Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Uriel on August 10, 2007, 12:34:41 PM
-
Facts:
the jug could almost climb at fast as the 109..
the jug had more horsepower, and more speed than just about any plane out there- thats 2x the horsepower of a mustang HTC
the jug was the highest produced plane ever for a reason- they were that good.. flexible.. and fast.. just burned gas like an LA-7
the reason why the mustang began to dominate was it had a longer range so flew more escorts and thus a greater kill ratio, while the jug went on to dive bomb and destroy convoys, and still walked out of combat with a 6:1 while engaged heavy
depending on convergence- 8 50cals will always outperform 2 20mm, they are 4 times as likely to hit something vital and have enough power to get the job done.. its like comparing a a 12 gauge shotgun to 2 shots from a 9 mm. Not to mention the 50's put more ammo out faster and thus could do much greater damage that a 20mm over a given time.. I have shot a real 50 cal machine gun of the side of a missle cruiser.. they abosulety tear crap up an go through ammo a little faster than you have it set at.. even and AK-47 puts out 13.3 rounds a second
-
I'm gonna quote another poster on this board when I say this, Uriel:
Better put on your Nomex underwear.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I'm gonna quote another poster on this board when I say this, Uriel:
Better put on your Nomex underwear.
lol.. I love the game.. thats why I pick at it so much
-
My jugs not handicapped I have no problem what so ever killing anything in its path!:t
-
Maybe he's talking about a different Jug :rolleyes:
AFAIK the Mustang produced about 1700 HP...whereas the P47 had
about 2300 HP..a touch short of 2x.
-
And one ohter thing HTC..
if i did one sweep on a military truck with a single 50 cal.. it wouldnt drive, trust me on that.. i do passess with 8 50's in this game and they keep on truckin... Hello? and you wonder why no one destroys convoys
-
Originally posted by Husky01
My jugs not handicapped I have no problem what so ever killing anything in its path!:t
cherry picking is easy!:aok
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Facts:
the jug could almost climb at fast as the 109..
Yea...
P-47D-40
Country of origin: USA
Crew: Single-seat
Type: Fighter/attacker
Normal loaded weight: 14,500 lbs.
Dimensions: Wing span 40'9¼"
Length 36'1¾"
Height 14'2"
Internal fuel: 370 gallons
Messerschmitt Bf 109G-14
Country of origin: Germany
Crew: Single-seat
Type: Fighter/attacker
Maximum loaded weight: 7700 lbs.
Dimensions: Wing span 32'6½"
Length 29'7½"
Height 8'2½"
Internal fuel: 106 gallons
Almost double the weight but not double the HP. It should climb nowhere near as good.
Bronk
-
I don't remember a case of more wrong statements in one post.
Anyone?
-
(http://www.soasoas.com/april/gallery/full/5x7_IMG_3382a_dpc.jpg)
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
cherry picking is easy!:aok
Hey!.................
dam I do have a come back!
Cept I haven't cherry picked with the jug in a while :p
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Yea...
P-47D-40
Country of origin: USA
Crew: Single-seat
Type: Fighter/attacker
Normal loaded weight: 14,500 lbs.
Dimensions: Wing span 40'9¼"
Length 36'1¾"
Height 14'2"
Internal fuel: 370 gallons
Messerschmitt Bf 109G-14
Country of origin: Germany
Crew: Single-seat
Type: Fighter/attacker
Maximum loaded weight: 7700 lbs.
Dimensions: Wing span 32'6½"
Length 29'7½"
Height 8'2½"
Internal fuel: 106 gallons
Almost double the weight but not double the HP. It should climb nowhere near as good.
Bronk
Paddle props my man did you see the history channel dogfights.. 40 109's vs 16 Jugs.. lost 3 jugs, but 7 109's???????
-
Uriel,
How about some stats from a reliable source to back up these statements about horsepower/speed/climb rate ?
-
Originally posted by Tiger
Uriel,
How about some stats from a reliable source to back up these statements about horsepower/speed/climb rate ?
THE HISTORY CHANNEL...not a reliable source?
-
Originally posted by Uriel
THE HISTORY CHANNEL...not a reliable source?
Nope.
Bronk
-
So I exagerated by saying 2x the power of a Stang.. but if my memory doesnt fail me the mustang had 1400.. so Im sorry 900 more horse power, and a better supercharger for high alts
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Yea...
P-47D-40
Country of origin: USA
Crew: Single-seat
Type: Fighter/attacker
Normal loaded weight: 14,500 lbs.
Dimensions: Wing span 40'9¼"
Length 36'1¾"
Height 14'2"
Internal fuel: 370 gallons
Messerschmitt Bf 109G-14
Country of origin: Germany
Crew: Single-seat
Type: Fighter/attacker
Maximum loaded weight: 7700 lbs.
Dimensions: Wing span 32'6½"
Length 29'7½"
Height 8'2½"
Internal fuel: 106 gallons
Almost double the weight but not double the HP. It should climb nowhere near as good.
Bronk
Bronk you listed everything EXCEPT rated horsepower for each??? just wondered why since your statment hinges on that fact.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Nope.
Bronk
thats a pile.. the problem with military charts is they dont show true potential... case in point.. chart said my missile cruiser could do 25 nauts..
it could do 33.. I saw it
-
What to test pilots and engineers who use their gathered data know anyway...
-
Originally posted by Uriel
40 109's vs 16 Jugs.. lost 3 jugs, but 7 109's???????
Big Troll Alert ;)
Ever thought about the outcome of a single battle may depend on many more factors than pure plane specs on a piece of paper?
BTW, read books. TV stultifies the mind.
-
Uriel: About paddle bladed props. paddle blades do not necessarily make a plane climb better. If all depends on if you are pushing more horsepower into the prop than it can convert at best climb speed. Paddle blades became much more useful as engines became more powerful. They could no longer make the blades longer, so the made them wider instead to increase the wing area of the prop.
2nd we have all the charts on performance both in game and on our web pages.
You claim our performance is off just by hearing it on the history channel? And you do not even show any numbers to say how well they should climb.
You might wish to do just a tad more research to back up your claim. Because we really do not pull the performance numbers out of a hat.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Big Troll Alert ;)
Ever thought about the outcome of a single battle may depend on many more factors than pure plane specs on a piece of paper?
BTW, read books. TV stultifies the mind.
Yes but the odds there are rediculous.. the 109's had an alt advantage
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Yes but the odds there are rediculous.. the 109's had an alt advantage
Pilot quality (Date of the engagement?)? Which model of 109 vs which model of P47? At what altitude the fight began?
-
Originally posted by hitech
Uriel: About paddle bladed props. paddle blades do not necessarily make a plane climb better. If all depends on if you are pushing more horsepower into the prop than it can convert at best climb speed. Paddle blades became much more useful as engines became more powerful. They could no longer make the blades longer, so the made them wider instead to increase the wing area of the prop.
2nd we have all the charts on performance both in game and on our web pages.
You claim our performance is off just by hearing it on the history channel? And you do not even show any numbers to say how well they should climb.
You might wish to do just a tad more research to back up your claim. Because we really do not pull the performance numbers out of a hat.
HiTech
I respect that.. and appreciate the response.. Im not bashing the game- I love it, and the hard work you do. But when case history and game do not add up I will bring it up. I always love a good debate
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Pilot quality (Date of the engagement?)? Which model of 109 vs which model of P47? At what altitude the fight began?
