough. I try not to be suspicious that the developers have an agenda against the P-47 ("Soviet records say it was terrible so it is") but it does frustrate me that it is one of the least survivable aircraft in the game.

[354thFG_Panda_]

22 minutes ago, Skycat1969 said:

I try not to be suspicious that the developers have an agenda against the P-47 ("Soviet records say it was terrible so it is") but it does frustrate me that it is one of the least survivable aircraft in the game.

 

There is no agenda. The Thunderbolt performance in vertical and horizontal is poor at most altitudes and only likes flying in straight lines. It is a bad fighter if it can even be considered a fighter at all.

 

Don't expect more of it than it really was.

Edited May 24, 2023 by theRedPanda

[Trooper117]

[Hotaru_Ito]

Damage and resiliency are some of the fuzziest aspects of aircraft performance, not something you can put numbers to. It's very hard to get it exactly right, or even to figure out what "exactly right" should be.

 

That said, I do feel like the P-47 is bizarrely weak in this game, especially the wings, where even one 20mm hit makes the plane nearly unflyable. It certainly doesn't live up to its historical reputation for ruggedness.

 

Still, it's not so bad if you know how to fly it. You have to be very careful with energy, but it has great firepower, an excellent bomb and rocket load, and a powerful engine with a good boost. I've had a couple of great careers on it, and it really grew on my after a few dogfights and a few victories.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

1 hour ago, theRedPanda said:

 

There is no agenda. The Thunderbolt performance in vertical and horizontal is poor at most altitudes and only likes flying in straight lines. It is a bad fighter if it can even be considered a fighter at all.

 

Don't expect more of it than it really was.

 

hahahahahaha

*Ignores turbosupercharger and high speed performance at altitude relative to its opponents*

*Ignores the fact that speed and team tactics are far more important in a real fight*

*Ignores that the P-47M was the fastest piston fighter of the war*

*Ignores the fact that the highest scoring 8th AF FG flew them and refused to switch to Mustangs*

Conclusion: Don't ignore things.

Edited May 24, 2023 by =IRFC=Artun

[ROCKET_KNUT]

Staying with it was the easier part, 2600hp didn´t hurt though ?.

Shooting it down was a different matter. I know, my shooting sucks, only hitting vital parts at point blank range. ?

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by ROCKET_KNUT
"for various reasons"

[DBFlyguy]

So... how long before this one gets unceremoniously moved into the "ignore pile" (ie FM/AI discussion forums)....

 

I say an hour ...two tops ?

[LukeFF]

25 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

So... how long before this one gets unceremoniously moved into the "ignore pile" (ie FM/AI discussion forums)....

 

I say an hour ...two tops ?

 

If people don't heed the rules of the forum, then faster than a P-47's dive speed. ?

 

The conversation has come dangerously close to the line a few times here so far (e.g., the comment about there being an agenda against it). But, if people keep their heads cool about what they post, then the topic will stay open, but if not, the padlock will be employed.

[Sobilak]

On 5/24/2023 at 7:39 AM, =IRFC=Artun said:

*Ignores the fact that the highest scoring 8th AF FG flew them and refused to switch to Mustangs*

Conclusion: Don't ignore things.

8th Air Force

56th FG on P-47  from 13 April 1943 to 8 May 1945 -674.5 aerial victories. 25 months of combat.

357th FG on P-51   from 11 February 1944 to 8 May 1945 - 595.5 aerial victories. 15 months of combat.

 

9th Air Force

354th FG on P-51 from December 1943 to 8 May 1935 - 701 aerial victories. 17 months of combat.

 

This daes not detract from the greatness of P-47, but the P-51 had a better kill-to mission ratio.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

38 minutes ago, Sobilak said:

8th Air Force

56th FG on P-47  from 13 April 1943 to 8 May 1945 -674.5 aerial victories. 25 months of combat.

357th FG on P-51   from 11 February 1944 to 8 May 1945 - 595.5 aerial victories. 15 months of combat.

 

9th Air Force

354th FG on P-51 from December 1943 to 8 May 1935 - 701 aerial victories. 17 months of combat.

 

This daes not detract from the greatness of P-47, but the P-51 had a better kill-to mission ratio.

Absolutely fair, but those 25 months include all variants of the Thunderbolt, including the Cs and early D models when it definitely was a great big turd. The early models also didn’t have the wing drop tank pylons, so couldn’t penetrate on sorties nearly as far.

 

Comparing the same 15 months would probably tell a different story, starting with early ‘44.

