Author Topic: Don't shoot me for asking .....  (Read 2257 times)

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #15 on: January 01, 2001, 02:42:00 PM »
thx for info, i have been proven wrong on the ability of the c hog  

i had thought those deletions (pylons and tailgear) were why the c hog climbs and turns better. Has anyone in fact calculated the weight of 6 m2 v 4 hispano (each with ammo) ?


Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #16 on: January 01, 2001, 04:35:00 PM »
Zigrat:

Browning M2 weighs: 70 lbs
1 belted round of .50 weighs (approx): .305 lb
6xM2 + 2350 .50 rounds weigh: 1137 lbs

Hispano weighs: 129 lbs
belted round of 20mm weighs (approx): .653 lb
4xHis + 932 20mm rounds weigh: 1125 lbs

Data from page 133 in "America's Hundred Thousand".

Pyro has stated before that the 1C and 1D use the same FM but the 1C weighs about 200lbs less.  This would indicate about a 1.5% increase in climb and turn performance.  IMO the C-Hog advantages vs the D-hog in turn and climb are mostly imaginary.  FWIW I can't tell the difference flying them or fighting against them.

Hooligan

Hans

  • Guest
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2001, 07:40:00 PM »
Marine aircraft all have to be carrier qualified, as do the Marine pilots.

C model corsairs should have their tailhook, though crews based on land may take them off to lighten the aircraft.  However, that would not be a standard configuration.

We only get the standard configuration model, including its tail hook.

Hans.

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2001, 07:52:00 PM »
thx for the info hooligan  

personally, i dont have much of a problem with the f4u-1c, excepting its ability versus armor (which i believe is more due to improper armor damage models rather than incorrect hispano modeling)


Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2001, 12:40:00 AM »
Zigrat:

Standard ammo belting for British Hispanos was a mix of AP/I and HE/I.  The HE/I shouldn't be very good against tank armor, but the AP/I should penetrate something like 45mm at short range.  With the added velocity of an aircraft going 300mph this is another 5 or 10mm.  Against later war tanks this isn't that great, but the Pz IV in AH isn't in that class.  Regardless they should easily knock the tracks off of any tank.

Offline Jekyll

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
      • http://www.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2001, 03:00:00 AM »
Sorry Torgo, but I disagree with the idea of perking the CHog.  Performance-wise, it is supposedly identical with the DHog.  It's only advantage is in its guns.

Skurj, I admit that my references are not the best, but I had read that the entire 200 CHogs were delivered to the 4th Marine Air Wing.  Now, although Marine Hogs could land on carriers, it WAS common practice to remove tailhooks for airfield operations.

Heck, even VF-17 removed their tailhooks when they were operating from land-based fields.

Offline pzvg

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2001, 10:02:00 AM »
Sorry Hooligan, no dice on that one
Against the TOP armor,the 20mm should be able to pene any tank up to about 1955,
against frontal armor, it would,and did fail against PzII's and btw, the IVH is a late war tank FYI  

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

Offline Torgo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2001, 10:14:00 AM »
Jekyll,

Um, the guns are a pretty big deal.

At some level the MA is an APPROXIMATION of reality. Yes, I know, as is inevitably pointed out, WWII wasn't a three sided war between countries named after chess pieces.

But as it stands now, the CHog gets more kills in the arena in a couple hours than it did in all of WWII.

I don't think the CHog manevering model is porked, I haven't seen them do impossible things, but I think it's just simply unseemly to have so many of the AC in the arena be an aircraft which was a tiny footnote in the history of fighter AC in WWII.

Stats from last tour...(note you can't do a search for sorties per plane, unfortunately, so I'm using kills)

F4U-1C:  15,513 kills

Next closest fighter aircraft:

N1K2:   6,176
SpitIX: 5,944
P51D:   5,280

So the CHog has almost as many kills as the next three most popular aircraft COMBINED.

And it's gonna be MUCH worse this tour. Of the above 4 AC, only ONE is CV-Capable. And a lot of people like flying off CVs :-)

Someone give me ONE reason why AH would be a WORSE game if the CHog was perked. Just one. How would people's enjoyment of the game be reduced?  

The main reason to perk it, though, is simply that it was a rare AC.

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2001, 10:47:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Jekyll:
Sorry Torgo, but I disagree with the idea of perking the CHog.  Performance-wise, it is supposedly identical with the DHog.  It's only advantage is in its guns.