I will get back to you on that.. I have it recorded on my DVR
-
I read about a load of bomber pilots being put in FW-190's and sent up against the pilots in the west, without pretty much any training, i think they lost the vast majority on their first outing because they simply did not think as fighter pilots.
Doesn't say anything about the performance of the aeroplane.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Uriel: About paddle bladed props. paddle blades do not necessarily make a plane climb better. If all depends on if you are pushing more horsepower into the prop than it can convert at best climb speed. Paddle blades became much more useful as engines became more powerful. They could no longer make the blades longer, so the made them wider instead to increase the wing area of the prop.
2nd we have all the charts on performance both in game and on our web pages.
You claim our performance is off just by hearing it on the history channel? And you do not even show any numbers to say how well they should climb.
You might wish to do just a tad more research to back up your claim. Because we really do not pull the performance numbers out of a hat.
HiTech
:rofl :rofl :rofl HT just got busted either using the new version of Firefox with spell check or having some one else post for him. I ran it through MSWord and all I found was the lower case (p) on Paddle.
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Uriel
I always love a good debate
This isn't that. You've yet to make a solvent argument. Instead of finding the debate you seek you're making yourself look foolish.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
:rofl :rofl :rofl HT just got busted either using the new version of Firefox with spell check or having some one else post for him. I ran it through MSWord and all I found was the lower case (p) on Paddle.
:rofl :rofl
HT's been "useing" firefox for a good while now. Thank goodness!
-
Originally posted by bozon
I don't remember a case of more wrong statements in one post.
Anyone?
yeah, when Silat posted he didn't wear a skirt.
ack-ack
-
OBviously the paddle prop becomes useful at SOME point (is it a hindrance at say...5k?) love to see before/after charts with reference to paddle prop--R.S. Johnson mentions it in his auto-bio, and I think he flew C's?
-
Uriel... it ain't the horsepower that counts, its whether or not your plane can use it.
If horsepower were the sole-determinant of how an aircraft performs, than the B-17 should be unstoppable. It should climb 4 times better than any fighter we have, fly 4 times faster, etc. etc.
The P-47 is a very big Aircraft. It has a 40 foot wingspan.
That's wider than most houses.
It also has a very big engine, which weighs a great deal and has to work harder to counter its own weight. Whereas smaller engines do not in order to get the same performance.
Sure the P-47 has big props, wide props, and can be very fast. I've outrun Tempests, Ponies, Spits, Corsairs, Lalas and almost caught a 262 in it.
But it sure as hell ain't an I Win button. Its a ground-attack fighter at low alts, in the hands of a good pilot it can dogfight some at low alts. In the hands of a great pilot it can dominate at low alts against bad-mediocre pilots. But down low its weight and size kill it. Lighter, faster aircraft can easily outperform it. Because unlike the Corsair, which is comparable in weight and horsepower, it can't use all those horses like the Corsair. Its not built like the Corsair and is possibly, given most MA conditions, the worst turnfighter I've ever seen. ... Except maybe a lancaster... I'll have to do some research on that one... (And yes, I have had someone chase me down and try to dogfight me with a lancaster...)
Where the P-47 exels in the dogfighting area, and what it is famous for, is high altitude fighting. Which you don't see very often in the MA because we don't have fleets of Bombers at 25,000 feet to escort.
Why it excelled so much in WWII is because at those high altitudes the 109 and 190, much lighter fighters with smaller engines, smaller props, and designed for lower engagements, were out of their element whereas the P-47 was in its glory zone.
Below 20,000 feet a Good pilot in a P-47 will likely lose to a good pilot in a 109. Simply because the 109 performs significantly better at mid-altitude.
-
Originally posted by Furball
I read about a load of bomber pilots being put in FW-190's and sent up against the pilots in the west, without pretty much any training, i think they lost the vast majority on their first outing because they simply did not think as fighter pilots.
Doesn't say anything about the performance of the aeroplane.
Not to mention that during the later years, new LW pilots were being sent into combat with at little as 15 hours flight time.
ack-ack
-
Okay here was the real battle... I had 2 different ones confused
Dec 19, 1944 the 354th fighter group
16 P-47 D-40's were on a mission to dive bomb.. they spoted 30 me 109's below
there was an ace with 10 kills in the group of P47's
they dove in and shot some down.. 40 me109s climbed up and joined the fight for a total of 70 me 109's did not specify models.. but probably a couple different types
70 109's vs. 16 P-47 D-40's
end result 9 Me-109's shot down to 3 P-47 D-40's
4 were shot down by the ace...
and the 109 is a better plane in specs... ????
-
Nobody said it was better, just different. The 47 would "zoom" better due to the weight, but in an even climb the 109 was better. Another part of that show mentioned another fight where there were a few P47s that got jumped by a bunch of high 109s. One got shot up, two made it to the clouds and the story was on the last guy trying to reach the clouds. With the 109s flying circles over head he tried time and time again till his zoom climb got him a head just enough to stay out of the 109 guns and make the clouds.
If the P47 was "so much better" as your claiming there wouldn't have been much of a story as the stranded P47 would have easily made the clouds the first time. TV, even the history channel embelish stories a bit because its for "entertainment". It is very rare that they get it all right.
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
Nobody said it was better, just different. The 47 would "zoom" better due to the weight, but in an even climb the 109 was better. Another part of that show mentioned another fight where there were a few P47s that got jumped by a bunch of high 109s. One got shot up, two made it to the clouds and the story was on the last guy trying to reach the clouds. With the 109s flying circles over head he tried time and time again till his zoom climb got him a head just enough to stay out of the 109 guns and make the clouds.
If the P47 was "so much better" as your claiming there wouldn't have been much of a story as the stranded P47 would have easily made the clouds the first time. TV, even the history channel embelish stories a bit because its for "entertainment". It is very rare that they get it all right.
they mentioned tuning back for a "head on" and a "furball issued"
further Barrett Tillman (historian)
says: "its important to remember that the P-47 not the P-51 mustang was the most produced fighter of the war" 15,500 total
"the p47 had a 6:1 kill ratio
destroyed 86,000 railway cars 9000 locomotives, and 6,000 armored vehicles"
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Okay here was the real battle... I had 2 different ones confused
Dec 19, 1944 the 354th fighter group
16 P-47 D-40's were on a mission to dive bomb.. they spoted 30 me 109's below
there was an ace with 10 kills in the group of P47's
they dove in and shot some down.. 40 me109s climbed up and joined the fight for a total of 70 me 109's did not specify models.. but probably a couple different types
70 109's vs. 16 P-47 D-40's
end result 9 Me-109's shot down to 3 P-47 D-40's
4 were shot down by the ace...
and the 109 is a better plane in specs... ????
ROFL...
At that time 90% of all German fighter pilots were inexperienced cannon fodder.
In late 1944, the german Jagdgeschwader were bigger than ever before, because of a severe shortage of experienced leaders.
Now take a Gruppe full of green pilots with actually received less total flight hours than new allied fighter pilots had spend on combat models alone. Now put them in the worst imaginable tactical situation: climbing up to a group of Thunderbolts... It's almost amazing that only 9 Me-109's were shot down.
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
Nobody said it was better, just different. The 47 would "zoom" better due to the weight, but in an even climb the 109 was better. Another part of that show mentioned another fight where there were a few P47s that got jumped by a bunch of high 109s. One got shot up, two made it to the clouds and the story was on the last guy trying to reach the clouds. With the 109s flying circles over head he tried time and time again till his zoom climb got him a head just enough to stay out of the 109 guns and make the clouds.
