PDA

View Full Version : Proof of why the Jug is tougher than the Luftwhiners think it should be!



civildog
03-02-2005, 08:40 PM
Stumbled on this link as I was searching for stats on Cobras: It describes US fighters and the opinions of the pilots who flew them.

www.acepilots.com/planes/aces_descr.html#p40 (http://www.acepilots.com/planes/aces_descr.html#p40)

Here's a quote from Robert Johnson (a more detailed one I'll leave to you to read) describing the damage donw to his Jug after it tangled with a 190 and still brought him home (wounded no less). It's staggering and bears out why the plane takes so much abuse in the game and still flies. I said "flies" now, not fights effectively, but it'll take a licking and keep on ticking..


One day in late June, 1943, Johnson's Thunderbolt was hit early in the mission and then helplessly subjected to an Fw 190's machine gun fire on the way home. You read about this famous story in the Robert S. Johnson article on this site. Somehow, incredibly, the P-47 absorbed this battering from the German guns and made it back. After the injured Johnson had landed his plane at the Manston emergency strip, he surveyed the damage it had taken, and later described the result in his autobiography, Thunderbolt!:

"There are twenty-one gaping holes and jagged tears in the metal from exploding 20mm cannon shells. I'm still standing in one place when my count of bullet holes reaches past a hundred; there's no use even trying to add them all. The Thunderbolt is literally a sieve, holes through the wings, fuselage and tail. Every square foot, it seems is covered with holes. There are five holes in the propeller. Three 20mm cannon shells burst against the armor plate, a scant inch away from my head. Five cannon shell holes in the right wing; four in the left wing. Two cannnon shells blasted away the lower half of my rudder. One shell exploded in the cockpit, next to my left hand; this is the blast that ripped away the flap handle. More holes appeared along the fuselage and in the tail. Behind the cockpit, the metal is twisted and curled; this had jammed the canopy, trapping me inside."

Here's the link to the dogfight story...it'll make your hair stand on end!

www.acepilots.com/usaaf_rsj.html (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_rsj.html)


hmmmmm....maybe I'm flying the wrong kind of plane in this sim. If only I could crank down the windows in my Cobra and look cool like Bud Anderson...

civildog
03-02-2005, 08:40 PM
Stumbled on this link as I was searching for stats on Cobras: It describes US fighters and the opinions of the pilots who flew them.

www.acepilots.com/planes/aces_descr.html#p40 (http://www.acepilots.com/planes/aces_descr.html#p40)

Here's a quote from Robert Johnson (a more detailed one I'll leave to you to read) describing the damage donw to his Jug after it tangled with a 190 and still brought him home (wounded no less). It's staggering and bears out why the plane takes so much abuse in the game and still flies. I said "flies" now, not fights effectively, but it'll take a licking and keep on ticking..


One day in late June, 1943, Johnson's Thunderbolt was hit early in the mission and then helplessly subjected to an Fw 190's machine gun fire on the way home. You read about this famous story in the Robert S. Johnson article on this site. Somehow, incredibly, the P-47 absorbed this battering from the German guns and made it back. After the injured Johnson had landed his plane at the Manston emergency strip, he surveyed the damage it had taken, and later described the result in his autobiography, Thunderbolt!:

"There are twenty-one gaping holes and jagged tears in the metal from exploding 20mm cannon shells. I'm still standing in one place when my count of bullet holes reaches past a hundred; there's no use even trying to add them all. The Thunderbolt is literally a sieve, holes through the wings, fuselage and tail. Every square foot, it seems is covered with holes. There are five holes in the propeller. Three 20mm cannon shells burst against the armor plate, a scant inch away from my head. Five cannon shell holes in the right wing; four in the left wing. Two cannnon shells blasted away the lower half of my rudder. One shell exploded in the cockpit, next to my left hand; this is the blast that ripped away the flap handle. More holes appeared along the fuselage and in the tail. Behind the cockpit, the metal is twisted and curled; this had jammed the canopy, trapping me inside."

Here's the link to the dogfight story...it'll make your hair stand on end!

www.acepilots.com/usaaf_rsj.html (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_rsj.html)


hmmmmm....maybe I'm flying the wrong kind of plane in this sim. If only I could crank down the windows in my Cobra and look cool like Bud Anderson...

Badsight.
03-02-2005, 09:06 PM
ok where do your forum members , who you label "luftwhiners" , say the Jug should be weaker than it is in FB ?

no one in their right mind would ever say the Jug shold be weaker than it already is & your link is a old old story passed around the internet even from before IL2:Sturmoviks time

i mean , dont you think the tone of your threads title is argumentative ?

Galaboo
03-02-2005, 09:13 PM
hahahaha, Luftwhiners... Do you even fly an German planes in this game?

Longjocks
03-02-2005, 09:18 PM
Now all we need to do is add up all the anecdotes of the P-47's toughness and work out the ratio to those that got blown to pieces. Anyone done the sums?

I've no doubt it was a very tough plane, but it's amazing how a handful of stories that probably combine special (forgotten) circumstances can make a plane in the sim, any plane, not quite right in some people's minds.

I say this about those on both sides of the argument of any given plane in the game.

Zyzbot
03-02-2005, 09:36 PM
Here are some photos of some of the damage to Johnson's P-47 that day:

Cockpit:
http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj5.jpg

Rudder:
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Johnson1.JPG

Behind Cockpit:
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Johnson2.JPG


Right side rear:
http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj4.jpg

Zyzbot
03-02-2005, 09:39 PM
http://www.web-birds.com/12th/350/350th-02.jpg


€œThe P-47 that Lt. Richard P. Sulzbach (346th Sq) was flying when he pulled up too late and €˜mushed€ it into a forest while making a strafing pass on a vehicle park on the edge of Lake Garda, in the Italian Po Valley, in April 1945. He came out of the €˜woods€ over the lake and found that his bird was still flying so he hung on and was able fly it 120 miles back to Pisa and land safely.
The aircraft was a new replacement on its first mission€"there was no time to paint Squadron markings on new replacement aircraft during the final battle for Italy. Sulzbach was shot down some days later over the front line and crash landed, where he came under enemy fire. In a daring rescue by two American Infantry men who dashed out in a Jeep and picked him up, on the run, he escaped unharmed. Sulzbach had lucked out again. He was one of 36 of the 100/120 Thunderbolts (and pilots) assigned to the Group who were shot down or crashed on combat missions during the last month of the war. Twenty two of these thirty six pilots were KIA.€
Jim Sterling Photo
http://www.web-birds.com/12th/350/350th.htm
http://www.web-birds.com/12th/350/350th-02.jpg

Badsight.
03-02-2005, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Longjocks:
I say this about those on both sides of the argument of any given plane in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
really ?

well the P-47 Thunderbolt has the single best RTB ratio of any WW2 fighter

per sortie , more Thunderbolt pilots made it back home safe than any other pilot of any other plane

put it this way , per sortie , less Thunderbolt pilots got killed than any other pilots

it was the tuffest fighter that fought in WW2

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
"There are twenty-one gaping holes and jagged tears in the metal from exploding 20mm cannon shells. I'm still standing in one place when my count of bullet holes reaches past a hundred; there's no use even trying to add them all. The Thunderbolt is literally a sieve, holes through the wings, fuselage and tail. Every square foot, it seems is covered with holes. There are five holes in the propeller. Three 20mm cannon shells burst against the armor plate, a scant inch away from my head. Five cannon shell holes in the right wing; four in the left wing. Two cannnon shells blasted away the lower half of my rudder. One shell exploded in the cockpit, next to my left hand; this is the blast that ripped away the flap handle. More holes appeared along the fuselage and in the tail. Behind the cockpit, the metal is twisted and curled; this had jammed the canopy, trapping me inside." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My god.. 21 x 20mm explosive! WOW! That is amazing!

ElAurens
03-02-2005, 10:01 PM
Bigger is better.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
ok where do your forum members, who you label "luftwhiners", say the Jug should be weaker than it is in FB ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes they do.. Well actually *they* dont say it should be weaker.. They say the Mauser-cannon should be stronger.. Same thing really. As for "where" these people are..

Here is a current example

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Bremspropeller:
The only thing that pisses ME off is the weakness of the Mauser-cannon: I can hardly kill two Thunderbolts with the Dora-9 (I know they were tough birds, but that's simply ridiculous..). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here is the link
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=4571094682&p=3

So you see, your full of it really in thinking *they* dont exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
no one in their right mind would ever say the Jug shold be weaker than it already is & your link is a old old story passed around the internet even from before IL2:Sturmoviks time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not ture, that link above was posted TODAY! Funny you missed it in that you yourself were posting in that same thread. Rose colored glasses I geuss?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
i mean , dont you think the tone of your threads title is argumentative ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not considering the fact that *they* were, are and most likly will be posting such dribble.

heywooood
03-02-2005, 10:13 PM
someone is going for the 'Jug-u-lar'..? lol


...another diciple of x_crash_x

Badsight.
03-02-2005, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Yes they do.. Well actually *they* dont say it should be weaker.. They say the Mauser-cannon should be stronger.. Same thing really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>only in your eyes , & your eyes are seeing things wrong
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
So you see, your full of it really in thinking *they* dont exist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>luftwiners , when did that term come to being ?

not that you care , if you cant reply to a individual , why not just wack a lable on them !

all complaints have no grounds , all are whining !

just ask Tagert
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Not ture <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes true , old old story , posted here many times

has been on the internet way before IL:Sturmovik was even started , being wrong seems easy for you tagert

RedNeckerson
03-02-2005, 10:21 PM
nm

RedNeckerson
03-02-2005, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
Yeah Luftwhiners blah blah blah.

Cracks me up that people like this never seem to mention the other Thunderbolts that were blown out of the sky on this same mission.

Or that the only reason Johnson didn't bail was because he couldn't get his canopy open. Good for him.

P-47 was tough but here's another perspective dose of reality:

"Straight in front was a Thunderbolt, as I completed the turn, and I opened fire on him immediately, and hit his propwash. My fire was so heavy his left wing came off almost at once and I watched him go down...

There were 10 P-47s and 4 of us and we were all turning as hard as we could as if in a Lufbery. I was able to turn tighter and was gaining. I pulled within 80 yards of the P-47 ahead of me and opened fire. I hit him quickly and two of the others got one each, so that in a minute and a half three of the P-47s went down.

-Georg Peter Eder 7./JG2 combat report, 14 July 1943.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
03-02-2005, 10:30 PM
luftwhiners got to that other tough plane, the il2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

VFA195-MaxPower
03-02-2005, 10:34 PM
the fw190 in that story must have been using the same ammo belt that we currently have in PF. Lol.

RedNeckerson
03-02-2005, 10:35 PM
Yeah, sure they did pingu.

They are responsible for Global warming, high gas prices, and Dennis Rodman as well.

RedNeckerson
03-02-2005, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA195-MaxPower:
the fw190 in that story must have been using the same ammo belt that we currently have in PF. Lol. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think whatever Eder was flying, it was equipped with the Mine shells - unlike our sim version that doesn't have them.

VFA195-MaxPower
03-02-2005, 10:38 PM
I know.. I was luftwhining.. the title invited it. I was hoping that the post would seem amusingly stupid in the face of the tyrade going on above regarding the mauser.

S 8
03-02-2005, 10:40 PM
Mmmmmmm,Jugs,gotta love them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RedNeckerson
03-02-2005, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA195-MaxPower:
I know.. I was luftwhining.. the title invited it. I was hoping that the post would seem amusingly stupid in the face of the tyrade going on above regarding the mauser. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, that's just tagert.

Most of us just try and ignore him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PraetorHonoris
03-02-2005, 10:49 PM
So you want to make us believe, according to this single event, the P47 should take 21 MG151/20-hits ... always?

Another Story about MG151/20 and P47:

"Then I saw the Thunderbolts.
They had placed between us and the two other groups, long before the bombers were in range. Below my left were some of these bully maschines.
I released my drop tank and attacked. The swarm was getting closer and I decided to attack the left wingman of the leader, who even was so nice to make a slight turn into my line of fire. A short burst at extremely close range and he was going down in flames.
Now the right wingman! I aimed and pressed the trigger and he was going down"
Günther Rall, describing his 275th Air-to-Air victory in his memoirs ("Mein Flugbuch", Page 206)
Although only one kill was confirmed, when Rall later met Hub Zemke (the swarm leader), Zemke told him that both of his wingmen were shot down (underclaiming of the Luftwaffe, confirmed by an American fighter ace... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
Rall was flying a Me109G10 with a - surprise - MG151/20, which is the Version demanded by the German forum but never granted by Oleg.

Hristo_
03-02-2005, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
So you want to make us believe, according to this single event, the P47 should take 21 MG151/20-hits ... always?

Another Story about MG151/20 and P47:

"Then I saw the Thunderbolts.
They had placed between us and the two other groups, long before the bombers were in range. Below my left were some of these bully maschines.
I released my drop tank and attacked. The swarm was getting closer and I decided to attack the left wingman of the leader, who even was so nice to make a slight turn into my line of fire. A short burst at extremely close range and he was going down in flames.
Now the right wingman! I aimed and pressed the trigger and he was going down"
Günther Rall, describing his 275th Air-to-Air victory in his memoirs ("Mein Flugbuch", Page 206)
Although only one kill was confirmed, when Rall later met Hub Zemke (the swarm leader), Zemke told him that both of his wingmen were shot down (underclaiming of the Luftwaffe, confirmed by an American fighter ace... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
Rall was flying a Me109G10 with a - surprise - MG151/20, which is the Version demanded by the German forum but never granted by Oleg. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not conforming to the spirit of this thread.

Thunderbolt should withstand any MG151/20 fire !

It has been supported by a single anecdote !

How dare you come up with another anecdote that states otherwise ? Zemke and two of his wingmen shot down by a 109 ? Blasphemy !

Fehler
03-02-2005, 11:10 PM
tagert is a funny guy. When someone states an opinion, tagert demans proof. When someone provides clear evidence, he calls them a Luftwhiner.

As far as Johnson's P-47, he had a friend on his side in heaven, for sure! Others were not so lucky, but the P-47 probably has more stories of aircraft perserverence than any other fighter in WWII. Conclusion: It was one tough momma (Not many stories of say the A6M being tough like that, are there? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

In the game, I think the P-47 DM is pretty good, and on average accurately depicts all the accounts of the plane's ruggedness I have read, with one exception... I really think an engine kill is too likely in the game, as opposed to what I think it should be like. But then again, that is my opinion, I could be wrong.

