PDA

View Full Version : Some P47 damage shots



Blackdog5555
08-12-2005, 12:34 PM
I dont know how to attach photos but here are a few from a web search. If anyone has a gun cam of a P47 being shot down by cannon fire I would like to see it.

Daiichidoku
08-12-2005, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I dont know how to attach photos but here are a few from a web search. If anyone has a gun cam of a P47 being shot down by cannon fire I would like to see it.

i started a thread in GD lobby called "lament of the crew chief" asking for pics of all types of ac, with all types of damage...please contribute your pics of damaged planes to this, regardless of kind of damage

Hptm.Keule
08-12-2005, 12:59 PM
Thank You Blackdog5555!
Realy nice shots!
Rare fotos...I gues..

Fly More!

Regards!

WWMaxGunz
08-13-2005, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I dont know how to attach photos but here are a few from a web search. If anyone has a gun cam of a P47 being shot down by cannon fire I would like to see it.

See if you can find pics of shot down P-47's to include with the ones that made it back.
If you only have the returns then you won't get the ones with really bad damage. That
creates a slanted view whether on purpose or not.

It also might help if people realize that a 20mm shell isn't as wide as the average mans
thumb, 25mm.

Gibbage1
08-13-2005, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

See if you can find pics of shot down P-47's to include with the ones that made it back.
If you only have the returns then you won't get the ones with really bad damage. That
creates a slanted view whether on purpose or not.

It also might help if people realize that a 20mm shell isn't as wide as the average mans
thumb, 25mm.

Show me pics of shot of A6M Zero's that made it back to base http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

All sides had camera's and all sides took pics. A shot up aircraft got a lot of attention. The fact that there are few pics of shot up 109's and 190's but a lot of pics of shot up Ju-87's should tell you something. Same for the P-47 and B-17. There are a lot of pics of these aircraft shot up that "amazingly" made it home, but very few of the P-51. I also have quite a collection of shot up P-38's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-13-2005, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

See if you can find pics of shot down P-47's to include with the ones that made it back.
If you only have the returns then you won't get the ones with really bad damage. That
creates a slanted view whether on purpose or not.

It also might help if people realize that a 20mm shell isn't as wide as the average mans
thumb, 25mm.

Show me pics of shot of A6M Zero's that made it back to base http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

All sides had camera's and all sides took pics. A shot up aircraft got a lot of attention. The fact that there are few pics of shot up 109's and 190's but a lot of pics of shot up Ju-87's should tell you something. Same for the P-47 and B-17. There are a lot of pics of these aircraft shot up that "amazingly" made it home, but very few of the P-51. I also have quite a collection of shot up P-38's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's cool Gib! I'm just saying the perception may be slanted a bit since we do know
that a certain number of P-47's were shot down and not all of them took enormous hits
to do so, I believe.

Both of those planes had great reps for absorbing damage. The P-40's did to a lesser
extent and I'm pretty sure that most US planes were built some extra tough. P-47 and
P-38 were maybe the best single-seater fighters? How about the Hellcat and Corsair?

As for ability to soak up damage, I bet the IL-2 got loads of good pics just not as
easy to find. And the early IL-2's were used as fighters. According to one book I have
they were for a while the main effective Russian fighter used, even above the Ratas.

I'd maybe compare combat loss percents of P-47 to P-51 for *only* some idea of how
many pictures might be realistic and *not* to determine anything about plane toughness.
If for whatever reasons the P-51's didn't take as much losses (take your pick of why)
then I wouldn't expect so many pics either. OTOH the P-51's ran *much* deeper into
enemy territory and how far you have to fly home with any kind of fluid leak or other
'time's not on your side' damage would have a great impact on getting home for the pic
to be taken. It's a very tricky call, no?

9th_Spitin
08-13-2005, 10:46 AM
I think those P-47's in the photo's are all wrong, the DM is way off. The ones I fly in IL2 4.01m have the wings and tails blow off with very few hits.

