AB Fighter Plane Reviews

[tx141 815]

I did score 4 kills with Bf 109 F-1 yesterday... Would do more, if I did not pancake it into field, while trying to capture an airfield during Domination mission. I could not remember when I managed more as 3 kills with it last time. Two things from your review helped me immensely... Controlling my own descending speed on the target to keep plane more manoeuvrable and delaying fire till 0.3km... Big thanks!

 

I am glad to hear that your effectiveness with the F-1 is improving, you will soon have your Ace, it is only a matter of time. :)

 

Hey OP, its not exactly a fighter but could you do the Stuka G-1/2 and the Me410 /U4 's?

 

I do intend to review Heavy Fighters as well, so the Me410/U4s will go on the request list. With regards to the Ju-87 G-1/2, I will consider it, although I will prioritize fighters/heavy fighters first.

 

I apologize if that sounds ignorant, but I would like to review all/as many "fighter" type planes at first before shifting to "Attackers". Still, I am very grateful for your suggestions. :)

 

Awesome P-47 review, just brilliant.

 

Thank you. I thought you would like it. :)

[Acht_Acht_Kanone 402]

I am glad to hear that your effectiveness with the F-1 is improving, you will Soon™™ have your Ace, it is only a matter of time. :)

 

 

I do intend to review Heavy Fighters as well, so the Me410/U4s will go on the request list. With regards to the Ju-87 G-1/2, I will consider it, although I will prioritize fighters/heavy fighters first.

 

I apologize if that sounds ignorant, but I would like to review all/as many "fighter" type planes at first before shifting to "Attackers". Still, I am very grateful for your suggestions. :)

 

 

Thank you. I thought you would like it. :)

No sweat, take your time :)

[Taranok 3,920]

Update 26.03.2014:

 

- Added P-47D-25 Thunderbolt review.

 

I would like to say thank you to Sliver for moving the thread to the "Academy" section.  :)s

 

Some fun notes about the P-47.  First, the P-47D-25 was the designation given to a model that didn't have a bubble top, as well as the first version that did.  America sometimes shared designations and, despite the differences between the razorback and bubbletop variants, they were still given the same number.

 

The P-47 was also known for being a particularly bad plane.  It was almost shelved much like the old P-38s were shunned.  The old versions before the D and late model Cs didn't have the improved props on them, and as such suffered ridiculously poor climb rates.  The advantages of turbos weren't being exploited properly which, in the case of the P-47, gave it full horsepower (and actually improved horsepower at lower altitudes over standard!) all the way up to ~21000 feet (somewhere between 20 and 23k feet). 21k feet is 6400 meters, so in the 6-7000 meter range it finally started to see its engine power drop off.  Such was the power of the then-named Turbosuperchargers, now known simply as turbochargers.  Exhaust-driven air compressors.  Despite numerous faults in design and pilot training, the plane actually had performance edges over German fighters, such as the 190.  With less thrust on the whole in addition to less climb, the P-47 was able to actually win turning fights with 109s and 190s, even down to low speed for the 190s.  A dark horse of a plane that almost was shelved before a group managed to figure out how to exploit its one biggest feature:  its ridiculous energy retention.

 

Despite its less than stellar drag profile, the P-47 was the heaviest single engine fighter of the war, which gave it a huge advantage in a dive as well as its phenomenal energy retention.  Overall its maneuver was considered to be the near-equal of the P-51, it just also happened to be a plane nearly twice as expensive as the Mustang with far less range with more or less the same performance, especially after the prop issue was sorted out.  As long as it had altitude, it was in a great place as a dogfighter.  The only noteworthy thing the P-51 failed to improve on the P-47 with was the P-47s legendary durability, allowing it to eat even the largest rounds Germany threw into the air from directions that are less than ideal to be hit from (the front) and still not have the plane killed from singular strikes.

