Is there any chance that the P-47 load-out can be corrected to 2x1000lb and 1x500lb?

[Mysticpuma]

Just wondering if it will be possible o have the P-47 load-out corrected after all these years so that it is historically correct with the 500lb on the centre supports and a 1000lb under each wing?

Hopefully a simple, but realistic 'tweak'?

Cheers, MP

[Romanator21]

Here's an interesting thread on some various loadout options. Considering how many options there are, it may be more feasable to alter the way in which loudouts are selected: chose by hardpoint/bomb-bay.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/p-47-loadouts-14154.html

For instance, in a Ju-88, the player could chose the loadout for the front bomb-bay, and leave the rear bay empty, instal a fuel tank, or more bombs!

For planes like the TB-3 or Pe-8, the player can chose whether the bombs are placed internally, externally, or both.

And finally, for aircraft like the P-47, the player could select extra ammo, or remove a pair of guns, or alternate between a couple belting patterns while choosing a bomb load for each hardpoint: frag bombs, 250lbs, 500lbs, 1000lbs and various drop tank combinations.

This could also allow asymmetrical loudouts of some Japanese fighters which sometimes carried a bomb on one wing, and a drop tank on the other.

The drop-down fields could be labelled "Guns" with a list, "Hardpoint 1" with a list for the forward bomb-bay or right-most hardpoint, "Hardpoint 2" with a list for the rear-bomb bay or middle harpoint, and "Hardpoint 3" with a list for the external racks or the left-most hardpoint.

The main advantage is being able to pick the loadout the player needs without resorting to an extremely long list in which it may be annoying to find the combination that one wants (some aircraft have over 30 options I think)

[310thDiablo]

I would be happy if they could jsut put API and APIT ammo on my Jugs.

[Mysticpuma]

Well I think it's a valid point to ask for correct load-outs on the P-47. It has to be one of the game's most under-developed aircraft when you consider just how much of a work-horse it was in WW2.

For years it has been left in a truly tragic condition, the cockpits are one of the worst in the game andit is sad to see such a great aircraft cobbled together.

I hope that maybe the P-47 will get a revamp in a future update, at-least the cockpit getting a make-over, as, when you consider the modded verions, there really has to be hope!

However, considering load-out, surely it is possible to have the payload corrected and maybe the APIT or API tracer added...so it actually can be used to it's full ability?

Cheers, MP

[IceFire]

I think correcting the P-47s shouldn't be too much of a problem :)

As for the belting. That is, I think anyways, a more complex issue. As it stands right now there is one piece of code for all M2 .50cals (to the best of my knowledge anyways). So if you change the belting on one... you change it on all. Really the API/APIT late war ammo should probably only show up on a couple of aircraft. Say the P-38L Late, P-47D, maybe the D-27 and the P-51D-20. Not sure if that type of ammo saw usage in the Pacific either... I don't know.

So how do you get the loadout right? Optional ammo belting built in to the game? If so then it's a bigger task to get that right for every aircraft type and for every gun too. I think that'd be incredibly cool but a large task for sure.

[JtD]

API was neither rare nor really late war, but certainly no common early war ammo either. ;)

A belting change for the .50 would definitely help to improve realism for US warbirds, even if it did not include API, the currently belting plainly sucks.

[Pursuivant]

IIRC, U.S. forces in the Pacific used slightly different belting when flying against lightly armored Japanese planes, more incendiaries, less AP.

As JtD said, API/APIT belting isn't unreasonable for U.S. planes from 1942 on, nor is it unreasonable for allied British, French or Italian lend-lease planes.

The simple and necessary thing to do is to change the number of M2 options in the game - M2 Early War, M2 PTO/CBI Late War and M2 ETO/MTO Late War.

For that matter, TD will need to add some additional options for other common weapons, especially if they plans to release any nightfighters or night bombers (no tracer ammo).