As far as the IL2 statement being weakened by the Lufties; you do realize that the IL2 had a nearly 1/4th inch armor plating on it? But that was on the underside. It was designed to keep the pilot relatively safe from ground fire. There was not as much pilot protection from above, although the rear seemed fairly protected as well. A great deal of stories about the ruggedness of the IL2 came from pilots that shot at the undercarriage in zooming attacks (Avoiding the rear gunner - which is what every pilot tried to do). From that angle, the radiator was the most vulnerable. The rest of the plane's belly could absorb insane amounts of damage. This is probably why it is considered the best ground attack plane of the war.

I dont think I have had an occasion to even shoot at an IL2 in 2 patches, so I cant really comment how far it has been weakened. But a question I ask is, have people just figured out the weak spots and are targeting them? The IL2 was certainly not invulnerable. I dont have the figures here, but I believe there were more IL2's built than any other plane in WWII (Or pretty close). That said, how many survived the war? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Perhaps this is an example of out producing one's enemy into submission? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It was a great mud mover, none the less!

ClnlSandersLite
03-02-2005, 11:13 PM
As a lightning pilot, I can say that the only thing I don't like about the jug is that it has 1 of everything. To bad we lightning jocks can't have 2 pilots as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. And no, I'm not saying the jug is weak because it's only got 1 engine, just imagine what it'd be like with 2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

HayateAce
03-02-2005, 11:14 PM
Wow, the jealousy being exhibited is quite staggering.

P47s swept the luft from the skies in 43-44. Happened a long time ago, and revisionist gaming isn't going to change that now.

Best get over it.

Have a seat and tell us more.

http://www.cgh.com.sg/health_public/pamphlet/Malay/PTSD/Images/Psychiatrist.gif

Badsight.
03-02-2005, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
luftwhiners got to that other tough plane, the il2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>dont remind me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

it used to be super , now its ordinary

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
only in your eyes , & your eyes are seeing things wrong <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really? So, tell me now.. In that you totally avoided it before, just what part of Bremspropeller post do you *feel* my eyes saw wrong? To make it easy, Ill repost it here for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Bremspropeller:
The only thing that pisses ME off is the weakness of the Mauser-cannon: I can hardly kill two Thunderbolts with the Dora-9 (I know they were tough birds, but that's simply ridiculous..). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because looking at it again.. It sure seems to fit the inital topic.. Wouldnt you agree?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
luftwiners , when did that term come to being ?

not that you care , if you cant reply to a individual , why not just wack a lable on them !

all complaints have no grounds , all are whining ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. But wouldnt you agree that Bremspropellers statment fits the topic at hand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
just ask Tagert <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You could save yourself alot of greif if you did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
yes true , old old story , posted here many times

has been on the internet way before IL:Sturmovik was even started , being wrong seems easy for you tagert <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was referig to the fact that Luftwhiners were, are and will contine to ask for the P47 to be made weaker or thier guns made stronger.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
Oh, that's just tagert.

Most of us just try and ignore him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Looks like I got under your skin? Cool!

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 11:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
tagert is a funny guy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But mothers love me!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
When someone states an opinion, tagert demans proof. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never demand proof, I simply point out that without proof to support ones statment it falls into the catgory of a unfounded opinion. Simple!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
When someone provides clear evidence, he calls them a Luftwhiner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Clear Evidence! LOL! Now that is funny! Ill be you a dollar that you can not provide a link to any thread in this fourm that fits the definition of CLEAR EVIDENCE!

Badsight.
03-02-2005, 11:24 PM
the only reason you have the popular term luftwhiner is because the things wrong with LW planes were so glaring that their threads became massive

& you take the fact the MG151 is under-powered to mean all Allied planes should doubly be made weaker

i like that , typical kneejerk thought process , very telling

look at Bremspropeller's complaint , its with the MG151 , not your Jug or your ego .

oh but wait , you already have typed this means Bremsporpeller is actually asking for weaker bandits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

if thats the best you can dig up then thats pathetic

if someone asks for weaker Thundderbolts than we already have , they are not a Luftwhiner , but a moron . i thought that Luftwhining was to do with LW planes anyway ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

oh wait , your just throwing that lable around without reason , i call troll & id be right

you & other trolls have given rise to the term "YankWhiner" for good reason

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 11:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Wow, the jealousy being exhibited is quite staggering.

P47s swept the luft from the skies in 43-44. Happened a long time ago, and revisionist gaming isn't going to change that now.

Best get over it.

Have a seat and tell us more.

http://www.cgh.com.sg/health_public/pamphlet/Malay/PTSD/Images/Psychiatrist.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%!

Badsight.
03-02-2005, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
P47s swept the luft from the skies in 43-44. Happened a long time ago, and revisionist gaming isn't going to change that now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>hey its our favourite !

look Dumbas. . . . . i mean Hayate_Hater , the fact that this happened in 1943 isnt up for debate

but do remind us all of how sensitive your Yank-whining personality is by relating that fact over again even tho its not relavant to the thread

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
the only reason you have the popular term luftwhiner is because the things wrong with LW planes were so glaring that their threads became massive <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice, Say any chance of you commenting on the following that you avoided last time?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
only in your eyes , & your eyes are seeing things wrong <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? So, tell me now.. In that you totally avoided it before, just what part of Bremspropeller post do you *feel* my eyes saw wrong? To make it easy, Ill repost it here for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
& you take the fact the MG151 is under-powered to mean all Allied planes should doubly be made weaker

i like that , typical kneejerk thought process , very telling

look at Bremspropeller's complaint , its with the MG151 , not your Jug or your ego

oh but wait , you already have typed this mean Bremsporpeller is actually asking for weaker bandits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

you & other trolls have given rise to the term "_YankWhiner_" for good reason <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice, Say any chance of you commenting on the following"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller.:
I can hardly kill <span class="ev_code_red">two</span> Thunderbolts with the Dora-9 (I know they were tough birds, but that's simply ridiculous..). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Paying close att to the TWO and SIMPLY RIDICULOUS parts.. Because looking at it again.. It sure seems to fit the inital topic.. About Luftwhiners.. Wouldnt you agree? Or are you going to avoid this and go off on another tangent?

Badsight.
03-02-2005, 11:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Bremspropeller:
The only thing that pisses ME off is the weakness of the Mauser-cannon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yea , he really said that Jugs should be weaker alright http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

you take the fact the MG151 is under-powered to mean all Allied planes should doubly be made weaker

i like that , typical kneejerk thought process , very telling

if someone asks for weaker Thunderbolts than we already have , they are not a Luftwhiner , but a moron .

i thought that Luftwhining was to do with LW planes anyway ?



oh wait , your just throwing that lable around without reason , i call troll & id be right

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 11:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
look Dumbas. . . . . i mean Hayate_Hater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Someone is getting a little upset?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
the fact that this happened in 1943 isnt up for debate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sense when?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
but do remind us all of how sensitive your Yank-whining personality is by relating that fact over again even tho its not relavant to the thread <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Said the guy who replyed with "look Dumbas", now who is the sensitive one here?

Badsight.
03-02-2005, 11:39 PM
guess you have never met Hayater_Hater before

you 2 should get along both being Trolls & all

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Bremspropeller:
The __only__ thing that pisses ME off is the weakness of the Mauser-cannon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yea , he really said that Jugs should be weaker alright http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

you take the fact the MG151 is under-powered to mean all Allied planes should doubly be made weaker

i like that , typical kneejerk thought process , very telling

if someone asks for weaker Thunderbolts than we already have , they are not a Luftwhiner , but a moron .

i thought that Luftwhining was to do with LW planes anyway ?



oh wait , your just throwing that lable around without reason , i call troll & id be right <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I noticed you left out the part about killing <span class="ev_code_red">TWO</span> P47s and how that is simply ridiculous.. Did you do that on purpose in the hopes that no one would notice? Or are you just slipping?

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
guess you have never met Hayater_Hater before

you 2 should get along both being Trolls & all <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Troll? Said the troll who replyed with "look Dumbas", now who is the sensitive troll here?

lbhskier37
03-02-2005, 11:51 PM
Wow the intelligence level in this thread is just amazing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

himura108
03-02-2005, 11:57 PM
I dont need to whine about this game at all but i find this is more a story of a very lucky guy then a story of the toughest plane ever.
And im wondering over the Sulzbachs pic, how did he damage his nose without damaging his propeller. Isnt that lucky?
... and btw. , i saw kittyhawk going under water. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Werre_Fsck
03-03-2005, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
My god.. 21 x 20mm explosive! WOW! That is amazing! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe the FW-190 had wrong belt loading.. like missing minengeschossen..?

civildog
03-03-2005, 12:05 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I should have added watercooling to this thread!

The luftwhining I'm referring to has been going on since the original IL2. The luftwhiners think they should all be Eric Hartmanns sweeping all the Allied planes from the sky at will and whining that it's the fault of their guns (of which they have the best and most), planes (which are the easiest to fly), Oleg's coding, Allied planes being too tough (the ones I fly -P39, P40, I-16 sure don't seem to be), etc... when they can't.

The fiftieswhiners have always complained the .50s where never good enough and will never shatter anything they hit or kill Tiger tanks with a single hit. Now the .50's "shoot like lasers" as I've heard many times online by Luftwhiners. Funny, they sure don't seem as good as the MG151/20 yet, and the German planes carry plenty of those.

The Russiwhiners complaint the I-16 isn't as good as it used to be (I think my little mule is just as good an Emil/Brewster killer as ever) and the IL series is too wimpy. The Luftwhiners complain the Russian planes are too good. I'll remember that next time I fly an LaGG against an F-4 that zooms like a ufo (which, according to those infamous anecdotes it should).

In my humble opinion I think everyone is right and wrong. It's just a matter of perception. I think too many people are expecting too much from this game. It's never going to match "reality", whatever that might be. As has been pointed out a single anecdote does not lock down an argument. That cuts in all directions.

I've never really had any of the issues most of the above whiners have had. I use the planes as they were used in RL and don't expect them to do anything they were never able to do in RL.

While it is a fact that the US and RAF hated the P-39, the Russians used it in the right way and it was a success. I use it the same way and my oh my...it's an awesome plane!

The Doras and Antons are not invincible gunships, but they are pretty formidible. They have pretty significant weaknesses that are in the game just as they were in real life. Armor placement, thickness, and fuel tank design work against them as well as for them.

IL2's were made to be fighter-bombers and are lousy dogfighters. Too heavy, too slow (why do you think they evolved into 2-seat dedicated ground attackers?). As a weedeating tank killer and ground support plane they excel...as they did in real life. Also in real life the production lines could barely keep up with the losses, important to remember when thinking of it as some invulnerable panzerknacker.

In real life most kills didn't result in catastrophic destruction, but rather a softkill. The plane was smoking and the pilot ran for safety or bailed. The bomber dropped it's bombs early and ran away. I think to many people have their perceptions of reality in this game affected by the Dogfight servers. They want "kills", Hollywood kills every time. When they get more "modest", but I believe realistic results they gripe that the game isn't right.

This is why I prefer Co-ops. It forces you to fly like the real pilots did, use the plane the way the real pilots did, and know....like the real pilots did that "A kill is a kill".

Glad to see i kicked the hornet's nest, though...the forums have been a tad stale lately. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Badsight.
03-03-2005, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Troll? Said the troll who replyed with "look Dumbas", now who is the sensitive troll here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well you dont know what troll posting is either it seems

as for me not liking Hayate_Hater , that fully justified as you shouldnt either

there hasnt ever been a more biased , lying , one eyed , Troll ever post here than Hayate_Hater

this guy below is more objective in his little pinky's fingernail on the issue of African-American human rights than Hayater_Hater is about FB

http://img219.exs.cx:81/img219/7186/ntphoto11fx.jpg

but your only using that as an way of diverting the issue of why you yourself are trolling , example below

Badsight.
03-03-2005, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
I noticed you left out the part about killing _<span class="ev_code_red">TWO</span>_ P47s and how that is _simply ridiculous_.. Did you do that on purpose in the hopes that no one would notice? Or are you just slipping? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>yes i left it out

why did i do that ?

why does Tagert not want to stick to Brems point , why is Tagert trying to make out Luft Flyers are all biased & want easy kill allied planes ?

because hes a Troll poster trying to divert the issue

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The __only__ thing that pisses ME off is the weakness of the Mauser-cannon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>oh yea , i see it right there Tagert , Brems issue totally is about Jugs in FB being too strong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Potatodip
03-03-2005, 01:19 AM
hmmmm...If your in a 190 shooting at 100 meters or closer aiming at a fix point (not direct six)no plane not even how tough it is will go down.....If you shoot at 300m direct at six a Jug is pretty darn tough if you ask me. If you ask me the pics of that jug shot up looks like a newbee pilot shotting direct at six from distance over atleast 200m, and we all know that the Jug have pretty good armour and that sort of tactics are "not even fun and a waste of ammo"

I doent think the JUG in game is that bad that someone tryes to make it, the main prob is that LW pilots are shooting at you werry close (within 100m) and as i said before no plane will survive that kind of bashing.

Another thing for me as a LW pilot is that i werry rare get a first pass kill in Jugs, but i do my best to hit them so hard so second pass deffently will

I know its a flying tank, thats why i get even closer when im shooting at Jugs, the closer i get the harder i hit, there is not many "lucky shots" on a Jug, only two things counts the distance im shooting from and how good my aim is. Im not one of the mauser "freaks" in my opinion it all comes down to distance, guns aint good at 100m, well then i have to go 70m (the closer i am the better impact my guns do and the better fix point i have on the part im shooting at, its about timing and distance not about the guns, i simply use what the games gives me instead of talking about whats right or not. You can only simulate that mutch realism in a game, and the amount we have in FB is impresive for a game if you ask me. Jugs kill me i kill Jugs, some planes are easy to shoot down some are not, but everything shot at within 100m with a decent aim will go down no matter what plane is shooting, the only plane i think is abit off is the P-38 (and i realy dislike that) lol

so mutch for the LW whiiiiiiiining

WTE_Ibis
03-03-2005, 01:46 AM
Well Badsight,me being an ANZAC and all I tend to agree with you but maaaate only a fool would argue with a fool,you are lowering our collective
IQ with this "debate" I'd let him have the bone then we won't have to listen to the barking and yapping as he runs up and down behind the fence.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Dolemite-
03-03-2005, 01:53 AM
This topic is really...
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/77/039_42498.jpg

Hristo_
03-03-2005, 01:57 AM
...law enforcing ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ClnlSandersLite
03-03-2005, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...law enforcing ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OOH, OOH, OOH, ME, ME, ME...

errrrrr.....

California style????

