|
Gort posted:what is a jug P-47 Thunderbolts were called "jugs", short for juggernaut, because they were much bigger and heavier than their contemporaries
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:He'd be better off shipping in more Franks tbh. Though it's weird that the Ki-84a is out there-- isn't that a prototype? Once you get to the late war stuff for Japan you start to see paper airframes or prototypes, because the player can actually build “research factories” for engines and airframes to allow them to be built before their historical availability and production factories to actually make them. For the Frank the Ki-84a, b, and r can be produced, with the r being the last available model and generally the best. Other fun planes are the Ki-83, which has a very high flight ceiling for a Japanese plane, and things like Okhas and rocket/jet planes. Most of the wackier ones have horrible service ratings, meaning they can’t fly every day, and they usually can’t kill night flying B-29s either, so a well run strategic night bombing campaign will always eventually cripple Japan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:P-47 Thunderbolts were called "jugs", because it looked like a milk jug.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:20
|
|
|
P47 fat
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:53
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:P47 fat drat girl, you running 2% *whistles*
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
the p47 was thicc
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:P-47 Thunderbolts were called "jugs", short for juggernaut, because they were much bigger and heavier than their contemporaries For comparison. Here's an Me 110 one of the german 2 engine fighters Crew: 2 (3 for night fighter variants) Length: 12.3 m (40 ft 6 in) Wingspan: 16.3 m (53 ft 4 in) Height: 3.3 m (10 ft 9 in) Wing area: 38.8 m² (414 ft²) Empty weight: 4,500 kg (9,921 lb) Loaded weight: 6,700 kg (14,771 lb) Here's a P-47 (single engine) Crew: 1 Length: 36 ft 1 in (11.00 m) Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.42 m) Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m) Wing area: 300 ft2 (27.87 m2) Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg) Loaded weight: 12,731 lb (5,774.48 kg) And a Spitfire Crew: one pilot Length: 29 ft 11 in (9.12 m) Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m) Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m) Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m2) Empty weight: 5,065 lb (2,297 kg) Loaded weight: 6,622 lb (3,000 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 6,700 lb (3,039 kg) P-47 is almost the same size as 2 engine fighters of the time. (and almost double the size of most single engine fighters)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
Time to repost this bad boy
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Well there we have it, the problem is overeating
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
The profile of the zero canopy is really similar to the mustang. I never noticed before. Also the zero was cab-forward way before it was a thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
   This should be happing a lot more regularly!   I lose some planes on the ground.   Take that!   Just bugger off!   They have another crack a t Guam.   Two subs strikes in one day? They heard me!   The Allies have to have a good day now and then!  It's rare to not have any enemy ships on here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
What is the plan at Chungking? I thought the idea was to give it one more shot and if they won’t break, pull your guys back. But instead we’ve just seen weeks of bombing which may not be doing anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
I've know I've said this before but the Avenger's always seem to die in disproportionate numbers no matter what's coming at them. Even the really, really bad pilots seem to have no trouble taking them out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:What is the plan at Chungking? I thought the idea was to give it one more shot and if they won’t break, pull your guys back. But instead we’ve just seen weeks of bombing which may not be doing anything at all. AFAIK Grey plans to pull out half of our guys so the enemy tries their luck at attacking and has to suffer the broken battle system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
SavageGentleman posted:AFAIK Grey plans to pull out half of our guys so the enemy tries their luck at attacking and has to suffer the broken battle system. As a father of four, I feel it's my duty to inform you that pulling out halfway never works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Someone needs to post that ww2 how to film on how to assemble a p-47 out of a crate that was fascinating
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The profile of the zero canopy is really similar to the mustang. I never noticed before. Also the zero was cab-forward way before it was a thing more of a rotary and time period thing, the re.2000 has a very similar layout the Zero had really good visibility compared to a lot of its contemporaries because of the canopy design, which wasn't surpassed until the widespread adoption of bubble canopies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:Someone needs to post that ww2 how to film on how to assemble a p-47 out of a crate that was fascinating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2D3k0sJ8HM&t=35s
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 22:28
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Grumio posted:Time to repost this bad boy P-47 fat
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
big beautiful warplane
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:I've know I've said this before but the Avenger's always seem to die in disproportionate numbers no matter what's coming at them. Even the really, really bad pilots seem to have no trouble taking them out. They're big, slow, and torpedo bombers mostly so they fly low. If you can find them, you can have your way with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
gently caress off if you're a jug hater
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Grumio posted:Time to repost this bad boy my large adult aircraft
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
Grumio posted:Time to repost this bad boy In awe of the size of this lad
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:In awe of the size of this lad According to Wikipedia it was outfitted with 8 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3400 rounds), up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs, and 10 × 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets. Hilariously, it also had a bulletproof windshield. Any aircraft facing the P-47 would have been slower, outgunned, and not as well armored. The plane was a goddamn nightmare. zetamind2000 fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Aug 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