It would be really cool if players could select their own ammo belting, but that would require way to much work. :)

[IceFire]

API was neither rare nor really late war, but certainly no common early war ammo either. ;)

A belting change for the .50 would definitely help to improve realism for US warbirds, even if it did not include API, the currently belting plainly sucks.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here but I remember a discussion back several years ago about .50cal belting and there was a new type of API/APIT ammo introduced in 1944 and in to 1945 that was supposed to be more effective against jet fighters and jet fuel and apparently it turned out the new rounds were more effective in general as well so it was widely adopted. Or at least that was what was written.

I'd definitely support a change in the belting. I have no idea what impact it would have overall but I know it's sort of wonky right now. It even has a .50cal HE round which at best was experimental... I suspect it's there to try and compensate for some sort of modeling deficiency? I don't really know.

[ElAurens]

Those that use HSFX already know how much better the correct belting for the US M2 .50 Browning works.

Just sayin.

[IceFire]

Those that use HSFX already know how much better the correct belting for the US M2 .50 Browning works.

Just sayin.

Any idea if the values on the bullet types were changed or just the belting itself? Curious.

[ElAurens]

No clue about that, just the API APIT belting.

[Grach]

After doing some digging in various books & pamphlets it seems the following .50 BMG rounds were available in WW2:

(In rough chronological order of introduction.)

Ball (B) M2 (mild-steel core) 46g, 858m/s replaced earlier ball (lead cored) rounds and was available pre-war. Mainly used for training during the war although early on in the Pacific it seems to have been used.

Armour Piercing (AP) M2 (hard-steel core) 45.88g, 885m/s proof required penetration of 22mm RHA plate at 91m. Available pre-war, it was used extensively throughout the war until completely supplanted by M8 API.

Incendiary (I) M1 (Phosphorous, mild-steel core) 41g, 901m/s contained 2g of white phosphorous. Available pre-war, widely used until M8 API appears and then to a lesser extent except in Pacific.

Tracer (T) M10 (lead core) or M17 (mild-steel core) 41.67g, 873m/s it was observed that at ranges under 91m the burning trace had a similar incendiary effect as that of the early .30 cal (phosphorous - not Dixon-De Wilde type) Incendiary round. Both available pre-war, mostly replaced by M20 APIT and M21 HT.

Armour Piercing Incendiary (API) M8 (IM fill hard-steel core) 42g, 888m/s contained 0.9g IM (Incendiary Metal) compound. This burned far more fiercely than phosphorous and was estimated to be 2x as effective on a weight for weight basis. M8 API proof required minimum 90-95% of the performance of both the M2 AP and M1 I rounds. This was a pre-war design and was hurriedly put into production after combat reports from Europe were analysed in the first two years of the war. It started appearing in 1942 and was effectively standardised in Europe by the beginning of 1944.

Armour Piercing Incendiary Tracer (APIT) M20 (IM fill hard-steel core) 39.66g, 888m/s contained 0.9g IM (Incendiary Metal) compound. This was the trace partner of the M8 API. The trace cannister meant that the penetrator was shorter and lighter than the M8 API penetrator. It was expected that M20 APIT should penetrate with 90-95% of the M8 API performance however. Developed and issued alongside the M8 API.

Tracer "Headlight" (HT) M21 (lead core) 45.3g, 867m/s designed as a high-intensity tracer, holes in the jacket made the trace visible from all around. Designed and issued starting in 1943 for use by bomber defensive guns. The theory was that it would unnerve attacking enemy fighters as they would see the vivid tracers approaching them. Some incendiary effect noted at close ranges.

Incendiary "High-Intensity" (HI) M23 (IM fill mild-steel core) 33.18g, 1036m/s contained 5.8g of 'improved' IM (Incendiary Metal) compound. This bullet was designed to ignite jet-fuel and by all accounts was extremely destructive. Issue only started during late 1944 though and it was not widespread during the war. IIRC it was only issued in the ETO.

