Author Topic: PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....  (Read 945 times)

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« on: August 12, 2003, 10:39:35 AM »
After recently buying a book on the P47 which has many pictures of battle damaged P47s and many snippets telling how the pilot returned with sometimes amazing levels of damage I now even more than i did before feel OUR P47s arent tough enough!!

I know this is controversial and very much a subject prone to each of our individual 'feelings' about its durability but id like to put my case accross and see if anyone agrees.....

First id like to point out that when we all seemed to agree the P38's tail was like glass when hit we could all 'feel' it was wrong or at least go to read books about it and see that , although the tail WAS vulnerable it wasnt so weak as to be mentioned as a fault with the aircraft. It wasnt how we put it 'glassed tailed'.

Well Ive noticed when shooting down the P47s rather than flying them that the Tail(or more accurately the horizontal stabilisers) are very easy to remove with sometimes fairly small caliber weapons. It seems if you manage to hit a few times on those stabilisers they will come off. Ive also noticed if you manage to hit the wings in a sawing type of hit (a long strike accross the surface) the wings shear off quite easily too.

Then theres the engine too which , although i feel it does survive oil hits pretty well it still is certainly not so noticable as the books would make you believe.

Ok so, I always felt that the P47 should appear to be one of the most durable if not THE most durable fighter aircraft in AH and after reading this book on the P47 i was amazed at some of the battle damage they sustained and still managed to return home.

I cant scan them in or host the pics but i can give you the ISBN number so you might buy the book too and see. (ISBN 1-58007-018-3)

Ill describe some of the damage: One picture has a cannon hit on the horizontal stabiliser big enough for a fully upright man to STAND in and low and behold there is a picture with the mechanic standing in the hole make by the hit!! Then theres two pictures of bullet holes from a 6oclock shot that peirces the propellor blade! The hole is the  size of a golf ball one side and a grapefruit the other!! this aircraft returned home with this hole! can you imagine the vibrations? another picture shows incredible damage to the right horizontal stabiliser where the whole thing has literally been ripped off leaving just the elevator conected to the twisted wreckage of the horizontal stabiliser, the vertical fin is pot marked with collateral damage. Again this fighter returned to base. Another picture shows a battle damaged P47 ditched and you can see the whole tail section from just behind the cockpit has been bent and crushed. The caption says 'On april 22 1944, P47D 42-8426 suffered major damage but retained enough structural integrity to protect its pilot as it came to rest in an english hedge'.
Many others show hits and the resulting damage. Some look like at least 20mm hits, some showing the cockpit hit and smashed with a gaping hole. Overall the short excerpts and stories seem to point again and again to a incredibly rugged fighter.

It does seem to suggest the fighter wasnt a great turner which is a little strange in that our P47s turn pretty good but overall the impression made by this and other books is that this was a Big, fast and very durable fighter.

I have to say in AH it just doesnt portray that sort of durability, ALTHOUGH it is pretty good.

Imo though the P47 needs to be a little tougher to break up than our present AH P47s. I know this is just my opinion and really it counts for nothing much but I was wondering who might also feel it isnt quite the legendry tank like aircraft it appeared to have been in the books.

This is why im lobbying for HTC to toughen it up a little. Make it capable of recieving a lot of damage. So much so that we all feel its the strongest of the lot. At the moment I dont feel its much harder or tougher to damage than say the P38 or F4F or even La7 and a few others. All of these aircraft i find harder to break a part off and yet in books about them you dont often see the ones that returned missing huge sections like you do in P47 books.

I might be out of line asking and maybe im not being scientific enough to warrent listening to, but remember there wasnt any charts or details given in order to fix the P38 tail or the 190a8 engine when they 'FELT' wrong.


So who would agree to it? who agrees they would like to see our P47s surviving massive damage that would likely down lesser durable planes? do you like me desire to 'feel' that the P47 is a damn hard aircraft to shoot and break up?


guess its very subjective and perhaps HTC would feel this is a dumb request but id hope they take a look in this book I have just got myself (isbn above)and maybe agree with me. you guys too....

Remember also Im rarely flying them myself, but i have shot many down and my view has been formed from the damage i see inflicted  when i hit. When i have flown the P47 it DOES seem pretty rugged and tough but I would have to say it doesnt feel any tougher than many other types of aircraft in AH and i feel (if HTC agree to strengthen them) this is something that would make them 'feel' like the legendary tough bird they were.



ok fire away with those flame throwers!! :D

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2003, 11:05:25 AM »

Offline DiabloTX

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9592
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2003, 11:08:00 AM »
I have always thought the P-47 damage model was way under estimated.  I fly Luftwaffe now but I was in an American Squad before and the P-47 was one of our historical planes.  It didn't seem to be anymore tough than any other plane which I thought was odd.  I don't know how many times I would hear a couple of pings and the next thing I know I am standing in a tower.  I have flown the Ki-61 and brought it back many times with battle damage but I can't recall ever being able to do that with the Jug.  Maybe it will be changed with AH2.  Here's to wishing.
"There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Denmark I eat a danish for peace." - Diablo

