Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Krusty on October 05, 2010, 09:35:00 PM
-
The P-47 models didn't have 425 rpg. The D11 didn't, the D25 didn't, the N didn't, and the M didn't.
One single group used the overload ammo load solely for ground attack and strafing. These would be late war D-40 types (or close enough), so if it must be left in-game, leave it only on our D-40. Remove the 400-round option on the other craft.
We have no gondolas on the 109F and no gondolas on the 109K4, because frankly these planes did not use them.
Our P-47s did not use this ammo loadout either, and I'd wager a pretty penny that 90% of all sorties use the overload ammo (at least... the way they spray ammo from 2k out on end seems to imply they're not worried! :P).
I've used it myself, more than enough. It's nice. It's just totally inaccurate.
-
+1
-
+ 1 :aok
-
Might be wrong, but I think I remember reading that some of the groups in Italy used the overload ammo, and they would've been flying razorback models. That being said, I rarely ever use the overload anyway--too much of a performance penalty and the normal ammo load is plenty for lazy fire discipline on 5 kills anyway...
-
The P-47 models didn't have 425 rpg. The D11 didn't, the D25 didn't, the N didn't, and the M didn't.
One single group used the overload ammo load solely for ground attack and strafing. These would be late war D-40 types (or close enough), so if it must be left in-game, leave it only on our D-40. Remove the 400-round option on the other craft.
We have no gondolas on the 109F and no gondolas on the 109K4, because frankly these planes did not use them.
Our P-47s did not use this ammo loadout either, and I'd wager a pretty penny that 90% of all sorties use the overload ammo (at least... the way they spray ammo from 2k out on end seems to imply they're not worried! :P).
I've used it myself, more than enough. It's nice. It's just totally inaccurate.
That is intresting info. Most of the time I up in the D25, i used the low ammo count to reduce weight for better performance. The overload ammo is a bit of a over kill.
-
The POH for the P-47N states that the max load was 500 rounds per gun not 425. Maybe we can get that increased. :devil
-
The POH for the P-47N states that the max load was 500 rounds per gun not 425. Maybe we can get that increased. :devil
That is a lot of weight that will burn more fuel and decreed performance.
-
How much performance is it needed to bnz only in the p47?
Semp
-
Darn, something I have to agree with Krusty about...unusual.
+1
-
I am actually one of those 267 rpg guys... If it is inaccurate I say let's fix it! Nobody needs that extra weight anyway.
:rock
-
Krusty,
The History of German Aviation: Willy Messerschmitt - Pioneer of Aviation Design says the K4 used them...
"frankly" does not equal not used. It would be a nice option as I like the K4. In the grand scheme of things, I would prefer to have the ability to choose fuel tanks then that.
-
The History of German Aviation: Willy Messerschmitt - Pioneer of Aviation Design says the K4 used them...
"frankly" does not equal not used. It would be a nice option as I like the K4. In the grand scheme of things, I would prefer to have the ability to choose fuel tanks then that.
the 109K4 had the 8x.50 overload? :headscratch:
if thats how they were used then sure +1
pretty sure the jug main tank damage model needs a look at too ... :uhoh
-
ignore
-
Neither of you read past the first sentence of the Op it seems.
the 109K4 had the 8x.50 overload? :headscratch:
Wrong thread. ;)
The P-47 models didn't have 425 rpg. The D11 didn't, the D25 didn't, the N didn't, and the M didn't.
One single group used the overload ammo load solely for ground attack and strafing. These would be late war D-40 types (or close enough), so if it must be left in-game, leave it only on our D-40. Remove the 400-round option on the other craft.
We have no gondolas on the 109F and no gondolas on the 109K4, because frankly these planes did not use them.
Our P-47s did not use this ammo loadout either, and I'd wager a pretty penny that 90% of all sorties use the overload ammo (at least... the way they spray ammo from 2k out on end seems to imply they're not worried! :P).
I've used it myself, more than enough. It's nice. It's just totally inaccurate.