If the P47 was "so much better" as your claiming there wouldn't have been much of a story as the stranded P47 would have easily made the clouds the first time. TV, even the history channel embelish stories a bit because its for "entertainment". It is very rare that they get it all right.
that mod was not a d-40 it was a razorback
-
Lusche even an idiot will tell you numbers count
-
He should say: "its important to remember that the P-47, not the P-51 mustang, was the most produced US fighter of the war "
Because 109 is the most produced fighter in WORLD until today with 30,573 units built alone during 1939-1945.
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Lusche even an idiot will tell you numbers count
Are you saying that numbers count, Uriel?
:D
-
Originally posted by Ghastly
Are you saying that numbers count, Uriel?
:D
16 guys with swords will have a hard time taking 70 guys with rocks.. period
-
Originally posted by hitech
Uriel: About paddle bladed props. paddle blades do not necessarily make a plane climb better. If all depends on if you are pushing more horsepower into the prop than it can convert at best climb speed. Paddle blades became much more useful as engines became more powerful. They could no longer make the blades longer, so the made them wider instead to increase the wing area of the prop.
2nd we have all the charts on performance both in game and on our web pages.
You claim our performance is off just by hearing it on the history channel? And you do not even show any numbers to say how well they should climb.
You might wish to do just a tad more research to back up your claim. Because we really do not pull the performance numbers out of a hat.
HiTech
Oo Burn
(http://www.trippers.org/photos/burningman04/burningman04-Thumbnails/196.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Lusche even an idiot will tell you numbers count
I guess one just did. ;)
-
Originally posted by Uriel
16 guys with swords will have a hard time taking 70 guys with rocks.. period
You just don't get it. It wasn't the P-47 that won the fight, it was the pilot at the controls. The majority of those LW pilots that were encountered in that engagement had less than 20 total hours of flight time. Some only knew basic flight maneuvers and couldn't do more than fly level without falling out of the sky.
As HiTech pointed out, unless you have concrete data that shows the P-47 is not modeled properly, claiming "I saw it on the History Channel" is not going to cut it.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Lusche
I guess one just did. ;)
lol.. I know your a great pilot lusche, sometimes email doesnt express meaning cause you cant see my face when Im talking to you.. I wasnt calling you an idiot. Im just saying 70 vs. 16- it doesnt take a genius
and to quote exactly it said with the NEW paddle prop the P47 could MATCH its climb
-
Originally posted by eilif
(http://www.soasoas.com/april/gallery/full/5x7_IMG_3382a_dpc.jpg)
-
Gotta love the posts in forum after one of History Channel's "Doigfights" airs.
I wonder if the Jugs in "Dogfights: The Game" can out climb the 109's?
-
Originally posted by Hoffman
Uriel... it ain't the horsepower that counts, its whether or not your plane can use it.
If horsepower were the sole-determinant of how an aircraft performs, than the B-17 should be unstoppable. It should climb 4 times better than any fighter we have, fly 4 times faster, etc. etc.
The P-47 is a very big Aircraft. It has a 40 foot wingspan.
That's wider than most houses.
It also has a very big engine, which weighs a great deal and has to work harder to counter its own weight. Whereas smaller engines do not in order to get the same performance.
Sure the P-47 has big props, wide props, and can be very fast. I've outrun Tempests, Ponies, Spits, Corsairs, Lalas and almost caught a 262 in it.
But it sure as hell ain't an I Win button. Its a ground-attack fighter at low alts, in the hands of a good pilot it can dogfight some at low alts. In the hands of a great pilot it can dominate at low alts against bad-mediocre pilots. But down low its weight and size kill it. Lighter, faster aircraft can easily outperform it. Because unlike the Corsair, which is comparable in weight and horsepower, it can't use all those horses like the Corsair. Its not built like the Corsair and is possibly, given most MA conditions, the worst turnfighter I've ever seen. ... Except maybe a lancaster... I'll have to do some research on that one... (And yes, I have had someone chase me down and try to dogfight me with a lancaster...)
Where the P-47 exels in the dogfighting area, and what it is famous for, is high altitude fighting. Which you don't see very often in the MA because we don't have fleets of Bombers at 25,000 feet to escort.
Why it excelled so much in WWII is because at those high altitudes the 109 and 190, much lighter fighters with smaller engines, smaller props, and designed for lower engagements, were out of their element whereas the P-47 was in its glory zone.
Below 20,000 feet a Good pilot in a P-47 will likely lose to a good pilot in a 109. Simply because the 109 performs significantly better at mid-altitude.
plus the amount of drag created by the jugg at lower alts. compaired to a 109. like you said just having alot of power is only one piece of the puzzle
-
ya gotta stop using "facts" from the history channel in your arguements.
they don't research 'em, so why are you quoting 'em?
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Im just saying 70 vs. 16- it doesnt take a genius
You can even set up a similar thing even here:
Give me another veteran player. Doesn't even have to be one of that few legendary Jug pilots we do have. Put us into 2 P-47's, at any alt from 10-25k.
Then grab 9 two-weekers. Put then in any 109 a few thousand feet below us and tell them: "Get that planes above you!"
Having a more than 4-1 advantage won't save them. Their lack of experience (and thus the resulting lack of skill) combined with a tactical disadvantage will be more than sufficient to send them down in flames...
-
1) The History Channel is a very bad source of information.
2) Start building a reliable library of books. Get primary source documents if possible.
3) The P-47 in AH is a very capable aircraft.
4) Look up Francis Gabreski's coment about the P-47 being a fighter.
-
I remember watching a thing on 'wings' about the jug---until the M/N came out, it was described as a 'mid-alt' fighter....?
-
Originally posted by Husky01
Hey!.................
dam I do have a come back!
Cept I haven't cherry picked with the jug in a while :p
awhile? as in this morning? :t
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
awhile? as in this morning? :t
More like "what time is it now?".
:D
Bronk
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
awhile? as in this morning? :t
Since last monthish.
Ive got a amazing total of 1 kill in the jug this month.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
More like "what time is it now?".
:D
Bronk
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Uriel
lol.. I know your a great pilot lusche, sometimes email doesnt express meaning cause you cant see my face when Im talking to you.. I wasnt calling you an idiot. Im just saying 70 vs. 16- it doesnt take a genius
and to quote exactly it said with the NEW paddle prop the P47 could MATCH its climb
YOU post the NUMBERS for us please. If yer "such a genius", then prove it.
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Lusche even an idiot will tell you numbers count
Hmmmm....
Take a flight out of the 56th (or any good jug squad) and group a bunch of baby seals (inexperienced) under them by even 3k or so....well Yucca, Blukitty and Nomde would take out about 30 inside 3-5 minutes. Figure husky, platano and a few others would easily get 5 apiece. So we have the 1st 50 gone in 5 minutes or so....
Numbers mean squat, PILOTS mean everything. If a good pilot is flying over an inexperienced gaggle the only number that matters is his kill #. As far back as WW1 experienced pilots often went out "hunting" alone. In WW2 pairs on both sides hunted the channel costs, one famsou luftwaffe pair even took lobsters and actually landed on the scottish coast for lunch...