I have some information on belting compositions if anyone is interested.

Also of note is that the .50 BMG was tweaked during the war and it's rate of fire was routinely around 850rpm for unsynchronised installations at the end. (Compared to around 750rpm for pre & early war.) Synchronisation really slugged the rate performance though, dragging it down to around 500-550rpm! I can see why there were so few synchronised M2 installations, but I digress.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Just wondering if it will be possible o have the P-47 load-out corrected after all these years so that it is historically correct with the 500lb on the centre supports and a 1000lb under each wing?

Hopefully a simple, but realistic 'tweak'?

Cheers, MP

it cant be corrected , but the correct one should be included.

Once in the past a loadout was corrected (actually deleted, in the IAR81s), that caused crashes in missions where these loadouts were set. After this experience, an actually wrong loadout option was never deleted again IIRC. But as i said, sure the historical correct one can be added.

[JtD]

It can be corrected. You saw that in 4.10 already, and will see it again in 4.11.

But which P-47 did actually fly with 2x1000 + 1x500? Only references I found in a brief search were 2x1000 or 3x500.

[IceFire]

After doing some digging in various books & pamphlets it seems the following .50 BMG rounds were available in WW2:

(In rough chronological order of introduction.)

Ball (B) M2 (mild-steel core) 46g, 858m/s replaced earlier ball (lead cored) rounds and was available pre-war. Mainly used for training during the war although early on in the Pacific it seems to have been used.

Armour Piercing (AP) M2 (hard-steel core) 45.88g, 885m/s proof required penetration of 22mm RHA plate at 91m. Available pre-war, it was used extensively throughout the war until completely supplanted by M8 API.

Incendiary (I) M1 (Phosphorous, mild-steel core) 41g, 901m/s contained 2g of white phosphorous. Available pre-war, widely used until M8 API appears and then to a lesser extent except in Pacific.

Tracer (T) M10 (lead core) or M17 (mild-steel core) 41.67g, 873m/s it was observed that at ranges under 91m the burning trace had a similar incendiary effect as that of the early .30 cal (phosphorous - not Dixon-De Wilde type) Incendiary round. Both available pre-war, mostly replaced by M20 APIT and M21 HT.

Armour Piercing Incendiary (API) M8 (IM fill hard-steel core) 42g, 888m/s contained 0.9g IM (Incendiary Metal) compound. This burned far more fiercely than phosphorous and was estimated to be 2x as effective on a weight for weight basis. M8 API proof required minimum 90-95% of the performance of both the M2 AP and M1 I rounds. This was a pre-war design and was hurriedly put into production after combat reports from Europe were analysed in the first two years of the war. It started appearing in 1942 and was effectively standardised in Europe by the beginning of 1944.

Armour Piercing Incendiary Tracer (APIT) M20 (IM fill hard-steel core) 39.66g, 888m/s contained 0.9g IM (Incendiary Metal) compound. This was the trace partner of the M8 API. The trace cannister meant that the penetrator was shorter and lighter than the M8 API penetrator. It was expected that M20 APIT should penetrate with 90-95% of the M8 API performance however. Developed and issued alongside the M8 API.

Tracer "Headlight" (HT) M21 (lead core) 45.3g, 867m/s designed as a high-intensity tracer, holes in the jacket made the trace visible from all around. Designed and issued starting in 1943 for use by bomber defensive guns. The theory was that it would unnerve attacking enemy fighters as they would see the vivid tracers approaching them. Some incendiary effect noted at close ranges.

Incendiary "High-Intensity" (HI) M23 (IM fill mild-steel core) 33.18g, 1036m/s contained 5.8g of 'improved' IM (Incendiary Metal) compound. This bullet was designed to ignite jet-fuel and by all accounts was extremely destructive. Issue only started during late 1944 though and it was not widespread during the war. IIRC it was only issued in the ETO.

I have some information on belting compositions if anyone is interested.