Brotrob
03-03-2005, 02:26 AM
Hello,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
-twenty-one gaping holes and jagged tears in the metal from exploding 20mm cannon shells
-The Thunderbolt is literally a sieve, holes through the wings, fuselage and tail.
-Every square foot, it seems is covered with holes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/brotrob/rsj4.jpg

Doesn't look that bad at all, ha ? Perhaps Robert Johnson couldnt differentiate between 7,92mm and 20 mm hits ? Or did he manage to identify the hitting shell by the hitsound during combat ? Could it be someone exaggerated a bit, a tiny little bit ? And could it be that proving the wrong ammo-belt-configutation on MG 151 has nothing to do with disclaiming the toughness of the Jug ???

The so called Luftwhiners PROVED that the ammo-belt-confguration on the currently modelled MG 151/20 is wrong,
go to their thread and show they are all wrong, instead of giving some douptfull pilot-claims of only one incident.


PS

What does that mean :
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
One day in late June, 1943, Johnson's Thunderbolt was hit early in the mission and then helplessly subjected to an Fw 190's MACHINE GUN FIRE on the way home.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


???

Enofinu
03-03-2005, 02:28 AM
what makes P47 so specially tough???

where is the armor plates and what they cover, how well is gas tanks armored, or machinegun ammo storage boxes? oxygen tanks? pilot seat and sidearmor? engine armor? engine oil and gas lines around engine? is those all covered with armor plates as well? one gas pipeline shot cut at engine compartment from one sylineter could cause fire, easily, cos fuel could get intact with HOT exhaust pipes and flame up and make more damage.

i looke the pictures of the Johnsons P47, and he got luck cos he had seat armor so rounds didnt reach the pilot. but, there wasnt many hits on fuselage area, as u all can observe, not there wasnt so many visible machinegun holes in it visible also. still, he was wondering his machine that it still brought him home, he only got luck that nothing vital was hit, at least badly. is there any log about what parts and critical items took hits from enemy fire?
Jug aint any special to other planes.

the claim about that Jugs viped the LW out from the sky, might be true.. just make simple calculation about the amounts of planes which entered from west to german borders, every mustang, spitfire, pony, P-38 against 109:s and 190:s, which were in at least two fronts and most of em at EAST. and calculate how many planes Russians did send against Germany as well. Numerical superiority against Germans was Huge.

why Russians likes P39? well, Russians always liked firepower, and P39 had it in form on one cannon and many mg:s. why they were so "succesful" with P39? they started to use "ladder" formations or such, so, when Germans went after IL-2:S or other bombers at low-med alt, they were bounced by enemy fighters from above, maybe germans had flight also at med-hi alt to get those bouncing enemy fighters, but russians had more of them even higher. More and more fighters against much fever german fighters.

how many P39:s were sended to russia during war?? does anyone have any numbers? how many fighters and bombers russians manufactured during war? how many USA?

wasnt USA producing 50 000 planes per year, at least one year? cant really remember but amounts
were huge. of course many of the US build planes went to pasific theater, but many was brought to west front.

Industrial capacity on the allied side made allies to win the war, and manpower as well.
Germany with England was the countries which were bombed to reduce industrial capacity to lower capacity. it wasnt the planes itself which quaranteed the victory, but the amounts, endless supply of new planes and pilots.


thought about that.

Cajun76
03-03-2005, 02:36 AM
Read more. ^

As far as the rest of the thread...http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/fcinema.gif

Good pionts by Civildog, Pg 3, Fehler, Pg 2 "As far as..." and Badsights. first 2 posts on Pg 1. The rest, mostly garbage, imho. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Korolov
03-03-2005, 02:49 AM
I did a quick test on the P-47D-27 using a Fw-190A-8 (default config - quad 20mm) to see how many hits it took to bring it down.

I expended a total of 350 rounds, cannon and machine gun, for a total of 43 hits (ouch) from about 150-250 meters from the P-47 at 1200 meters. The first 15-20 hits or so, I estimate at about that point I created a fire in the belly tank (maybe one additional fire out of the left wing root) plus some damage spread out to the left wing tip. The P-47 leered a bit but the pilot ended up sticking around for the BBQ and went into a spin - I took a few more shots at it from there, witnessed some hits (likely two cannon hits) before the P-47 spiraled into the ground.

So, where's the problem. That's more than 21 shots absorbed and the P-47 still went down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WOLFMondo
03-03-2005, 03:36 AM
I like the jug, I fly it allot, its tough and resiliant, more so than any other single engined plane in the sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Wow, the jealousy being exhibited is quite staggering.

P47s swept the luft from the skies in 43-44. Happened a long time ago, and revisionist gaming isn't going to change that now.

Best get over it.

Have a seat and tell us more.

http://www.cgh.com.sg/health_public/pamphlet/Malay/PTSD/Images/Psychiatrist.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only up high, no offense but some of you guys tend to forget it was the RAF who did the bulk of the low and medium altitude work.

Atzebrueck
03-03-2005, 03:44 AM
stupid thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LeadSpitter_
03-03-2005, 05:32 AM
why becuase its not about the high pitched whine of a diamlerbenz engine Atzebrueck?

nakamura_kenji
03-03-2005, 05:49 AM
I never have problem with p47 thoughness and i fly ki-43la ^_^

has anyone picture of wing damage p47 that talk about story damage not very bad sound worse in story than picture

JG53Frankyboy
03-03-2005, 05:49 AM
well, perhaps because of the senseless personal basshings ?????????

about the topic:
yes, the P-47 should be very tough in its DM , and in general it is in game , actually its my feeling firing at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
i like the P-47 much ,unfortunatly my chances to fly them online are rare http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
my last impression was that it has a kind of a glass chin ? engine was often damages fast , even from light MG fire from head on??
but thats was only a personall impression in the past.

@LS, did you find an WW2 USN Destroyer with a catapult btw ? just out of interest.

nakamura_kenji
03-03-2005, 06:01 AM
is maybe problem engine it very big target? it take alot space at front of plane so very likly get hit, my favorite target on plane ^_^

JG53Frankyboy
03-03-2005, 06:12 AM
the R-2800 should have the toughest DM in the whole game - actually it has not in the moment !

MEGILE
03-03-2005, 06:17 AM
P-47D27 is tough.... but a few hits in its control surfaces and its no longer in the fight.

dadada1
03-03-2005, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the R-2800 should have the toughest DM in the whole game - actually it has not in the moment ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your right. Do you remember how R2800 was modelled in WW2 Fighters? You could get the engine ablaze and it would still run after the fire extinguished itself. Likewise the the DM of the P47 in general was tough in WW2 Fighters, sometimes It'd go down in a short burst, other times you could completely empty your ammo,(at least in the 109)FW 190 was a lot more effective though.

LeadSpitter_
03-03-2005, 07:02 AM
and koro it takes and avg of 4-6 20mm to tear the tail off a jug in 3.04 and yes i will post a track.

3 to set on fire 4 to rip tail off completely 2 to seize engine of the p47.

maybe double that 6 8 becuase with cannon 1 assigned to a key one keystroke results in 2 20mm fired watching in 1/4th speed

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/lead20mmtrack.ntrk

LeadSpitter_
03-03-2005, 07:19 AM
wow that track shut the lufts up mighty fast

FluffyDucks
03-03-2005, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
wow that track shut the lufts up mighty fast <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're talking bollox again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

KGr.HH-Sunburst
03-03-2005, 07:40 AM
I fly the P47 alot these days on GG and there is nothing wrong with its DM other than its engine which is rather weak sometimes (got it shot out by 109s MG131 fire pretty fast a few times)

the P47 is very tuff i have survived multiple mk108 hits many times and the control damage is nothing compared when flying FW190 vs .50cals

a dedicated Jug driver wont complain about its DM because that would be rediculous and just simple Yankwhining for nothing

Now all you P47 cry babies learn your ride get better so you wont get somany mk108s up yours http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

GG P47D stats http://www.greatergreen.com/stats/il2/aircraftdetails.php?id=44

LeadSpitter_
03-03-2005, 08:02 AM
actually the 108 can explode the p47 in a short 2-3 burst at .50 range ask megile to give you the track which i sent him if he still has it featuring himself in the p47.

When I fly the b25 p47 or p38 the 108 cannon is always a fear becuase its going to explode you into nothing from light hits if their ping is low, it is without a doubt the second best dogfighting weapon in game with killing ability at .50 range, second to the shvaks wich can kill a evenly pinged player .70 1.0 ranges.

.50s are like 20mm and if its not under .20 range they wont do squat and take multple passes to bring down an enemy ac which is BS after one pass a p38 or p47 will instantly be caught, very quickly in the zoom climb even at speed of 900+kmph a little bit longer they will catch you trying to extend trimming nose down a bit after the pass

By far I feel the 190s and beaufighter have the toughest dms in game without a doubt then the p47 lagg yaks etc, There is no other ac in game im able to achieve 12+ kills in one sortie against human players like i can in the 190. The spit comes close but only if people are stupid and try to turnfight you low alt. Many people are smart and will not ever try to turn fight the spit same tactics as the p51 p47 people use. but theres still many who try to especially the 109 jocks.

Problem is online many people who think the guns are weak myself included have ping differences of 50-300+ and this makes shots appear to hit on your screen when they really dont and are misses.

For example when flying in warclouds with the 190 i can explode a p38 b25 p47 in a one second burst with 108s in the wings.

Then if I go to a server like cz ah dedicated where i ping 150 it takes me a avg of 3-4 bursts.

Greatergreen i ping about 100 there and will usually take me 2 bursts to kill a russian ac same vice versa with the la ya of the 190 flyers who ping 250+ they will take massive hits on my screen so people need to take that under consideration.

Von_Rat
03-03-2005, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
wow that track shut the lufts up mighty fast <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol leadspitter,, it was a whole 17 mins beteewn your posts. sorta jumping the gun on claiming you shut people up ain't you. anyway i let more capable hands argue this one. you'll probaly have to wait till evening u.s. time for a good response to your track.

TAGERT.
03-03-2005, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Werre_Fsck:
Maybe the FW-190 had wrong belt loading.. like missing minengeschossen..? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. But I think those guys were smart enough to see the burn marks associated with explosive rounds. But even if it was just 20mm.. That is still an amazing story.

TAGERT.
03-03-2005, 09:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
why did i do that ?

why does Tagert not want to stick to Brems point , why is Tagert trying to make out Luft Flyers are all biased & want easy kill allied planes ?

because hes a Troll poster trying to divert the issue <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, actully it is becaue *someone* asked the following

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by someone (Badsight.):
ok where do your forum members , who you label "luftwhiners" , say the Jug should be weaker than it is in FB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, I provided a link to an example of someone whining about the durability of the P47, thats all.

TAGERT.
03-03-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Troll? Said the troll who replyed with "look Dumbas", now who is the sensitive troll here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well you dont know what troll posting is either it seems

as for me not liking Hayate_Hater , that fully justified as you shouldnt either

there hasnt ever been a more biased , lying , one eyed , Troll ever post here than Hayate_Hater

this guy below is more objective in his little pinky's fingernail on the issue of African-American human rights than Hayater_Hater is about FB

http://img219.exs.cx:81/img219/7186/ntphoto11fx.jpg

but your only using that as an way of diverting the issue of why you yourself are trolling , example below <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>yawn.. Hey Badsight.. Lets do everyone a favor.. Why dont you send me your love letters via PM were I can pretend to read them and you can get all excited.. Deal?

lbhskier37
03-03-2005, 09:34 AM
Once in a while Leadspitter posts something that makes me think he is fairly intelligent, but then he comes in a thread like this and blows that all away.

lbhskier37
03-03-2005, 09:42 AM
Now in order to convince me this thread isnt just a bunch of idiots running in circles could someone please post me a link where some "luftwhiner" said the Jug is too tough? Saying the mg151/20 isn't strong enough to kill two jugs doesn't count because it isn't strong enough to kill 2 190s or Ki84s either. Now if its not a case of "luftwhiners" whining, do you people (I hesitate to say yank-whiners because thats labeling) really think the Jug is too weak as it is? If so why don't you email Oleg and show him some evidence. I would love to hear what Oleg has to say on this issue lol.

LilHorse
03-03-2005, 10:13 AM
Ah yes, the Jug. It's my favorite fighter of the War. And my fave to fly on those rare occasions when I fly Western Front allied. But mostly I fly LW in the game. The other night on WC I managed to disintegrate one Jug on a bounce and killed another with a head on within about three minutes. I don't mind the MG 151/20. I just sling gunpods and away I go

The only thing stupider than someone whining about the Jug being too tough is somebody posting to bait the whiners.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
The luftwhining I'm referring to has been going on since the original IL2. The luftwhiners think they should all be Eric Hartmanns sweeping all the Allied planes from the sky at will and whining that it's the fault of their guns (of which they have the best and most), planes (which are the easiest to fly), Oleg's coding, Allied planes being too tough (the ones I fly -P39, P40, I-16 sure don't seem to be), etc... when they can't.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same cr@p for you guys. If LW planes don't get shot down from a 1000 meters out from 90 degrees deflection then there's something wrong. "Cause, hey, we're the guys who won. You LW guys are supposed to go down if we give you a cross look. And of course you are never supposed to shoot us down." These are the same twerps who when a map starts out totally overweighted with Allied they refuse to switch to blue to even things out. I actually saw one of these guys say when asked to even sides: "I don't support Nazi planes." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

PraetorHonoris
03-03-2005, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
That is still an amazing story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely! Although you missed the really amazing point.

The German pilot stopped firing when he realised that Johnson was helpless and escorted him for about 30min. Then he saluted and flew home.

Primarily, it is a story of humanity in war, not how tough the P47 was.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/index.html?item979.html

Zyzbot
03-03-2005, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
That is still an amazing story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely! Although you missed the really amazing point.

The German pilot stopped firing when he realised that Johnson was helpless and _escorted_ him for about 30min. Then he saluted and flew home.

Primarily, it is a story of humanity in war, not how tough the P47 was.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/index.html?item979.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to the link you provided the FW-190 expended all of its ammo.

"The Fw-190 had only 7.9mm ammo on board and although every round of it was fired into Bob's plane, the German was not able to finish the job. The German pilot then realized Johnson's rather defenseless position and decided to pull in close to inspect his would-be quarry."


Still...the escort was quite a story of humanity amidst war.

PraetorHonoris
03-03-2005, 10:38 AM
Due to the fact that is still unknown who the German pilot was, we hardly know how many ammo he had left, when he stopped firing.

TAGERT.
03-03-2005, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
That is still an amazing story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely! Although you missed the really amazing point.

The German pilot stopped firing when he realised that Johnson was helpless and _escorted_ him for about 30min. Then he saluted and flew home.