The number that matters most is the number of "marks" on the side of the canopy:aok
-
Originally posted by Uriel
lol.. I know your a great pilot lusche, sometimes email doesnt express meaning cause you cant see my face when Im talking to you.. I wasnt calling you an idiot. Im just saying 70 vs. 16- it doesnt take a genius
and to quote exactly it said with the NEW paddle prop the P47 could MATCH its climb
quick qoutes from wikipedia:
"For weeks a handful of Hurricane IIs, aided by Group Captain A.B. Woodhall's masterly controlling, had been meeting, against all the odds, the rising crescendo of Field Marshal Kesselring's relentless attacks on Grand Harbour and the airfields. Outnumbered, usually, by 12 or 14 to one and, later – with the arrival of the Me 109Fs in Sicily – outperformed, the pilots of the few old aircraft which the ground crews struggled valiantly to keep serviceable, went on pressing their attacks, ploughing their way through the German fighter screens, and our flak, to close in with the Ju 87s and 88s as they dived for their targets."
"Malta's air defence rested on a few Gloster Gladiators which managed to hold out against vastly superior numbers of the Italian air force during the following three weeks. Four Hurricanes joined them at the end of June, and together they faced attacks throughout July from the 200 enemy aircraft based in Sicily, with the loss of one Gladiator and one Hurricane. "
so some p47s won once against ~4:1 odds...
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Paddle props my man did you see the history channel dogfights.. 40 109's vs 16 Jugs.. lost 3 jugs, but 7 109's???????
that actually could've been..most probably was........skill and training. looking at those specs, there's NO WAY a 47 should be able to turn, OR climb with a 109.......that'd be like saying a 67 cadi coupe deville can easily outrun and corner better than a brand new Z06 corvette:D
-
Originally posted by Uriel
I respect that.. and appreciate the response.. Im not bashing the game- I love it, and the hard work you do. But when case history and game do not add up I will bring it up. I always love a good debate
aahh.......someone peed in your wheaties then?:D
-
by the time the 47's appeared in any numbers over Europe - the majority of german pilots were newbies
even then, my guess is the 47's destroyed more german aircraft on the ground than they did in the air
-
Lol I have no idea who this guy is, but I bet Widewing will squash him like a bug
he P-47 was also especially good at climbing. At sea level its climb rate was 4,900 fpm, four minutes and 15 seconds later it at 20,000 ft it was maintaining 4,400 fpm. Time to 30,000 was 6 ¾ minutes; this with full internal tanks and fully armed. It had also been flown to 46,500 and the pilot claimed it was capable of a bit more..
(The "M" could mebbe do this, but not the C/D series, which he was talking about)http://ezinearticles.com/?The-P-47-Thunderbolt-Fighter/Bomber&id=188545
I know a loaded D40 in AH climbs at 2200 on default auto-climb (no ord, I believe) Saw another site that said 2780 fpm...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
1) The History Channel is a very bad source of information.
2) Start building a reliable library of books. Get primary source documents if possible.
3) The P-47 in AH is a very capable aircraft.
4) Look up Francis Gabreski's coment about the P-47 being a fighter.
Sage advice.
The History Channel is a HORRIBLE source of information.
It's a rare program I watch on the H.C. that I don't find some fault (or twenty).
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Sage advice.
The History Channel is a HORRIBLE source of information.
It's a rare program I watch on the H.C. that I don't find some fault (or twenty).
Not to mention they have found the head-on pass makes for better tv! So basically all you see are head-ons! :rolleyes:
-
Most things said on the History channel (especially that dogfights show) is pretty much all from veteran memory.
You're not going to get hardcore data from that show. Some of that data may really prove to be very VERY in determining the winner of a dogfight.
-
Uriel, is your ingame name SamRambo or something to that effect? He was ranting about American planes being handicapped in the MA the other night, and his arguements (or lack thereof) seemed similar to yours.
-
I think the problem here is that people do not recognize that the P-47 was designed for high altitude combat. At its best altitude, it did out-climb most fighters. The problem in AH2 is that there are very few fights at 30,000 feet. Up that high, the P-47s rule the roost. Down on the deck, the Jug is out of its element.
It's important to realize that virtually all USAAF fighters after 1943 were engineered for combat above 20,000 feet. After all, where the bombers fly is where the air war is fought.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by CAP1
aahh.......someone peed in your wheaties then?:D
I was being respectfull I know how you all love to stroke eachother and say what a good pilot you are, but in reality numbers do count
I would put my money (9 times out of 10) on 5 175 pound guys beating the crap out of a 200 pound guy.. any day.. and incase you didnt read there was a fur ball the 47's just started high
-
Originally posted by Uriel
I was being respectfull I know how you all love to stroke eachother and say what a good pilot you are, but in reality numbers do count
I would put my money (9 times out of 10) on 5 175 pound guys beating the crap out of a 200 pound guy.. any day.. and incase you didnt read there was a fur ball the 47's just started high
i again point you to the hurricanes record at Malta.
numbers are great, but they don't account for competence, or lack thereof in the planes or the pilots...
-
Superior numbers really count all that much?
Sorry to bust your bubble bud but uhh...
Thermopylae.
Virtually all of Alexander the Great's battles.
Julius' Conquest of Gaul.
Hastings.
U.S. War for Independance. (Revolutionary War to those going to American High Schools)
Mexican-American War.
U.S. Civil War.
The Great War.
The Korean War.
Gulf War 1. (I am referring to the battle, I can't remember its name off the top of my head at the moment, but a U.S. Cavalry troop annihilated an Iraqi force numbering close to a Tank Brigade.)
Gulf War 2. (Where U.S. Forces with 3 Divisions took over an entire country.)
Those are just a couple examples where superior numbers didn't count for squat.
And depending on who the 200 pound guy is, I'll bet on him.
-
When it comes down to it there are some cases in which numbers do matter and there are others it's all about the quality of opponent.
Take this poor guy:
(http://www.richstevens.com/images/triplets2.jpg)
He's completely outclassed by 3 much higher performance pieces of...uhh..equipment than he. He's never going to be able to take them in a straight up melee free for all. They've got the speed and agility to make short work of him at all altitudes and all strategic positions.
If he on the other hand were to find himself up against this:
(http://reallyrawfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/Triplets.jpg)
He'd have a much better chance of taking on all 3 lumbering targets. Compared to the previous photo these are much more cumbersome and less agile. Flexibility in the heat of the moment is limited and they wouldn't really have much of a shot when it came to pinning down a moving target. Not to say a direct hit wouldn't hurt but that's using a 20mm cannon against a dove and won't yield much success.
As you can see this is uneqivocal evidence that it is not only the quality of pilot but the quality of the piece of equipment you're up against is equally important. I think Uriel is on to something. It's the weekend, it's 1am and I'm posting. Tonight I'm going to try to find myself outclassed ;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
by the time the 47's appeared in any numbers over Europe - the majority of german pilots were newbies
even then, my guess is the 47's destroyed more german aircraft on the ground than they did in the air
P-47s were flying in "numbers" (3 full groups) by April 8, 1943. The Luftwaffe in the west was manned by mostly veterans. If anyone could be called newbies, it was the 56th and 78th fighter groups, which consisted largely of pilots with zero combat time.
In aerial combat over Europe, P-47s shot down 3,572 enemy aircraft and destroyed another 3,315 on the ground. In addition, the Jugs destroyed an estimated 9,000 locomotives, 86,000 railway cars, 68,000 trucks and 6,000 armored vehicles and tanks. The top scoring ETO/MTO fighter group flew P-47s. The top scoring ETO/MTO aces flew P-47s. Also of interest; the P-47 had the lowest loss to sortie ratio of any major Allied fighter (0.7%).
According to Dr. Frank Olynyk, 8th AF P-47s shot down 3 times as many of the Luftwaffe's top aces than P-51s did.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by hitech
Uriel: About paddle bladed props. paddle blades do not necessarily make a plane climb better. If all depends on if you are pushing more horsepower into the prop than it can convert at best climb speed. Paddle blades became much more useful as engines became more powerful. They could no longer make the blades longer, so the made them wider instead to increase the wing area of the prop.
