Ready for the P-47D15-23 series

[Tank-Ace]

And people call me biased  .

[Seadog36]

Karnak, your suggestions seem to offer more of the same, without even any physical differences. You have 6 spitfires in the game already so 1200 vs 7000 seem like a major fail in that argument, what will a 7th accomplish? The slightly better performance of your 109 w 30mm without massive production numbers is even weaker. You are giving us ice in winter, not impressed.

[Tank-Ace]

Karnak, your suggestions seem to offer more of the same, without even any physical differences. You have 6 spitfires in the game already so 1200 vs 7000 seem like a major fail in that argument, what will a 7th accomplish? The slightly better performance of your 109 w 30mm without massive production numbers is even weaker. You are giving us ice in winter, not impressed.

The 109G/As models actually represent a majority of units on the Western Front. Strategic defense in the East could be almost entirely ignored, given that the Soviets never made efforts to develop a strategic bomber force. Thus virtually all /As units produced went to the west, or less common, Italy.

[LilMak]

Bf109G-6/AS would be at the top of my list.  No 3D model changes needed as far as I know.  It would have better high altitude performance and a 30mm cannon option that would make USAAF 8th Air Force vs the Luftwaffe settings much more competitive for the Germans without having to use the October 1944 Bf109K-4 in setting earlier than it ought to appear.

The Seafire Mk III could be done simply with a new flight mqodel and putting the Spitfire Mk IX's four bladded prop on the Seafire Mk II's 3D model.  It would offer significantly improved performance and it was the main production Seafire with 1200 built.  The last fighter vs fighter dogfight of WWII was Seafire Mk IIIs vs A6M5s.

The K-4 is a superior stand in for the AS. Has a 30mm too. Your above statement has no validity based on your own arguments.

Seriously!?!?!!!! You're arguing for a spit with a different prop? Sounds familiar. Oh yea! A jug with a different prop was asked for earlier in this thread.

[Seadog36]

There are 6  variants of 109 in the game, tied with spits for most represented in the game, which some falsely attribute to the 47. Show me a 109 that typifies half of all 109s produced not in the game and you will have something to equal a late razorback. I'm not suggesting a 7th variant of a well represented model, I am asking for THE CORRECT variant, which if the D-25 is retained will bring it to par with 109s and Spits for representation.

[Karnak]

Karnak, your suggestions seem to offer more of the same, without even any physical differences. You have 6 spitfires in the game already so 1200 vs 7000 seem like a major fail in that argument, what will a 7th accomplish? The slightly better performance of your 109 w 30mm without massive production numbers is even weaker. You are giving us ice in winter, not impressed.

Massive performance differences compared to a graphics difference.  I am sorry, but performance means far, far more.  We're not talking about slight differences here.

The K-4 is a superior stand in for the AS. Has a 30mm too. Your above statement has no validity based on your own arguments.

Seriously!?!?!!!! You're arguing for a spit with a different prop? Sounds familiar. Oh yea! A jug with a different prop was asked for earlier in this thread.

You want the 452mph Bf109K-4 used as a sub?  You're being intentionally absurd and you know it.  Your suggested substitution is so ridiculous it is never done, instead the German players get to struggle through with the low altitude tuned Bf109G-6, or maybe the low altitude tuned Bf109G-14.

As to the Seafire, where did I say the only difference was a different prop?  The Seafire Mk III offers a significant performance boost over the Seafire Mk II.  The fact that the only graphics difference is a four bladded prop instead of a three bladded prop is irrelevant to what it offers.  I was mentioning it as a reference for the 3D modeling work needed, not as something for you to grossly misrepresent as the only difference.

There are 6  variants of 109 in the game, tied with spits for most represented in the game, which some falsely attribute to the 47. Show me a 109 that typifies half of all 109s produced not in the game and you will have something to equal a late razorback. I'm not suggesting a 7th variant of a well represented model, I am asking for THE CORRECT variant, which if the D-25 is retained will bring it to par with 109s and Spits for representation.