-
only models i use overload on is the M and N models. if im doing ground attack i use the Ds and thats when i use overload for the D models. when in fighter mode for 47s i only use overload for the M n N
I'd love to see gondies for the K4 :t
-
Not trying to change the subject but by the same token did anybody take off with 50% fuel and drop tanks in WW2? Wouldn't applying the historical accuracy argument across the board have us all take off with full internal fuel all the time?
-
I understand that gameplay concessions will be made with regards to fuel FLS.
However, why allow artificial weapons options?
It'd be like 480 hispano rounds in a spit9. Just because it's a game doesn't mean we gotta bend ALL the rules, eh?
-
I understand that gameplay concessions will be made with regards to fuel FLS.
However, why allow artificial weapons options?
It'd be like 480 hispano rounds in a spit9. Just because it's a game doesn't mean we gotta bend ALL the rules, eh?
Could be like the 1000 lb bomb option on the P-51. We've only found one instance where they were used (Iwo close support missions) but we have it in game, all the time.
-
Could be like the 1000 lb bomb option on the P-51. We've only found one instance where they were used (Iwo close support missions) but we have it in game, all the time.
weighs the 51 down too much. i just ignore the 1000s and take the 500s anyways in a pony. if i want 1ks i take jugs or bombers
-
I understand that gameplay concessions will be made with regards to fuel FLS.
However, why allow artificial weapons options?
It'd be like 480 hispano rounds in a spit9. Just because it's a game doesn't mean we gotta bend ALL the rules, eh?
The Spit9 had a 480 round cannon option? The Jugs were designed for 6 guns and ended up with the option for 2 more. They had the option of the 270 or 425 (or 500) round loadout like our P-51D with the 4 gun option with 500 rounds per gun for 2 guns. You have the choice of gun/ammo package just like you do with fuel. Some people take off with 100% fuel all the time. Choice is good.
If you're flying a scenario then historical loadouts are expected and available.
I fully support your wishing for whatever you want here, but I don't see any reason to limit other people to your preference.
-
Here is my position on the matter (this applies to all aircraft not just the P-47)
- If the loadout was used in combat with adequate documentation, then it should be in included in Aces High
- If the loadout was a factory option with no (or unsubstantiated) documentation of combat usage it should be excluded from Aces High
- If the loadout was a factory produced field modification, that was used in combat with adequate documentation, then it should be in included in Aces High [Think B-25C chin guns]
- If the loadout was a field produced modification (with factory documentation), that was used in combat with adequate documentation, then it should be in included in Aces High [Think B-25C gun's in the nose]
- If the loadout was a field produced modification (without documentation), that was used in combat with adequate documentation, it should still be excluded from Aces High [no discernible way to draw the line at cannibalization]
This is not HTC's position as I understand it but, it would allow for many more options in game (both for the MA and special events), without having to add new planes.
-
Could be like the 1000 lb bomb option on the P-51. We've only found one instance where they were used (Iwo close support missions) but we have it in game, all the time.
That's a different thread (also splitting up rockets, or bombs. but not both). Albeit one that I'd support :)
FLS.... The F6F could take 20mm cannons. The P-40 was built with the ability (from the factory design) to carry 20mm cannons also. There are a large number of weaponry loadouts that are pure fantasy (that is, they never, or in only 1 rare case ever used these loadouts in the real war).
Do we want to have such fantastical setups? Most of us do not. This is a WW2 game and the vast majority of us play it to immerse ourselves into WW2. Not to just make things up (i.e. Luft '46 style) because they were a plan, or they were written on paper somewhere but never built/realized/used in the war.
We already have precedent for what should and should not be in the game. We have the removal of the 109F gondalas, the rolling back of the 109G6 to be late-1942 era (no 30mm), the removal of wing gondolas on the 109K4... and all these examples are just on one single family of craft! There are more!
The overload option was rarely if ever used by a single group for limited use in ground strafing. It's highly unrealistic to have them going around spraying 3600 rounds of ammo per plane -- yes I'm guilty of this too -- when it only carried about 300 per gun.
You want to talk about what COULD be done vs what WAS done? That's another debate, feel free to start a new topic.
-
If the overload ammo for 4 out of 5 P-47 is removed then creators of this game has to provide lengthy explanation.