2nd we have all the charts on performance both in game and on our web pages.
You claim our performance is off just by hearing it on the history channel? And you do not even show any numbers to say how well they should climb.
You might wish to do just a tad more research to back up your claim. Because we really do not pull the performance numbers out of a hat.
HiTech
ouchie......
FLAMED by HTC:O
-
lmmfao golfer...
good example :aok
-
Originally posted by Uriel
I would put my money (9 times out of 10) on 5 175 pound guys beating the crap out of a 200 pound guy.. any day.. and incase you didnt read there was a fur ball the 47's just started high
Depends on the 200 pound guy. If he was Jet Li, I'd put all of mine and my neighbors money on the 200 pounder. To use fighter pilot terminology, the fight would be over at the merge.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Sage advice.
The History Channel is a HORRIBLE source of information.
It's a rare program I watch on the H.C. that I don't find some fault (or twenty).
But... but... they have CSI NY don't they? You mean THAT isn't historical?
They also have Anne Medina. Isn't she a genuine antique?
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Depends on the 200 pound guy. If he was Jet Li, I'd put all of mine and my neighbors money on the 200 pounder. To use fighter pilot terminology, the fight would be over at the merge.
ack-ack
Case in point.. the Jug is the 200 pound guy the 109's are the 5 guys.. the Jugs were out numbered five to one.
Its not just the pilots.. its the Jugs.. they are better aircraft. its the only thing that makes sense.. how about the Jugs real kill ratio? How does that make sense if the 109 is superior?
-
Originally posted by Hoffman
Superior numbers really count all that much?
Sorry to bust your bubble bud but uhh...
Thermopylae.
Virtually all of Alexander the Great's battles.
Julius' Conquest of Gaul.
Hastings.
U.S. War for Independance. (Revolutionary War to those going to American High Schools)
Mexican-American War.
U.S. Civil War.
The Great War.
The Korean War.
Gulf War 1. (I am referring to the battle, I can't remember its name off the top of my head at the moment, but a U.S. Cavalry troop annihilated an Iraqi force numbering close to a Tank Brigade.)
Gulf War 2. (Where U.S. Forces with 3 Divisions took over an entire country.)
Those are just a couple examples where superior numbers didn't count for squat.
And depending on who the 200 pound guy is, I'll bet on him.
thank you for illustrating my point yet again.. the spartans were superior both in strategy and in body..
so was the Jug.. in pilots and performance.. you really dont think any group of people with any military tactics could hold the beach like the spartans did do you? It wasnt a battle field advantage, its was superior skills coupled with superior firepower with an advantage
the Jug is Superior.. deal with it.. the kill ratio says so, historic battles say so.. the pilots loved it.. it would take hundreds of rounds and get them home.. its distruction for a fighter of its time is unmatched.. it is the THUNDERBOLT
-
Originally posted by Uriel
lol.. I know your a great pilot lusche, sometimes email doesnt express meaning cause you cant see my face when Im talking to you.. I wasnt calling you an idiot. Im just saying 70 vs. 16- it doesnt take a genius
and to quote exactly it said with the NEW paddle prop the P47 could MATCH its climb
i dunno if someone else has already used this example but.....
put 70 newbies in a 109/190 vs 16 vets (like nilsen, batfink, SkyRock, Fester, wmulte, lusche etc) and the result will be the same in the game vs real life, the 16 vets will pretty much clean the newbies out of the sky.
its not the plane, its the pilot, something you totally fail to understand.
-
Eh put some facts up that say otherwise towards the current flight model?
-
This thread just keeps on getting better and better.
-
Originally posted by Uriel
thank you for illustrating my point yet again.. the spartans were superior both in strategy and in body..
so was the Jug.. in pilots and performance.. you really dont think any group of people with any military tactics could hold the beach like the spartans did do you? It wasnt a battle field advantage, its was superior skills coupled with superior firepower with an advantage
the Jug is Superior.. deal with it.. the kill ratio says so, historic battles say so.. the pilots loved it.. it would take hundreds of rounds and get them home.. its distruction for a fighter of its time is unmatched.. it is the THUNDERBOLT
Wow and yet amother enlightning rebutial by the History Channel's #1 fan. I find it amazing how many times the rest of us try and reason with him with FACTS and figures and he reverts each time to "the history channel said so" and personal oppinions and preferences of the 47. Even HT himself (whoom owned him in an earlier post) has said the modeling of the plane set was researched and for the most part accurate. I cast my lot with the fact that the P47 did great at alt which is what it was meant to do, and indeed it did accel in that reguard. The 109 aslo was a great machine and performed well within the roles for which it was intended. THe engagement that keeps being alluded to boils down to the experience factor not so much the machine (yes I know this has been said). By this I mean take a gaggle of dweebs and give them all Spixteens Lgays and Niks or whatever you think is an Uber ride, now have a small number of seasoned pilots in an altitude advantage and tell the dweebs to engague. Even being out numbered the veterans would clean the skies rather quickly of the gaggle of dweeby 2weekers.
Ok im spent......:lol
-
HA HA! http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-47.html
Republic P-47D-35-RA Vital Statistics
Type: Single seat fighter/bomber
Power Plant: one 2,535-hp (wet rating) Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59W Double Wasp radial piston engine
Performance
Maximum Speed (clean)
363 mph (584km/h) at 5,000 ft
433 mph (697km/h) at 30,000 ft
Initial Climb:
3,200 ft (976m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 41,000 ft (12495m)
Range: (Max external fuel, three drop tanks) 1,800 miles (2897 km) at 195 (314 km/h) at 10,000 ft (3050m)
Weights:
Empty: 9,950 lb (4513 kg)
Loaded Max Takeoff): 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)
Dimensions
Span: 40 ft 9 in (12.42m)
Length: 36 ft 2 in (11.02m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47m)
Wing Area: 300 sq. ft (27.87m2)
Armament
8 X 0.5 (12.7mm) machine guns
Bomb Load: 2500 lb (1134 kg) including bombs and up to 8 rockets
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Case in point.. the Jug is the 200 pound guy the 109's are the 5 guys.. the Jugs were out numbered five to one.
Its not just the pilots.. its the Jugs.. they are better aircraft. its the only thing that makes sense.. how about the Jugs real kill ratio? How does that make sense if the 109 is superior?
Okay... you go from saying that superior numbers should trump battlefield tactics to now agreeing that skill and tactics triumph over numbers...
Then you claim that its the plane not the pilot...
Tell you what. You PM me a time Sunday when you're available and we'll hop off to the DA and you can fly your vaunted Jug and I'll take my 109.
We'll mess around for a good half hour or so and see who's got the better score.
I'm not a bad pilot, I'd barely consider myself a good pilot, but I do know that if I take my 109 up against just about any P-47 Pilot under 20,000 feet co-e. I'm coming up the winner.
The reason for the P-47's record is this: When they were fighting, they almost always started the battle at altitude, having been formed up for at least 10-30 minutes before engaging hostiles. They had energy, they had speed, and altitude.
If they were on a ground attack they would find targets, drop bombs, zoom home and land. Or they'd find targets, drop bombs, zoom away from enemy fighters, turn around and then engage. Or they would engage as bomber escorts in the stratosphere where 109s and 190s are poor performers. Or more than likely they'd HO every 109 and 190 attacking them betting on the buzz-saws on their wings and thick armor to keep them safe.