 

But I digress.  Your video has a few issues.  Once again you don't burn WEP like a madman :Ps.  Additionally, you were really showing how bad it is to climb without IAS, in that you frequently not only took the plane well below its ideal climb speed (somewhere between 275 and 300kph indicated) but you also let it drop to the "This plane has no maneuverability at this speed whatsoever" range.  The P-47's performance drops considerably if you take it below its ideal speeds, which is basically anything above 370kph indicated.  The P-47 has a lot of maneuver basically at all speeds above 370kph IAS, and it really shows especially in a dive.  One of the quirks almost every U.S. plane around it and later also shows, such as the F4U and P-51.  To use the plane as a dogfighter, its speed must be kept up, which is paradoxical to its performance since it has trouble keeping its speed up.  Overall, you can treat the P-47 and P-51 interchangeably in terms of performance and maneuver, it's a testament to the P-47's tier placement that it's able to actually fight anything around it on somewhat equal terms, as it's only outclassed by Typhoons, the G-2, A6Ms, and Spitfires on climb performance, and most players don't climb with A6Ms and Spitfires, allowing the P-47 to more or less only have to fight 109s up in the skies to vie for dominance.

 

On the plane's durability, it's worth mentioning that the engine still died way too quickly (these engines could have in one known case 4 of the 18 pistons literally knocked off and still make it back to base).  The P&W R-2800 was a ridiculously durable engine by comparison to anything around it, especially in-lines.  And, the majority of the P-47's terrible damage model is in the tail.  The very first thing the P-47 loses in combat is tail control, and it will happen from very little weapons fire into it.  Even frontal shots will manage to take out the tail, but it's worth noting that you must always protect your rear with the P-47.  Always.  It's safer to eat head-on shots than to eat tail shots no matter what you're fighting, as it's insulting to say the tail is made out of glass....for the glass.  Aside from that, it's a well rounded plane that is plagued by DM and Hit Detection issues, the DM with the tail, the hit detection with how many of your shots it took to down planes you were clearly getting strikes on.  In closed testing, your 0.50s would have blown the wing off of every non-bomber (maybe including the Il-2) that you landed shots into, but you were missing despite hitting, and this is the biggest fault everyone will have with any American plane from tier 7 (BR 3.3) on up.

 

Despite all this, the P-47 is a personal favorite of mine and is definitely worth playing, provided you clearly understand its quirks.  Namely, altitude is king, keep your speed up, and lead more than you think you need to to compensate for its horrible hit detection problems.

 

Oh, and the P-47 has access to The Tracer Rounds of Power™ otherwise known as the API-T M20 rounds, and they're arguably the best rounds for 0.50 cals in WT.  Definitely worth trying those out the next time you grab it.  Fires, fires everywhere.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Taranok

[Speed59364 6]

The P-47 can have an impressive load of ground ordinance. Heavy bombs and rockets. I have a bomber/fighter killing setup (Yes, its the M20 API-T fire starter)  and a pillbox (3 bombs, i can not hit with rockets worth a damn) killing setup. But since the P-47 is so speed and altitude reliant. Is there any use bringing the ground pounding equipment in to the fray, killing ground targets every so often? Or will it simply hurt me and my team, and both would be better served if I simply left the drag and weight at home and focused on killing the air targets?

[tx141 815]

Some fun notes about the P-47.  First, the P-47D-25 was the designation given to a model that didn't have a bubble top, as well as the first version that did.  America sometimes shared designations and, despite the differences between the razorback and bubbletop variants, they were still given the same number.