-
Krusty anything that was used once isn't pure fantasy. If the F6F-5 used 20mm during WW2 it would be a nice addition to AH but I believe that was only the F6F-5N.
-
Krusty anything that was used once isn't pure fantasy. If the F6F-5 used 20mm during WW2 it would be a nice addition to AH but I believe that was only the F6F-5N.
Only two 20mm's were used.
-
Whatever is historically correct I'm all for.
-
Whatever is historically correct I'm all for.
You're just a historically correct slut! :devil
-
You're just a historically correct slut! :devil
:rofl
-
The only version I could see looking at without more detailed data would be the P-47M because its the only version of the Thunderbolt to be used strictly in the air to air role.
-
The P-47 was always a superiority fighter and interceptor from the beginning...
Just because the D-11 in-game doesn't perform like a -47M doesn't mean that it was any less impressive for it's time. It also broke the back of the Luftwaffe with the 267-round option.
Don't think that because it was moved to ground attack that it was any less of a fighter. Even in the target-scarce environment of the pacific, one ground attack unit developed many aces that engaged and killed the enemy to or from the target.
-
Im aware of its history but it seemed the conversation was leaning towards the possible conclusion that the 425 round option was a close support load only. If that is the case, then the P-47M (used by the 56th FG in early 1945) would be the version to remove it from, since it was the only version of the type that was used purely in the air to air role. You will note the P-47M cannot carry bombs in AH, that because of its role historically, not becauae it could not carry bombs. All the other P-47s in game; the P-47D-11, P-47D-25, P-47D-40, and P-47N were used in both roles in WW2, a/g, and a/a.
The 9th Tactical Air Command used the P-47D-11, P-47D-25, and P-47D-40 in the close support and fighter-bomber role from 44-45, some 12-14 groups total. Thats not including the 12th AF in the MED and units in the PACIFIC with the 5th and 7th AFs (mainly ref to the P-47N here). Thats a huge # of P-47s that were employed either mainly or in part in the ground attack role.
Then you have the 8th AF(ETO) and 15th AF (MED) which flew mainly escort, with some air-ground as well.
Can you elaborate on "only one group used the overload" are you referring to a group in the 8th AF only? you didn't specify or provide any further detail so its hard to know where you are going with it.
-
The P-47 models didn't have 425 rpg. The D11 didn't, the D25 didn't, the N didn't, and the M didn't.
Not true. USAAF T.O. No. 01-65BC-1 dated January 1943 clearly states that the maximum number of rounds per gun is 425 for the B, C, D and G models. It does state that the normal load of ammunition for the six gun package is 300 rounds per gun and with eight guns, 200 rounds per gun. Republic specifications I have for the M and N model show 267 rounds per gun for the six and an additional 233 per gun for the two overload. I have not yet found a POH for the M or N models. I'm sure it exists somewhere but I have not seen it yet. With the wing basically unchanged during the production run (P-47N additonal fuel and span notwithstanding), if the 425 was allowable in the B, C, D and G models, it would most certainly be allowed in the M and N models as well.
One single group used the overload ammo load solely for ground attack and strafing. These would be late war D-40 types (or close enough), so if it must be left in-game, leave it only on our D-40. Remove the 400-round option on the other craft.
Which group would that be? The vast majority of the 8th and 9th AF P-47 groups did air-mud. Even the 56th FG toted bombs regularly. Gabreski was made a POW when the propeller of his P-47D-25RE hit the ground on a strafing run in June or July of 1944.
Anybody who sprays ammo at 2K is either a newbie or an idiot....3400 rounds or not, at that distance you'll never hit anything except the ground and even then, not accurately.
-
I like the overload for buzz sawing the bombers into pieces and not worrying about Oh, I only killed 3 bombers and still have 700 rounds to fight the fighter coming up now. :x
-
EDO43 You can get a P-47N manual here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-47-thunderbolt-manuals-5081.html
--)-FLS-----
-
Its also in the AH Wiki. Maximum load possible for the N model was 500 rounds per gun. Page 56 of the POH.