These photo's are all propaganda to make us think the IL2 DM's are really off. Don't believe what you see, those WW2 pilots and pics are all wrong.

Thanks Blackdog.

Gibbage1
08-13-2005, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Both of those planes had great reps for absorbing damage. The P-40's did to a lesser
extent and I'm pretty sure that most US planes were built some extra tough. P-47 and
P-38 were maybe the best single-seater fighters? How about the Hellcat and Corsair?


The Hellcat and Wildcat were VERY well known for there ability to bring a pilot home. So much that Grumman, the company who made both of those aircraft, was called the Grumman "Iron Works". The Japanese had a fit trying to bring the simple little Wildcat down and its what saved out butts in Pacific 1942-43 since the A6M's had everything else going for them. Think of it, the A6M's were sometimes faster, more nimble, and had better firepower then the Wildcats, but the Wildcats SOMEHOW put up better numbers then the Japanese, even early in the war when the Japanese had better or equal numbers!

The Thatch Weeve is a good example. Its basically letting the A6M chew on your friend a little as you spray the enemy. Its a rather BAD tactic at first glance, but the Grumman could survive it, the A6M could not.



As for ability to soak up damage, I bet the IL-2 got loads of good pics just not as
easy to find. And the early IL-2's were used as fighters. According to one book I have
they were for a while the main effective Russian fighter used, even above the Ratas.


Its very hard to find photo's of Russian aircraft in WWII, let alone damaged ones. Most were filtered out because they dont want to show losses to the people.

[/quote]
I'd maybe compare combat loss percents of P-47 to P-51 for *only* some idea of how
many pictures might be realistic and *not* to determine anything about plane toughness.
If for whatever reasons the P-51's didn't take as much losses (take your pick of why)
then I wouldn't expect so many pics either. OTOH the P-51's ran *much* deeper into
enemy territory and how far you have to fly home with any kind of fluid leak or other
'time's not on your side' damage would have a great impact on getting home for the pic
to be taken. It's a very tricky call, no?[/QUOTE]

If I remember correctly, the P-47 had a much lower % of losses then any other frontline US aircraft, and I think lower % of any fighter in the war! I am sure the numbers are out there. All these proto's prove is that P-47's returning with many hits is that it was NOT a 1 time thing, like all the B-17 photo's.

Also, remember the P-47 took on a much more risky role when the P-51 took over escort. Ground attack! This was by far more risky then escorting B-17's. Even the P-38 took on ground attack and came back home. I have photo's of P-38's that had telephone pole strikes on straifing and braught back a few feet of telephone wire on the tail! Or a P-38 that had a mid air collision with a 4 engine bomber and flew home, with the bombers rudder stuck in its wing.

x__CRASH__x
08-13-2005, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
...The fact that there are few pics of shot up 109's and 190's...
Smart pilots avoid getting shot, and do the shooting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Grey_Mouser67
08-13-2005, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Both of those planes had great reps for absorbing damage. The P-40's did to a lesser
extent and I'm pretty sure that most US planes were built some extra tough. P-47 and
P-38 were maybe the best single-seater fighters? How about the Hellcat and Corsair?


The Hellcat and Wildcat were VERY well known for there ability to bring a pilot home. So much that Grumman, the company who made both of those aircraft, was called the Grumman "Iron Works". The Japanese had a fit trying to bring the simple little Wildcat down and its what saved out butts in Pacific 1942-43 since the A6M's had everything else going for them. Think of it, the A6M's were sometimes faster, more nimble, and had better firepower then the Wildcats, but the Wildcats SOMEHOW put up better numbers then the Japanese, even early in the war when the Japanese had better or equal numbers!

The Thatch Weeve is a good example. Its basically letting the A6M chew on your friend a little as you spray the enemy. Its a rather BAD tactic at first glance, but the Grumman could survive it, the A6M could not.



