Ready for the P-47D15-23 series

[Karnak]

The razorback should accelerate marginally better and be more stable in the yaw. It's a cleaner airframe than the Bubble top Jugs. Dorsal fins were added to late model Jugs to correct some of the yaw instability.

As I said, a slight handling difference.  You P-47 guys are doing an exceptionally poor job selling this thing as a needed addition.

Last I checked, you didn't solely control which aircraft get added or when. What the OP is asking for isn't unreasonable and shouldn't take a tremendous amount of work. The "gap" it fills is the most widely produced model of the most widely produced American fighter of the war. While you might consider it a waste of resources, there are others who consider it to be just the opposite.

And I never claimed to have any control over what gets added.  This is a public forum in which we players debate things.  HTC can take your advice or my advice or ignore both of us as they wish.

I am not denying I am a P-47 fan.  My opinion leans that way - no doubt about it.  I also know little about the AC and agree with Seadog that it should be added for the reasons already stated.  I said as much to HiTech when I visited the HTC office last December.

As Seadog and LilMak have not been able to articulate why it is an important addition, could you please explain it?  It really doesn't seem to add anything to the game other than for hardcore P-47 fans.  It seems directly comparable to a Spitfire fan asking for a bubble canopy Mk XIV or Mk XVI, something I have also argued against for the same reasons when it has been requested.

Heck, I argue against the Halifax being added because it is so similar to the Lancaster and they are 100% different airplanes. So please don't feel I am singling out the P-47 when I argue against the P-47D-23.

[Randy1]

I'll have to look through my books for the hard numbers but I have read several 56th pilot's books/memoirs and some have stated the razorback was more stable and less forgiving than the "super bolt".  I'll spend some time this weekend to see if I can dig up some hard numbers; if for nothing else than to answer Randy's question.

I found an untraceable source that the weight increase was just under a 100 pounds between a D10 and a D25.  This was a post on a forum so no hard facts.

I found this too about the radios weight and thought it interesting.  p-47 radios weight 248 pounds! Lots of tubes and cooper.

[Jed]

+1. Hope to see it added soon

[LilMak]

As Seadog and LilMak have not been able to articulate why it is an important addition, could you please explain it?  It really doesn't seem to add anything to the game other than for hardcore P-47 fans.  It seems directly comparable to a Spitfire fan asking for a bubble canopy Mk XIV or Mk XVI, something I have also argued against for the same reasons when it has been requested.

Heck, I argue against the Halifax being added because it is so similar to the Lancaster and they are 100% different airplanes. So please don't feel I am singling out the P-47 when I argue against the P-47D-23.

First off, you should never argue against any variant of any aircraft being added. More is always better. Second, the we've argued that the D-23 is likely a superior fighter to the D-25. Since that's not good enough for you, I'll be sure to chime in in any thread where you recommend a plane be added and tell you your reasons are invalid. Third, there have been more that a few planes HT and everybody else knew would be hangar queens which were added anyway. The D-23 would be a competitive aircraft in the MA. Which is more than you can say for the likes of the Yak-7, most of the P-40 lineup, and planes like the KI-43. While you're arguing things that shouldn't be added or have no reflection on game play, why don't you add terrain, water effects and so on. All are useless according to your logic.

[Karnak]

I am not saying it is a hangar queen.  I couldn't care less if it would be a hangar queen, so long as it filled a gap.

The posts comparing it to the P-47D-25 have made it sound like the difference, other than graphics, would be extremely slight.

Understand that when talking about adding aircraft it is always a tradeoff so saying that people should never argue against it ignores the fact that there is limited resources available to add them.  If resources weren't limited, then yes, add everything of course, but the fact is that adding the P-47D-23 means not adding something else and my issue with it is that the P-47D-23 seems to bring less to the table than many other things that HTC could use that effort to add.  The lack of bang for their buck is why I argue against adding things like the P-47D-23, bubble top Spitfires XIV and XVI, Halifax or Mosquito B.Mk IX.

[Seadog36]

The D-23 would undoubtedly see tremendous use in the game, that is really reason enough. That combined with the historical correction and the minimal amount of developmental resources to do it, it is a slam dunk.

[Karnak]

The D-23 would undoubtedly see tremendous use in the game, that is really reason enough. That combined with the historical correction and the minimal amount of developmental resources to do it, it is a slam dunk.

That has not been demonstrated.  Where would it see tremendous use?  Not in the MA as you well know, so you must be talking about scenarios.  That means it will only see tremendous use by cannibalizing the use of the P-47D-25, a very serviceable stand in for the P-47D-23.  The historical correction would be nice, but that is true of all the other gap fillers that have much more significant performance differences between themselves and the things used as stand ins for them in game.

