Question: P51 Loadouts

[Tank-Ace]

If the P-47 did not carry 2500lbs worth of bombs in additon to 10 rockets, then we need to have that ability removed, not make other aircraft unrealistic.

The Fw190F8 was capable of carrying 3 500kg bombs, but that doesn't mean we should let it.


In fact, I suggested a system where we would be able to restrict the carriage of unhistorical load out combinations, even if the individual weapons were historically used, primarily for the purpose of keeping that type of thing from happening.

[Guppy35]

Much more eloquently put than my posts.

We lack proof that is ever absolutely happened, despite in order to be equiped with standard issued 5" rocket mounts (non field-mod/fab) for a P-51D mustang, you (as a wrench turner) received a standard kit including instructions, 10 front and 10 back 5" rocket mounts AND an updated/graded firing system/controller capable of 10-rockets.


Why, we have documented during WWII mustangs flying with them and even heavier loadouts on their wings that 1000lb bombs in adition to the 6 5"-rockets, specificly in teh pacific campaign.

This is why this thread likely keeps getting recreated without any concrete responce.  Everyone has 5-cents to pitch in without ever researching or looking up the documentation.

Simple things, like this:

(Image removed from quote.)

and this:

(Image removed from quote.)

proove without any need of opinion what it was quite capable of actually acomplishing.

Understand by saying I've never seen evidence it doesn't mean I'm for or against it.  In the end I don't get to decide.  The Mustangs that carried those rockets were Iwo based birds or other Pacific based birds.  By necessity they carried DTs due to the ranges they flew so it was limited to 6 rockets.  The Iwo Mustangs taking rockets to Japan ended up going overloaded with 165 gallon tanks and 6 rockets due to the range penalty caused by the drag from the rockets.

Korea Mustangs were based close enough that they went with either 6 rockets and 2 500 pounders, or 6 rockets and napalm.  I don't claim to be the be all end all of info, but I've spent a lot of time over the years digging for something to show that operational use of 10 rockets and come up zip.

I guess it comes down to HTC deciding if the loadouts were based on what they could do or what they did do.  Not my decision

[Guppy35]

O.o


This is just another whine of yours Krusty about an imaginary whine.  You talk of its noble quest yet have set your blinders so narrow as to ignore any trace of it's true integrity, lol.


We could dismiss the enitre matter of the mustang lacking it's proper and historical loadouts (capable or actualy utilised) because nobody has found a picture or researched through large amounts of documentation for "proof" of it carrying 10-rockets into combat.  But that's dismissing/selectively-ignoring the one fact from the main and undeniable underlying issue, the mustang's ordnance option in AH are wrong and/or incomplete. 

Its capability for a full 10-rocket loadout is just one (and maybe the only single one we can go out of our way to proove it wasn't utilised in WWII.  We can equally go out of way and proove that the P-47 never carried 2500lbs in bombs + 10 rockets, yet we selectively choose to ignore that over four 5" rockets?  Easier yet is to proove that it is currently available within AH.

Also lacking from the mustang is its ability to carry 110 gal (or 150 gal) drop tanks, yet looking to your logical comparison within AH of the P-47, we can see those options/choices/availability were included and made available to the community.

So, that highlights my question, why are (not just one but) multiple ordnance options for the P-51D omitted/excluded from AH?


Edit:  I really don't know why this won't load above, stupid photobucket.
(Image removed from quote.)

311th FG P47N with 2500 and 10 in the PTO near the end.  I've never seen it on a D model, but the N did lug it operationally


Best I could find in the ETO was this 404th FG bird, 9th AF  4 rockets and 1500 pounds of bombs


Best I could find in the MTO is this Brazilian flown Jug with 6 rockets and 1000 pounds of bombs and a DT.

[Babalonian]

311th FG P47N with 2500 and 10 in the PTO near the end.  I've never seen it on a D model, but the N did lug it operationally
(Image removed from quote.)