[356thFS_Melonfish]

IRL the 51 did what the USAAC needed of it better than the 47. It escorted bombers for further.

both planes have brilliant pro's, and a couple of cons.

ultimately the AAC needed the plane to be able to escort the bombers as far as possible without running out of fuel, or oil, so they could get bombs on target.

that is why the squadrons were switched en masse

 

They knew the 47 was a fantastic ground attack craft and had brilliant survivability, the old joke was that if being shot at the pilot should unbuckle his seatbelt and run around the cockpit, but the truth was they were built like a damned tank, pilots flew them into trees, took direct flak hits and lost cylinder heads etc and still made it home. it was rugged! and that's not talking about the insane payload they could take.

From when the 51 was early doors as the A-36 they knew a single shot to that belly radiator put paid to any aspirations of further flying, it was time to get home and quick, despite this they were still used in Korea (the 51) because once again, flight/loiter time won out. Though this has been argued in fairness especially with the later mark of 47.

 

Oddly though the in game 47 has got me home after being hit more often than not, I can't say that about a lot of other planes, I dunno, survivor bias perhaps?

My only gripe is that the 28 doesn't climb as well as the 22, I hope that is looked at in the future, otherwise the 47 is a joy at altitude and those 8 50's have enough ammo you can practically sink a battleship (this may be hyperbole, but i'm willing to test the theory)

 

 

 

 

 

[DBFlyguy]

51 minutes ago, Sobilak said:

8th Air Force

56th FG on P-47  from 13 April 1943 to 8 May 1945 -674.5 aerial victories. 25 months of combat.

357th FG on P-51   from 11 February 1944 to 8 May 1945 - 595.5 aerial victories. 15 months of combat.

 

9th Air Force

354th FG on P-51 from December 1943 to 8 May 1935 - 701 aerial victories. 17 months of combat.

 

This daes not detract from the greatness of P-47, but the P-51 had a better kill-to mission ratio.

I LOVE the P-51, it's my favorite WWII fighter and usually what I fly in GB but  just comparing the kill ratio number without context between the P-47 and P-51 is misleading... The Luftwaffe of early 1943 (when the P-47 showed up in the ETO) was drastically a different animal than the Luftwaffe of 1944 onwards.  P-47s also flew over 200,000 more sorties than the P-51 and still managed to have a lower combat loss ratio in the ETO/MTO.  Then you also have to look at it's record against the Japanese which was respectable as well.

 

Concerning OP's initial post.  I would definitely like the P-47 in GB to get a bit more time in the oven...  but unfortunately that ship has sailed.

Edited May 24, 2023 by DBFlyguy

[=IRFC=Tunes]

37 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

I LOVE the P-51, it's my favorite WWII fighter and usually what I fly in GB but  just comparing the kill ratio number without context between the P-47 and P-51 is misleading... The Luftwaffe of early 1943 (when the P-47 showed up in the ETO) was drastically a different animal than the Luftwaffe of 1944 onwards.  P-47s also flew over 200,000 more sorties than the P-51 and still managed to have a lower combat loss ratio in the ETO/MTO.  Then you also have to look at it's record against the Japanese which was respectable as well.

 

Concerning OP's initial post.  I would definitely like the P-47 in GB to get a bit more time in the oven...  but unfortunately that ship has sailed.

Well said.

[Skycat1969]

For the record I was only venting frustration about the damage model. My comment was not meant to actually be an accusation of any kind, or a suggestion that the P-47 should be a more agile dogfighter.

 

Other sims have treated the P-47D worse IMO. One or two hits in CFS-3 were usually immediately fatal. I don't think any sim has gotten the P-47's completely right. IL-2 BON are BOBP are better than most and I'm happy to have what we do.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Skycat1969

[86Cheese]

Ive always felt the P47 we have in game can take some pretty serious punishment but the giant bubble canopy seems to get my pilot killed more than in other planes. That may also just be because I'm bad though.

 

 

One thing I'll say about GB's P47 is at least it has realistic handling based on the performance data available. And at least compressibility is a thing.

 

The 'other sim' turned the P47 into a literal UFO at altitude and death trap on the deck Compressibility straight up doesnt exist. You can do a vertical dive from 40k ft and have full elevator authority all the down. The worst part is the devs consistently cite a single graph from a 400+ page USAAF performance analysis  comparing various P47 models to justify every weird anomaly in their FM. This is despite the fact that that the one graph they're citing is based on the P47N, which isn't even the one modeled, and what the document does say about the D models is so far off whats in game it might as well be a different plane. It seems to line up with GB's thunderbolt pretty close though. There is a 30 page topic on their forum about the P47's FM, it's a bit controversial.

 

The damage model also makes it feel like dogfighting in a tin can. I swear, you take two hits of 7.92 from the ground and that thing just wants to roll over and give up. And the random engine bearing failures, my goodness. 

 

I imagine the GB team based their flight model on the correct sections of the same document.

 

It's interesting that of the airframes that are modeled in both sims, most feel pretty similar with the exception of the P47 and Fw 190 and the P47 is a contentious topic in both communities.

