Mitsubishi Stuka and Thunderbolt

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by horseback

I argued on many occasions on the Ubi forums that the late war American fighters were too demanding of technical expertise at the ground crew level for the Soviets to keep them flying properly, and that the tactical doctrines they were built to were utterly alien to the VVS

You can't have a first-rate Air Force without a first-rate support system, and of the major nations involved in WW2, only Great Britain, the United States and Germany (prior to 1944) had the economic and technological infrastructure to really keep their planes in top condition. Even then, on many fronts it was a challenge for even the best maintenance men and supply chains (e.g., the U.S. and Great Britain in Burma, North Africa, the Pacific Islands).

By contrast, the Soviets, Italians, Japanese, Chinese and minor Axis powers were always struggling to keep their air forces up to scratch (the Chinese were notably bad at it). And, both during and after WW2, the Soviets made a virtue of necessity and emphasized simple, rugged, "soldier-proof" weapon such as the Il-2 and the AK-47.

This is one of the reasons why one of my top standing requests for the game is the ability for mission builders to downgrade aircraft performance. At the very least, there should be a way of downgrading aircraft performance to reflect lack of 100 Octane Avgas.

Originally Posted by horseback

One correction: the 56th FG came to England as the only fighter group in the 8th AF that had experience with the P-47, and they loved it.

My bad. I was thinking of the reactions of the "Eagle Squadron" vets to the P-47, such as the men of the 4th.

Originally Posted by horseback

When we are talking about taking damage from ground fire, the reputations in question were made during 1944 and after, against some extremely potent AAA systems and ground troops (IJA) trained to shoot back rather than scatter and hide from aerial attacks.

Now, that's entirely different. By 1943, just about all the major combatants had gotten very good at AAA gunnery and AAA systems of the era were all roughly comparable (U.S. proximity fuses excepted). And, at least for Germany, the AAA gunners didn't lose that many guns or men and remained quite potent until the end of the war. So, if you're citing survivability against ground fire and you've got comparable statistics for other aircraft types (e.g., loss rate per ground attack sortie) then I withdraw my criticism.

Originally Posted by horseback

Robert Johnson was far from the only guy to get his Thunderbolt shot to pieces over eastern France and still make it back across the Channel.

Yep. I think that your point about the relative vulnerability of the R-2800 engine and my criticism that heavy fighters in IL-2 "break" too easily are compatible. I'd like to see notably tough aircraft like the IL-2, B-17, Wellington, P-47, F4U and F6F be pretty much invulnerable to anything except direct hits by flak, critical hits, pilot kills, fires and sustained fire by 20mm cannons or larger.

Originally Posted by horseback

Corsairs and Hellcats got their combat starts in February and August of 1943, well before the Japanese had been beaten.

My understanding was that the "beginning of the end" for the IJN were the Battles of Midway and Guadacanal. I don't dispute that the the F6F and F4U sped the destruction of the IJN (and IJAAF in New Guinea), but arguably pilots flying the P-40, P-39/P-400 and F4F paved the way.

In particular, after Midway and Guadacanal, the Japanese supply chain was never as secure as it should have been, so Japanese planes and pilots never got the support they really needed. Japanese policy towards its pilots was also, quite frankly, brutal, which didn't help matters either. All that led to a loss of effectiveness.

But, then maybe that's too much revisionist history on my part.

What is indisputably is that by 1944, when the the F6F and F4U really sealed their reputations, the Japanese were desperate and there was just no comparison between pilot quality and technical support. But, I say that without meaning to detract from the reputation of either plane, or the men who flew them. I think that you're right that 1943 was the year that the tide really turned, and both the F6F and F4U helped to do do that.