A P-47 coming out of a dive will outrun just about anything. A 109 won't catch it coming out of a dive.
A P-47 in a prolonged low-altitude duel against a 109 Pilot who knows what he's doing = straight to ground, don't pass go, do not collect 200 perkies.
It is NOT the I win button you are claiming it to be. Most MA fights take the P-47 into areas far outside its element.
Nobody fights in the stratosphere, and outside the stratosphere a Hurri Mk I could likely pwn a P-47.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
This thread just keeps on getting better and better.
Shortest post by Kweassa ever?
:D
-
military tactics 101: absolute numbers mean absolutely nothing.
The 16 jugs might as well attacked 200 or 500 109s. The effective number that can join a furball is limited. Identification, confusion, radio overload (sum it all as saturated SA), fear of collisions, disorder - limit the effective numbers of planes that can actually engage. A small force with an advantage (usually surprise) will often attack a much larger force, cause havoc and disengage successfully. This is true in all fields of combat - land sea and air.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
You can even set up a similar thing even here:
Give me another veteran player. Doesn't even have to be one of that few legendary Jug pilots we do have. Put us into 2 P-47's, at any alt from 10-25k.
Then grab 9 two-weekers. Put then in any 109 a few thousand feet below us and tell them: "Get that planes above you!"
Having a more than 4-1 advantage won't save them. Their lack of experience (and thus the resulting lack of skill) combined with a tactical disadvantage will be more than sufficient to send them down in flames...
You just described my dream !
Until it happen I'll continue vulching :D
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Case in point.. the Jug is the 200 pound guy the 109's are the 5 guys.. the Jugs were out numbered five to one.
Its not just the pilots.. its the Jugs.. they are better aircraft. its the only thing that makes sense.. how about the Jugs real kill ratio? How does that make sense if the 109 is superior?
Let me explain it in a little more simple terms.
Imagine, you are just fresh out of flight school. You have about 30 hours total flight time and maybe 10 out of those are in the P-47 when you arrive in the ETO and posted to an operational combat squadron.
You fly your first flight and as bad luck would have it, you're stuck in a flight of fresh pilots, with just about as much flying hours as you do.
You and your intrepid flight of young, fresh out of flight school knights of the sky are tooling around in your P-47s. You guys feel invincible because, after all you're in the Thunderbolt, the most mighty aircraft in the sky. The Jug outclasses everything else in the sky, nothing can out perform it. You guys are hunters looking for prey.
As you fly along, you see in the distance a lone bf 109 at 15,000ft. You and your cohorts adjust your goggles, firewall the throttle and bore down on the helpless lone German. You guys can feel the kill and it's just a matter of time before the German realizes that he's absolutely no match for you, I mean, you're in the P-47, it's the uberest of the uber. You might as well be in God mode, you're that invincible.
You guys make your pass and as you get close, the Bf 109 snap rolls under you and you look behind you only to see it level up behind your flight, flames coming from it's guns. BOOM! Poor Red-shirt Jug Pilot #4 just got wasted. WHAT?!?! How can this be? He was in a P-47!
The rest of the flight is still in shock...the Bf 109 saddles up on another and fires...BOOM! Red-shirt Jug Pilot #3 just bought the farm. 2 dead in less than 30 seconds...something is seriously wrong...I mean you guys are in P-47s for Jeebus sake! This shouldn't be happening.
You break and the other greenhorn dive to the deck. Red-shirt Jug Pilot #2, has an epiphany...he realizes the Jug can't out maneuver a Bf 109 and his P-47 is really no match for what is a far more experienced foe in the Bf 109. His only chance to survive is to use his better dive ability to escape. Which he does. Too bad though, you still think that you can out perform the Bf 109. So you try and go vertical, thinking that your bigger engine can carry your plane to the Heavens. Only thing, you didn't realize that at medium to low altitudes, the Bf 109 is the superior plane and is easily able to match your vertical climb. Before you even think of trying another maneuver, you blow up. What you didn't realize is that the guy you were flying against is an ace with 150 kills...correction, 154 kills.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Facts:
the jug was the highest produced plane ever for a reason-
P-47 varients Number produced: 15,634
Spitfire varients: 24,351
bf109 vairents:around 35,000
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Uriel
the Jug is Superior.. deal with it..
No the pilots were, deal with that.
Ohh by the way, your sig clearly illustrates your mentality on this discussion.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Let me explain it in a little more simple terms.
Imagine, you are just fresh out of flight school. You have about 30 hours total flight time and maybe 10 out of those are in the P-47 when you arrive in the ETO and posted to an operational combat squadron.
You fly your first flight and as bad luck would have it, you're stuck in a flight of fresh pilots, with just about as much flying hours as you do.
You and your intrepid flight of young, fresh out of flight school knights of the sky are tooling around in your P-47s. You guys feel invincible because, after all you're in the Thunderbolt, the most mighty aircraft in the sky. The Jug outclasses everything else in the sky, nothing can out perform it. You guys are hunters looking for prey.
As you fly along, you see in the distance a lone bf 109 at 15,000ft. You and your cohorts adjust your goggles, firewall the throttle and bore down on the helpless lone German. You guys can feel the kill and it's just a matter of time before the German realizes that he's absolutely no match for you, I mean, you're in the P-47, it's the uberest of the uber. You might as well be in God mode, you're that invincible.
You guys make your pass and as you get close, the Bf 109 snap rolls under you and you look behind you only to see it level up behind your flight, flames coming from it's guns. BOOM! Poor Red-shirt Jug Pilot #4 just got wasted. WHAT?!?! How can this be? He was in a P-47!
The rest of the flight is still in shock...the Bf 109 saddles up on another and fires...BOOM! Red-shirt Jug Pilot #3 just bought the farm. 2 dead in less than 30 seconds...something is seriously wrong...I mean you guys are in P-47s for Jeebus sake! This shouldn't be happening.
You break and the other greenhorn dive to the deck. Red-shirt Jug Pilot #2, has an epiphany...he realizes the Jug can't out maneuver a Bf 109 and his P-47 is really no match for what is a far more experienced foe in the Bf 109. His only chance to survive is to use his better dive ability to escape. Which he does. Too bad though, you still think that you can out perform the Bf 109. So you try and go vertical, thinking that your bigger engine can carry your plane to the Heavens. Only thing, you didn't realize that at medium to low altitudes, the Bf 109 is the superior plane and is easily able to match your vertical climb. Before you even think of trying another maneuver, you blow up. What you didn't realize is that the guy you were flying against is an ace with 150 kills...correction, 154 kills.
ack-ack
zOMFG!!1111!!!! 109k4 r t3h l337!!!!111!!! Awesome post Ack. :rofl
-
I would readily say that the P-47 was superior to the Me-109. The Thunderbolt was superior because it was faster, more durable, had more range, and had more firepower. The Juggernaught was not superior because it was more maneuverable than an Me-109 at low altitude; it wasn't. While the real P-47 wasn't helpless versus an Me-109 at low altitude, due to the higher power ratings used by real P-47s towards the end of the war, my money would still be on the Me-109 if the pilots were equal and neither one extended.
-
Originally posted by Uriel
thank you for illustrating my point yet again.. the spartans were superior both in strategy and in body..
so was the Jug.. in pilots and performance.. you really dont think any group of people with any military tactics could hold the beach like the spartans did do you? It wasnt a battle field advantage, its was superior skills coupled with superior firepower with an advantage
the Jug is Superior.. deal with it.. the kill ratio says so, historic battles say so.. the pilots loved it.. it would take hundreds of rounds and get them home.. its distruction for a fighter of its time is unmatched.. it is the THUNDERBOLT
Didn't the Spartans have like 1200 other greek soldiers with them when they got slaughtered to the man in the end.