Primarily, it is a story of humanity in war, not how tough the P47 was.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/index.html?item979.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, read the story before, and saw the cool painting someone did show the Lw guy saluting Johnson.. So I didnt miss that amazing point as you thought.. I just never realised the amount of hits Johsons plane took, thus my amazment. As for war and humanity.. It is funny sometimes.. we seem to be at our best when things are at thier worst.. That selfless humanity tends to only show up on your own side.. But there are plenty of stories like this where your humanity spilled over and included the enemy. Ill never forget the house I rented in Germany.. The owner was an old guy with one arm.. We use to sit and talk when he came to pick up the rent check.. One day he told me about the time an american soulder got out of his fox hole and pulled him into it and applied bandages to the spot where his arm use to be and in turn saved his life.

Eagle_361st
03-03-2005, 10:53 AM
As a dedicated Jug driver going back to WWII fighters days I can safely say that the only thing that may be off on the Jug's DM is it's engine, and the fact that the control cables sem to be moddeled as cables rather than the rods they were. BUt that has even gotten better over time. The Jug is indeed a very tough bird as it should be, and Johnson was a very lucky man on that day. I have done alot of research on the subject at hand seen other pics as well, and the damage is far worse thatn even those pics are showing. But this was a rare incidence, not the norm. And I seriously hope nobody here thinks that every jusg can take that kind of damage in the game or should. Shooting dead six on a Jug is a fruitless effort even more so than most other birds, due to the heavy amount of armour plating to the six of the aircraft. Having said that there have been times where I have absorbed a massive amount of damage in the Jug and returned to base, and times where very little takes me out. That seems more real to me, there are too many variables in any machine made by man to set there and say that this is the way it should always be or not be.

TAGERT.
03-03-2005, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
As a dedicated Jug driver going back to WWII fighters days I can safely say that the only thing that may be off on the Jug's DM is it's engine, and the fact that the control cables sem to be moddeled as cables rather than the rods they were. BUt that has even gotten better over time. The Jug is indeed a very tough bird as it should be, and Johnson was a very lucky man on that day. I have done alot of research on the subject at hand seen other pics as well, and the damage is far worse thatn even those pics are showing. But this was a rare incidence, not the norm. And I seriously hope nobody here thinks that every jusg can take that kind of damage in the game or should. Shooting dead six on a Jug is a fruitless effort even more so than most other birds, due to the heavy amount of armour plating to the six of the aircraft. Having said that there have been times where I have absorbed a massive amount of damage in the Jug and returned to base, and times where very little takes me out. That seems more real to me, there are too many variables in any machine made by man to set there and say that this is the way it should always be or not be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! We get a bit of a "one sided" story when it comes to damage.. We tend to only hear from the guys who made it back and lived to tell about the day thier P47 took "alot of hits" and brouht them home.. You dont tend to hear much from the guys who took a "small hit" on thier P47 elevator and jammed it to the point they could not pull up and thus crashed into the ground and died.

JG53Frankyboy
03-03-2005, 11:12 AM
just out of interest i did a little shoot out at a P-47 in QMB with the gondola MG151 of a 109G6 - hell !!!!!!!
all toughness of a P-47 went away! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
it was like shooting at a paper plane ( sure perhaps a very personal feeling).
IF the ammobelt of the R6 is comming in the standart MG151 nose gun ORE in the 4 (!) of a Fw190A8 ............ outch !

Diablo310th
03-03-2005, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
As a dedicated Jug driver going back to WWII fighters days I can safely say that the only thing that may be off on the Jug's DM is it's engine, and the fact that the control cables sem to be moddeled as cables rather than the rods they were. BUt that has even gotten better over time. The Jug is indeed a very tough bird as it should be, and Johnson was a very lucky man on that day. I have done alot of research on the subject at hand seen other pics as well, and the damage is far worse thatn even those pics are showing. But this was a rare incidence, not the norm. And I seriously hope nobody here thinks that every jusg can take that kind of damage in the game or should. Shooting dead six on a Jug is a fruitless effort even more so than most other birds, due to the heavy amount of armour plating to the six of the aircraft. Having said that there have been times where I have absorbed a massive amount of damage in the Jug and returned to base, and times where very little takes me out. That seems more real to me, there are too many variables in any machine made by man to set there and say that this is the way it should always be or not be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

FliegerAas
03-03-2005, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
As a dedicated Jug driver going back to WWII fighters days I can safely say that the only thing that may be off on the Jug's DM is it's engine, and the fact that the control cables sem to be moddeled as cables rather than the rods they were. BUt that has even gotten better over time. The Jug is indeed a very tough bird as it should be, and Johnson was a very lucky man on that day. I have done alot of research on the subject at hand seen other pics as well, and the damage is far worse thatn even those pics are showing. But this was a rare incidence, not the norm. And I seriously hope nobody here thinks that every jusg can take that kind of damage in the game or should. Shooting dead six on a Jug is a fruitless effort even more so than most other birds, due to the heavy amount of armour plating to the six of the aircraft. Having said that there have been times where I have absorbed a massive amount of damage in the Jug and returned to base, and times where very little takes me out. That seems more real to me, there are too many variables in any machine made by man to set there and say that this is the way it should always be or not be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen,
A good post at last. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
03-03-2005, 12:36 PM
the jug was really strong structually, your unlikely to make it fall to pieces http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the il2's opperated in ground attack, which is the most dangous thing u can do isnt it?

it really isnt that tough, or good anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

i suggest u guys fly it for awhile, see if u think its a good plane, or tough...
try taking down some stuka's with it aswell...

horseback
03-03-2005, 12:36 PM
For those who don't find the black and white photos very informative, bear in mid that 7.9mm bullet holes are not terribly big, and hard to see on a dark painted a/c, particularly in reference to something the size of a P-47, and that you can't see the wings, the area forward of the cockpit, or the port side. Given that all this information had to be stored and filed by hand during the war, we are very fortunate to have this much visual confirmation.

Johnson was hit while flying as #4 in his flight at high altitude, and his aircraft was knocked out of control and fell into a dive. That was when he took the cannon rounds in the tail and the vicinity of his cockpit. Had the rounds that struck behind his cockpit been armor piercing, we wouldn't be discussing him at all.

It is probable that his original attacker was credited with a victory; the gun-camera film would be quite convincing.

As for the guy who emptied his 7.9mm MGs into Johnson's aircraft as he struggled to get to the Channel, it was one of the luminaries (at work, but he was definitely a name many would recognize) of JG2, and his description of the encounter was broadcast on the radio that evening (Lord Ha-Ha, I think).

He did state that he was out of cannon rounds and used up all his MG ammo on the cripple before coming up to inspect his handiwork. He was convinced that the poor American pilot probably went down in the Channel...

Now, about that young fella who mushed throught the forest in Italy-he wasn't the only one to pull this particular stunt in a Jug. Leo Nomis, one of the original Eagle Squadron guys (he wasn't flying for the 4th FG at this point) did something very similar in a French forest during the Normandy campaign, and flew back to England missing a few cylinders from his engine and I believe big chunks of more than one of his prop blades. The photos looked very similar to the Italian forest job, though. I believe I ead it in the The Eagles' War, by Vern Hoagland.

It's a fascinating read; I'll try to find it and transcribe it tonite.

In the game, except for the engine, the P-47 is generally as tough as I would expect. It should take a 'Golden BB shot' for a 7.9mm burst to disable that engine though.

cheers

horseback

Eagle_361st
03-03-2005, 12:36 PM
Please excuse my terrible typing, I just off shift so I am very tired. But it looks like you guys understood what I was trying to say/type.

StG77_Stuka
03-03-2005, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
just out of interest i did a little shoot out at a P-47 in QMB with the gondola MG151 of a 109G6 - hell !!!!!!!
all toughness of a P-47 went away! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
it was like shooting at a paper plane ( sure perhaps a very personal feeling).
IF the ammobelt of the R6 is comming in the standart MG151 nose gun ORE in the 4 (!) of a Fw190A8 ............ outch ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow! Great example of your "interest"! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The190Flyer
03-03-2005, 01:03 PM
I have been called a "Luftwhiner" but I have the utmost respect for the P-51 & especially the P-47 because I know that the P-47 can sustain a whoooole lot of damage and still return home. German and American planes are the only kind I like!

Cajun76
03-03-2005, 03:08 PM
Egon Mayer was the German pilot that peppered Johnson's a/c with MG fire.

Slickun
03-03-2005, 03:29 PM
My Dad, recently deceased, had a story much like the guy mushing in. On one of his long training flights along the eastern seaboard of the USA, one of his mates had to crash land. He undershot the field he was aiming at, and knocked over something like 18 small trees and saplings before coming to rest.

The wings were still intact etc. Dad always told the story as an illustration of the toughness of the Jug he flew and loved.

Make no mistake, Pop flew a lot of US types, and he says the Jug was the toughest, easily, of the lot.

One of the earliest posters made the claim that the P-47 had the lowest loss ratio per 100 sorties in the US inventory. That is correct. It also had the highest ratio of returning to base after sustaining damage of any other ETO type.

Numbers to support the notion that the P-47 was an extremely tough bird, to go along with the anecdotes.

BTW... Johnsons plane wasn't written off. It was repaired and returned to service.

Information from "Victory Roll" by Wolfe.

Longjocks
03-03-2005, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Longjocks:
I say this about those on both sides of the argument of any given plane in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
really ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, really.

Korolov
03-03-2005, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
and koro it takes and avg of 4-6 20mm to tear the tail off a jug in 3.04 and yes i will post a track.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting - in your track, I calculate around a 12 shot average to effectively destroy a P-47. Some of them took more hits, others less (and note I'm only counting the HE "puffs" - there's bound to be more hits from AP.)

So I don't see what's wrong with it - and I don't think anyone here is really making a issue out of anything except the engine vulnerability.

Tuskeegee_Sam
03-04-2005, 02:32 AM
This is OUTRAGEOUS !!

Nazi planes killing Jugs left and right and some punks here have the NERVE to call Nazi guns undermodelled !?! Oh, the humanity !!!!

Atzebrueck
03-04-2005, 02:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

PraetorHonoris
03-04-2005, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuskeegee_Sam:
This is OUTRAGEOUS !!

Nazi planes killing Jugs left and right and some punks here have the NERVE to call Nazi guns undermodelled !?! Oh, the humanity !!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

I did not know that planes and even guns had a party membership...
Is the Jug a Democrat or a Republican? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tuskeegee_Sam
03-04-2005, 03:17 AM
Well, you obviously have no problems in stating your party membership !

Which one of those neo Nazi punks is you anyway ?

PraetorHonoris
03-04-2005, 03:22 AM
The Bundeswehr is not a party, but the armed forces of Germany,... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I am the one displayed in my avatar, but you don't have to use my rank, when you speak to me.
Am I not nice?

Tuskeegee_Sam
03-04-2005, 03:31 AM
You seem to enjoy in perverse fun of dressing up like a Nazi, no doubt about that. I, on the other hand, enjoy good things in life ! think about it.

PraetorHonoris
03-04-2005, 03:34 AM
THIS is the UNIFORM of the FEDERAL GERMAN ARMY, and yes, I served with Pride in this uniform.

Too bad, that you don't understand this...

Longjocks
03-04-2005, 03:46 AM
Sorry, Sammy boy, but I don't see any Nazi uniforms in that picture. But hey, I'm sure in a world where we're frightened into imagining nasty Arab terrorists waiting to kill us in our sleep there are neo-Nazis subverting gaming forums in the hopes of confusing us by distorting the history of the P-47.

Well, did you know that the Nazis flew pink elephants over Britain as a prelude to BoB, where they'd sprinkle pixie dust all over so the RAF pilots would be all sleepy the following day? But the Gnome King saw this and he was mad. So he got his army of sea-monkeys to building a special machine that filled the hearts of the pilots with magical sunshine, foiling the plans of the evil invaders. Hitler was so cross at this that he got on his magical bicycle and flew away to a far off land where all of his dreams come true and all the pizza you can eat is delivered for only 95c.

DarthBane_
03-04-2005, 03:49 AM
That plane has so discusting cockpit that i cannot bare to look at. Only zero commes close to it by poor craftmanship in design (in game). It seems that someone gave texture art to programers to do by mistake. Mistake could come as result of some sickness plaguing the 1c for years. Well because i cannot fly it, i shoot at it very often. And it is tough, but goes down anyway. Pity it doesnt have normal cockpit. Same goes for zero.

LLv26_Morko
03-04-2005, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S 8:
Mmmmmmm,Jugs,gotta love them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Im with you S8 ,100 % http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

KGr.HH-Sunburst
03-04-2005, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuskeegee_Sam:
Well, you obviously have no problems in stating your party membership !

Which one of those neo Nazi punks is you anyway ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

pls Mods BAN this PUNK,
CI send him on a long vacation to guantanamo bay or something http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
sure he got the balls to call someone a Nazi behind his mama's PC http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

lbhskier37
03-04-2005, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuskeegee_Sam:
You seem to enjoy in perverse fun of dressing up like a Nazi, no doubt about that. I, on the other hand, enjoy good things in life ! think about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Copperhead in disguise?

BSS_Goat
03-04-2005, 08:23 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
THIS is the _UNIFORM_ of the _FEDERAL GERMAN ARMY_, and yes, I served with _Pride_ in this uniform.[QUOTE]

As you should, S!

TAGERT.
03-04-2005, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
THIS is the _UNIFORM_ of the _FEDERAL GERMAN ARMY_, and yes, I served with _Pride_ in this uniform.

Too bad, that you don't understand this... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ignore him PraetorHonoris.. He clearly doesn't get out much.

When I was station in Würzburg German I got to work with some of the Germans military there.. Also got to stay in some old SS building. The German troops were a fine bunch of guys! That and they had much better chow then we had! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Not a shred of NAZI in what they, or any German does today imho! As a mater of fact I have allays been very proud of how the Germans didn't try to hide what they did in WWII (Unlike JAPAN) with the idea that the more you talk about it.. The less likely it will happen again.

A little off topic.. In that sig picture of yours.. Is that a parade unit? i.e. for show? Only reason I get that impression is I noticed they are carrying old 98K's Mausers instead of something more modern.. We do the same in ceremony, you will see us carrying M1's. In that I'm sure there are no units still using the good ol 98K's! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
03-04-2005, 10:07 AM
http://www.streitkraeftebasis.de/C1256C290043532F/vwContentFrame/612E7C72ED5C77AFC1256E05004CDD76

so in general, yes , the Wachbataillon is a parade unit and the only one that is using the 98k http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PraetorHonoris
03-04-2005, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
As a mater of fact I have allays been very proud of how the Germans didn't try to hide what they did in WWII (Unlike JAPAN) with the idea that the more you talk about it.. The less likely it will happen again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is nice to hear! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The unit is the Wachbataillon, it€s task is to defend the government district of Berlin in case of war, but their main task is to parade. They have Army as well as Air Force and Navy uniforms.
Here they parade for Bush in Navy uniforms:
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/020522ap_bush_berlin_600.jpg

The K98k is for parade only, in combat we use the G36
http://www.hkpro.com/image/g36woods2.jpg

I served in the Luftwaffe, not the Wachbataillon, but two of my friends do and they send me pic of them excercising.
That is the Sig...