-
The POH for the P-47N states that the max load was 500 rounds per gun not 425. Maybe we can get that increased. :devil
This is a partial photo of a damaged P47-N right wing that is being repaired. Notice the stencil?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/p47nwing-1.png)
http://www.footnote.com/image/#29019877
-
This is a partial photo of a damaged P47-N right wing that is being repaired. Notice the stencil?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/p47nwing-1.png)
http://www.footnote.com/image/#29019877
Stencils were sometimes applied in the field. It could have been a squadron/group/AF SOP. There are a number of annecdotes of pilots purposefully overloading the ammo, so it was done. The Ie Shima P-47Ns were always having to be weight conscious due to the short field lengths, so I don't think they would have carried the extra weight, especially since they were mostly concerned with maximizing fuel weight.
-
Maximum possible but never used.
The P-47s always had something under them, whether it was DTs or bombs. They just had too short a range to fly without the DTs, and if they were that close (later in the war) they were lugging 3 bombs for ground support duties.
You couldn't carry more than 267 rounds of ammo without suffering manuvering restrictions if anything was on the pylons.
So in short they just didn't load more than 267 to avoid restrictions in most cases.
Not the best source, but still mentions reduction to 267 rpg:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hl_jIKALDBMC&lpg=PA24&ots=UTOAkOe30E&dq=P-47%20425%20rounds%20per%20gun&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false
(page 24)
A much better source... According to this book scan, starting with the D and forward the ammo was reduced to 267 rpg:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4648599/Aircraft-Profile-007-Republic-P47D-Thunderbolt
(4th page)
Another good source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GuuOyzdx1UAC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=%22P-47%22+%22rounds+per+gun%22+ammunition&source=bl&ots=xDJlK3v5Nq&sig=Eigiemz7Vd3irI025485JB9f014&hl=en&ei=_TSvTJXhLYbGlQfuqsXlDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22P-47%22%20%22rounds%20per%20gun%22%20ammunition&f=false
Bottom of page 55 mentions manuver restrictions and 250 (I sometimes think they round these numbers)
Even Joe Baugher's website makes mention of 267 rpg with any load:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p47_4.html
These planes never were clean. Even the venerable P-47M almost always had drop tanks.
Just because there was "space" for 400-500 rounds doesn't mean the policy was to ever use this many rounds.
Even the flight testing for the P-47C was done with 1800 rounds of ammo (300 rpg, not far off from the 267 figure) as seen here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-8thaf-tactical.html
Here you see P-47D testing done with "525 lbs of ballast in ammo boxes" -- which at AH weights comes to just about 1700 rounds, close enough to be compared to the 267 rpg loadout:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-74616.html
Here you see another test with 6 guns and 300 rpg (not too far from 267 rpg)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035-11oct43.html
And another 300 rpg flight test:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html
Pre-combat tactical trials of the P-47C
"The aircraft were flown throughout the trials with 6 guns only and 300 rounds per gun, which is the equivalent weight of armament likely to be used during operations in Europe. It is probable that when commencing operations 8 guns with 200 rounds each will be used."
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-afdu.html
So as you can see it doesn't matter how much room there was. What matters was how much was ever really carried. The Ta152 has 1/3 less 20mm rounds from the Fw190D not because of smaller storage but because of policy to save weight. Same goes for the P-47s.
The PTO planes were so heavy that some sources suggested they removed 4 or 6 guns. On one island they barely had enough room to get off the ground and they could barely do so with a "normal" load of ammo. No chance they used overload ammo there.
Which group in the ETO used it eludes me at the moment. It's been mentioned on these forums before. Couldn't find a quick link while copying and pasting all of the above.
What I'd like to see is ONE reference anywhere as to a COMBAT SORTIE being flown with the 425 round loadout. I found one reference that was obviously mixed up because it claimed one guy was flying around with "800 rounds per gun" and must be a mistake. Other than that, please defend this loadout being in the game, please.
-
Krusty you make a good argument for using 267 rounds per gun in scenarios.
-
Thats interesting info. It does show the P-47 could load the 425 rpg but it was not advised if it carried wing Drop Tanks or 500 lbers on the wings (1000 lb load). HTC would have to change the loadout mix to have the selected ord be a combined bomb/dt/ammo load that dropped the ammo down to 267 max if a DT or 500 lb bomb was loaded.