-
Uriel, start another thread!!! Start another thread!!!
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Uriel, start another thread!!! Start another thread!!!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Widewing
In aerial combat over Europe, P-47s shot down 3,572 enemy aircraft and destroyed another 3,315 on the ground. In addition, the Jugs destroyed an estimated 9,000 locomotives, 86,000 railway cars, 68,000 trucks and 6,000 armored vehicles and tanks.
Well, you know.. those are the claims.. actual figures are lower, for sure, pilots of all countries were over claiming in aerial combat, and even more on ground attack.
-
WW2 was not a 1 vs 1 duel. Not in the air, not at sea, and not on land.
Yet every debate about WW2 fighters pretends it was, which is why a lot of the facts get lost in the never ending trading of volleys on raw a/c data, that in the end, didnt mean nearly as much as many would like to think.
Do enough research and you find that out on your own, eventually.
From reading some of the posts I think a few could use maybe some broader material, especailly those that do nothing but quote raw performance stats as some sort of "holy-grail-of-truth".
;)
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yknurd
Uriel, start another thread!!! Start another thread!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL too funny.... because last time I checked he had what 3 or 4?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Uriel
THE HISTORY CHANNEL...not a reliable source?
LMAO...no
-
Originally posted by Uriel
Facts:
the jug was the highest produced plane ever for a reason-
Originally posted by Murdr
P-47 varients Number produced: 15,634
Spitfire varients: 24,351
bf109 vairents:around 35,000
:rolleyes:
Fw190: around 20,000 produced.
Il-2: around 36,000 produced
B-24: around 19-20,000 produced
P-51: 15,875 (includes 555 of the H model)
P-40: 16,800
-
What source for those P-40 production numbers? I'm pretty sure that there were fewer than 15,000 P-40s and that the P-47 was the most-produced American fighter.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
What source for those P-40 production numbers? I'm pretty sure that there were fewer than 15,000 P-40s and that the P-47 was the most-produced American fighter.
According to my book I'm showing this:
P-51 - 15,875
P-47 - 15,686
P-40 - 13,738
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
What source for those P-40 production numbers? I'm pretty sure that there were fewer than 15,000 P-40s and that the P-47 was the most-produced American fighter.
Thought the P-40 number was a bit high.;)
-
WOW what a lack of history knowledge by some of you I am astounded.
300 Spartans (actually around 1500 men at the start but 1200 left the battle for Athens). This action is taught in most military schools in the world to demonstrate the tactical avantage of TERRAIN vs numbers.
The same as we use alt vs a better turning plane to gain advantage.
To argue plane vs plane without all the "other" factors is just silly, facts are that HTC does the best research it can for the plane models and IMHO do a pretty good job of it.
No WWII pilot experienced anywhere NEAR the combat we do in the MA everyday and in most cases it was a boring albit harrowing experience to fly sorties.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Fw190: around 20,000 produced.
Il-2: around 36,000 produced
B-24: around 19-20,000 produced
P-51: 15,875 (includes 555 of the H model)
P-40: 16,800
Yak Variants: 32,051, plus a further 4635 after the war, total of 36,686.
And we have two.
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
WOW what a lack of history knowledge by some of you I am astounded.
300 Spartans (actually around 1500 men at the start but 1200 left the battle for Athens). This action is taught in most military schools in the world to demonstrate the tactical avantage of TERRAIN vs numbers.
The same as we use alt vs a better turning plane to gain advantage.
To argue plane vs plane without all the "other" factors is just silly, facts are that HTC does the best research it can for the plane models and IMHO do a pretty good job of it.
No WWII pilot experienced anywhere NEAR the combat we do in the MA everyday and in most cases it was a boring albit harrowing experience to fly sorties.
All that's true but I assume most people like to know how planes fight Co-alt, co-E and nothing more or less. Of course planes do have different chances with each other depending on altitude...
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
All that's true but I assume most people like to know how planes fight Co-alt, co-E and nothing more or less. Of course planes do have different chances with each other depending on altitude...
Probably correct but even with those conditions we have different results for different alts.
It has also been my experience in AH to never have had or VERY rarely a co alt co E fight.
-
very true indeed.
Often though, it really bothers me to not know how fighters perform against each other at co-alt, co-E... :lol it's just one of those annoying questions.
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
WOW what a lack of history knowledge by some of you I am astounded.
300 Spartans (actually around 1500 men at the start but 1200 left the battle for Athens). This action is taught in most military schools in the world to demonstrate the tactical avantage of TERRAIN vs numbers.
The same as we use alt vs a better turning plane to gain advantage.
To argue plane vs plane without all the "other" factors is just silly, facts are that HTC does the best research it can for the plane models and IMHO do a pretty good job of it.
No WWII pilot experienced anywhere NEAR the combat we do in the MA everyday and in most cases it was a boring albit harrowing experience to fly sorties.
Huh? All that needs to be said is that Xerxes even though superior in numbers, chose a "frontal assault". His troops WERE decimated, because the Spartans "made the Persians, fight the Spartans style of fight."
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Huh? All that needs to be said is that Xerxes even though superior in numbers, chose a "frontal assault". His troops WERE decimated, because the Spartans "made the Persians, fight the Spartans style of fight."
Ya know Mash you really ought to read up on something before you open your mouth and show how really ignorant you are.
The Persians fought the only way they could because of TERRAIN until a spy showed them how to flank the Spartans, at which time the Spartans were wiped out to a man.
All needs be said by you has been, go read some history there will be quiz's next week
-
Chose a frontal assault as opposed to what? The pass at Thermopylae was closed by a phalanx of hoplite infantry.
They attacked it because there was no other way to go. You make it sound like they could have just flanked them. The Persians were not stupid.
It was a pass, not open ground. Your choices are: #1 frontal attack, or #2 embark your army and leave, with a huge delay in your invasion. Large armies did not move very quickly in those days. You couldnt just load the 250,000 of them into C-5s and fly off somewhere else.
Xerxes gambled that a frontal attack with overwhelming #s would eventually work (and it might have had the Greek infantry been of poorer quality, or had less resolve), but it failed. In retrospect it was a reasonable tactic to attempt to break through, you never know what success might be gained untill you make a foray.
As it was they eventually found a hidden trail the led around them (after a Greek traitor showed them), after 3 days of combat.
The Persians chose a poor spot to embark from, they should have planned for an initial invasion point where their #s would be telling, and they had room to manuever. History is always 20/20 in hindsight as they say...
Next lets talk about the Spitfire, and its relationship to Gettysburg! :rofl
-
The Spitfire at Gettysburg had far less an impact when compared to the Wilderness Campaign and the JU-87 Stuka. If the south had more Stukas things could have turned out much differently for Grant...
-
I never said anything of the sort, just that Xerxes attacked via the "frontal assault". Some of you guys are too touchy.
As for me being "ignorant" to what I posted, prove me wrong. What I posted...happened.
-
Looking his stats his kill ratio is well below 1 and flying almost entirely different versions of P47s.
I think he should rather see a trainer and really try other planes too.
P47 is a very challenging plane to fight in and requires certain discipline that comes usually with experience. It would be enlightening for him to fly e.g. a Spit5 and get owned by a vet in a P47 in a co-alt duel. Maybe that would give a good perspective of what is the meaning of experience.