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 10:38 AM
cant say im too keen on your sig, but u seem like a decent guy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

helmet is similer to ww2 one isnt it?

EJGr.Ost_chamel
03-04-2005, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:

Not a shred of NAZI in what they, or any German does today imho! As a mater of fact I have allays been very proud of how the Germans didn't try to hide what they did in WWII (Unlike JAPAN) with the idea that the more you talk about it.. The less likely it will happen again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you very much for these very kind words about my country! http://smilie-land.de/t/t-v/verneigen/verneigen0007.gif

Greetings
Chamel

PraetorHonoris
03-04-2005, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
helmet is similer to ww2 one isnt it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be developed on the basis of a German helmet, but actually it is an American Design.

US and German military are using the same helmets, only the Wachbataillon uses a slightly different (note the chin strap)

Eagle_361st
03-04-2005, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
cant say im too keen on your sig, but u seem like a decent guy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

helmet is similer to ww2 one isnt it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Current US military helmets also are very similar, it's just the design. The new kevlar helmets are far superior to the old steel ones.

LeadSpitter_
03-04-2005, 11:20 AM
Nice Helmut
http://mydivx.lihoman.ru/order/direct/brooks/brooks.spaceballs.jpg

So how come no replies of my track I took the time to take and put on my webspace. I seen people on HL say it proves nothing, but to me it proves it takes 6-8 hits to rip off the tail. Im sure you all know it takes 1-2 shots to stop the 47s engine too, or 1 wing hit to snap all control cables watching in arcademode=1 a wing hit will fragment into all tail and rudder cables.

Dont get me wrong flying the a4 vs the jug online sometimes they take about 2-3 bursts to explode but only if their ping is around 100-350 which unfortunately many people have who fly online.

anything over 50 ping seems to have noticeable weaker weapons becuase of the games netcode.

A server with everyone having 20-40 ping you will see weapon strenght is the same effect as offline or a lan game.

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
helmet is similer to ww2 one isnt it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be developed on the basis of a German helmet, but actually it is an American Design.

US and German military are using the same helmets, only the Wachbataillon uses a slightly different (note the chin strap) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LLv26_Morko
03-04-2005, 11:44 AM
i think we have wondered little off topic here...
but i think the tuskegee jerk is either stupid or insane...or both or martian but...
i wore at a time a uniform and helmet in finnish army that may look like a nazi uniform and helmet...and i wore it proud!!!
does that make me a nazi...
i dont think so..

horseback
03-04-2005, 11:56 AM
First, let me also apologize to PraetorH. for the excesses of my countryman. My experiences with German military personnel during my own time in-service and as a technical representative for a major US defense company have convinced me of their professionalism and competence. I found them to be good guys, too, even if they spent too much time making fun of our beer.

Second, while I cannot be absolutely sure, I believe the P-47 and P-51 were both Republicans (Conservative designs, emphasizing speed and power efficiently built in huge numbers by companies that emphasized their national pride-Republic & North American), while the P-38 was undoubtedly a Democrat (innovative, great potential, visually interesting, but flawed because it was hard to use and took too long to build by a company named for an individual).

In the interests of full disclosure, I admit that I am a long time employee of a Lockheed-Martin competitor and will not pass up any opportunity to 'twit' them (or Democrats-y'all feel free to respond-I give points for humor and creativity).

Finally, I promised a passage from The Eagles' War by Vern Haugland, about another example of a P-47 engaged in the de-forestation of Europe. I was incorrect about the pilot; it was Jessie Taylor who was commander of the 406th FS, not Leo Nomis.

"Taylor assumed command of his own Thunderbot squadron in the Ninth Air Force, and this gave him authority to fly almost whenever he wished...On one of them, returning from from an early-morning divebombing and strafing mission, Taylor sighted a convoy of German trucks towing big guns and fuel tanks and carrying troops, halted under a long row of trees.

"I still had some ammo, and decided to make a pass at them," Taylor said later. "Coming in at high speed, it was a successful strafing run. There were three explosions. I couldn't tell whether they were from the trucks or the fuel tanks. As I started to pull out of the dive, I saw for the first time, directly ahead, some large cables strung across my path.

"The Thunderbolt weighed seven tons. Pulling out at high speed, it would nose down and forward. I had a choice of going through the cables-- suicide in an all-metal fighter plane-- or going under them and through some trees 35 or 40 feet tall (about 10m-HB). So-- look out trees!

"Hitting the trees and touching the ground, did a lot of damage to the plane. The cowling was badly impaired all the way around, with the bottom part missing. the spinner and the base of the propeller blades were damaged. The bottom cylinder was torn off; guns in both wings were knocked loose and broken off; and the right wing was set back four inches (over 10cm-HB).

"The prop ran away, but the plane still flew about 60 or 70 miles (around 100km) back to the Sainte-Mere-Eglise strip-and then froze up on the final approach. Back safely on the ground, I found that the greatest damage had been caused by a tree trunk about 10 inches (over 25cm) in diameter. Amazingly, even though that trunk had knocked off the cylinder, there was not so much as a scratch on any of the propeller blades (at least the parts beyond the cuffs-HB)-- and the prop had been turning at a high RPM at the time.

"Looking back, I have wondered what those people in the truck convoy must have thought when the big fighter plane charged out of the sky with eight guns blazing, killed or destroyed everything in sight, knocked down a bunch of trees, bounced off the ground, and then flew off into the morning sunrise."

There is a photo of the plane taken from nose on opposite page 139 of the book- the cowl is crumpled back all theway around, the prop spinner and cuffs are mangled, the wings' leading edges are badly dinged up-and the main gear is in pristine shape. Interestingly, the prop blades are the earlier narrow Curtiss Electric types, although the much more effective 'paddle-blades' had been around for close to six months at this time.

cheers

horseback

Medvedya
03-04-2005, 12:15 PM
I think some people get a bit hysterical when anything to do with the Third Reich is concerned.

A very big mistake! If you make something taboo and 'forbidden' all that you'll do is make people interested, not only in the imagery, but possibly in the ideas themselves - not a good thing.

The thing that always got me was described in the book 'Fatherland' of miles and miles of soulless housing estates where everyone dressed the same, had the same 'Kraft Durch Freude' holidays, and conformed to petite bourgeois values. Anything higher or deeper than that narrow plain of existence was to be regarded with suspicion and dislike.

No mesmeric evil in shiny black and silver, just stifling boredom. The more insidious hum-drum and insular aspects of the regime are just as important and are very effective in obliterating any glamour it may be perceived as having.

Banning swastikas or condeming fascistic looking things is a bit ludicrous and quite counter-productive.

PraetorHonoris
03-04-2005, 12:19 PM
Horseback, there is no need to apologise, you are not responsible for him and he is not representative for the US, I know that :-)

WTE_Ibis
03-04-2005, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuskeegee_Sam:
Well, you obviously have no problems in stating your party membership !

Which one of those neo Nazi punks is you anyway ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moron http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Come on mods, BAN this goose.

Bremspropeller
03-04-2005, 04:28 PM
Well, in order to take the track back to the original topic:

"flying through the trees" (sounds pretty dramatic - ain't it ?) actually does not tell too much about the tougness of the plane (I can tell you a little story about a Dora-9 doing squirrel-watching...) - it rather gives us an impression of the incredible amount of luck it's pilot had that day.

There were thousands of ocassions when pilots were not able to pull their a/c out of the trees...


EDIT: it seems that the tree hit the a/c directly onto the spinner (and therefore the place right in front of the toughest part of the a/c: the engine).
Any different spot would have caused the planes to crash (both, Thunderbolt and Dora).

TAGERT.
03-04-2005, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, in order to take the track back to the original topic:

"flying through the trees" (sounds pretty dramatic - ain't it ?) actually does not tell too much about the tougness of the plane (I can tell you a little story about a Dora-9 doing squirrel-watching...) - it rather gives us an impression of the incredible amount of luck it's pilot had that day.

There were thousands of ocassions when pilots were not able to pull their a/c out of the trees...


EDIT: it seems that the tree hit the a/c directly onto the spinner (and therefore the place right in front of the toughest part of the a/c: the engine).
Any different spot would have caused the planes to crash (both, Thunderbolt and Dora). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is looking at you kid.. Through a 40mm hit on a P47 tail
http://www.web-birds.com/12th/57/65%2040MM%20Doc.jpg

Zyzbot
03-04-2005, 06:03 PM
another nasty hit:

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/P-47elevatorgone.JPG

horseback
03-04-2005, 06:07 PM
On the other hand, Bremspropeller, no P-47 was ever the victim of a 'partisan partridge':

"After the attack the wreckage of many Luftwaffe aircraft was found in Allied territory. Perhaps the most important of these was the Fw 190 D-9 piloted by Lt. Theo Nibel of 10./JG 54, which came down almost intact at Wemmel, northwest of Brussels. Belgian police were soon on the scene and the first virtually intact Dora 9 was in Allied hands. The only damage to the airplane was a hole in the coolant radiator (apparently as a result of a bird strike) and the smashed canopy caused when the police released Nibel from his jammed cockpit."

-description of Operation Bodenplatte, from Monogram Close-Up 10: FW 190D, by J. Richard Smith and Eddie J. Creek, 1986.

Other sources identify the remains of the bird as belonging to a partridge, and speculating about the Kamikaze avian's national loyalties...

cheers

horseback

Cajun76
03-04-2005, 10:42 PM
Brem, I think you're missing the piont, just a bit. Sure, he was danged lucky, but it was also due to the plane he was flying.

Could a Bf-109, Yak or Zero do the same? That's the point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
03-05-2005, 10:31 AM
Well the reason why Nibel went down was the broken radiator, not the a/c's structure.

The "Anton" would not have been brought down by a partridge.

Reading trough "First in combat with Dora-9", I can find a passage where one of the pilots describes a Fw190 flying without it's vertical stab on the return-leg of operation Bodenplatte.

There are reports aout a Fw190 returning with at least 1m of it's wing missing.
Furthermore there are picutes of Fw190-tails that also show quite an amount of battle-damage.


By the way: I was referring to a/c-tree collisions...showing other-related damage-pics is a bit off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Cajun, as I already wrote: the reason why the pilot returned was because he hit the tree with the toughest part of the whole plane: the engine. The wings would have torn off if he had hit the tree with one of them - that's sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


@ Tagert:
Well, if you know a P-47-pilot: ask him what happens when he flies through a tree - I guess they're going to second me.

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
By the way: I was referring to a/c-<span class="ev_code_green">tree</span> collisions...showing other-related damage-pics is a bit off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh! <span class="ev_code_green">TREE</span> Damage! My bad!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
@ Tagert:
Well, if you know a P-47-pilot: ask him what happens when he flies through a <span class="ev_code_green">tree</span> - I <span class="ev_code_red">guess</span> they're going to second me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>@ Bremspropeller:

<span class="ev_code_red">Guess</span> Again!

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.webb2/images/376FS/enlarge/p47/May47.jpg
http://www.361fg.com/Main/Sub/376fs.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.webb2/Main/Enlarge/376fs/May47.htm

I know I have some better pictures of P47 tree damage laying around here somewhere.. One that comes to mind is a perfect round dent in the wing next to the guns that goes about 10" back into the wing area.. So, for future reference, when *dealing with me* you might want to be careful what you wish for.. Because your likely to get it.. And leave the <span class="ev_code_red">GUESSING</span> out of it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
EDIT: it seems that the tree hit the a/c directly onto the spinner (and therefore the place right in front of the toughest part of the a/c: the engine). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And it made multch out of it Im sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Any different spot would have caused the planes to crash (both, Thunderbolt and Dora). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true... Well at least in the Thunderbots case.

Bremspropeller
03-05-2005, 12:04 PM
Ok Tagert - so if you're confident enough in the capabilities of your beloved P-47..ask your local P-47-owner if he could make a ride through your local forest. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh, and don't hesitate to show me the results ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Make sure you hit the trees, not only the other soft stuff around http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Ok Tagert - so if you're confident enough in the capabilities of your beloved P-47..ask your local P-47-owner if he could make a ride through your local forest. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh, and don't hesitate to show me the results ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Make sure you hit the trees, not only the other soft stuff around http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you upset with me.. Or with the FACT that you are WRONG?

Bremspropeller
03-05-2005, 12:08 PM
It's up to you to GUESS the answer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
It's up to you to GUESS the answer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont like to GUESS at things.. Like you do, so, why dont you just tell us?

But it does not really mater who your upset at.. Just as long as you realise that you were wrong.. That's all that really maters! On that note.. Can we expect to see a new avitor pic from you? In that can we really still "TRUST YOU" anymore in light of the fact that you were so utterly wrong on this issue?

Bremspropeller
03-05-2005, 12:21 PM
I can tell you why:

the damage seen on the pic's not the amount of damage a tree with a diameter of 25cm would do to your wing.

Provide more (reliable) information about this picture and you stand a slight chance that I might beleive your story of the "lumberjack-fighter".


I have seen what happens to an a/c that lands on top of the trees - it had to be written off (fuselage was broken, at least one wing seperated from the fuselage after impact).
Fortunately the pilot survived with only minor injuries and was able to climb down the tree.

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I can tell you why:

the damage seen on the pic's not the amount of damage a tree with a diameter of 25cm would do to your wing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Says who? You? But we allready know your prone to ERROR, so dont hate me for not TRUSTING YOU on this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Provide more (reliable) information about this picture and you stand a slight chance that I might beleive your story of the "lumberjack-fighter". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok, so what part of the LINKS I provided are you having trouble with? Want me to post the text from those links here? Ok, if it helps.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> From the LINK that Bremspropeller was having trouble with.:
Lt. Bill May€s P-47D 42-75505, E9:M looked decidedly battered after the Munster mission of 22 February 1944. Following a scrap with Fw190s north of the Ruhr, 376th Squadron flights were reforming for return to base when Lt. May was attacked from astern by a single €˜190. With fuel running very low, he headed for the deck, but collided with trees and high tension wires. After landing at Manston, however, only ten gallons of fuel were found in his tanks! (May) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
SAVVY?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I have seen what happens to an a/c that lands on top of the trees - it had to be written off (fuselage was broken, at least one wing seperated from the fuselage after impact). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, I see your ERROR here.. The P47 did not LAND it simply flew THROUGH them and kept going. Im sure if he had landed in a FOREST it would not have faired well.. But that is not the topci at hand.. I know you want to make that the topic NOW in light of you being wrong and all.. But how about you start a differnt thread for that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Fortunately the pilot survived with only minor injuries and was able to climb down the tree. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fortunatelly. But, try and keep in mind that just because you witnessed ONE situation of an aircraft vs. a tree.. You can not expect the RESULTS of that ONE situation to be the RESULTS of ever aircraft vs. tree situation. Just as I dont expect EVERY P47 to chop down EVERY tree.