The P-47D-11, being a non wing pylon version, I would think would be exempt. The one source stated that "common" loads for the P-47 were 300 and 350 rpg. So they certainly did exceed 267 rnds on ops sometimes. None of the sources stated that it could never load the 425 rpg, or that they were never used.
The one source stated that "common" loads for the P-47 were 300 and 350 rpg. So they certainly did exceed 267 rnds on ops sometimes.
*There is a problem of course in that many a/c in game had "flight restrictions" if they carried a certain load. Fighter-bombers could not just yank and bank and pull high speed Gs with pylon loaded bombs or DTs. Thats true for all of them, not just the P-47. You cant take up a Spitfire XVI with a pair of 250 bombs and just dogfight to your hearts content either in real life. So thats something they would have to look at applying fairly.*
I could see a 267 load restriction on FSO P-47s though. I will tuck that info away next time I have them in a setup.
-
http://books.google.com/books?id=hl_jIKALDBMC&lpg=PA24&ots=UTOAkOe30E&dq=P-47%20425%20rounds%20per%20gun&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false
(page 24)
If we select HVARS + bombs + tanks that means ammo rounds must also be reduced to 267 per gun.
This should be programmed for next update!
-
If we select HVARS + bombs + tanks that means ammo rounds must also be reduced to 267 per gun.
This should be programmed for next update!
You're talking about 200 lbs per wing in aircraft that weigh 18000-20000 lbs in that configuration. A 2% difference and you'd likely jettison the drop tanks before any hard maneuvering.
-
Lets first examine the historical record. I have seen multiple accounts of pilots using overload ammo in the Jug. I don't have access to my best references, but they are out there. The P-51D POH says it shouldn't carry 1000 lb bombs, but they did on Iwo, hence, we have it in game.
-
We have the 267 round option w/8 fifties...I'm gonna try it out now and see what kind of difference it makes.
-
Lets first examine the historical record. I have seen multiple accounts of pilots using overload ammo in the Jug. I don't have access to my best references, but they are out there. The P-51D POH says it shouldn't carry 1000 lb bombs, but they did on Iwo, hence, we have it in game.
I'd like to see some of those, if you can dig them up some time. I want to know what the mission profile was, why they might choose more ammo, and whether it was in fact a combat sortie or a ferry sortie (I've read 1 or 2 anecdotes that when they moved from Britain to France they loaded these babies down to ferry ammo in the wings, but these weren't combat missions)
P.S. 300 is a common number but I don't know if they're rounding to the nearest hundred, or if it's an estimate, or what... 267 seems to be a set standard and it shows in other aicraft as well. 350 I've seen tossed around but never seen a good reference to its use, so I am guessing that's also a high-end estimate. 267 is a known loadout, for sure. I seriously think there's enough of an issue here that warrants possible removal from the game of the overload setup.
Example: Our 109G-4 has no gondolas, why? Because the gondola versions were a very small number with a special factory-installed wing that could take the gondolas, and even then you couldn't be sure they were used.
Parallel to P-47: Why remove the 425 rpg load? Because it was almost never used, and when used you couldn't carry anything underneath the wings, and almost every mission had P47s with things under the wings heavily suggesting it was rarely if ever used.
Just to name one example.
-
We have the 267 round option w/8 fifties...I'm gonna try it out now and see what kind of difference it makes.
it makes a good amount of difference in the flying... at least i have seen a difference
-
Well, if I remember correctly from a link someone else posted, the Ma Deuce ammo came in 50 round belts, so for the armorers, it would be easy to link 6 belts to come up with the 300 round number, whereas to link 5 standard belts, then a 6th with 17 rounds would be a little awkward, especially since they couldn't get an even number of 17 round belts out of a standard 50 round belt. (Of course, (2) 17 round belts and a single 16 round belt could). The 267 round limit probably came from some technical order that used the precise number to come to the design load of the ammo combined with the bombs or drops. Considering that the P-47N, for example, had hardpoints that could carry the 300 gallon drop tanks (single 2000+ lb load), I'd say that even with a 165 gallon tank (at about 1000 lbs), you could safely assume it could withstand the additional ammo without exceeding the design load. Of course, with the biggest drops, there was a +3 g limit. May have something to do with loading the hardpoint to some weight that allows the maximum design load for the hardest maneuvering. I don't know. Here's the limits from the P-47N POH...