Also of note is that the .50 BMG was tweaked during the war and it's rate of fire was routinely around 850rpm for unsynchronised installations at the end. (Compared to around 750rpm for pre & early war.) Synchronisation really slugged the rate performance though, dragging it down to around 500-550rpm! I can see why there were so few synchronised M2 installations, but I digress.

Thanks for digging that up. It's the M23 improved incendiary that I was referencing before. Couldn't for the life of me remember what it was called.

[Grach]

Thanks for digging that up. It's the M23 improved incendiary that I was referencing before. Couldn't for the life of me remember what it was called.

No problem.
At the risk of hijacking this into a .50 cal thread, I will post the original Il-2 Sturmovik game ammo data for the .50 BMG.
Mass is in kg
Speed is m/s (v0)
Power appears to be mass of explosive/incendiary material in kg. (I have no idea if this is 'standardised' or not. e.g. IM was 2x as effective gram for gram as plain phosphorous and different explosives vary in their energy yield per gram.)My notes/whinges are in italics. :)

Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP
(Belt composition is unlike anything I've seen in US manuals and documents, presumably a Soviet belting?)

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002
(Presumably this is meant to be M20 APIT. Mass should be 0.03966, speed should be 888, power should be 0.0018 - that is 0.0009 of IM @ x2 efficiency, they may have added 0.0002 for the trace material as well, then the power actually looks okay. Overall, not bad for an M20 representation.)

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0
(M2 AP would be mass = 0.04588, speed = 885 power = 0. So not too far off the mark either.)

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148
(Okay, this is the WTF? moment! ;) There was no US HE round for .50 BMG in or before WW2. The only thing I can think of is that this is a Soviet 12.7mm MDZ-3 HE bullet loaded into a BMG case. Apparently this did happen as L-L ammunition was also supplied as components. So, no US equivalent for this!)

************************************************** *******

I'm wondering if these data are all for Soviet 12.7mm ammunition types actually, as the weights are heavier and the velocities are a little lower than is usual for .50 BMG. Which is about right for 12.7x108mm...

Hmm.

Hopefully TD can use some of this data if they care to as it would be nice to have the correct ammo types.

Maybe we should start a .50 ammo thread... I can see it now. Out of the woodwork they will come, the lovers and the haters... :rolleyes:
Perhaps not then.

[Mysticpuma]

P-47D (Thunderbolt I and II): First models similar to the P-47C but fitted with universal shackles under the fuselage for either droppable fuel tanks or 500 lb bombs and similar wing racks.

Later models fitted with water injection, which added several hundred horsepower for emergency use; improved turbos; wide-blade propellers (13 ft (3.96 m) in diameter) which added 400 ft/minute to the climb; increased fuel capacity which increased the operational radius to 637 miles (920 km); jettisonable standard canopy and later a new jettisonable blister canopy with full bullet-proof windscreen.
The bomb load was increased from two 500 lb bombs to two 1,000 lb and one 500 lb bombs and three auxiliary fuel tanks could be carried externally on the same racks.
Various combinations of bombs and tanks could be carried to suit tactical requirements.
After the introduction of the dorsal canopy in the P-47D-25, an extended dorsal fin was added to improve directional stability lost by the reduction of the rear fuselage. Length: 36 ft 1 in (11 m).



http://www.354thpmfg.com/FighterAircraft_P47Thunderbolt.html


Weights (P-47D)

Empty: 10700 lbs (4853 kg)

Weight loaded: 12500 lbs (5675 kg)

Maximum loaded weight: 19400 lbs (8800 kg)

Armament (P-47D)

- 8 x 50 cal. machine-guns, four in each wing. Electrically fired.