In summary, you ASK for proof of a P47 vs. tree, where the P47 survived.. I provided you that and you get upset? Dont kill the messanger! Also remember I told you about other pictures that exist on this topic.

Bremspropeller
03-05-2005, 12:58 PM
Well tagert, the quality of your answers shows that you actally got no clue about the topic.

Concerning my example: it's quite sure that a glider can't keep on going after having touched the tree-tops...


And if you just need a task in order not to get bored:
try to collect the "tree vs. Thunderbolt" incidents where the tree won.

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well tagert, the quality of your answers shows that you actally got no clue about the topic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really? Lets compair answers.. You *initally* said during your TAKE THE TRACK BACK TO THE ORGINAL TOPIC post with regards to the plane hitting the tree in the prop/engine area that..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
any different spot would have caused the planes to crash (both, Thunderbot and Dora)[/i]. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You went on to say..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
By the way: I was referring to a/c-tree collisions...showing other-related damage-pics is a bit off <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then specifically asked of me..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, if you know a P-47-pilot: ask him what happens when he flies through a tree - I guess they're going to second me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To which I simply posted a picture showing the result of "a/c-tree collisions" in a "different spot" which did NOT cause the Thunderbolt to crash. At which point I think it is safe to assume that had I asked the pilot he would NOT have 2nd YOU! But I digress, I think it is clear to see that the quality of your answers are low with regards to the topic at hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Concerning my example: it's quite sure that a glider can't keep on going after having touched the tree-tops... even a guy with regressive tendencies (like you) should realize this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Glider? You starting another topic?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
And if you just need a task in order not to get bored: try to collect the "tree vs. Thunderbolt" incidents where the tree won. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of which Im sure there are many! But that is not really the topic at hand is it? Anyway, I can see your getting upset, So Ill leave you alone. Im just glad that you NOW REALISE you ARE WRONG about the FACT that ins some situations the P47 ran into trees and survived.. You know, with regards to the topic at hand on how tough the P47 is.

PS PM me if you need some links to some cool pics to replace your avaitor sig with! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
03-05-2005, 01:32 PM
How about a P-47 with axe-shaped leading edges ?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
How about a P-47 with axe-shaped leading edges ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Still upset?

Bremspropeller
03-05-2005, 01:41 PM
You actually convinced me with your footage...

Grand Ohana http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Atzebrueck
03-05-2005, 01:42 PM
The picture doesn't tell us, if the P47 just hit a branch or a weak part of the crown of tree or if it really collided with the trunk.

So, I would say both of you are right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
The picture doesn't tell us, if the P47 just hit a branch or a weak part of the crown of tree or if it really collided with the trunk. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It didnt say if what he had for breakfast either.. That and Im sure he had more to worry about than at the moment that to get out an measue the size of the tree and the location of where he hit it. All he *knew* was he hit the tree AND some wires. Thus PROVING the statement of "Any different spot would have caused the planes to crash" was in error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
So, I would say both of you are right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
You actually convinced me with your footage...

Grand Ohana http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you now TRUST ME? LOL!

Bremspropeller
03-05-2005, 02:27 PM
Tree = branch ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Is that right, Ohana ?

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Tree = branch ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Is that right, Ohana ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is when
Bremspropeller = upset
Otherwise it is not.

Cajun76
03-05-2005, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:


"Hitting the trees and touching the ground, did a lot of damage to the plane. The cowling was badly impaired all the way around, with the bottom part missing. the spinner and the base of the propeller blades were damaged. The bottom cylinder was torn off; guns in both wings were knocked loose and broken off; and the right wing was set back four inches (over 10cm-HB).

"The prop ran away, but the plane still flew about 60 or 70 miles (around 100km) back to the Sainte-Mere-Eglise strip-and then froze up on the final approach. Back safely on the ground, I found that the greatest damage had been caused by a tree trunk about 10 inches (over 25cm) in diameter. Amazingly, even though that trunk had knocked off the cylinder, there was not so much as a scratch on any of the propeller blades (at least the parts beyond the cuffs-HB)-- and the prop had been turning at a high RPM at the time.

"Looking back, I have wondered what those people in the truck convoy must have thought when the big fighter plane charged out of the sky with eight guns blazing, killed or destroyed everything in sight, knocked down a bunch of trees, bounced off the ground, and then flew off into the morning sunrise."

There is a photo of the plane taken from nose on opposite page 139 of the book- the cowl is crumpled back all theway around, the prop spinner and cuffs are mangled, the wings' leading edges are badly dinged up-and the main gear is in pristine shape. Interestingly, the prop blades are the earlier narrow Curtiss Electric types, although the much more effective 'paddle-blades' had been around for close to six months at this time.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/350th-02.jpg

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/350th-02.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let me guess at what the responce to this will be.. NONE, or "It was not a tree.. But sever branches dressed up to look like a tree"

Fehler
03-06-2005, 01:17 AM
Holy cr@p that is a lot of damage!

I remember bulding a model kit as a kid of a P-47 (Dont remember which kit) but the one thing that sticks in my mind to this day was the reading included in the kit. There was a little pilot story of how the pilot had basically flown through a barn and came out unscathed!

From then on, I always thought of the P-47 as a real man's plane, not one of those little racing planes (Spits) like the Brits flew, or the ply and balsa wood planes the Soviets had.

No sir, these planes were designed and built by good ole' U.S. over-engineering, tobacco-spittin, bar-fightin', tough-guys that watched Football and cussed a lot! No finess for the P-47.. if a part wasnt tough, it didnt go into this bird! ROFL!

Grrr, now I want to get into a fist fight! LOL

I still think the radial takes damage too easily in the game, BTW.

Cajun76
03-06-2005, 06:06 AM
She does, but I don't think they're going to change it. The P&W were some of the most rugged engines ever built, with damage that would force another engined plane to land or pilot to bail. Multiple cylinders gone, and sometimes the pilot didn't even know until he touched down.

Personally, I think it's a testament to the design that the best high alt single engine escort (the P-47 recieved an additional internal tank and the ability to fly to Berlin and back about the same time the Mustang arrived in numbers. They were being switched to the Ninth at this time though.) the US had also performed outstanding service as a groundpounder, no special mods or variants, they just added the capability during production. The same P-47 pounding a convoy one day could provide high escort the next. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Check out this link. That's one sturdy piece of flying machine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

I've always thought the DM was a bit off for the rear fuselage breaking off. It breaks off just behing the pit, instead of nearer the tail, where it's weaker.

repoman11
03-06-2005, 06:15 PM
You guys remember this one?

http://pages.prodigy.net/rebeljack/Karl2.JPG

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dive bombing targets that were heavily defended was a part of our regular assignment as close support fighter pilots. We not only ran the risks involved in flying through heavy flak, or being caught in the explosion of our own bombs, but we also were faced with the problem of bombs not dropping off when we hit the release button. Whenever this happened, we would pull up to a safe altitude, and rock the plane to try to shake off the hung bombs. If this didn't work, we would try another dive with a sharp pullout hoping the force of gravity would do the trick. If none of these options were successful, we had to fly back to our base, and try to land with these lethal weapons still attached to our wings. If they fell off on landing, there was a high likelihood that the bombs would explode, and the odds of the pilot surviving were quite small.

The plane shown above was flown by Lt. Karl Hallberg of my fighter group, the 366th. He had one hung bomb and tried to land at our base at Asch, Belgium, in January 1945. As you can see, the bomb fell off and exploded, but, amazingly, Lt. Hallberg survived. He suffered a head injury, but made a full recovery. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://pages.prodigy.net/rebeljack/Karl.html

Zyzbot
03-06-2005, 06:16 PM
'tis but a flesh wound!

KGr.HH-Sunburst
03-06-2005, 06:19 PM
fact is Jugs just kick @ss and its hard to kick em back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight.
03-06-2005, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>http://pages.prodigy.net/rebeljack/Karl2.JPG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>that was posted here in the past

im just as amazed looking at it now as i was back then

. . . . . just incredible . . . . .

Blutarski2004
03-07-2005, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by repoman11:
You guys remember this one?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The plane shown above was flown by Lt. Karl Hallberg of my fighter group, the 366th. He had one hung bomb and tried to land at our base at Asch, Belgium, in January 1945. As you can see, the bomb fell off and exploded, but, amazingly, Lt. Hallberg survived. He suffered a head injury, but made a full recovery. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


....That was a 500 lb bomb, by the way.

Blutarski2004
03-07-2005, 01:35 PM
Finally finished unpacking the last of my aviation books and found my copy of German Aircraft Weapons, WW1-WW2. Good book.

As regards the Jug, I found in this book a photo of a test firing of a German 30mm MGeschoss round against what appears to have been a P40 wing. The 30mm round blew out a complete rectangular hole from the joint line where the wingtip attached to the wing inward to halfway along the length of the aileron, and from the joint line of the rounded leading edge back to the hinge line of the aileron. Pretty impressive - everything was blown out: skin, spars, and ribs.

TAGERT.
03-07-2005, 02:05 PM
Anyone seen Bremspropeller lately? He just seem to drop off the face of the earth? If you see him, tell him Ohana is wordering how he is doing.

Zyzbot
03-07-2005, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Finally finished unpacking the last of my aviation books and found my copy of German Aircraft Weapons, WW1-WW2. Good book.

As regards the Jug, I found in this book a photo of a test firing of a German 30mm MGeschoss round against what appears to have been a P40 wing. The 30mm round blew out a complete rectangular hole from the joint line where the wingtip attached to the wing inward to halfway along the length of the aileron, and from the joint line of the rounded leading edge back to the hinge line of the aileron. Pretty impressive - everything was blown out: skin, spars, and ribs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That description reminded me of this photo...I have no details...just listed as "battle damage" on the site where I found it:

http://www.web-birds.com/9th/48/battle%20damage.jpg

Bremspropeller
03-07-2005, 02:32 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

I've heard that Bremspropeller suffers from buget-cuttings and can't afford buying troll-food anymore.

He's always loved those little creatures and liked to feed them wherever he found one of them...well anything has it's price.

Blutarski2004
03-07-2005, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Finally finished unpacking the last of my aviation books and found my copy of German Aircraft Weapons, WW1-WW2. Good book.

As regards the Jug, I found in this book a photo of a test firing of a German 30mm MGeschoss round against what appears to have been a P40 wing. The 30mm round blew out a complete rectangular hole from the joint line where the wingtip attached to the wing inward to halfway along the length of the aileron, and from the joint line of the rounded leading edge back to the hinge line of the aileron. Pretty impressive - everything was blown out: skin, spars, and ribs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That description reminded me of this photo...I have no details...just listed as "battle damage" on the site where I found it:

http://www.web-birds.com/9th/48/battle%20damage.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I impressed that the pilot actually got that plane home for the photograph to be taken!

TAGERT.
03-07-2005, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

I've heard that Bremspropeller suffers from buget-cuttings and can't afford buying troll-food anymore.

He's always loved those little creatures and liked to feed them wherever he found one of them...well anything has it's price. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>GRASSHOPPER! You have been very bad! Once you can snatch the pebbel from my hand, than and only then can you go forth and seek your future.

blakduk
03-07-2005, 05:09 PM
These stories of what battle damage some of these aircraft survived are always fascinating. I recall Adolf Galland describing firing his cannon in his 109 and being amazed at the 'fireworks' before his eyes- he stated his knees went weak when he realised upon landing that his guns weren't synchronised properly and he'd nearly shot off his own propellor!
Likewise i've seen people survive horrific car and truck crashes where wreckage is almost unrecognisable- on the other hand i have seen people die or be nearly mortally wounded in relatively minor accidents!
Jugs are tough, but you only have to hit the vulnerable spots to bring them down

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 07:42 PM
S!


Gunther Rall interview in Finland on the P47;

Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?
A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! &lt;Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause&gt;

P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition.

Rall--"--"But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition". (109 chasing P47 in a dive)

What is the difference of structural strength between a 109G6 and a 109K4 ? ---nothing but the engine and engine mountings.

Notice what Rall says about structural strength of the 109: ("You couldn't stand that you know?" 109)

What I am more concerned about is the 109G-10 and 109K4 catching the P47 from behind in a long dive. From Rall's point of view, the 109 wouldn't of held up structerally during that long dive.

____

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/56thfg-gallery.jsp

Robert Johnson Interview on the P47 and Battle Damage :
From the AH forum

CCJ: Pilots generally swear by their aircraft. Günther Rall and Erich Hartmann praised the Messerschmitt Bf-109, Erich Rudorffer and Johannes Steinhoff the Me-262, and Buddy Haydon the P-51 Mustang. I have to say after seeing all of the old photos of the various Thunderbolts and others that were shot up, I can't imagine any other plane absorbing that much damage and still flying. What is your opinion of your aircraft?



RSJ-"As far as the 109, all of the German pilots loved that plane, but the
FW-190 was harder to shoot down. Just like the controversy over the P-51 and P-47. The P-47 was faster; it just did not have the climb and range the
Mustang did. But it had speed, roll, dive and the necessary ruggedness that
allowed it to do such a great job in the Ninth Air Force.

As far as aerial kills go, we met and beat the best the Luftwaffe had when we first got there. It was the P-47 groups that pushed them back, as I said before. The P-51s had the advantage of longer range, and they were able to hit even the training schools, hitting boys just learning to fly.

As the war dragged on, many of the old German veterans had been killed--so much of the experience was gone. As far as the 109 versus 190 argument, the 109 had the liquid-cooled engine whereas the 190 had an air-cooled radial engine, much like ours. One hit in the cooling system of a Messerschmitt and he was going down.

Also, none of the German fighters were as rugged as a P-47.
When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had twenty-one 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets. One nicked my nose and another entered my right leg, where the bullet split in half.

I still have those two little pieces, by the way; they went in just under the skin. I had been hurt worse playing football and boxing. However, I had never been that scared, I'll tell you that. I was always scared--that was what made me move quick. Adolf Galland, who was a very goodfriend of mine and who I had known since 1949, flew the Me-262 and loved it, but he still swore by the 109, although it was still easier to shoot down."

When Johnson states that the P-47 was faster than the Mustang, he is using
his hotrodded P-47D-5-RE "Lucky", S/N 42-8461 for reference. Johnson's crew
chief (Pappy Gould) worked magic on the R-2800. Johnson repeatedly claimed
he could pull 72" of MAP and reported airspeeds of 470 mph TAS.