Explain why it is more of a slam dunk than the Bf109G-6/AS or Seafire Mk III.

[bozon]

Explain why it is more of a slam dunk than the Bf109G-6/AS or Seafire Mk III.

Who said it is more? I am in full support of adding 109G6/AS in spite of the number of 109 variants we already have. I don't know enough about the Seafire III to comment. Why do you think that 109G6/AS and P47D23 are exclusive?

The D23 will see plenty of arena use because it will be the best dogfighting jug, combined with full JABO capability. It will be the best performing jug on MIL power, especially in the climb and sustained turn. It will outclass the D25 in every way except views. True, the improvement will not be jaw dropping, but it will be there. The improvement vs. the D11 will be much more noticeable with the addition of the paddle blade prop that adds 600-800 fpm rate of climb to a plane that doesn't even hit 3000 fpm. The latter is what the jug fans want - a razorback with a paddle blade prop that is a much better representation of razorbacks in service than our current D11. Even the real D11s through constant upgrades had for most of their service specs closer to the D23 than to the factory D11. So the correct question is "what will D23 add over our D11", not how it compares to D25.

D23 will be relevant to nearly all USAAF ETO scenarios, except those that are set in early 1943. MTO and PTO had razorbacks as well as the mainstay thunderbolts. The upgraded razorbacks served till the end of the war. I dont remember the exact date from which paddle blade props were being retrofitted to JUGs, but by 1944 they should have had it, meaning the bulk of the scenarios involving USAAF.

[Randy1]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Propellers-30nov43.pdf

This letter might shed some light.  They speak of a wide blade prop.

[Oldman731]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Propellers-30nov43.pdf

This letter might shed some light.  They speak of a wide blade prop.

Yes, that was my recollection, January 1944.  Just before Bigweek.

- oldman

[Karnak]

Who said it is more? I am in full support of adding 109G6/AS in spite of the number of 109 variants we already have.

The P-47 actually has the highest density coverage of any aircraft in the game right now.

I don't know enough about the Seafire III to comment.

Highest production Seafire, 1200 built, and had significantly higher performance than the Mk II.  The last fighter vs fighter dogfight of WWII was Seafire Mk IIIs vs A6M5s.

Why do you think that 109G6/AS and P47D23 are exclusive?

It isn't exclusive of the Bf109G-6/AS specifically.  It is exclusive of something though.

The D23 will see plenty of arena use because it will be the best dogfighting jug, combined with full JABO capability.

The P-47M will remain the best dogfighting P-47 and as the P-47D-25 does not have the P-47's full attack capability I don't see why the P-47D-23 would either.

It will be the best performing jug on MIL power, especially in the climb and sustained turn.

MIL is nice, but not what ultimately counts as the Mossie VI demonstrated in its update.  It lost a little MIL and gained a lot of WEP performance, and its K/D ratio jumped way up due to that, breaking 1/1 for the first time ever.

It will outclass the D25 in every way except views. True, the improvement will not be jaw dropping, but it will be there. The improvement vs. the D11 will be much more noticeable with the addition of the paddle blade prop that adds 600-800 fpm rate of climb to a plane that doesn't even hit 3000 fpm. The latter is what the jug fans want - a razorback with a paddle blade prop that is a much better representation of razorbacks in service than our current D11. Even the real D11s through constant upgrades had for most of their service specs closer to the D23 than to the factory D11. So the correct question is "what will D23 add over our D11", not how it compares to D25.

How much of an improvement over the D-25?  The D-11 is 100% irrelevant to this.  The way it has been mentioned in this thread the improvement would be a fraction of a percent, barely noticeable by dedicated Jug fliers and not noticeable by anybody else.

D23 will be relevant to nearly all USAAF ETO scenarios, except those that are set in early 1943. MTO and PTO had razorbacks as well as the mainstay thunderbolts. The upgraded razorbacks served till the end of the war. I dont remember the exact date from which paddle blade props were being retrofitted to JUGs, but by 1944 they should have had it, meaning the bulk of the scenarios involving USAAF.

Only at the expense of the D-25 being used for those scenarios.  The D-25 which is a perfectly serviceable stand in for the D-23.

[Seadog36]

Bravo, you hit the nail on the head again. Yes the "D-23 will be used at the expense of the D-25", just as it should be. You already agreed that the evidence presented compels you to believe the D-23 is a more fitting example but having said that, you now have to, ever so patronizingly, quote by quote dismiss every contributor to the thread.