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/P-47NSpeedLimitations.jpg)
Now, the technical order is necessary in order to preserve the manufacturer's contract liabilities with respect to combat performance--i.e. Republic guarantees the USAAF that the P-47 will perform as advertised as long as the specified weight limits are followed. Sort of like engine limitations that we often debate because some pilot said his crew chief changed the turbo regulator to allow him to pull 75" in his P-47D-5 or something.
As far as the anecdotes go, obviously most were about ground attack profiles, but I remember one, if I remember correctly, about a pilot in Italy having an overload ammo load for air-to-air action. I remember because I believe the aircraft was hastily configured, and the pilot didn't know what his convergence was set at, or how much ammo he had, since it wasn't his normal aircraft. Anyway, I'll see if I can't find it, but I can't really remember if it was from one of my books, or from a link someone else posted, or something on Mike Williams site.
You bring up a good issue Krusty, I'm just curious as HTC typically deliberately models the aircraft for specific ordnance configurations and I'd be curious as to see why they included the overload ammo packages for all of the Jug models. Not that they haven't made tweaks before, but they did it initially for a reason, rather than arbitrarily...
-
it makes a good amount of difference in the flying... at least i have seen a difference
I think its 25 lbs per 200 rounds, so a 163 lb difference in weight out far on the wings. Should make the roll rate a little more sluggish, which is what I typically perceive. Turning shouldn't change much as its not a huge percentage of the overall lead bellybutton the P-47 normally has anyway... :)
-
The P-47 models didn't have 425 rpg. The D11 didn't, the D25 didn't, the N didn't, and the M didn't.
One single group used the overload ammo load solely for ground attack and strafing. These would be late war D-40 types (or close enough), so if it must be left in-game, leave it only on our D-40. Remove the 400-round option on the other craft.
<snip>
I've used it myself, more than enough. It's nice. It's just totally inaccurate.
By a totally unrelated coincidence the D-40 is the only Jug that wasn't used to shoot Krusty down last tour.
Seriously I don't think that motivates the wish, I just think it's funny. :D
-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html
I am all for historical flying and weapon load outs. So, since I am TDY to Lackland AFB being board sitting in the hotel room, I spent all morning looking at every single combat reports on this page, and I found a few with over 2 grand of ammo used, but these two below were the highest ones I found. Some reports didnt put how many rounds they fired, so its hard to really see what was used in some of the reports.
This pilot fired (or carried) 2300 rounds which is 287.5 rounds a gun for a 8 gun package, and 383.3 rounds for a 6 gun package.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-timony-5sept44.jpg)
This pilot fired (or carried) 2434 rounds which is 304.5 rounds a gun for a 8 gun package, and 405.6 rounds for a 6 gun package.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-jure-12sept44.jpg)
The reports dont specify which gun package, but I am most likely going to say 8 guns.
Also intresting in reading some of these, it seems a API load out on the inboard 6 guns and Incendiary rounds in the 2 outboard guns. The pilots who flew with this found it worked for them very well.
-
I see one noob did a HO shot on the second report.
-
Those are awesome Beau. I loathe displaying my ignorance but I'm curios as to why they listed their load outs on their reports. I'm sure there was a reason for it I just have no idea what that reason is.
-
Those are awesome Beau. I loathe displaying my ignorance but I'm curios as to why they listed their load outs on their reports. I'm sure there was a reason for it I just have no idea what that reason is.
Well, just about everything in the military is accountable. Every single round would be accountable, As im sure it helps with logistics and what not. Also shows that the pilot isnt just spraying thin air though in the reports expending 2434 rounds for a single 109 is a bit much, unless he just sucks at aiming, but who knows what else he did that day that he didnt put in his report.
-
Clears that up. Thanks and thanks for posting those. Fascinating reading.