Best I could find in the ETO was this 404th FG bird, 9th AF  4 rockets and 1500 pounds of bombs
(Image removed from quote.)

Best I could find in the MTO is this Brazilian flown Jug with 6 rockets and 1000 pounds of bombs and a DT.
(Image removed from quote.)

Where'd you find the heavy N jug picture?  Great finds.

Your last picture also shows a 75gal (?) DT, which we can assume could alternatively mount a 250 or 500lb bomb.  That's very heavy for a D (?) though still...  so it warrents those choices if within factory specs/standards?

If you go back to my OP in this topic, I'm wondering why the double standards in the ordnance loadout choices provided to us.  The loadouts currently for the jugs seem within reason and documented (although it might be nice to choose a 4-rocket loadout...).


I wonder what good resources there may be for looking through lend-leased mustangs during WWII and their loadouts, perhaps you may be aware of one Guppy? 

[Guppy35]

Where'd you find the heavy N jug picture?  Great finds.

Your last picture also shows a 75gal (?) DT, which we can assume could alternatively mount a 250 or 500lb bomb.  That's very heavy for a D (?) though still...  so it warrents those choices if within factory specs/standards?

If you go back to my OP in this topic, I'm wondering why the double standards in the ordnance loadout choices provided to us.  The loadouts currently for the jugs seem within reason and documented (although it might be nice to choose a 4-rocket loadout...).


I wonder what good resources there may be for looking through lend-leased mustangs during WWII and their loadouts, perhaps you may be aware of one Guppy? 

Southern Cross Mustangs which came out recently is the must have for RAAF Mustangs and it contains all the load outs for RAF Mustangs with every last diagram you could hope for. Very pricy but well worth it if you are a Mustang fan.  Nothing we don't have in terms of load outs for wartime lend lease birds though. 

RAF birds with rockets




I think the heaviest load out you'll find is the Iwo Jima based rocket carrying Mustangs that had to take the 165 gallon tanks, along with the 6 rockets due to the drag penalty on the range to Japan and back.  And that was just the last couple months of the war in the PTO.


I don't know that the zero length launchers ever got to the ETO before the war ended.  I'm not saying never, as I don't know, but the only photos of them I've seen are post war.

This is a CBI Mustang with the rocket tubes and 110 gallon tanks, about as heavy as it was going to get.

[Babalonian]

Southern Cross Mustangs which came out recently is the must have for RAAF Mustangs and it contains all the load outs for RAF Mustangs with every last diagram you could hope for. Very pricy but well worth it if you are a Mustang fan.  Nothing we don't have in terms of load outs for wartime lend lease birds though. 

RAF birds with rockets
(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

I think the heaviest load out you'll find is the Iwo Jima based rocket carrying Mustangs that had to take the 165 gallon tanks, along with the 6 rockets due to the drag penalty on the range to Japan and back.  And that was just the last couple months of the war in the PTO.
(Image removed from quote.)

I don't know that the zero length launchers ever got to the ETO before the war ended.  I'm not saying never, as I don't know, but the only photos of them I've seen are post war.

This is a CBI Mustang with the rocket tubes and 110 gallon tanks, about as heavy as it was going to get.
(Image removed from quote.)

I'll add it to my list of books to look for that may be slightly used, thanks!

Heaviest ETO mustangs, in regards to rockets and bombs (and not DTs), I suspect would logicly have been flying on forward bases - same as the heaviest ETO P-47s you'll find.  Thing is, vast majority of ETO mustangs were not based at forward-bases providing close ground support, they were back in the rear (England & Italy) with the bombers, mostly devoted to providing long-range escort.

I believe you are correct though in assuming HTCs modeled its heaviest loadouts based on its operational lodouts in the pacific, minus their excluding of any drop tank larger than 75-gal.

[Tank-Ace]

You wanna talk double-standard, look at what we have going on with German vs Allied rides.