Please start a thread arguing why your 109g6 sub variant and your Seafire Mk III with a whopping 1200 examples should be put in to enrich the game. I'm sure without another Karnak to tear it down the crickets will be deafening.

[Wiley]

Bravo, you hit the nail on the head again. Yes the "D-23 will be used at the expense of the D-25", just as it should be. You already agreed that the evidence presented compels you to believe the D-23 is a more fitting example but having said that, you now have to, ever so patronizingly, quote by quote dismiss every contributor to the thread.

Please start a thread arguing why your 109g6 sub variant and your Seafire Mk III with a whopping 1200 examples should be put in to enrich the game. I'm sure without another Karnak to tear it down the crickets will be deafening.

Dude, no disrespect, but it doesn't offer widely varying attributes from what we already have, which makes it extremely unlikely to be a priority for HTC to add anytime soon.

Wiley.

[Karnak]

Bravo, you hit the nail on the head again. Yes the "D-23 will be used at the expense of the D-25", just as it should be. You already agreed that the evidence presented compels you to believe the D-23 is a more fitting example but having said that, you now have to, ever so patronizingly, quote by quote dismiss every contributor to the thread.

Please start a thread arguing why your 109g6 sub variant and your Seafire Mk III with a whopping 1200 examples should be put in to enrich the game. I'm sure without another Karnak to tear it down the crickets will be deafening.

Look, I'll be happy for you guys if you get it.  I am arguing intellectually here, not emotionally.  Part of the reason I am doing so is to push you guys to improve your arguments and partially because I enjoy the back and forth debate.  The Bf109G-6/AS and Seafire Mk III are just examples and not intended to be seen as the specific alternatives.

The problem you have failed to address is what is significantly gained out of adding the D-23.  The D-25 already works just fine as a substitute for the D-23.  It is not perfectly accurate, but it is very close.  As a counter example, the Bf109G-6 or Bf109G-14 is not just fine as a substitute for the Bf109G-6/AS as their performance envelopes are very different.

The fact that the D-23 was produced is such large numbers means it ought to have been added instead of the D-25, but that ship has sailed.  We now have the D-25 which makes the production numbers of the D-23 completely moot from the standpoint of what the D-23 adds to the game for anybody other than die hard P-47 fans.  The Seafire Mk III's 1200 production is only significant in that its performance is also very different from the Seafire Mk II's.  Were its performance almost exactly the same as the Mk II, only it had folding wings then its much higher production numbers would be completely irrelevant as it wouldn't add anything to the game due to the Mk II being a fine stand in for it.

Even completely different aircraft can fall into this.  There is little reason to add the Halifax when AH already has the Lancaster even though there is some performance differences and capability differences between them.  Were the resources needed to add the Halifax as slight as those needed to add the P-47D-23, Bf109G-6/AS, Seafire Mk III or numerous other aircraft it would probably be worth adding, but as a completely new heavy bomber I simply can't see the resources needed to add it to the game as a good investment given how adequately the Lancaster works as a stand in for the Halifax.

Bringing this back to the P-47D-23 we are looking at a some workload to add it to the game as it has some graphical differences compared to the D-11, yet it seems to offer almost nothing other than greater historical visual accuracy compared to using the P-47D-25 in the same setting.  But this is a game in which the scenario creators regularly do things like using the 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX in a 1945 setting, where the Spitfire Mk XVI (Spitfire LF.Mk IXe) ought to be used, for balance purposes.  It is, at this stage of planeset completion, very hard to see the P-47D-23 as a good use of resources when the very similar P-47D-25 is existent within the game.  Were the planeset significantly more fleshed out then that kind of granularity makes more sense to push for, but as it stands I strongly believe that developer resources would be better put to fleshing out the planeset's bigger gaps than closing a very small gap as there is between the P-47D-25 and P-47D-23.

[Seadog36]

Thank you for the well wishes We have all made our arguments ad nauseam. We all have our somewhat subjective opinions of what we would like to see in our virtual WWII experience. The debates on the forums can be informative and entertaining. I was surprised how eclipsed P-47s were by P-51s in the popular perception. The more I researched, the more I came to appreciate how the 47 really succeeded on bringing the air war to the enemy, and later became the premier jabo fighter as well at great cost to their crews.

In popular films like Saving Private Ryan and Redtails razorback jugs are again ignored when they were the actual swarms over the beaches of Normandy and the transition aircraft from P-40s for the Tuskegee squadrons, further reinforcing the misconception. I sincerely hope we can finally get it right in AH, however trivial it may seem. Many important gaps have been getting addressed lately- this is another good candidate.