I have flown P47 every now and then and I have developed a healthy respect for P47 pilots who manage to be very effective in it.
:)
-C+
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
All that needs to be said is that Xerxes even though superior in numbers, chose a "frontal assault".
What other method could Xerxes have chosen?
-
Originally posted by Charge
P47 is a very challenging plane to fight in and requires certain discipline that comes usually with experience. It would be enlightening for him to fly e.g. a Spit5 and get owned by a vet in a P47 in a co-alt duel. Maybe that would give a good perspective of what is the meaning of experience.
I have flown P47 every now and then and I have developed a healthy respect for P47 pilots who manage to be very effective in it.
:)
-C+
For all who be used to fly a FW190A8 vs Spits, Temps, La´s and Yaks, the P47 (specialy the D-11) feel more like a superclimbing turnfighter.
Of course its not the best close-in dogfighter, but its more easy to disengage than with a 190A8 and the initial turn down to stall speed with full flaps is very good. Also the B&Z ability is much better. The handling with flaps is also very good.
There are only a few planes that own the P47(no advantage left) and this planes are not axis planes.
Btw, Uriel is absolutly right, when he say the P47 was very good, so it is in AH. Unfortunately he seems to forget that "very good" dont mean, "best sustained turn fighter". In RL very good rather mean "good range, good armned, good manouverable and fast and though enough to bring the pilot home".
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What other method could Xerxes have chosen?
Why are we debating this FACT? I never said he SHOULD HAVE chosen another route. He was victim to the tactics of the day, until he was helped by the traitor.
-
http://yarchive.net/mil/p47.html
-C+
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Why are we debating this FACT? I never said he SHOULD HAVE chosen another route. He was victim to the tactics of the day, until he was helped by the traitor.
Actually, he would have landed forces behind the Spartans if the Athenian fleet had not blocked his navy at the straits near Artemisium (if I spelled that right...).
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
WOW what a lack of history knowledge by some of you I am astounded.
300 Spartans (actually around 1500 men at the start but 1200 left the battle for Athens). This action is taught in most military schools in the world to demonstrate the tactical avantage of TERRAIN vs numbers.
I agree, just goes to show what happens when one gets their history lesson from a movie based on a graphical novel rather than historical fact.
By the way, it was approximately 7,000 Greeks at the start of the battle and when the majority of the Greek retreated, approximately 2,000 were left (Spartans, Helots, Thespians (the non-actor kind), and Thebans).
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I agree, just goes to show what happens when one gets their history lesson from a movie based on a graphical novel rather than historical fact.
By the way, it was approximately 7,000 Greeks at the start of the battle and when the majority of the Greek retreated, approximately 2,000 were left (Spartans, Helots, Thespians (the non-actor kind), and Thebans).
ack-ack
You are correct, I just stated the later fact that the Thespians and Helots left the battle to protect Athens, while the Spartans (by choice) stayed to fight the rear guard action at the pass.
The movies and others have picked the end of the facts to glorify, but it is STILL the terrain that was the tactical advantage and the Persians had NO choice but a frontal attack, and that by light infantry troops more suited to open area's.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I agree, just goes to show what happens when one gets their history lesson from a movie based on a graphical novel rather than historical fact.
By the way, it was approximately 7,000 Greeks at the start of the battle and when the majority of the Greek retreated, approximately 2,000 were left (Spartans, Helots, Thespians (the non-actor kind), and Thebans).
ack-ack
Yep, closer to 10,000 actually. Once it became clear they could not hold any more they went back to help deffend Athens. The spartans were the last to fall and there were only 300. Athens was evacuated on time so they ended up burning it. Here is your home work now. How many Persians made it back?
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
You are correct, I just stated the later fact that the Thespians and Helots left the battle to protect Athens, while the Spartans (by choice) stayed to fight the rear guard action at the pass.
The movies and others have picked the end of the facts to glorify, but it is STILL the terrain that was the tactical advantage and the Persians had NO choice but a frontal attack, and that by light infantry troops more suited to open area's.
No, the Thespians stayed with the Spartans, the Thebans were supposedly forced to remain and the Helots had no choice since they were Spartan serfs. The Thespians, Spartans and Helots fought until the bitter end. The Thebans, who of questionable loyalty, surrendered to the Persians and then allied themselves with Xerxes. Friggin' Thebans, can't trust 'em.
The "romance" that surrounds the story of the 300 Spartans is a result of movies like "300 Spartans" and "300". People should remember that just because something is based on something, doesn't make it a historical fact.
Originally posted by dedalos
Here is your home work now. How many Persians made it back?
Depends on who's numbers you go by. Herodotus reported the Persian forces at over 5 million men and Ctesias places that number around 800,00 while modern estimates range from 100,00 to 250,000 Persians. Now just subtract the estimated Persian losses of 20,000 killed and you'll get your multiple answers.
Who would have known the thread hijack topic proved more interesting than the original topic?
ack-ack
-
WTF in the world, do butt-naked spearchuckers from ancient Greece have to do with the P-47 Thunderbolt???
-
No, the Thespians stayed with the Spartans, the Thebans
My buddy's wife turned out to be a Theban
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
WTF in the world, do butt-naked spearchuckers from ancient Greece have to do with the P-47 Thunderbolt???
I'm trying to find this out myself.
-
it's a lot more interesting topic than the OP's post, which by the way can be read in 3 other thread the OP made in case this thread has been hijacked.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Here is your home work now. How many Persians made it back?
The small contingent that went back to Persia with Xerxes, the rest were massacred by the now fully raised and ready Greek Army consisting of the full armies of Sparta, Thebes, Athens, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe a couple hundred made it back after the final battle, but I highly doubt many more survived the wrath of the Greeks after Xerxes sacked Athens.
-
Originally posted by Hoffman
The small contingent that went back to Persia with Xerxes, the rest were massacred by the now fully raised and ready Greek Army consisting of the full armies of Sparta, Thebes, Athens, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe a couple hundred made it back after the final battle, but I highly doubt many more survived the wrath of the Greeks after Xerxes sacked Athens.
Hmmm I don't think that is correct, in fact I think he made it back with quite a few troops and it was not until Alexander the Great that the Greeks got even for Athens.
-
Well the Persians lost at least half of whatever Xerxes left at Platea, the rest were butchered by Alexander the 1st as they tried to retreat back to Asia Minor through Macedonia.
-
Originally posted by Hoffman
Well the Persians lost at least half of whatever Xerxes left at Platea, the rest were butchered by Alexander the 1st as they tried to retreat back to Asia Minor through Macedonia.
Correct.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Correct.
LOL how would YOU know
-
Originally posted by Hoffman
The small contingent that went back to Persia with Xerxes, the rest were massacred by the now fully raised and ready Greek Army consisting of the full armies of Sparta, Thebes, Athens, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe a couple hundred made it back after the final battle, but I highly doubt many more survived the wrath of the Greeks after Xerxes sacked Athens.
Hofman and Masherbrum win. Depending on the sources very few if any made it back. I am sure some did
-
I get it! The Persians were deck jugs and the Greeks were Lgheys---had the Persians stayed above 8k or so they'd have lived....frikkin Spartans had ho'ing IL2's
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Hofman and Masherbrum win. Depending on the sources very few if any made it back. I am sure some did
A quick google of the subject will show that your question didnot include what you really wanted to ask.
The facts are that the Persian King returned home (after a losing sea battle) with most of his troops and left "some" (a large number to be sure) behind to deal with Greeks,
THESE are the troops who were decisively beaten.
With that in mind I don't think there was a "wrong" answer to your question