Bomb load: 2 x 1000 lb bombs, one under each wing + 1 x 500 lb bomb under fuselage

Rockets: 10 x 5in aircraft rockets may be carried

MAXIMUM ARMAMENT LOAD BESIDES GUNS (rockets, bombs, etc:): 2500 lbs

Performance (P-47D)

Maximum speed: 440 mph (704 Km/h) @ 29000 ft (8850 m)

Ceiling: over 40000 ft (12200 m)

http://warbirdsofww2.tripod.com/p-47.htm

Cheers, MP

[IceFire]

No problem.
At the risk of hijacking this into a .50 cal thread, I will post the original Il-2 Sturmovik game ammo data for the .50 BMG.
Mass is in kg
Speed is m/s (v0)
Power appears to be mass of explosive/incendiary material in kg. (I have no idea if this is 'standardised' or not. e.g. IM was 2x as effective gram for gram as plain phosphorous and different explosives vary in their energy yield per gram.)My notes/whinges are in italics. :)

Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP
(Belt composition is unlike anything I've seen in US manuals and documents, presumably a Soviet belting?)

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002
(Presumably this is meant to be M20 APIT. Mass should be 0.03966, speed should be 888, power should be 0.0018 - that is 0.0009 of IM @ x2 efficiency, they may have added 0.0002 for the trace material as well, then the power actually looks okay. Overall, not bad for an M20 representation.)

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0
(M2 AP would be mass = 0.04588, speed = 885 power = 0. So not too far off the mark either.)

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148
(Okay, this is the WTF? moment! ;) There was no US HE round for .50 BMG in or before WW2. The only thing I can think of is that this is a Soviet 12.7mm MDZ-3 HE bullet loaded into a BMG case. Apparently this did happen as L-L ammunition was also supplied as components. So, no US equivalent for this!)

************************************************** *******

I'm wondering if these data are all for Soviet 12.7mm ammunition types actually, as the weights are heavier and the velocities are a little lower than is usual for .50 BMG. Which is about right for 12.7x108mm...

Hmm.

Hopefully TD can use some of this data if they care to as it would be nice to have the correct ammo types.

Maybe we should start a .50 ammo thread... I can see it now. Out of the woodwork they will come, the lovers and the haters... :rolleyes:
Perhaps not then.

Grach, I'd love to see a thread not just devoted to the .50cal but all manners of armaments in the game. Back in they day there was a giant (albeit heated) discussion regarding the effectiveness of the German MG151/20 cannons. Turned out as was later discovered was that the belting was a rare type specific to the Eastern front and one that was designed to up against IL-2s rather than more general use. Rebelted the MG151/20 gained the Mine shell and suddenly the weapon was performing at more historical levels.

We have a bunch of weapons and aircraft that could use some good looking at. Did you know that all Zeros are currently fitted with MG-FF/M instead of Type 99 1 or 99 2 or that the Ki-43-II and II Kai currently have the Browning .50cal installed but with yellow tracers rather than the Ho-103 machine gun? There was even a good discussion about the Ho-103 machine gun possibly being belted with HE rounds that had a pretty good punch to make up for the machine guns otherwise average performance. Even my favourite aircraft, the Tempest V, is missing the historically used 500lb bomb option. Instead it has the never fitted 80lb rockets with rails (Tempests were only tested and approved for zero length but not operationally) and US 1000lb bombs.

If we could (and I know this is impossible) keep the nationalistic crap out of the way, I'd love to see a discussion around identifying some inconsistencies and doing the research to gather the sources necessary to model this stuff. Tying it back to the current discussion... the P-47's armament options are yet another example of that sort of thing that could be discussed and well researched and presented to Team Daidalos for addition to future patches. With some serious help I've already managed to help correct the Yak-9UT armament which was entirely wrong from day 1.

[IceFire]

I killed another thread... didn't I? :)

[MicroWave]

I killed another thread... didn't I? :)

I hope you didn't. From programming point of view, changing/adding loadouts is not too hard and it would be nice to have historical consistency in that department.
But, that's just one piece of the puzzle. Something is on the receiving end of those loadouts and damage models (for all: ground, sea and air targets) are mostly abstract. Changing one without the other will not bring more realistic behavior to the game.
Bear this in mind while thinking/discussing loadouts.