[FuriousMeow]

Are there any good pictures of Johnson's shot up P47? I've only seen one or two, and aside from a clear 20mm behind the cockpit and I think one more somewhere in the rear fuselage (and they are just exploded skin not much damage) it definitely doesn't look like it took as much damage as has been written - and certainly nothing that made me go "wow, can't believe that made it back."

[Bemused]

To be clear, I am not debating the performance or firepower, just how "rugged" it is.  It would be nice if it at least had that "advantage".  As is, and as per comments above, I find it less robust than most other fighters and controls seem to be more negatively impacted by hits.  

[Bemused]

On 5/24/2023 at 4:25 PM, LukeFF said:

 

If people don't heed the rules of the forum, then faster than a P-47's dive speed. ?

 

The conversation has come dangerously close to the line a few times here so far (e.g., the comment about there being an agenda against it). But, if people keep their heads cool about what they post, then the topic will stay open, but if not, the padlock will be employed.

 

I think most of the conversation has been to the point of the original question.  Please don't close it due to one or two bad eggs ?

 

Can I ask why it was moved to "Free subject"?  The question is directly related to the modelling of a plane in the game and the associated damage model.  As regards the latter, any insights into what difference (if any) the larger frame of the P47 makes in terms of survivability and retention of control following damage would be appreciated.  From a relatively simplistic point of view one expects larger aircraft to be able to take more damage, barring a critical hit, no? 

[FuriousMeow]

The G4M is quite large, and yet couldn't take much damage.

[LukeFF]

On 5/28/2023 at 2:56 AM, Bemused said:

Can I ask why it was moved to "Free subject"?  The question is directly related to the modelling of a plane in the game and the associated damage model. 

 

Fair enough - I'll move it back. 

[FeuerFliegen]

I once read a quote from a pilot who flew both the P-51 and P-47.  This isn't verbatim, but it was something like this -

 

"The P-51 was like a Ferrari; the P-47 was like a Buick Roadmaster.  The choice was clear- which one would you rather take into a demolition derby?"

 

The way things are now,  I would never imagine someone in IL-2 BoX taking a 47 over a 51 into a fight because of it's durability.

 

IMO, shooting down a P-47 should be similar to shooting down an IL-2.  It can be done, but Axis pilots routinely are annoyed with how many rounds they had to put into it before it would go down. 

[oFlyingDutchman]

Shameless plugin, but ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85y80l5A-vs

The P47, imo, requires a diferent mindset, but there's nothing compared to the sound of those 8x .50cal firing, and you bet that either the german is gonna be on fire, or have pieces of hans all over the cockpit

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by oFlyingDutchman

[the_emperor]

1 hour ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

I would never imagine someone in IL-2 BoX taking a 47 over a 51 into a fight because of it's durability.

 

The P-51 would (is) also be my choice. Currently the P-51 airframe can take a high (maybe too high) amount of damage and stay in the air (and often brought me back over friendly lines), often multiple 30mm hits.

 

[FuriousMeow]

Why would the P47 be like the IL-2? The IL-2 is ground up built as an armored bathtub for the pilot, and there are lots of places where the airframe itself is very thick armored metal. The P-47 not so much. The P-47 has basically the same armored areas as the P-51 - oil reservoir armor, pilot seat armor, armored windscreen, but the airframe itself isn't any more armored. The big difference is lack of glycol radiator, the big radial was what got the plane home in real life. The P-51 and P-47 were both survivable, just one pilot would end up in a POW camp vs the other because the engine could take the damaged airframe further.

[LukeFF]

43 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

Why would the P47 be like the IL-2? The IL-2 is ground up built as an armored bathtub for the pilot, and there are lots of places where the airframe itself is very thick armored metal. The P-47 not so much. The P-47 has basically the same armored areas as the P-51 - oil reservoir armor, pilot seat armor, armored windscreen, but the airframe itself isn't any more armored. The big difference is lack of glycol radiator, the big radial was what got the plane home in real life. The P-51 and P-47 were both survivable, just one pilot would end up in a POW camp vs the other because the engine could take the damaged airframe further.

 

Yep, and Dakota Territory, a company that has worked on P-47 restorations here in the US, has mentioned that in the past. They remarked on how people like to call the P-47 a "flying tank", but in reality, the amount of armor that was protecting the pilot wasn't all that vastly different from contemporary planes - there's only so much armor one can add before a plane becomes decidedly unpleasant to fly:

 

https://www.aircorpsaviation.com/july-august-dakota-territory-air-museum-p-47-update-4/

 

However, the common description of the Thunderbolt as a flying tank is a little extreme. A tank is heavily armored. Calling the P-47 a tank implies that it carried more armor than other fighters. The armor plate installed in US fighters in WWII was pretty much limited to a plate behind the pilot, and sometimes a smaller one just in front of the cockpit. Almost all had bulletproof glass in front of the pilot, either in the windshield itself as P-51s and later P-47s had, or a separate glass plate inside the cockpit enclosure as the razorback P-47s used.