 

The P-47 was also known for being a particularly bad plane.  It was almost shelved much like the old P-38s were shunned.  The old versions before the D and late model Cs didn't have the improved props on them, and as such suffered ridiculously poor climb rates.  The advantages of turbos weren't being exploited properly which, in the case of the P-47, gave it full horsepower (and actually improved horsepower at lower altitudes over standard!) all the way up to ~21000 feet (somewhere between 20 and 23k feet). 21k feet is 6400 meters, so in the 6-7000 meter range it finally started to see its engine power drop off.  Such was the power of the then-named Turbosuperchargers, now known simply as turbochargers.  Exhaust-driven air compressors.  Despite numerous faults in design and pilot training, the plane actually had performance edges over German fighters, such as the 190.  With less thrust on the whole in addition to less climb, the P-47 was able to actually win turning fights with 109s and 190s, even down to low speed for the 190s.  A dark horse of a plane that almost was shelved before a group managed to figure out how to exploit its one biggest feature:  its ridiculous energy retention.

 

Despite its less than stellar drag profile, the P-47 was the heaviest single engine fighter of the war, which gave it a huge advantage in a dive as well as its phenomenal energy retention.  Overall its maneuver was considered to be the near-equal of the P-51, it just also happened to be a plane nearly twice as expensive as the Mustang with far less range with more or less the same performance, especially after the prop issue was sorted out.  As long as it had altitude, it was in a great place as a dogfighter.  The only noteworthy thing the P-51 failed to improve on the P-47 with was the P-47s legendary durability, allowing it to eat even the largest rounds Germany threw into the air from directions that are less than ideal to be hit from (the front) and still not have the plane killed from singular strikes.

 

But I digress.  Your video has a few issues.  Once again you don't burn WEP like a madman :Ps.  Additionally, you were really showing how bad it is to climb without IAS, in that you frequently not only took the plane well below its ideal climb speed (somewhere between 275 and 300kph indicated) but you also let it drop to the "This plane has no maneuverability at this speed whatsoever" range.  The P-47's performance drops considerably if you take it below its ideal speeds, which is basically anything above 370kph indicated.  The P-47 has a lot of maneuver basically at all speeds above 370kph IAS, and it really shows especially in a dive.  One of the quirks almost every U.S. plane around it and later also shows, such as the F4U and P-51.  To use the plane as a dogfighter, its speed must be kept up, which is paradoxical to its performance since it has trouble keeping its speed up.  Overall, you can treat the P-47 and P-51 interchangeably in terms of performance and maneuver, it's a testament to the P-47's tier placement that it's able to actually fight anything around it on somewhat equal terms, as it's only outclassed by Typhoons, the G-2, A6Ms, and Spitfires on climb performance, and most players don't climb with A6Ms and Spitfires, allowing the P-47 to more or less only have to fight 109s up in the skies to vie for dominance.

 

On the plane's durability, it's worth mentioning that the engine still died way too quickly (these engines could have in one known case 4 of the 18 pistons literally knocked off and still make it back to base).  The P&W R-2800 was a ridiculously durable engine by comparison to anything around it, especially in-lines.  And, the majority of the P-47's terrible damage model is in the tail.  The very first thing the P-47 loses in combat is tail control, and it will happen from very little weapons fire into it.  Even frontal shots will manage to take out the tail, but it's worth noting that you must always protect your rear with the P-47.  Always.  It's safer to eat head-on shots than to eat tail shots no matter what you're fighting, as it's insulting to say the tail is made out of glass....for the glass.  Aside from that, it's a well rounded plane that is plagued by DM and Hit Detection issues, the DM with the tail, the hit detection with how many of your shots it took to down planes you were clearly getting strikes on.  In closed testing, your 0.50s would have blown the wing off of every non-bomber (maybe including the Il-2) that you landed shots into, but you were missing despite hitting, and this is the biggest fault everyone will have with any American plane from tier 7 (BR 3.3) on up.

 

Despite all this, the P-47 is a personal favorite of mine and is definitely worth playing, provided you clearly understand its quirks.  Namely, altitude is king, keep your speed up, and lead more than you think you need to to compensate for its horrible hit detection problems.

 

Oh, and the P-47 has access to The Tracer Rounds of Power™ otherwise known as the API-T M20 rounds, and they're arguably the best rounds for 0.50 cals in WT.  Definitely worth trying those out the next time you grab it.  Fires, fires everywhere.

