Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Jekyll on December 30, 2000, 12:17:00 AM
-
But why is the F4U-1C carrier capable? I had understood that the entire 200 unit block had been operated by the US Marine Corps, in particular the 4th Marine Air Wing.
Now, if the only 1C's to enter combat were operated by the Marines, then they would not have had tailhooks, right?
And if they didn't have tailhooks, then why are they available for use from our CV's?
I just know I'm gonna get murdered for asking this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
The assasins are on their way, Jekyll. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Others on this BBS have said that they were Navy and operated off of carriers at Iwo Jima.
I have no reason to think otherwise, so until I see evidence to the contrary I'll take them to be Navy.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Sisu
-Karnak
-
yes i was hoping to get away from that bastard by hopping on a boat but alas it follows me..........
-
Bang! ...................> Your dead!
JK Jekyll Couldn't resist. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
If it was up to me the 1C would be perked with a very low # of points. This would solve a lot of gameplay issues IMHO.
However, until we get a full complement of CV capable planes I don't see anything changeing.
-
From "American Warplanes of WWII" by David Donald, "...only 200 F4U-1Cs were built, with most going to VMF-211." I'm not sure how to take that - one squadron couldn't possibly have made use of the majority of 200 airplanes. It does not, however, rule out a small number seeing action for the Navy, flying off carriers.
My biggest problem with the F4U-1C is the external stores capability. I have cross referenced this in 3 different sources, and they are all clear on the point that the 1D was the first Corsair equipped for carrying droptanks, bombs, and rockets. The 1C should not be able to load these items.
Its virtual absence of torque also surprises me. I stood at the end of the runway in a 1C, with 75% fuel and 1 notch of flaps, and rammed the throttle to full. I was able to control torque steer with minor rudder inputs. I believe the A6M5b requires more correction than this. It certainly doesn't remind me of its reputation as an ensign eliminator.
I agree with Ghosth - it makes sense to perk it for a small number of points. It'll give the Hog drivers something to aspire to.
-
Lazs or F4UDOA should be able to help with this one. But my references also say that it was the 1D model which was fitted with the twin-pylon rack for 2 * 1000lb bombs or auxilary fuel tanks, rocket projectile equipment.
-
i dont necessari;y think it should be perked, but what i understand is that:
it was a pure land borne fighter with no a2g ordnance capability. no tailhook, no pylons. thats what i heard. then people could make the decision, do i want ordnance or cannon?
that would be best IMO, unless someone proves the -1cs could a) operate off carriers and b) carry 2 1k eggs plus 4 rocks
-
Well that was my understanding as well zigrat, but I'm far from an expert on the Corsair series.
Still hoping lazs or F4UDOA will jump in here and set things straight.
-
I am not positive, but I do believe the -1C was used in WW2 by at least 1 Navy squad. I think it did operate off a carrier, but I am not sure. Can't remember the squad number off the top of my head, but it is in the Osprey aircraft of the aces book on the F4U. The only -1C in the profile section is from a Navy squad.
BTW, I may be mistaken on this. If I am, please forgive my ignorance (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-math
------------------
"Any American fighter near Orote Penninsula. I have forty Jap planes surrounded and need a little help."
-Ens. W.B. "Spider" Webb during the Marians Turkey Shoot
-
I checked the Osprey book, and it talks about VF-85 flying 1Cs off the Shangri-La.
The color plate incorrectly shows a 1D, however the line drawings in the back show rocket hardpoints on a 1C. Also there is a first hand account given by Lt Joe Robbins of Shangri-La's VF-85, of cap missions with drop tanks and A2G missions using the 1C carrying rockets and bombs.
Based on the evidence given by the Osprey book, I think we can conclude the 1C was used by the Navy off CVs, and carried A2G ordnance.
Thanks for your help, Mathman!
-
I have no idea how the idea that CHogs were solely land-based Marine aircraft got started, but it's utterly and COMPLETELY wrong.
In fact, the opposite may be true; as best I can currently tell, there were NO land-based CHogs AT ALL.
1) There clearly were Naval Chog Squadrons.
"Aces over Japan" By Eric Hammel, is a series of personal accounts of US WWII Fighter Pilots.
"Taming the 20mm" is in Chapter 15 and is by a Navy CHog pilot from VF-85 based on the Carrier Shangri-La.
2) After 1944 when the Corsair became Carrier-capable, there many MARINE squadrons that were moved to CARRIERS. This business about Marine AC not being CV-capable is from 1943 when the vast majority of Hogs were Marine and the Hog wasn't CV-qualifed yet. CHog didn't turn up till 1945.
But MARINE squadron does NOT = land based, automatically, as many people believe.
The same pilot in "Taming the 20mm" mentions VMF-311(a Marine Squadron) flying off USS Breton as the first CHogs in combat.
He also states VMF-441 was equipped with the AC.