[IceFire]

I hope you didn't. From programming point of view, changing/adding loadouts is not too hard and it would be nice to have historical consistency in that department.
But, that's just one piece of the puzzle. Something is on the receiving end of those loadouts and damage models (for all: ground, sea and air targets) are mostly abstract. Changing one without the other will not bring more realistic behavior to the game.
Bear this in mind while thinking/discussing loadouts.

This is true. Enhancing the way they hit is something to think about too... although complicated.

Do we know why some cannons (MG-FF and VYa 23mm) flip aircraft around in a very bizarre way while others like the ShVAK, Hispano, MG151/20 and even the mighty MK108 don't?

There is something to be said about just having the right cannons as it will impact gameplay and realism in a variety of ways. The J2M3 for example right now is fairly easy to aim as the cannons are all the same. But the J2M3 really should (you can see this on the 3D model) have two Type 99 1 and two Type 99 2 cannons with different ballistics and thus impacting the aim somewhat. The J2M5 should have all Type 99 2 (there is currently an error in the 3D model)... makes it more interesting the differences between the two models.

[CWMV]

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,19365.msg208760/topicseen.html#new

[Grach]

I killed another thread... didn't I? :)

If so, I have to plead guilty as well for the big .50 ammo hijack...
My main interest has always been on guns and ammunition rather than expendables.

If the TD guys are interested I've got plenty of books, manuals, pamphlets and notes scraped together about aircraft guns & ammo after around 20 years of obsessive collecting that I'd be happy to start digging through again.
(Yes, I was horrified when I calculated how long I've been spending on this stuff!
Indeed, when Tony Williams released his little volumes "Flying Guns 1, 2 & 3" which condense a lot of this material into a handy form I didn't know if I was happy to have the convenient references or annoyed that all the daggy manuals and stuff I'd been scrounging in the interim were now obsolete... ;) But I digress.)

As far as the Il2 gunnery data goes, I agree that the IJN & IJA are very poorly served with essentially no correct Japanese weapons in use, simply 'closest fit' placeholders - the MG-FF/M for all the Type 99s as you note and so on. Unsurprisingly, the best researched weapons are Russian & German, and even there, "there be dragons" (missing 2cm Mine shells etc...) :) There is a lot of work that could be done in this field.

So, where do we go from here? Would the TD team like some threads on weapon & ammo data to be started so they can have a sift through that info, or what?

My only caveat is that my work tends to be pretty full-time and involves a fair bit of travel, (much of it 'after hours') so I don't get anything like the amount of free time to spend on this sort of stuff that I'd like. Still, if I can help I'll gladly dig through my stuff and post info here when I can.

[IceFire]

Just my personal suggestion. Rather than a dump of information that will probably be overwhelming, perhaps approach one issue at a time and work through it with someone from Team Daidalos who can implement or direct the implementation of.

If you already have the information available for reference then it makes life so much easier.

[Storebror]

Since CWMV already pointed to the SAS thread containing our modified Jug ordnance, I take the liberty to invite anyone in charge from TD to pick up the sources (even though it would be as easy to simple reverse them from the mod, but this way it'd be a little more polite ;-) ).

It might not be 150% spot on since there's just been too many varieties on the Jugs IRL, but at least it's much closer to reality than it was before IMHO.

Best regards - Mike

[Aviar]

Since CWMV already pointed to the SAS thread containing our modified Jug ordnance, I take the liberty to invite anyone in charge from TD to pick up the sources (even though it would be as easy to simple reverse them from the mod, but this way it'd be a little more polite ;-) ).

It might not be 150% spot on since there's just been too many varieties on the Jugs IRL, but at least it's much closer to reality than it was before IMHO.

Best regards - Mike

The olive branch has been extended.

Aviar