Yes, there are more Spitfires and Bf109s in the game, but they have to cover all of WWII unlike the P-47s where they only have to cover the last two and a half years.  That means we have 0.857 Bf109s per year (1939-1945), 1.000 Fw190s per year (1941-1945), 1.167 Spitfires per year (1940-1945), 1.250 F4Us per year (1942-1945) and 1.667 P-47s per year (1943-1945).  P-47s have the densest coverage of any aircraft in AH.  It is unreasonable to complain that aircraft that served shorter a shorter time have fewer variants.

As to asking for the correct variant, why is the correct variant with the same performance as the incorrect variant more important than another plane's correct variant that has significantly different performance?  To me the second one looks like the stronger need.  Your asking for the correct model does not distinguish your request from mine or Tank-Ace's at all as that is true of all three of us.

[Tank-Ace]

There are 6  variants of 109 in the game, tied with spits for most represented in the game, which some falsely attribute to the 47. Show me a 109 that typifies half of all 109s produced not in the game and you will have something to equal a late razorback. I'm not suggesting a 7th variant of a well represented model, I am asking for THE CORRECT variant, which if the D-25 is retained will bring it to par with 109s and Spits for representation.

For years of service, the P-47 is the most heavily covered plane in the game.

The 109 and spitfires have 6 aircraft covering 5 years of service.

[Karnak]

The 109 and spitfires have 6 aircraft covering 5 years of service.

More, six aircraft for 1939 to 1945 for the Bf109.  That is seven years.

Spitfire/Seafire has to cover 1940 to 1945 with seven aircraft, and it served in every theater of the war.

[Tank-Ace]

[EDIT]:

Nevermind, I did some screwy math.

[Seadog36]

Lets take the 109 for example. Of the 30,000 or so built 1/3 of them were G series. 12,000 alone were the G6. Now imagine there was no G2 or G6 in the game, and you would begin to come close to the scale of the omission.

There were a total of 20,000 of all types of Spitfire, 6000 mark Vs 7000 mark IX, put those together take them out of the game and you have the scale of the ratio of late razorbacks. Tell me again how the Seafire Mark III or G6 As compare to that?

The gap in representation of 109s and Spitfires in the game is very well achieved in the game regardless of the additional 2 two years of service. It is not another mainstay fighter you are arguing for but yet another small production number uber version that has already skewed the skies of the MA to be filled with Temps, La7s,Ta152s, 109Ks and spit 16s. The over prevalence of the P-47M is an issue for me. Just having supreme performance does not equate adding something to the game. In fact it detracts IMHO.

[Karnak]

Lets take the 109 for example. Of the 30,000 or so built 1/3 of them were G series. 12,000 alone were the G6. Now imagine there was no G2 or G6 in the game, and you would begin to come close to the scale of the omission.

There were a total of 20,000 of all types of Spitfire, 6000 mark Vs 7000 mark IX, put those together take them out of the game and you have the scale of the ratio of late razorbacks. Tell me again how the Seafire Mark III or G6 As compare to that?

The gap in representation of 109s and Spitfires in the game is very well achieved in the game regardless of the additional 2 two years of service. It is not another mainstay fighter you are arguing for but yet another small production number uber version that has already skewed the skies of the MA to be filled with Temps, La7s,Ta152s, 109Ks and spit 16s. The over prevalence of the P-47M is an issue for me. Just having supreme performance does not equate adding something to the game. In fact it detracts IMHO.