I hope Grey starts being able to issue Sams to his carriers before the game ends, just to see how they fare.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:According to Wikipedia it was outfitted with 8 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3400 rounds), up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs, and 10 × 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets. Hilariously, it also had a bulletproof windshield. Any aircraft facing the P-47 would have been slower, outgunned, and not as well armored. The plane was a goddamn nightmare. There are several maps in War Thunder that generously reward a full loaded Jug going low and bombing, rocketing, and strafing the fucvk out of ground targets. It's worth the pain getting good at flying the P-36 to get to P-47s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
  I hope this is doing something!  Dammit! I'm going to need to make that up somewhere!  We get our revenge when they strike the island.  That's better!  How the mighty have fallen!  Sniping bastards.  I'm still winning the air war!  There are so many things I hate about this game!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
One single Tojo took to the skies and damaged two B-29 without a scratch on him. Truly, an inspiration for us all 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:According to Wikipedia it was outfitted with 8 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3400 rounds), up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs, and 10 × 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets. Hilariously, it also had a bulletproof windshield. Any aircraft facing the P-47 would have been slower, outgunned, and not as well armored. The plane was a goddamn nightmare. I thought many pilots preferred cannon to more machine guns. Or was that just axis pilots who had to face bombers and...p47s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I thought many pilots preferred cannon to more machine guns. Or was that just axis pilots who had to face bombers and...p47s. Nah, the British, Soviets, and US Navy (later on) preferred mounting at least some cannon on their fighters as well. It was mostly just the US Army Air Forces that stuck with large numbers of machine guns for the whole war. The only real exceptions to this feature of the USAAF were the P-38 and the P-39. edit: Basically, even fighters started carrying significantly more armor than pre-war stuff, along with safety features such as seal sealing fuel tanks. Combined this meant that small caliber rounds did not necessarily cut it any more, though the possibility of hitting something valuable still existed of course. So the options were to either go with larger caliber weapons (cannon) to cause heavy damage quickly, or more of a smaller caliber - to both increase the chances of hitting something critical as well as simply causing enough damage through sheer quantity of shots. Most aerial forces went with the former, the USAAF went with the latter. Lord Koth fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Aug 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
The US used a bigger machinegun to everyone else too, so it wasn't that bad a compromise. 4 guns halfway between an mg and a cannon isn't that different to 2 mgs and 2 cannons, and it obviously makes logistics simpler.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
That's the big factor. There are few aircraft that a .50 couldn't hurt even after being uparmored, so they never faced the problem that rifle-caliber guns did (where it didn't matter how many you have, because they just don't hurt the target). Cannon also fired slower and carried much less ammo, which combined to make them a lot harder to hit with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Splode posted:The US used a bigger machinegun to everyone else too, so it wasn't that bad a compromise. 4 guns halfway between an mg and a cannon isn't that different to 2 mgs and 2 cannons, and it obviously makes logistics simpler. Ehhh, not really - at least to the former part. All nations(including the US) started with planes mounting large numbers of a smaller caliber machine guns (generally around .303, or ~7.62mm) true, but everyone also switched to ~.50 caliber over the course of the war - most just used a smaller number of guns with a mixed armament, rather than just large numbers of .50 caliber. The second point is debatable, though the point on logistics is perfectly true. All I'll say is that pure machine guns as opposed to mixed armament both had pros and cons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Part of the reason why the US stuck with .50s for most aircraft was because the standard 20mm cannon was a license-built Hispano-Suiza HS.404 that got the design hosed up on the trip overseas, and as a result jammed so frequently that it was unusable for everything except the P-38 (Whose pilot could un-jam the gun from the cockpit). Fixing the problem also wasn't a huge priority for the US, since MGs were more than suitable and in some cases preferable for taking out German fighters or Japanese aircraft, which were the vast majority of targets US pilots faced. Semi-related fun fact: When the Wildcat upgraded from the F4F-3 to the -4, it gained folding wings and two extra .50 cals. This was actually seen as a downgrade by most pilots, since the folding wings made the aircraft heavier and the extra .50s were fed from the existing pool of ammunition—meaning that the number of individual bursts each pilot could fire was effectively cut by a third.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Splode posted:The US used a bigger machinegun to everyone else too, so it wasn't that bad a compromise. 4 guns halfway between an mg and a cannon isn't that different to 2 mgs and 2 cannons, and it obviously makes logistics simpler. Not true, the .50 BMG is smaller than the Russian ShVak machine gun, and the German MG 131, in terms of cartridges. It does make it simpler for logistics, however.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Not true, the .50 BMG is smaller than the Russian ShVak machine gun, and the German MG 131, in terms of cartridges. It does make it simpler for logistics, however. You're probably thinking of the 12.7mm UB machine gun (which was successful and commonly used) rather than the 12.7mm version of the ShVak (which was a complete and utter failure, although it did lead to a successful 20mm cannon). Both the MG131 and UB were lower-powered than the .50 BMG. Muzzle velocity was lower in both guns, and the MG131 fired a much lighter bullet. (The UB fired a slightly heavier round, but at only around 85% of the muzzle velocity).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:You're probably thinking of the 12.7mm UB machine gun (which was successful and commonly used) rather than the 12.7mm version of the ShVak (which was a complete and utter failure, although it did lead to a successful 20mm cannon). They were bigger rounds, that was the point of the reply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Ehhh, not really - at least to the former part. All nations(including the US) started with planes mounting large numbers of a smaller caliber machine guns (generally around .303, or ~7.62mm) true, but everyone also switched to ~.50 caliber over the course of the war - most just used a smaller number of guns with a mixed armament, rather than just large numbers of .50 caliber. Mixed armament created other problems - often the cannon and MGs had different muzzle velocities and the shells had different trajectories.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 23:57
|
|