*heads off to CO's office to explain why I never come back with ammo on board.
-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html
This pilot fired (or carried) 2300 rounds which is 287.5 rounds a gun for a 8 gun package, and 383.3 rounds for a 6 gun package.
This pilot fired (or carried) 2434 rounds which is 304.5 rounds a gun for a 8 gun package, and 405.6 rounds for a 6 gun package.
The reports dont specify which gun package, but I am most likely going to say 8 guns.
I'm not convinced because, as you say, 8 guns is more likely. That's a mere 10 rounds more in the one listing and a few more in the second but still it's a lot closer to 267 than it is to 425 when you're considering 300 rounds.
I think it would be an overload situation, sure, where more than "normal" was loaded, but surely it's not nearly as stark a situation where there's nearly double the ammo as in Aces High.
In the 305 rpg example... Consider that the 38 extra rounds per gun only lasts about 3 seconds, assuming 600 rpm (it lasts less if the real firing rate is higher!) It's more likely to class that with the 267 rpg option (a variation of it, if you will) than to compare it to the 425 max quoted limit.
I'm entirely unconvinced.
-
I'm entirely unconvinced.
Well, its obvious in the second example, that the aircraft was carrying more than 300 rounds per gun regardless...
-
It's not so cut and dried there Stoney....
Sure there's a bit of leeway. But loading 1.5 x the ammo (425 / 267) is a lot more than tacking on a few extra rounds for 1.1 x the ammo (300 / 267).
It's a major leap. It's as if there was technically storage to shoe-horn in 1000 rpg so that loadout is an option in-game, despite never having been used. [Edit: Actually, a better example is, you could load 4 guns with over 900 rpg with all the ammo storage space in those wings, but it was never really done so we don't have it in-game.] Maybe in some RARE cases more than 267 was used, but honestly it's looking so far like these were the very rare exceptions to the rule.
Seems like more 109G6s had 30mm than P-47s used 425rpg, or like more 109F4s had gondolas than P-47s had 425 rpg.
How about 190As with Mk103 gunpods under the wings.... They COULD and were tested as such. Never mind they never flew them like that because they weighed too much to turn and burn with, right?
You see my point. It's a valid concern with this or any model in the game. I frankly got tired of asking myself privately "Why is there a 425 rpg option" and started looking into it -- only to find it really wasn't used.
We've had things yanked from the game for less, like WEP on B-26, or WEP on that other really old plane way back (Yak9 I believe). If it's historically inaccurate it ought not be there, and I think this is a case where that's been shown.
-
since I saw this thread ive been flying the D25 with the lighter 8 gun loadout. havent noticed a massive difference in maneuverability, but I have almost run out of ammo a coupla times. and my gunnery is not great.
the overload is overkill really and wouldnt make a big difference if removed at the moment. maybe introduce some railway yards so we have a good excuse for a strafing (ie. attack mode only) loadout :aok
-
For the sake of main arena gameplay, why not just keep overload ammo for p47 and make some changes to perk system. Main arena is an arcade room and is not really a place to reenact historical stuff. I think we should give it some leeway for more options and means to pay for it.
For example, since 109F had the ability to carry gondolas but wasn't as standard as 109Gs then pay small perk pts. Just make sure HTC only keep this "gamey" option in main arena.
-
It's not so cut and dried there Stoney....
Sure there's a bit of leeway. But loading 1.5 x the ammo (425 / 267) is a lot more than tacking on a few extra rounds for 1.1 x the ammo (300 / 267).
I didn't say that meant he had 425 rpg loaded. All I said was that it was obvious, in this one example, that he had more than 267 rounds loaded, despite the technical order specifying 267 rpg as the maximum allowable. It doesn't prove anything other than that on occasion at least, they loaded more than the specified maximum...
-
if it could carry it and was built with the specs for it, then it should have it in game 425 or 500, max payload should be allowed per gun!
just because they did things different in the field does not mean, thats the way we should do it here! many jugs had field fitted props that we don't have, bubble canopies that we don't have,ect.ect.ect.
the main argument that has come out before is that if it did not roll of the assembly line with something, then we don't get it in game, ( paddle props) even tho they helped the plane greatly in the field!
so just because not many ever used the full ammo package in the field has nothing to do with what we should or should not have in the game!
this game is not historically correct to WW2 anyway, it is a close facsimile, but not perfect! now leave My "M" alone,,, darnit!!!