Simply the facts. I personally support the CHog being made an easy-to-get perk plane.
I note that my prediction that the addition of CVs would make the plague of Chogs even bigger has come true (despite the mocking my prediction received.) After the "novelty" effect of Hellcats has been wearing off it's getting even worse.
-
Also, everything I can find has the CHog with the 2x1000 lb bomb carrying capacity, etc.
-
Some light info: http://www.hitechcreations.com/f4u1c.html (http://www.hitechcreations.com/f4u1c.html)
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Jekyll,
I don't really know where you are getting your information.. but there are a few things that seem wrong.
I've not known the military to vary any multi-branch aircraft in the manner you are describing. The struts, the tail-hook, the re-inforcements would all be in place regardless of wether it was going to fly from a CV or not. Carrier qualified was not a field mod... it was an aircraft spec.
Hell.. most of the planes in the Air Force have tail-hooks these days.
AKDejaVu
-
Well, if you want to cripple the CHog a little, historically, according to the account in Aces Against Japan, when the CHogs first arrived, the guns froze completely above 15,000 ft....the gun tests above 15k in the US were canceled.
The mechanics quickly fashioned heaters and some were sent from the US to solve the problem.
We could model a CHog during the couple of weeks they couldn't shoot above 15k :-) Not that that matters in AH much at all given the average altitude of combat.
I really think the Chog becoming a low-cost perk solves EVERYTHING and doesn't screw over anybody.
Any whiner CHog drivers bemoaning how their God-Given right to fly any plane whenever they want has been violated(who were the sort of people who had massive conniption fits over the RPS in Warbirds) can't complain too much since they have another AC virtually identical in handling, the DHog, and with the changes to the gunnery model, the .50s are a lot more effective.
And they can fly for a few days and get enough perk points to buy a CHog to fly for a bit.
I think that would move CHogs to a reasonable % of the number of Hogs in the air in the arena at any one time...maybe 5%....
-
thx for info, i have been proven wrong on the ability of the c hog (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
i had thought those deletions (pylons and tailgear) were why the c hog climbs and turns better. Has anyone in fact calculated the weight of 6 m2 v 4 hispano (each with ammo) ?
-
Zigrat:
Browning M2 weighs: 70 lbs
1 belted round of .50 weighs (approx): .305 lb
6xM2 + 2350 .50 rounds weigh: 1137 lbs
Hispano weighs: 129 lbs
belted round of 20mm weighs (approx): .653 lb
4xHis + 932 20mm rounds weigh: 1125 lbs
Data from page 133 in "America's Hundred Thousand".
Pyro has stated before that the 1C and 1D use the same FM but the 1C weighs about 200lbs less. This would indicate about a 1.5% increase in climb and turn performance. IMO the C-Hog advantages vs the D-hog in turn and climb are mostly imaginary. FWIW I can't tell the difference flying them or fighting against them.
Hooligan
-
Marine aircraft all have to be carrier qualified, as do the Marine pilots.
C model corsairs should have their tailhook, though crews based on land may take them off to lighten the aircraft. However, that would not be a standard configuration.
We only get the standard configuration model, including its tail hook.
Hans.
-
thx for the info hooligan (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
personally, i dont have much of a problem with the f4u-1c, excepting its ability versus armor (which i believe is more due to improper armor damage models rather than incorrect hispano modeling)
-
Zigrat:
Standard ammo belting for British Hispanos was a mix of AP/I and HE/I. The HE/I shouldn't be very good against tank armor, but the AP/I should penetrate something like 45mm at short range. With the added velocity of an aircraft going 300mph this is another 5 or 10mm. Against later war tanks this isn't that great, but the Pz IV in AH isn't in that class. Regardless they should easily knock the tracks off of any tank.
-
Sorry Torgo, but I disagree with the idea of perking the CHog. Performance-wise, it is supposedly identical with the DHog. It's only advantage is in its guns.
Skurj, I admit that my references are not the best, but I had read that the entire 200 CHogs were delivered to the 4th Marine Air Wing. Now, although Marine Hogs could land on carriers, it WAS common practice to remove tailhooks for airfield operations.
Heck, even VF-17 removed their tailhooks when they were operating from land-based fields.
-
Sorry Hooligan, no dice on that one (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Against the TOP armor,the 20mm should be able to pene any tank up to about 1955,
against frontal armor, it would,and did fail against PzII's and btw, the IVH is a late war tank FYI (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Jekyll,
Um, the guns are a pretty big deal.
At some level the MA is an APPROXIMATION of reality. Yes, I know, as is inevitably pointed out, WWII wasn't a three sided war between countries named after chess pieces.
But as it stands now, the CHog gets more kills in the arena in a couple hours than it did in all of WWII.
I don't think the CHog manevering model is porked, I haven't seen them do impossible things, but I think it's just simply unseemly to have so many of the AC in the arena be an aircraft which was a tiny footnote in the history of fighter AC in WWII.