Skurj, I admit that my references are not the best, but I had read that the entire 200 CHogs were delivered to the 4th Marine Air Wing.  Now, although Marine Hogs could land on carriers, it WAS common practice to remove tailhooks for airfield operations.

Heck, even VF-17 removed their tailhooks when they were operating from land-based fields.


Hmm as this is my first post on this thread... Check your data more carefully Jekyll <$>    

And to add..  The british (i think) who had F4's removed the hooks and also did not have the folding wing gear, and they even had some f4's without the wing tanks.  Now those F4's would outperform both those which we have in the MA  

AKskurj


[This message has been edited by SKurj (edited 01-02-2001).]

Offline Jekyll

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
      • http://www.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2001, 02:24:00 AM »
A helpful and informative post skurj.

Just WHICH data should I check more carefully?

A bit of data from your end might just have helped !

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2001, 01:00:00 PM »
pzvg:

The PzIV is only really safe against Hispano fire from the front.  Other late war tanks, like the Pz V for example have much better all around protection.  Armor on the Pz IV series is pretty unimpressive compared to its late war contemporaries.

Hooligan

Offline pzvg

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2001, 10:34:00 AM »
CC, it is that. That's what you get when you basically keep adding a bigger gun on an old design to keep it within shouting distance of the neighbors. But, The Hispano should not be able to pene the side skirt and side armor, It simply doesn't retain enough energy to pene both of them, but that's all academic anyway, since armor usage in the MA is hampered by too many factors that won't be changing anytime soon, Not a shot at HTC by anymeans, I understand what they're about I think, but the panzers will probably remain simple fun, after all it's Aces High  

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2001, 11:26:00 AM »
That adds up to four 20's equaling twelve 50 calibers, judged by those standards. Of course you have other advantages of the 20. You have much greater penetration of armor. The 20 will go thru 3/4 inch of armor at 500 yards, while the 50 cal, will go through only .43 inchs.[/b]

From: The Report of the Joint Fighter Conference, edited by Francis Dean is availble from Schiffer Military History. ISBN # 0-7643-0404-6

Panzer IV H armor:

Front Armor = 82.0
Side Armor = 30.0
Rear Armor = 21.0
Front Turret = 80.0
Side Turret = 33.0
Rear Turret = 30.0
Top Armor = 10.0

According to the book, at 500 yards (with no ammo specified, but given that penetration it is more then likely AP, AP/I on US face hardened steel thats not generally as tough as German corrugated armor) it can penetrate 19mm of armor.


Quoted from one of my babbelfests

Thats a round landing perpendicular to the armor, something that rarely, if ever happens at aircraft attack angles. You can usually throw out 50% of all shells because of angle of penetration, and belting mix (hits are spread out depending on AP to HE ratio as the HE generally explode on impact). Given angle effect, that 30mm of armor can come out to the effect of several more inches armor. A penetration of 45mm (1.7 inches) would probably somewhere under 150 yards ( making a perpendicular shot at that range without ramming the target would be just slightly difficult   )

The side skirts are only 5mm's thick, but even this is enough to slow the round down enough to severly hamper penetration (and cause deflection away from the main armor as it travels between the skirt and the next hard object on the tank, usually the side armor or the upper guide wheels)

Say it still manages to get through the hull armor without shattering, deflecting, etc. The only real threat now is a AP/I landing in the ammo storage. There are other possible fatalities, such as armor spall fragments from partial penetration etc but unless the ammo or fuel goes off the tank won't be knocked immediately out of action, albeit it's movement stopped or slowed.

But anyway, arguing penetration, armor strength, armor thickness, etc is all pretty silly without taking into account angle of penetration.

And besides all that I've got the feeling penetration in AH is modeled on weight of fire. Which is no big deal, other then giving two planes a much larger advantage. But it's simple, it works (sorta), and it probably won't change until HTC has dealt with more important game play issues.

- Jig

[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 01-04-2001).]

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2001, 11:34:00 AM »
Btw WHY IS the 1C lighter then the 1D? removed fuel tanks?

And didn't some Marine units have the F4U's without carrier gear as well (folding wing gear, tail hooks)?

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Don't shoot me for asking .....
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2001, 11:35:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Jekyll:
A helpful and informative post skurj.

Just WHICH data should I check more carefully?

A bit of data from your end might just have helped !


You confused me with DejaVu  

AKskurj