#21
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with most of our points horseback, including trimming and innacurate instruments (this later issue is not only a problem of US planes).
Regardless of ammount of armor or redundancy, if you look at the ammount of space occupied with critical systems on the P-47 you cannot deny that the chance of damaging something to some extend is greater than in other planes. But of course redundancy will make critical hits harder to achieve. I took a look at the collision boxes on the P-47, both distributors are modelled and are slightly smaller than in reality, there's two magnetos placed behind the engine, while in reality the R-2800 had only one placed between the two distributors (unless I missed something while looking at the schematic). The intercooler is missing, but the turbine and belly plumbing is there. Oil coolers are merged into a single smaller unit. (Cockpit armour plates and other internal parts are also modelled btw) All in all I think the collision boxes itself are generous in favour of the P-47. The probability of actually hitting something inside the plane might be smaller than in reality. The problem, if there's actually one (not saying there isn't, it's just that I dont fly the P-47, and when flying a bomber surviving a Jug attack long enough to cause damage with the gunners -I man the guns- is almost impossible) might indeed have to do with too big a chance to receive damage when a internal part is hit. Pursuivant: I dont have mayor problems with the engines on the Hs-129 on air to air combat, be it a human pilot or AI gunner, it's AAA that is obsessed with my engines But yes, either the damage on the Hs-129 engines is exagerated (the cowling bottom half was armored after all), or is downplayed on other planes with engines of the same family (G-50/MC-200, IAR-80/81) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Someone here once posted an image of these damage boxes in a Zero, and the lack thereof in the P-39 (maybe it was you), but I couldn't track down the list of planes or the tool used to illustrate the damage boxes. Thanks, WokeUpDead |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Long ago at the old UBI forum, Oleg did indeed say that single flak guns are modeled as a battery, to help with FPS issues in the sim.
__________________
Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
#24
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
I remember being admonished on several occasions over the years that to penetrate a metal layer that not only thickness of the plate but angle of penetration is critical (usually after I pointed out that the vulnerability of certain aircraft from rear quarter attacks seemed awfully low). Penetrating multiple layers of metal at varying angles as would be necessary to damage the turbosupercharger system would be fairly difficult, even with multiple close range 20mm hits. If you have to penetrate multiple layers from multiple angles, it gets a lot harder to do meaningful damage, and the whole of the underside of the Jug was reinforced by that ‘keel’ I mentioned earlier, as well as the structural members that held the fuel tanks in place. I still think that the historical record shows both that making the kind of hits that are routinely made (or more accurately, credited) in the game and the amount of damage they are modeled as inflicting are excessive. Quote:
Quote:
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. By contrast the 78th FG had originally been a P-38 outfit that got stripped of its aircraft and most of their experienced pilots for the North African invasion, and the 4th FG had originally been the RAF’s Eagle Squadrons flying Spit Vbs (and as the only source of experienced combat pilots, were stripped of a large portion of key leaders and their most promising pilots). The 78th and 4th FGs were not big fans of the Jug, and frankly sulked about it for most of their breaking in period. The 56th adapted and made the most of the Jug, while the 4th couldn't move on to the P-51 fast enough; its senior officers were trying to get the P-51 or P-51A before word about the Merlin version reached them. The 78th eventually resigned themselves to the Jug, and were one of the last groups to convert to the Mustang. Quote:
Corsairs and Hellcats got their combat starts in February and August of 1943, well before the Japanese had been beaten. The fact is that US Naval Aviators used the Corsair and Hellcat to break the IJN air arm’s back by spring of 1944; using the F4F or FM-2, it would have taken another six months (and hundreds more good men’s lives) at the least. cheers horseback Last edited by horseback; 07-26-2013 at 10:36 PM. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
My view of the toughness of the planes being discussed is a bit different from many of the posters here, maybe because I fly mostly online where I rarely attack bombers and their AI gunners. I find the P-47's wings to be extremely tough, same goes for the F4U. They can take a lot of damage and still maintain lift and stability, unlike Yak or 190 wings. Their engines can be damaged lightly, but I rarely see one knocked out completely (though when it does happen it's on the P-47, not the F4U). PKs are rare, and tails falling off are even rarer.
Could my different impression be caused by the difference in environment and targets? AI gunners on bombers will usually be looking directly into your engine, even if you don't attack from six o'clock. Unlike AI fighers, human opponents will usually avoid the head-on and will maneuver onto your six, where they will have a good look at your wings when you make a slight turn. If they shoot directly from your six, they may damage your controls (I lose elevators and rudders often in the F4U and P-47), but your engine will be the furthest target for them. Agree about the Stuka toughness, the LMGs on the Hurricane IIB really do a number on its wing tanks. It is an old, slow, big plane that I imagine was armored more from the bottom than the top though. Also, its lack of toughness is offset by that rear gunner and its ability to turn with a Spitfire. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
At any rate, the kind of incoming fire that ruins an entire ignition system will ruin other systems as well, and will pretty much render the aircraft impotent anyway. You're using the game's damage model to shape your thoughts on how vulnerable specific real-world auxiliary engine systems are, while showing no real-word knowledge on the actual engineering of these systems. |
#27
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Against anything but the lightest, most lightly armored aircraft, you basically need a PK, a critical hit or a fire to take down your foe. And, to have a hope of getting any of those things, you need to get close, aim carefully and shoot bursts of at least 3-5 seconds. Of course, that's also historically accurate performance. There's a very good reason why the RAF switched to cannons. At least for AI, I don't find that Stuka gunners are that tough, nor do Stukas really try to maneuver defensively, even when they're not in formation. They're pretty much sitting ducks unless they have escorts. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The arrival of the new fast carriers equipped with the significantly superior Hellcat, coupled with the land-based Corsairs along the Solomon chain is what tipped the scales. I'll give plenty of credit to the P-40 and P-38 (which entered combat in New Guinea in November of 1942), but the P-39 was a disaster in the Southwest Pacific. Poor support, bad documentation and poorly prepared pilots and maintenance personnel rushed to the theater doomed it and ruined its reputation, regardless of its capabilities on paper. It was almost strictly a ground support aircraft in the Pacific the moment a viable alternative became available. The P-40 and the Wildcats gave the USN and USAAF parity at best, and the P-38s were never available in adequate numbers anywhere until the middle of1944. The F6F and the F4U (which had its own production issues early on) were the keys to the turn around. cheers horseback |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Shooting accurately from a maneuvering aircraft, even a bomber in a gentle bank, was next to impossible. Ai gunnery from rear gunners and ground flak in this game has always been ridiculously accurate, probably more than modern automated systems today. Unrealistic accuracy at unrealistic ranges + unrealistic DMs=unrealistic results. cheers horseback |
|
|