Stats from last tour...(note you can't do a search for sorties per plane, unfortunately, so I'm using kills)
F4U-1C: 15,513 kills
Next closest fighter aircraft:
N1K2: 6,176
SpitIX: 5,944
P51D: 5,280
So the CHog has almost as many kills as the next three most popular aircraft COMBINED.
And it's gonna be MUCH worse this tour. Of the above 4 AC, only ONE is CV-Capable. And a lot of people like flying off CVs :-)
Someone give me ONE reason why AH would be a WORSE game if the CHog was perked. Just one. How would people's enjoyment of the game be reduced?
The main reason to perk it, though, is simply that it was a rare AC.
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
Sorry Torgo, but I disagree with the idea of perking the CHog. Performance-wise, it is supposedly identical with the DHog. It's only advantage is in its guns.
Skurj, I admit that my references are not the best, but I had read that the entire 200 CHogs were delivered to the 4th Marine Air Wing. Now, although Marine Hogs could land on carriers, it WAS common practice to remove tailhooks for airfield operations.
Heck, even VF-17 removed their tailhooks when they were operating from land-based fields.
Hmm as this is my first post on this thread... Check your data more carefully Jekyll <$> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
And to add.. The british (i think) who had F4's removed the hooks and also did not have the folding wing gear, and they even had some f4's without the wing tanks. Now those F4's would outperform both those which we have in the MA (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
AKskurj
[This message has been edited by SKurj (edited 01-02-2001).]
-
A helpful and informative post skurj.
Just WHICH data should I check more carefully?
A bit of data from your end might just have helped !
-
pzvg:
The PzIV is only really safe against Hispano fire from the front. Other late war tanks, like the Pz V for example have much better all around protection. Armor on the Pz IV series is pretty unimpressive compared to its late war contemporaries.
Hooligan
-
CC, it is that. That's what you get when you basically keep adding a bigger gun on an old design to keep it within shouting distance of the neighbors. But, The Hispano should not be able to pene the side skirt and side armor, It simply doesn't retain enough energy to pene both of them, but that's all academic anyway, since armor usage in the MA is hampered by too many factors that won't be changing anytime soon, Not a shot at HTC by anymeans, I understand what they're about I think, but the panzers will probably remain simple fun, after all it's Aces High (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
That adds up to four 20's equaling twelve 50 calibers, judged by those standards. Of course you have other advantages of the 20. You have much greater penetration of armor. The 20 will go thru 3/4 inch of armor at 500 yards, while the 50 cal, will go through only .43 inchs.[/b]
From: The Report of the Joint Fighter Conference, edited by Francis Dean is availble from Schiffer Military History. ISBN # 0-7643-0404-6
Panzer IV H armor:
Front Armor = 82.0
Side Armor = 30.0
Rear Armor = 21.0
Front Turret = 80.0
Side Turret = 33.0
Rear Turret = 30.0
Top Armor = 10.0
According to the book, at 500 yards (with no ammo specified, but given that penetration it is more then likely AP, AP/I on US face hardened steel thats not generally as tough as German corrugated armor) it can penetrate 19mm of armor.
Quoted from one of my babbelfests
Thats a round landing perpendicular to the armor, something that rarely, if ever happens at aircraft attack angles. You can usually throw out 50% of all shells because of angle of penetration, and belting mix (hits are spread out depending on AP to HE ratio as the HE generally explode on impact). Given angle effect, that 30mm of armor can come out to the effect of several more inches armor. A penetration of 45mm (1.7 inches) would probably somewhere under 150 yards ( making a perpendicular shot at that range without ramming the target would be just slightly difficult (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
The side skirts are only 5mm's thick, but even this is enough to slow the round down enough to severly hamper penetration (and cause deflection away from the main armor as it travels between the skirt and the next hard object on the tank, usually the side armor or the upper guide wheels)
Say it still manages to get through the hull armor without shattering, deflecting, etc. The only real threat now is a AP/I landing in the ammo storage. There are other possible fatalities, such as armor spall fragments from partial penetration etc but unless the ammo or fuel goes off the tank won't be knocked immediately out of action, albeit it's movement stopped or slowed.
But anyway, arguing penetration, armor strength, armor thickness, etc is all pretty silly without taking into account angle of penetration.
And besides all that I've got the feeling penetration in AH is modeled on weight of fire. Which is no big deal, other then giving two planes a much larger advantage. But it's simple, it works (sorta), and it probably won't change until HTC has dealt with more important game play issues.
- Jig
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 01-04-2001).]
-
Btw WHY IS the 1C lighter then the 1D? removed fuel tanks?
And didn't some Marine units have the F4U's without carrier gear as well (folding wing gear, tail hooks)?
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
A helpful and informative post skurj.
Just WHICH data should I check more carefully?
A bit of data from your end might just have helped !
You confused me with DejaVu (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
AKskurj