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2003, 11:18:39 AM »
I think every plane in AH seems too fragile, especially the bombers, but I think it has more to do with gunnery issues than damage model. We land many more hits on planes in AH than the pilots in R/L did ... by far! I have also seen many photos of various planes that survived with grievous damage, however I noticed that the actual number of hits were very few compared to what we see in AH. In a 109F4 (my favourite 109) it takes me less than half a second to send 10 20mm rounds into lets say ... the wing of a Jug ... from ONE Mg151 cannon. AH gunnery is very accurate it seems compared to WWII pilots R/L experiences. Remember that the pilots who brought these shot up birds home in one piece were very lucky, and many didn't with much less damage.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2003, 11:40:07 AM »
Damage models are always speculative.  The glass tail on the p38 and the glass engine on the 190 and other planes were bad enough to cause people not to fly those planes.  Toughness, especially against cannon rounds, has always been more of a myth than reality.



Quote
it takes me less than half a second to send 10 20mm rounds into lets say ...

How did you count?  10 rounds in 1/2 second exceeds the max RoF of the gun.

ra

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2003, 11:47:19 AM »
I guess what im really asking is would you object if HTC were to increase the toughness/durability of the P47s?


I know we have a strange damage system at present, bombers show it up well but its all we have for now. So in the light of this dmage model being how we have it i think in order for us to feel like the jug is as tough as they appear to have been we , imo, need to increase its strength in AH.

To be honest ive always felt the 190F8 is similarly lacking in any 'durability feel' but i have to steer clear of it because if its about that plane its immediately a whine. In all honesty its just a desire to see the legendarily tough planes to appear tough in AH and thats all it is.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2003, 11:52:44 AM »
Quote
How did you count?  10 rounds in 1/2 second exceeds the max RoF of the gun.[/B]


Ok ok, 6 rounds, not 10. Still a 1/2 second kill.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Devourer

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 92
      • http://www.106thvag.org
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2003, 12:05:16 PM »
I remember a while back, i went to this website whose name i cant remember right now.
It showed a P-47 that had been blown up by the 500lb it was carrying while on the ground. Amazingly, the pilot managed to survive the accident.
NOW THATS A TOUGH PLANE!

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2003, 12:05:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hazed-
I guess what im really asking is would you object if HTC were to increase the toughness/durability of the P47s?


Yes I would, because the Jug is tougher than other fighters in AH, but it only shows if you're using .303's or in snapshots where you only get a couple of rounds in.

In AH it is impossible to do many of the things WWII pilots did in R/L, like a Jug being in the crosshairs of a 190A8 and survive, or a 110 slowly climbing up a B17's six and survive with 50 holes in it. In AH the Jug would be blown away and the 110 would go down with 500 holes in it. Let's say the Jug is 100% more durable than say a P51. In AH that means you'd have to squeeze the trigger a fraction of a second longer to deliver fatal damage to the Jug, whereas in R/L it would be several seconds longer because they didn't score as many hits. The Jug isn't "under modelled" in my opinion, it's the gunnery that is the culprit. The Jug shouldn't get special treatment, every plane should be tougher or the gunnery model adjusted.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Devourer

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 92
      • http://www.106thvag.org
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2003, 02:08:44 PM »
what about midair collisions? i crashed into this yak the other day in a 109f4 and ended up as a lawndart. On my way down, i saw the yak only had a fuel leak. he may have had more damage but the plane was still flyable. The collision wasnt headon or at high speeds. We were scissoring back and forth at very low speeds when i ended up hitting his left flank.

Please make a better collison model.

Offline Mathman

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1921
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2003, 03:40:41 PM »
LOL, wtg Hazed, now you got yourself covered for the future!

Offline Lance

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1316
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2003, 04:01:13 PM »
I vote for you to embrace brevity.

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2003, 05:50:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mathman
LOL, wtg Hazed, now you got yourself covered for the future!


? if you are refering to me asking for fw190f8 in future to be strengthened im not going to, I already asked a year or maybe 3 ago :) just thought id mention it as another aircraft which doesnt 'feel' like I would expect it to. After all the f8 is supposed to have more armour than the a8 i believe.Anyhow its besides the point of this post...this is P47

And as for the P47 Ive always said i thought it should be the most durable of all fighters and if you look at my previous posts i have asked for this increase in durability before. Its just that after seeing even more evidence of its durability in this new book I thought id just come right out and ask again. After all dont ask dont get and if you had this book i think it would make you request the same thing.

Offline Mathman

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1921
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2003, 06:21:36 PM »
heheh, never mind

Offline davidpt40

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1053
PLEASE VOTE OR give your veiw....
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2003, 06:35:24 PM »
Anyone know how many P47s were lost in the ETO?  I think the loss rate of ground attack squadrons was HIGH.