Squadron-mates agreed that Johnson's Jug was far faster than any other P-47
in the 61st FS. Lt. Joe Powers flew Johnson's Jug on an escort mission and
was horrified at the thought of pulling 72" MAP when Gould briefed him on
the airplane. Powers reportedly firewalled the throttle on the return leg
and was stupified at the speed. He simply ran away from the rest of the
squadron. Even though Johnson's Jug was fitted with water injection, Johnson never used it.

In an interview for the P-47 Pilots Association newsletter,
Johnson stated, "I didn't need it, it was fast enough."


CCJ: What about facing the Fw 190 and Messerschmitts?

RSJ: The Focke Wulf reminded me of the Corsair. It was much smaller of course, but they both had similar maneuverability. It wasn't quite as fast, but turned well. It was unusual to find Focke Wulfs above us. Generally, we held the advantage in height. The Me 109 was another story. They could often be seen up above 35,000 feet.

CCJ: What was the biggest mistake a German pilot could make?

RSJ: Trying to escape in a dive or split-S.

CCJ: Why?

RSJ: Because they were not going to out-run the Thunderbolt in a dive.

CCJ: You could catch them without a problem.

RSJ: I could catch them in nothing flat.

CCJ: Really?

RSJ: Absolutely. One thing about the 190, if the pilot continued his dive below 7 or 8 thousand feet, he could not pull out before he hit the ground. I guess they had compressibility problems or the elevators got too stiff. Whatever the problem was, I watched several of them pancake in before they could level off.

CCJ: What about the Thunderbolt?

RSJ: It did not have that problem down that low. Up high, above 25,000 feet, yes, I could get into compressibility and the elevators locked up like they were in concrete. But once you got down to thicker air, you regained control.

CCJ: So, what would you do if suddenly discovered a German fighter on your tail?

RSJ: you mean in close?

CCJ: Yes.

RSJ: That depended a lot on how fast the German was going. If he was moving much faster, I'd simply side-step him by rolling.
The German would whiz right on by and I would firewall the throttle and take off after him. If he was a smart German, he would climb straight ahead. If he was a dumb German, he would try to turn. If he turns, his higher speed will make for a wide turn, and I will cut across and be all over him. If he dives, I can follow and eventually catch up. Now, if the German's speed was close to mine, then I had another emergency maneuver that always worked for me.

CCJ: And, that was?

RSJ: I would pull the nose straight up into a vertical rolling spiral, usually to the left. You would stall out, but so would the guy behind you. That killed his advantage.

CCJ: So, what you are describing sounds like a rolling hammerhead stall, right?

RSJ: That's a pretty good description.

CCJ: So what happens next?

RSJ: Well, the enemy would stall first because the Jug's mass allowed to retain its,
er...

CCJ: Energy?

RSJ: Yes, energy. The P-47's mass allowed it to retain its energy better and it stalled a few seconds after the enemy plane. The German would snap over and head down. Except, now I was right behind him and there was no getting away.

CCJ: Wouldn't he still be directly behind you?

RSJ: No. Pulling up so suddenly always caught them by surprise. The second or two that it took for them to react took care of that.

CCJ: Why did you roll?

RSJ: Because that killed my speed faster than the enemy if he didn't, which gained me the advantage of being to his rear as he zoomed up. If he rolled too, that also worked to my advantage because it killed his speed faster than mine.

CCJ: So, you would get the advantage no matter what, if the German also pulled up into a vertical climb. What if he didn't follow?

RSJ: Then he would just fly by. If he still wanted to fight, he could extend out and turn around, but I would be waiting for him.
If he turned either left or right, I would be on him in a few seconds.

CCJ: The smart Germans just kept on going when you pulled up.

RSJ: I never ran across one smart enough to keep going. They all tried to follow.

CCJ: How many got away after falling for your trap?

RSJ: I really can't say for sure. Some got away because he had friends to cover his tail. Besides, that maneuver was not so much to get him, but to prevent him from getting me. In that respect, it always worked.

CCJ: Much has been written about the incredible roll rate of the Fw 190. Was it as good as they say?

RSJ: The 190 rolled very fast. But, so did the Thunderbolt.

CCJ: But not as quickly as the Focke Wulf.

RSJ: I would say just as fast. I never had a 190 out-roll my Jug. Never.

CCJ: What about a situation where you end up in rolling scissors with a Focke Wulf? Do you follow him by reversing the turn too?

RSJ: No. Whenever you get into a series of reverses, the airplane tends to mush-out a bit when you reverse your turn. The Jug tended to mush a bit more than the 190. The way to avoid this was roll into the reverse.

CCJ: I'm not sure I follow you.

RSJ: Picture this in your mind. The 190 rolls into a hard left. You follow, firing as he crosses your guns. Suddenly, he reverses his turn, hard right. Rather than reverse, you continue rolling left until you are in a right bank, just like the 190. Now, pull hard. No mushing. If he reverses again, you roll left and fire as he crosses your guns again. If he doesn't reverse, I pull the nose high and roll out behind him.

CCJ: A high yo-yo? (Sounds like a vector roll to me? -the first part, What do you guys think?)

RSJ: Of a sorts, yes. Continuing the roll simply eliminated the mushing caused by reversing a turn and I could would get a clear shot every time the enemy reversed.

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

RSJ: It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities. Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

CCJ: I remember reading where you thought that your P-47 was the fastest fighter in the ETO.

RSJ: I still believe that it was.

CCJ: Really?

RSJ: Sure. My second Jug, a D-5 was the best P-47 that I ever flew, and I flew them all, including the P-47M which the 56th got near the end of the war.

CCJ: What made this one Thunderbolt so fast?

RSJ: Several things. My crew sanded every joint smooth, and waxed it to a high gloss. Factory technical reps showed my crew chief, Pappy Gould, how to adjust the wastegates to keep the boost pressure higher than normal. My D-5, which I named Lucky, had water injection. I never used the water injection in combat. I didn't need it. From time to time I'd switch it on, push the throttle up to 72" of manifold pressure and the head rest would smack me from behind. I would let her run for a few minutes just for the fun of it.

CCJ: 72 inches!? Did you ever take note of your airspeed during one of those runs?

RSJ: Of course.

CCJ: And....... how fast did it go?

RSJ: I've seen just over 300 at altitude.

CCJ: 300 indicated?

RSJ: Yes.

CCJ: What was your altitude?

RSJ: I guess it was right around 32,000 feet.

CCJ: Geez, thats well over 450 mph!

RSJ: Oh, I figure closer to 470.

CCJ: Maybe you did have the fastest fighter in the ETO after all.

RSJ: Like I said, Lucky was the fastest.

CCJ: What ever happened to Lucky?

RSJ: She was lost in a mid-air collision over the North Sea. I don't recall the pilot's name who was flying her on that ramrod. I was very upset. Lucky got at least 24 enemy aircraft and was the best Jug I ever flew. She was trouble free and I never had a single abort while flying her.

CCJ: Bob, one final item before I let you go tonight.

RSJ: Sure.

CCJ: Is it true that you flew two 25 hour tour extensions after your 25th victory, and that you never were involved in a single combat during that time?

RSJ: Basically, yes. I took a 25 hour extension with the idea that as soon as I got 2 more enemy aircraft, I would stop there and go home. After the 25 hours were up and I hadn't had a chance to even fire at an enemy airplane, so I convinced the brass to give me another 25 hour extension under the same understanding. Finally, on the last mission of that tour, I got two more and they sent me home.

CCJ: Why do you think that German fighters became so hard to come by at that time. When was that, in April and May of 1944?

RSJ: I can't say for sure, but we now know that the long range of the P-38 and P-51 caused the Luftwaffe to pull back many of their fighter squadrons deep into Germany. This makes sense when you think that we could put up over 600 P-47s for a ramrod. If they pull back beyond the range of the Jugs, we won't see much of them. Another thing was simple bad luck. When the Germans did come up to fight, they attacked the bombers well away from our assigned area. So, it really was a combination of factors.

CCJ: So, what was the date of your last two victories?

RSJ: May 8th, 1944.

CCJ: Well, Bob, I'll let you go now. Thanks for your time. This will make for a terrific article.

RSJ: It was my pleasure.

CCJ: Are you up for another discussion in a week or two?

RSJ: If you don't mind my long stories, sure. You can call almost anytime.

CCJ: Believe me, it's an honor for me. By the way, Art Heiden, your remember me talking about Art, Art wants to talk to you about Jack. Do you mind if I pass your number to him?

RSJ: Please do.

CCJ: Well, thanks again and have a good evening.

RSJ: You to.


In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces. Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison."
He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the
same, and Hartmann, 194.

__


" Bob had a few Jugs shot up, he also killed a lot of 190s and 109s. There
is little doubt that the P-47 was a very stout aircraft, generally
over-engineered as compared to the P-51. Of all allied fighters in the ETO,
the P-47 had the best loss per sortie ratio by a considerable margin. And
keep in mind that the P-47 spent the last 9 months of the war down in the
weeds flying close support ann interdiction where the flak is severe.

If you have seen photos of the P-47C Johnson brought home (twenty-one 20mm hits), you realize that this was one rugged fighter. And yes, he was lucky that the hits were not concentrated in one locale. Yet, his tale was common-place.

As to the speed of his P-47; Pratt & Whitney tech reps were largely
responsible for giving Gould the secrets of horsepower production in the
R-2800. Engines with the same wastegate modifications were tested at P&W and produced in excess of 2,700 hp on the dynometer, and did so for hundreds of hours at full throttle.

The later "C" series R-2800 (used in the P-47M and N) generated 3,600 hp during similar endurance testing. It should not be a surprise that a P-47D-5-RE should attain similar speeds to the P-47M with 2,800 hp with slightly greater drag. Gould also filled all gaps in seams and waxed Johnson's Jug to reduce parasite drag.

By the Spring of 1944, there wasn't a P-47 in the 56th that hadn't been
field modified like Johnson's. Ask any of the surviving crew chiefs. When
150 octane fuel became available in early '44, 72" MAP became the standard
for combat operations. While this setting was never incorporated into the
standard issue pilot's manual, it is easily found in 8th AF Fighter Command
technical bulletins and operational instructions.

I have a great photo in my collection of a 56th FG P-47 sitting on 9th AF
airfield in Belgium. It suffered a turbo failure and the pilot landed at the nearest field. Surrounded by 9th AF Jugs, the 56th fighter stood out. It was waxed and as clean as it was when delivered. Contrasting this were the filthy, beat-up Jugs of the 9th AF.

I believe Johnson's observation was accurate, and it is supported by the
others in his squadron at the time (61st FS)."

____
.

Johnson on being outnumbered during Escort Missions:

Some additional citations as to the ratio of Luftwaffe fighters to AAF
escorts.

Bob Johnson:
"I was on three of the early Berlin raids. I was the lead airplane on
March 6. I had only eight airplanes to protect 180 bombers."

Later he spotted fighters heading towards the heavies. At first he thought
that they were P-47's from the 56th. They turned out to be Focke Wulfs.

"We were line abreast, all eight of us and we just opened fire and went right through some 60 or so 190s and 109s. As we turned to get on their tails, we saw another 60 or so above and another 60 or so to their left. Probably 175 - 180 German aircraft. Eight of us."

After the fight erupted into a free for all, Johnson comments:

"I didn't have to think about the situation, it was there. I thought only of survival, and hitting the enemy. If there are crosses, shoot at 'em."


______

lbhskier37
03-07-2005, 11:06 PM
I love the part about energy fighting. Sure wish all that held true in here.

Stanger_361st
03-07-2005, 11:16 PM
CCJ: Much has been written about the incredible roll rate of the Fw 190. Was it as good as they say?

RSJ: The 190 rolled very fast. But, so did the Thunderbolt.

CCJ: But not as quickly as the Focke Wulf.

RSJ: I would say just as fast. I never had a 190 out-roll my Jug. Never.

Not in this game.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

TAGERT.
03-08-2005, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
CCJ: Much has been written about the incredible roll rate of the Fw 190. Was it as good as they say?

RSJ: The 190 rolled very fast. But, so did the Thunderbolt.

CCJ: But not as quickly as the Focke Wulf.

RSJ: I would say just as fast. I never had a 190 out-roll my Jug. Never.

Not in this game.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He never did... Was he the only one in a P47?

Blutarski2004
03-08-2005, 02:02 PM
Great post Kahuna. Thanks.

I've always been interested in understanding what the real world frontline performance of the P47 was. There were so many influences added over and above the original official factory performance data - higher octane fuels, paddle blades, later model replacement engines, "hot-rodding" boost levels, and detailing the airframe, etc.

This relates to the Spitfire, but it does give an indication of what effect, just detailing the airframe can have over the life of a fighter type.

+5 mph ..... retractable tail wheel
+4 mph ..... propeller root fairings (cuffs?)
+3 mph ..... chassis door panel
+0.5 mph ... whip aerial
+6 mph ..... plain ailerons
+6 mph ..... curved windscreen
+4 mph ..... multi-ejector exhausts
+9 mph ..... improved finish and wax polish
+1 mph ..... clipped wingtips
+1 mph ..... rear-view hood and deletion of mirror

Each item is small in increment, but taken in aggregate, we are talking nearly 40 mph speed increase.

Cajun76
03-08-2005, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
CCJ: Much has been written about the incredible roll rate of the Fw 190. Was it as good as they say?

RSJ: The 190 rolled very fast. But, so did the Thunderbolt.

CCJ: But not as quickly as the Focke Wulf.

RSJ: I would say just as fast. I never had a 190 out-roll my Jug. Never.

Not in this game.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He never did... Was he the only one in a P47? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Johnson was a big, strong guy, and he was very physical with his Jug. He also had a good head for combat, made sure he was aggressive and unpredictable. There's things he did in a Jug that few others could do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> CCJ: What about a situation where you end up in rolling scissors with a Focke Wulf? Do you follow him by reversing the turn too?

RSJ: No. Whenever you get into a series of reverses, the airplane tends to mush-out a bit when you reverse your turn. The Jug tended to mush a bit more than the 190. The way to avoid this was roll into the reverse.

CCJ: I'm not sure I follow you.

RSJ: Picture this in your mind. The 190 rolls into a hard left. You follow, firing as he crosses your guns. Suddenly, he reverses his turn, hard right. Rather than reverse, you continue rolling left until you are in a right bank, just like the 190. Now, pull hard. No mushing. If he reverses again, you roll left and fire as he crosses your guns again. If he doesn't reverse, I pull the nose high and roll out behind him.

CCJ: A high yo-yo? (Sounds like a vector roll to me? -the first part, What do you guys think?)