 

I never realized how much of a dark horse the plane really was historically, although I have heard about the squadron who employed the P-47 to great effect (Zemke's Wolfpack I believe?). I have read that they even wounded Rall and forced him to bail out during one engagement.

 

With regards to WEP usage, I am only using it when and where necessary as I am starting to play RB now as well, and I want to try and balance my play-style between the two modes. Additionally, I also wish to show prospective viewers that one does not have to constantly use WEP in order to make the most out of their plane in AB. I have seen a number of the bigger Youtubers (who I will not name) spend entire AB games just using WEP for the entire game, I want to be different.

 

Your point is very true concerning speed and maneuverability with the plane, I will annotate that into the video at a later date (or when I review the P-47D-28 Thunderbolt), and that is a common trait among most of the USN/USAAF fighters. From my experience with TAS, you need to keep your speed to 400km/h+ to be in your ideal maneuverability range, although when I switch to IAS, I will add this to the video. 

 

Concerning the damage model, while may will probably not believe me, I have only very rarely experienced "glass-tail" syndrome in any of my American planes, even the P-47D. That may be due to the fact I am a very conservative player by comparison to others who like to get stuck into the furball, yet this is why I did not point out about the "glass-tail" situation or the overall Damage Model being questionable (although I believe I did say it was below that expected by historical comparison).

 

On the hit detection of the 0.50 cals, I will be honest and say that it occasionally feels as though I am putting a lot more rounds into the target than necessary. A prime in-video example would be the pass on the IL-2. At the same time however, I am trying to avoid drifting into the debate, and making the most of what the plane has. I did give the Tracer rounds a go, but I felt as though they were rather unreliable, as I was essentially firing with the expectation that my opponent would catch fire, and at the 3.3 BR where the contemporary planes are less competitive by comparison with the P-51D's contemporaries at the 5.0 BR, I felt as though the tracers were not as essential to the success of the plane.

 

The P-47D is definitely a worth-while plane, and I apologize if my review has played out contrary to that.

 

Still, thank you for the feedback  :)s

 

The P-47 can have an impressive load of ground ordinance. Heavy bombs and rockets. I have a bomber/fighter killing setup (Yes, its the M20 API-T fire starter)  and a pillbox (3 bombs, i can not hit with rockets worth a damn) killing setup. But since the P-47 is so speed and altitude reliant. Is there any use bringing the ground pounding equipment in to the fray, killing ground targets every so often? Or will it simply hurt me and my team, and both would be better served if I simply left the drag and weight at home and focused on killing the air targets?

 

As I believe I mentioned in the video, you have an impressive dive speed in the P-47D, and this is still true with all of the ordinance loaded. I have seen many a player at the start of a Ground Strike game load their P-47D up with ordinance, and dive straight for the first set of ground targets, dropping their ordinance and then running for friendly planes.

 

If you decide to pack all of the ordinance, my advice would be as follows, rather than dive immediately towards enemy ground units (and hence towards the enemy planes/spawn), try to gain additional altitude and proceed to fly to the 'side' or 'behind' your chosen set of ground targets. Ergo, when you proceed to dive, you will be diving away from the enemy planes and back towards friendlies. A good map to try this out on would be Lonely Island, due to the breadth of the map.

 

By packing the ordinance you are not hurting your team, yet you will limit yourself in what you can do for given sections of the game (i.e. when loaded you cannot play the role of fighter as effectively). One interim solution would be just to load the HVAR rockets, as these can be applied to both ground targets and enemy planes, and this would allow you to retain most of your maneuverability.

 

I hope that helps!  :)s

[Orocan 0]

Me wanna see you troll with I-16 type 18 at AB...

 

Great vids BTW, especially USSR planes

 

:good:  :good:  :good:

[Yubided 465]

Ok so I watch the F4U review and notice how little lead you need to hit targets at range. "Hmm, I wonder what his latency is?"...