 

[ZachariasX]

Yet, twice the weight, twice the metal to shoot at...

[MisterSmith]

I'm a Mod and I can't see this one lasting much longer. Tread lightly.

[czech693]

Did you ever see a P-51 do this?

[LukeFF]

24 minutes ago, czech693 said:

Did you ever see a P-51 do this?

 

No, because that's a photoshopped image:

 

[Gambit21]

These guys did a great Job on the P-47 model and textures...it looks fantastic.

 

Also, the good news is that if you want to fly a properly modeled Jug with a proper R2800 Double Wasp, this does now exist in a combat flight sim.

 

See what I did there? ☝️

[FuriousMeow]

"Immersive"

 

 

[DBFlyguy]

1 hour ago, FuriousMeow said:

"Immersive"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm.....

 

 

 

 

Let's not like act IL-2 is perfect in the "immersive" department.  Each game does things better and worse than the other.

Edited May 31, 2023 by DBFlyguy

[FeuerFliegen]

The P-47's durability has nothing to do with armor.  There are so many other aspects to the plane's durability that to say it shouldn't be more durable simply because of it's limited armor is disingenuous.

[czech693]

19 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

No, because that's a photoshopped image:

 

 Yep, you're right as usual.  I should have caught the HV squadron code.  It was Lt. Raymundo da Costa Canário in the 1st Brazilian Fighter Group in Italy.  I believe these are the actual photos.

Just to confirm the ruggedness of the P-47 here are some more photos of aircraft that made it back.   One a ground strike with the prop (what took Gabby out), AAA cannon round through the prop, and vented all oil out (no engine timer).

[Guest deleted@83466]

Those last two pictures are pretty slick.

[FuriousMeow]

Spoiler

7 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

 

 

 

Hmmm.....

 

 

 

 

Let's not like act IL-2 is perfect in the "immersive" department.  Each game does things better and worse than the other.

 

 

I'm not, I'm not the one that said there are more immersive options out there. Context and all that.

4 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

The P-47's durability has nothing to do with armor.  There are so many other aspects to the plane's durability that to say it shouldn't be more durable simply because of it's limited armor is disingenuous.

 

Then what is? The engine? Because I mentioned that. The airframe is no different than any other, so why should it suddenly be more durable? There's been no offered facts, data or evidence as to why the P-47 should be more durable than other fighters other than referencing legends and conjecture. Even the photos really don't show much, we can find other airframes with significant damage that RTBd. Also, you said shooting down the P-47 should be like shooting down the Il-2. The only thing that makes the Il-2 the Il-2 and difficult to shoot down is the airframe is heavily armored.

 

1 hour ago, czech693 said:

Spoiler

 Yep, you're right as usual.  I should have caught the HV squadron code.  It was Lt. Raymundo da Costa Canário in the 1st Brazilian Fighter Group in Italy.  I believe these are the actual photos.

Just to confirm the ruggedness of the P-47 here are some more photos of aircraft that made it back.   One a ground strike with the prop (what took Gabby out), AAA cannon round through the prop, and vented all oil out (no engine timer).

 

 

The first photo is not real, the second one is. But that really doesn't indicate much either in any of those photos. The P47 took damage and returned to base, lots of planes did that.

 

Here's a Spitfire's wing that took flak damage, guess it should be made out non-destructium then.

Edited May 31, 2023 by FuriousMeow

[FeuerFliegen]

2 hours ago, FuriousMeow said:

Then what is? The engine? Because I mentioned that. The airframe is no different than any other, so why should it suddenly be more durable? There's been no offered facts, data or evidence as to why the P-47 should be more durable than other fighters other than referencing legends and conjecture. Even the photos really don't show much, we can find other airframes with significant damage that RTBd. Also, you said shooting down the P-47 should be like shooting down the Il-2. The only thing that makes the Il-2 the Il-2 and difficult to shoot down is the airframe is heavily armored.

 

 

It's much more nuanced than that and it's not so simple / easy to quantify aspects of a plane's durability.  I have read that many little things such as overall build quality of the bolts, welds, connections, thickness of spars, redundant features, etc., among many other things that appear to be irrelevant on their own, all of which add up into something that can take a real beating and survive to tell it's story.  Because it's no one single aspect or feature, it's very easy to dismiss the P-47 and assume that it's going to be shot down as easily as an A6M Zero with self-sealing fuel tanks.

 

Overall I'm going to put my faith into the opinions of the crews, pilots, leaders, etc. who were there and experienced them, and had no incentive to sell anyone on the fact that the P-47, over and over again, would show it's ability to take one hell of a beating relative to many other similar planes of the era.