-
Whiskey.. Most of those designs were factory spec, and retro fitted, NOT by random units but at the depot level.
Simply because something COULD do it doesn't mean it ever DID. You want 20mm armed P-40Es? You want 20mm F6F-5s? You want 50 bazillion gunpods and outlandish modifications for bf109s, bf110s, fw190s, etc, to the point of literally thousands of options that NEVER saw the war?
this is a recreation of a weapon from WW2 (the weapon being the plane). I want to pretend I'm in WW2, flying a WW2 plane. I want to immerse myself in what THEY, the real pilots of the time, had to fly. If I want lazers and ray guns I'll go fly X-Wing: Alliance. I want to fly what really fought in the war, and so far to date it seems that HTC has been following this mandate for weapons and new aircraft overall.
If you want any semblence of relationship to WW2, you have to draw the line somewhere. I'm glad HTC has drawn the line where they did. Now I just want to petition they stick to that line in the case of the P-47 ammo.
-
since I saw this thread ive been flying the D25 with the lighter 8 gun loadout. havent noticed a massive difference in maneuverability, but I have almost run out of ammo a coupla times. and my gunnery is not great.
the overload is overkill really and wouldnt make a big difference if removed at the moment. maybe introduce some railway yards so we have a good excuse for a strafing (ie. attack mode only) loadout :aok
Really, I love it for bomber grinding. Even with moderate marksmanship you can easily hill 4-5 bombers before landing, providing your tactics don't include sitting in his 6 O'clock buzzing away. :banana:
-
Whiskey.. Most of those designs were factory spec, and retro fitted, NOT by random units but at the depot level.
The only plane I fly in late war, for the most part is the "M",
you want to change the only ride i like to fly? I want field mods then! and Depot level has not had anything to do with anything that I can remember since I started playing this game!
-
Krusty you already have the option to use 267 rpg so why the sturm and drang? It seems like you just want people to have less ammo to shoot at you with. It's ludicrous to think that the AAR's posted above listed the squad standard loadouts, they are a record of rounds expended. The POH lists 267 or 425 or 500 rpg. It's not fantasy, it's the options available for the aircraft.
-
the 109K4 had the 8x.50 overload? :headscratch:
if thats how they were used then sure +1
pretty sure the jug main tank damage model needs a look at too ... :uhoh
Not at all man, you know, that could make the Jug even more of a potato +1! They had self seeling tanks!
A whole bunch of things need to be improved. Tell me if I'm incorrect, but I believe it was resistant to radiator damage. Also, it need the armour in the back of the seat, it had armour plating. So much things about this could set this off balance it's crazy. Also there's more :x
-
if it could carry it and was built with the specs for it, then it should have it in game 425 or 500, max payload should be allowed per gun!
just because they did things different in the field does not mean, thats the way we should do it here! many jugs had field fitted props that we don't have, bubble canopies that we don't have,ect.ect.ect.
the main argument that has come out before is that if it did not roll of the assembly line with something, then we don't get it in game, ( paddle props) even tho they helped the plane greatly in the field!
so just because not many ever used the full ammo package in the field has nothing to do with what we should or should not have in the game!
this game is not historically correct to WW2 anyway, it is a close facsimile, but not perfect! now leave My "M" alone,,, darnit!!!
We should create a coalition for the better of improving the Jug...
-
(http://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af263/irishone920/imagesCA5OQW5C.jpg)
-
Necro...and the Jug didn't have a radiator, so it was very resistant to radiator damage. Its impossible to get radiator damage in a Jug in game.
-
the 109K4 had the 8x.50 overload? :headscratch:
if thats how they were used then sure +1
pretty sure the jug main tank damage model needs a look at too ... :uhoh
Best bet here is to switch to main just after you finish your externals. That way you will have enough AUX to make it back if you take a hit.
Infidelz