You're comparing apples to oranges by gross oversimplification to blunt production numbers.  You're ignoring the massive performance differences within the Bf109G line, within the Spitfire Mk V line, within the Spitfire Mk IX line.  There were much greater differences within the Spitfire Mk V line alone than between the P-47D-23 and P-47D-25 and production numbers are completely irrelevant to that.  Those differences are what allow accurate scenarios to be created and performance differences are much, much more significant to how scenarios play out than are graphical differences.  The P-47D-25, unfortunately, does a very good job of handling the performance aspect of the P-47D-23.  I think we are all in agreement that it would have been better had the P-47D-23 been added instead of the P-47D-25 (The D-25 and D-40 {mislabled as a D-30 at the time} were the first P-47s added and the fact they were both bubble canopied probably explains why we got the D-25 instead of the D-23) but we aren't at that point.  We're at a point where the P-47D-25 does exist in AH.

Performance characteristics are what matters most in gap filling.

Looking at the first half of 1944, Western Europe, we have two main contenders in this thread.  What does the P-47D-23 bring and what does the Bf109G-6/AS bring?  The D-23 brings poorer cockpit views and slight handling changes.  The G-6/AS brings the option for the 30mm MK108 and much, much better performance up high were the fighting against the P-47s, P-51s and B-17s will happen.  Which of those changes has more of an effect on the game?

[LilMak]

You keep insisting the D-25 and the D-23 are the same plane. They are not. If they are, HT really needs to work on their physics model. The D-23 should be faster, accelerate better, and climb better if for no other reason because it has a much cleaner airframe. The D-11 is already faster (without WEP) than the D-25.

[Karnak]

You keep insisting the D-25 and the D-23 are the same plane. They are not. If they are, HT really needs to work on their physics model. The D-23 should be faster, accelerate better, and climb better if for no other reason because it has a much cleaner airframe. The D-11 is already faster (without WEP) than the D-25.

I was basing that on Seadog36's statements earlier in the thread that it was the same as the D-25, just a razorback.

How much faster and better climbing would you expect?  To match the differences I was talking about between the G-6 and G-6/AS or within the Spit V line they would need to be very, very significant.

[Seadog36]

You keep insisting the D-25 and the D-23 are the same plane. They are not. If they are, HT really needs to work on their physics model. The D-23 should be faster, accelerate better, and climb better if for no other reason because it has a much cleaner airframe. The D-11 is already faster (without WEP) than the D-25.

Thank you LilMak.

Ok so the G6 As has better high alt performance and a 30mm with vomparatively production numbers yet the K, which looks identical and performs nearly identically won't do? HTC got it right that's why the 109G6As is not in the game
The illustration of Spitfire and 109s models in the game vs P47s is spot on. If fighter aircraft are apples, what are the oranges?

[Karnak]

Thank you LilMak.

Ok so the G6 As has better high alt performance and a 30mm with vomparatively production numbers yet the K, which looks identical and performs nearly identically won't do? HTC got it right that's why the 109G6As is not in the game
The illustration of Spitfire and 109s models in the game vs P47s is spot on. If fighter aircraft are apples, what are the oranges?

The Bf109G-6/AS and Bf109K-4 do not perform even remotely close to identically.  Just because the Bf109G-6/AS has a high blown engine does not mean it has the same high blown engine.  The Bf109K-4 is probably 35-40mph faster than the Bf109G-6/AS, climbs much better and does not have the option for 20mm cannons.

Saying that kind of crap to make the marginal differences between the D-23 and D-25 sound comparable does not help your argument.  It merely makes you look hopelessly biased.

The D-23 would fill a small gap.  The Spitfire Mk Vc, Bf109G-6/AS or Seafire Mk III would fill  a large gap, a gap in which the performance of the aircraft being used historically at those times is very different from the performance of the aircraft used in AH as substitutes.

You guys are much, much more knowledgeable about P-47s than I am.  Based on your posts you don't seem to know much about WWII aircraft outside of P-47s though.  This seems to be leading you to false equivalency beliefs based on aircraft naming schemes, something that varied wildly from nation to nation and even within some nations, and a focus on production numbers to the exclusion of all else.

Sure, production numbers would be relevant in the extreme, but nobody is suggesting some double digit production aircraft would bring more to the game than the D-23.