RSJ: Of a sorts, yes. Continuing the roll simply eliminated the mushing caused by reversing a turn and I could would get a clear shot every time the enemy reversed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think he's talking about just outright rolling, I think he's refering to the fact that he was not outmanuevered by a FW rolling. There's a distinct difference. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation. Johnson is someone I've tried to emulate when flying the Jug. Aggressive, unpredictable, keep them guessing when I'm in the right frame of mind and mood.

TAGERT.
03-08-2005, 09:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Johnson was a big, strong guy, and he was very physical with his Jug. He also had a good head for combat, made sure he was aggressive and unpredictable. There's things he did in a Jug that few others could do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Kewl! But do we want a sim that simulates what the plane could do.. Or what a strong vs. weak pilot could do? Be neat if you could go someplace and do a bench press and have that strenght factor.. FACTORED into it.. But that days is far off.. So in the mean time stick forces have to be the same for one and all.

Aaron_GT
03-09-2005, 01:37 AM
People need to think more logically. It is ridiculous to use a few isolated accounts to argue about the strength of the P-47 or any other plane. For this you need statistical evidence. In statistics you need a preponderance of eveidence and even then outliers are often discounted before any further analysis is done. Otherwise it makes as much sense as saying that because famously a Lancaster tail gunner once survived bailing out without a parachute that Lancaster tail gunners were typically capable of such a feat and if we don't see this ability in, say, BoB, then the Lancaster tail gunner will be overmodelled.

The available statistics we do have mix up a whole series of factors (such as mission profile, crew experience, and so on) in addition to the ruggedness of the planes involved, so it is difficult to argue from, say, loss:sortie rates to ruggedness. Perhaps the best statistic we might find is the proportion of loss:heavily damaged, but returned aircraft. In terms of available figures this is probably best modelled in terms of machines that did not return from a sortie in relation to planes that were written off after this. Even then, procedures varied between air forces and between various points in the war, so even this is not reliable. For example according to official figures a large number of Spitfires were written off during the Battle of Britain. This would imply that the Spitfire was exceptionally capable of returning with bad battle damage. However the reality is that Spitfires were written off on a squadron basis with relatively moderate damage and returned to repair organisations for rebuilds and reuse. At other points in the war other procedures applied.

Cajun76
03-09-2005, 05:04 AM
I agree with you in principle, Aaron, but until we get some proof and hard data, the Ki-43 and Zero are just as sturdy as a Hellcat?

No one I know of is saying Plane X is 2.678 times as sturdy as Plane Y, but some planes are definately tougher than others. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

horseback
03-09-2005, 09:23 AM
Johnson was a big strong guy? Take a look at pictures of him standing next to Schilling (who went about 6 feet) and Zemke (around 5'9"). I make him about 5'8" (174 cm)at the most, and no more than 160lbs(73 kilos).

He did wrestle and box in school, though, and those sports demand a lot of upper body strength and endurance. However, most outstanding pilots of that period were better than average athletes. Football, boxing and wrestling show up in a lot of aces' biographies.

These are also sports that reward aggressiveness. Johnson's bio makes it clear that he loved flying, that he couldn't get enough of it, and he took every opportunity & made every effort to wring the most out of himself and his plane.

He was one of the first in the group to paste wax his plane, and put in a couple of long days with his ground crew doing it with them. Anyone who's past-waxed -and I'm talking about the old time paste wax, not the modern soft polymer stuff- a good sized car knows how much work it is (wax on, wax off). The guy was always looking for an 'edge'.

Johnson was aggressive, determined, and a gifted pilot who made the most of his talents through focused hard work. He was very fit, but not outstandingly big and strong among fighter pilots of his time.

cheers

horseback

TAGERT.
03-09-2005, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
People need to think more logically. It is ridiculous to use a few isolated accounts to argue about the strength of the P-47 or any other plane. For this you need statistical evidence. In statistics you need a preponderance of eveidence and even then outliers are often discounted before any further analysis is done. Otherwise it makes as much sense as saying that because famously a Lancaster tail gunner once survived bailing out without a parachute that Lancaster tail gunners were typically capable of such a feat and if we don't see this ability in, say, BoB, then the Lancaster tail gunner will be overmodelled.

The available statistics we do have mix up a whole series of factors (such as mission profile, crew experience, and so on) in addition to the ruggedness of the planes involved, so it is difficult to argue from, say, loss:sortie rates to ruggedness. Perhaps the best statistic we might find is the proportion of loss:heavily damaged, but returned aircraft. In terms of available figures this is probably best modelled in terms of machines that did not return from a sortie in relation to planes that were written off after this. Even then, procedures varied between air forces and between various points in the war, so even this is not reliable. For example according to official figures a large number of Spitfires were written off during the Battle of Britain. This would imply that the Spitfire was exceptionally capable of returning with bad battle damage. However the reality is that Spitfires were written off on a squadron basis with relatively moderate damage and returned to repair organisations for rebuilds and reuse. At other points in the war other procedures applied. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

TAGERT.
03-09-2005, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
I agree with you in principle, Aaron, but until we get some proof and hard data, the Ki-43 and Zero are just as sturdy as a Hellcat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not saying they should not be based off of stories... In light of the lack of data most things are.. Not so much for FM's but I think it is safe to say that the DM is about 95% guess work. In that I don't know of any NACA like test flight data where a test pilot in plane "X" allowed test pilot in play "Y" to shoot at him to see the effect it had. My only point is to read *one* or *two* or a *few* stories and come away with some idea (aka FEELING) that it is PROOF is silly. So any and all combat stories have to be presented for what they really are.. Just ONE SIDE of the story. These combat story say much more about the pilot vs. pilot then the plane vs. plane.

But, it has to be done.. In that even with the FM there are holes (no data) that needs to be filled.. Which could explain why we have seen so many changes in aircraft (and why Stifler panties get in a knot) sense IL2. More *stories* have been provided to Oleg that *sway* Oleg's W.A.G. to the other side.

Getting the stories is easy.. Removing the bias is hard.. But as Aaron pointed out.. Coming up with some statistical method to get useful info out of the stories is the real hard.. aka black magic part imho.

So, if you want something to change.. Present Oleg with you data.. If no data preset you *stories*. But don't come off as if he made a mistake (bug) based on said story.. Because the story is not PROOF! It is just another story that is taken with a grain of salt. But if you can provide enough of them (take the .50 cal for example) change will come.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
No one I know of is saying Plane X is 2.678 times as sturdy as Plane Y, but some planes are definately tougher than others. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I only wish people had said 2.678 times.. Because at that point they would have some sort of input to some sort of equation that could be evaluated.. But no, 99% of the time all we get is cut-n-paste of a story that is muddied up by the biased *interpretation* of the reader but presented as as FACT. I think Oleg must get a good laugh when he sees that.. I know I do.

Aaron_GT
03-09-2005, 12:02 PM
"I agree with you in principle, Aaron, but until we get some proof and hard data, the Ki-43 and Zero are just as sturdy as a Hellcat?"

I wouldn't say that either. It is pretty clear that some planes, based on the preonderance of evidence, were tougher than others. But for planes in the middle of the range it is hard to be absolutely sure which is tougher, and arguing from anecdotal evidence is dangerous. We have some statistics, but due to all sorts of different procedures in force in different airforces at different times interpretation of these would be a full-time academic occupation.

There are stories of all sorts of planes coming back with all sorts of extreme battle damage, and pilot reports also lend weight to the idea that some planes were tough. It's just the quantitive values that are difficult to determine, not least because a flaw in one part of a plane's structure or protections would prevent it returning even if other parts were tough. If in the game you are not hitting the vulnerable parts then a plane may seem tougher than anticipated. And vice-versa may also be the case. Debugging this sort of stuff, given the number of planes, and inconsistent data, expectations, etc., must be hard work, especially as someone can always drag up an anecdote which (on the surface) appears to contradict game behaviour, whether the behaviour in game is right or wrong. With FMs things are easier in that NACA tests etc., are a bit more objective as the data is easier to collect.

I think the best we can hope for is something approximate since the data we have is only going to support approximate DMs until such time as we have sufficient computing power and documentation to do a full structural analysis of each plane, and doing that sort of finite element analysis isn't even amenable to the likes of the BOINC/Entropia/United Devices type distributed processing on home PCs (at least not efficiently). Maybe when IBM's cell processors are in full use we can run the required simulations on the PlayStation 5 or something :-)

BigKahuna_GS
03-09-2005, 02:41 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ ________________________
Cajun said:

Johnson was a big, strong guy, and he was very physical with his Jug. He also had a good head for combat, made sure he was aggressive and unpredictable. There's things he did in a Jug that few others could do.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCJ: What about a situation where you end up in rolling scissors with a Focke Wulf? Do you follow him by reversing the turn too?

RSJ: No. Whenever you get into a series of reverses, the airplane tends to mush-out a bit when you reverse your turn. The Jug tended to mush a bit more than the 190. The way to avoid this was roll into the reverse.

CCJ: I'm not sure I follow you.

RSJ: Picture this in your mind. The 190 rolls into a hard left. You follow, firing as he crosses your guns. Suddenly, he reverses his turn, hard right. Rather than reverse, you continue rolling left until you are in a right bank, just like the 190. Now, pull hard. No mushing. If he reverses again, you roll left and fire as he crosses your guns again. If he doesn't reverse, I pull the nose high and roll out behind him.

CCJ: A high yo-yo? (Sounds like a vector roll to me? -the first part, What do you guys think?)

RSJ: Of a sorts, yes. Continuing the roll simply eliminated the mushing caused by reversing a turn and I could would get a clear shot every time the enemy reversed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think he's talking about just outright rolling, I think he's refering to the fact that he was not outmanuevered by a FW rolling. There's a distinct difference. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation. Johnson is someone I've tried to emulate when flying the Jug. Aggressive, unpredictable, keep them guessing when I'm in the right frame of mind and mood.

Good hunting,
(56th)'Cajun76

__________________________________________________ ______________________



I believe R. Johnson is describing the "Vector Roll" or "Lead Roll". It is decribed in Shaw's Fighter Combat Manuevering as a roll in the opposite direction of a harder turning enemy a/c. If a 109/190 turns hard left, you roll your aircraft to the right and as the axis rotates through the nose of your aircraft will be aiming in a left bank--then you pull through to complete the manuver.

Jug drivers perfected this manuver to retain their energy while manuevering with more agile axis aircraft such as 109.


Horseback beat me to this :

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/sml/rsj.jpg
Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 61st & 62nd Fighter Squadrons. Passed away 27 December 1998 at his boyhood home in Tulsa OK. aged 78. a/c with 61st FS were: P-47C 41-6235 HV-P "Half Pint"; P-47D 42-8461 HV-P "Lucky" and P-47D 42-76234 HV-P "All Hell". 62nd a/c was P-47D 42-25512 LM-Q "Penrod and Sam".



http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj1.jpg
http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj1.jpg Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 62nd Fighter Squadron. Pictured with his final a/c P-47D 42-25512 LM-Q "Penrod and Sam".


http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj2.jpg
http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj2.jpg
Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47D 42-8461 HV-P "Lucky". Johnson seen here in front of his P-47 "Lucky" and flanked by Hub Zemke (L) and Bud Mahurin (R).

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj6.jpg
Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47D 42-8461 HV-P "Lucky".
This was Johnson's favorite P47 capable of doing 470mph TAS at alt--P47D-5
with water injection that he never used because he thought the plane was "fast enough without it"

As for rolling a P47 with a FW190, this probably was at higher speeds where the 190's roll rate dropped off. It sure wasnt because Johnson was a big strong guy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



______

BigKahuna_GS
03-09-2005, 02:45 PM
S!


http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj.jpg
Robert Johnson



___

ljazz
03-09-2005, 06:59 PM
~S~ Folks:

I'm having a tough time picturing this move in my head..... can someone better explain the 'vector roll'?

~S~.... and thanks
ljazz

Zyzbot
03-09-2005, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ljazz:
~S~ Folks:

I'm having a tough time picturing this move in my head..... can someone better explain the 'vector roll'?

~S~.... and thanks
ljazz <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.railsplitters.com/graphics/maneuvers/page12.jpg

ljazz
03-09-2005, 07:11 PM
Thanks!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

civildog
03-09-2005, 07:28 PM
The vector roll is what you do to turn inside an opponent who can out-turn you, but you have a superior roll rate. Or at least the same roll rate. It also is really hard to do when you can't lean over to see over the instrument coaming in the game.

Think of a low-speed yo-yo combine with a barrel roll (kinda) into the smaller turn of the plane you are chasing.

BaldieJr
03-09-2005, 07:37 PM
Having read absolutly no part of this thread, I feel that I am qualified to speak on this subject without bias.

My opinion is garbage, but youre teh smelly one.

sgilewicz
03-10-2005, 11:08 AM
OK, maybe i am a bit dense but I cannot seem to visualize this opposite roll manuever clearly. The diagram Zyzbot has posted seems to indicate a 360 deg. roll followed by elevator application to complete the left turn. My problem with this is it would seem to require some manuever in the vertical to cut inside the opponent's turn otherwise you are just rolling along your horizontal axis while making your turn even wider than if you simply reversed direction. I apologize for my confusion but, like I said before, the manuever as described and illustrated seems to be missing something. Thanks

Bremspropeller
03-10-2005, 11:53 AM
In a book about more "modern" fighters (by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick), the same tactical maneuvure is described nearly the same way, with the exception that fighter B (the one that is supposed to cut fighter A's turn) is pulling up a few degrees (about 45?-60? should do it) before rolling into the opposite direction.

sgilewicz
03-10-2005, 12:24 PM
Bremspropeller, thanks! That makes sense using the vertical to tighten the turn radius. It's going to take some practice though to get the timing down!

faustnik
03-10-2005, 12:30 PM
This thread, despite the stupid title, had a valid original point. In PF, the R-2800 in the Jug and F4U is not very damage resistant. The BMW801 is much tougher. The R-2800 was known for being especially strong and damage resistant, just like the BMW, but in PF the R-2800 is no more damage resistant than a inline Merlin or DB. That is a problem.

horseback
03-10-2005, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
This thread, despite the stupid title, had a valid original point. In PF, the R-2800 in the Jug and F4U is not very damage resistant. The BMW801 is much tougher. The R-2800 was known for being especially strong and damage resistant, just like the BMW, but in PF the R-2800 is no more damage resistant than a inline Merlin or DB. That is a problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely correct, particularly when you consider that RL engine hits were much more rare, almost the exclusive province of the top aces. Everybody else just shot from the 4:30 to 7:30 clock positions.

cheers

horseback

Badsight.
03-10-2005, 09:24 PM
& to think some want a even eaiser-to-hurt P-47 in FB

rediculous !