As for ability to soak up damage, I bet the IL-2 got loads of good pics just not as
easy to find. And the early IL-2's were used as fighters. According to one book I have
they were for a while the main effective Russian fighter used, even above the Ratas.


Its very hard to find photo's of Russian aircraft in WWII, let alone damaged ones. Most were filtered out because they dont want to show losses to the people.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd maybe compare combat loss percents of P-47 to P-51 for *only* some idea of how
many pictures might be realistic and *not* to determine anything about plane toughness.
If for whatever reasons the P-51's didn't take as much losses (take your pick of why)
then I wouldn't expect so many pics either. OTOH the P-51's ran *much* deeper into
enemy territory and how far you have to fly home with any kind of fluid leak or other
'time's not on your side' damage would have a great impact on getting home for the pic
to be taken. It's a very tricky call, no?[/QUOTE]

If I remember correctly, the P-47 had a much lower % of losses then any other frontline US aircraft, and I think lower % of any fighter in the war! I am sure the numbers are out there. All these proto's prove is that P-47's returning with many hits is that it was NOT a 1 time thing, like all the B-17 photo's.

Also, remember the P-47 took on a much more risky role when the P-51 took over escort. Ground attack! This was by far more risky then escorting B-17's. Even the P-38 took on ground attack and came back home. I have photo's of P-38's that had telephone pole strikes on straifing and braught back a few feet of telephone wire on the tail! Or a P-38 that had a mid air collision with a 4 engine bomber and flew home, with the bombers rudder stuck in its wing.[/QUOTE]

Gib is right about the loss rate for all causes...the Thunderbolt was the best in the statistics I saw...I just can't remember where I read that. Seems to me the statitics I saw compared the Jug, Lightning and Mustang loss rates for all causes and the Jug was the lowest and the Lightning was suprisingly high for its reputation.

I got a sneaking suspicion that the Grumman Hellcat's toughness has a whole lot more to do with its obsene kill ratio than is written about! Corsair and B-26 Marauder were also very well known for their toughness.

Without knowing a darn thing about this game, I would have predicted based on what I've read that the Thunderbolt and Hellcat would have had the toughest damage model of all single engined aircraft in the game followed closely by the Corsair and then maybe the Wildcat.

The B-17 would be best in class for heavies and the B-26 for twins. The only non-American aircraft I've read about their toughness were the IL-2 and to a lesser degree the Lagg and the Hurricane....the latter because of its fabric skin. Mustangs, Spits, 109's, Fw's, Lightnings etc get no honerable mention of structural toughness....I think the lightning gets a little reputation simply because of 2 engines, but I've read that the elevator and lack of protection behind the pilot was a little bit of a weak point. The Fw was not structurally tougher than any other plane, although its radial engine was good...the Dora should have the same glass jaw that other inlines have. The P-40 was a tough bird for an inline too, but I think this was structural. The Mitchell, Havoc, Liberator were all kind of average as far as I know and I always had the impression that the He-111 was a softie while the Ju-88 was tougher.

All very subjective and all just impressions and opinions based on reading stuff just like all you guys do.

If the Jug and Hellcat are not the toughest aircraft in this sim, then I will feel like those birds just didn't get the billing they deserved.

Blackdog5555
08-14-2005, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by 9th_Spitin:
I think those P-47's in the photo's are all wrong, the DM is way off. The ones I fly in IL2 4.01m have the wings and tails blow off with very few hits.

These photo's are all propaganda to make us think the IL2 DM's are really off. Don't believe what you see, those WW2 pilots and pics are all wrong.

Thanks Blackdog.

Hee hee http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif your welcome.

GR142_Astro
08-14-2005, 08:46 PM
The fact that we are having to constantly prove to 1C that the P47 was about the toughest fighter of WW2 speaks volumes.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Try to RTB this aircraft below, occording to Oleg's game.

http://www.368thfightergroup.com/images/395-rife-l-wing.jpg