As babalonian knows, I'm lobbying for increased ordnance options for the 190's and 109's. The issue? There is very little photo documentation of the weapons, therefore confirmation of what was carried and what was not is difficult, and I've met with some resistance that is rather... zealous. Yet we've seen some loadouts that are kind of sketchy for the Allies (manufacturer specs state such loadouts were possible, but none confirming that it was infact an official loadout, not field-moded, and saw combat useage), and it seems there is very little attention payed to this fact.


"No photographs of a D jug carrying 2 1000lb bombs, a 500lb bomb, and 10 HVAR's? Meh, whatever, manufacturer said it was possible."

"What!? You want 250kg wing bombs for the 190? No, there is no photo documentation, and your manufacturer specs be damned!"


I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I would like all loadouts for all aircraft to be evaluated by the same standards. Give a clear set of requirments, and go through each aircraft's loadouts one by one. If it does not meet the requirments, it should be removed in the next patch. If enough discrepencies are found, the changes should constitute a patch of their own.

[beau32]

found this picture on another forum and they said the date on the picture was November 1944
http://forum.armyairforces.com/P51D-photos-with-1000-LBS-amp-rockets-m222342-p2.aspx

[lyric1]

(Image removed from quote.)
found this picture on another forum and they said the date on the picture was November 1944
http://forum.armyairforces.com/P51D-photos-with-1000-LBS-amp-rockets-m222342-p2.aspx

  I started that thread & Megalodon found the photo that is in that thread & this thread already & one other some where else here on the BBS.

[beau32]

sigh, so it is on this thread, its been a long day, my bad.

[drgondog]

I don't know that the zero length launchers ever got to the ETO before the war ended.  I'm not saying never, as I don't know, but the only photos of them I've seen are post war.

This is a CBI Mustang with the rocket tubes and 110 gallon tanks, about as heavy as it was going to get.
(Image removed from quote.)

The zero launch mod was factory standard for the -25's which were in-Theatre ETO by March 1945.  My father's 44-72953 had them - but never used them operationally.  I'll look into 354FG to see if they used them at the end of the ETO campaign.

[lyric1]

sigh, so it is on this thread, its been a long day, my bad.

We have all been there. 

[Krusty]

This is just another whine of yours Krusty about an imaginary whine.  You talk of its noble quest yet have set your blinders so narrow as to ignore any trace of it's true integrity, lol.

How can you be so incoherent and yet insult/troll/flamebait in the same line?

[Guppy35]

The zero launch mod was factory standard for the -25's which were in-Theatre ETO by March 1945.  My father's 44-72953 had them - but never used them operationally.  I'll look into 354FG to see if they used them at the end of the ETO campaign.

Looking at your first book on the 355th I see two photos of Kinnard's last 51D that show the rocket rails.  Of the photos I've seen elsewhere of ETO birds with the zero length rails, the under wing squadron codes are also there, which I've always understood meant post VE Day.  I imagine Kinnard's bird must be a D-25 like your Dad's was at the end or just after it ended?  Looking through other Mustang unit histories of the 8th, they sure don't seem to show any indication they used the rockets operationally.  I do believe the D-25s got to Iwo after June of 45 too.

The 370th FG history shows a bunch of photos of a postwar line up of their Mustangs and no rocket rails are in evidence. 

Being 364th FG happy this is what I've found there.  Babs in Arms, captioned as May 45 with rocket rails showing.


And then John Lowell's bird without any indication of them in what is a postwar underside view.


I'll be curious to what you find in your 355th FG stuff.  What I would speculate is the ETO Groups got updated with rocket rails with the assumption they might go to the PTO and need them.  But who knows?

The wait for your updated 355th history is getting harder too!

[Babalonian]

How can you be so incoherent and yet insult/troll/flamebait in the same line?

How can you always be so right and always so wrong?

Edit, let me clearify, YOU came in here claiming incompitence and that you KNEW it was specified by the factory and you KNEW it was NEVER done?! 

What research have you done to validate this certanty and superior knowledge you have on the subject at hand here and that you have already freely belittled me with?