 

47 ms...

 

I log into War Thunder and do a quick Arcade Battle.

 

Fluctuating latency between 280s to 300s with spikes and one or two noticeable instances of packet loss. By my standards, that's not a bad day...

 

really...

 

.........

 

Be right back. Finding something to kick.

 

Yep... Australia. The lucky country!

 

Thanks for taking the time to do the vids though. I look forward to your thoughts on the P-38G.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Yubided

[Guest]

I was pretty unsuccessful with my Bf 109 F(e)s yesterday. Could not down the things somehow, needed to attack some bombers 3 even 4 times and I was falling apart after just a kiss from Tier 3 Boom-and-Zoomers as I tried to steer into their flight path to avoid their attack.

 

I was looking on the video of F-1 again and again. Eventually I noticed your "The One Cannon Baron" review of Bf 109 G-2/Trop. That video was much more closer to my experience. And I noticed the tiny difference between them. It is an angle of attack you go in. The destroyed airplanes happens first in the moment they offer more of airplane area to hit, when they try to shake you off the tail.

 

You need deflection shots on a pilot or bigger area of wings/tail. When you go from back, it is much harder to land shots and land them effectively. It is just fuselage that is offering something to shoot into. It seems that German guns are having very small spread so they cover little area when mounted around engine only. If I shoot with guns in wings, I cover bigger target area and it seems to be more effective with more chances to land a critical hit... Therefore I do better with E-3 opposite to F(e) versions.

[tx141 815]

Me wanna see you troll with I-16 type 18 at AB...

 

Great vids BTW, especially USSR planes

 

Added to the "request" list.

 

Thank you  :)s

 

Ok so I watch the F4U review and notice how little lead you need to hit targets at range. "Hmm, I wonder what his latency is?"...

 

47 ms...

 

I log into War Thunder and do a quick Arcade Battle.

 

Fluctuating latency between 280s to 300s with spikes and one or two noticeable instances of packet loss. By my standards, that's not a bad day...

 

really...

 

Be right back. Finding something to kick.

 

Yep... Australia. The lucky country!

 

Thanks for taking the time to do the vids though. I look forward to your thoughts on the P-38G.

 

No problem, I usually do try to give a little bit more lead than depicted in that "First Impressions" review. I have played with a fellow subscriber on the American server (I am from the UK), and the amount of lead I had to give due to latency was astounding!  :Ps

I was pretty unsuccessful with my Bf 109 F(e)s yesterday. Could not down the things somehow, needed to attack some bombers 3 even 4 times and I was falling apart after just a kiss from Tier 3 Boom-and-Zoomers as I tried to steer into their flight path to avoid their attack.

 

I was looking on the video of F-1 again and again. Eventually I noticed your "The One Cannon Baron" review of Bf 109 G-2/Trop. That video was much more closer to my experience. And I noticed the tiny difference between them. It is an angle of attack you go in. The destroyed airplanes happens first in the moment they offer more of airplane area to hit, when they try to shake you off the tail.

 

You need deflection shots on a pilot or bigger area of wings/tail. When you go from back, it is much harder to land shots and land them effectively. It is just fuselage that is offering something to shoot into. It seems that German guns are having very small spread so they cover little area when mounted around engine only. If I shoot with guns in wings, I cover bigger target area and it seems to be more effective with more chances to land a critical hit... Therefore I do better with E-3 opposite to F(e) versions.

 

I would say that is the trade-off with moving the armament from in the wings to around the prop.

 

When the focus of your armament (i.e. 20mm Cannons) is in the wings, you will get a larger spread of shot prior to, and after convergence (if you want an extreme example, set your convergence to 50m on the Spitfire Mk. I). This can be rather effective when on approach to a target, as your initial spread (prior to convergence) can soften up your target quite nicely, with your final burst at convergence dealing the finishing blow.

 

On the other hand, a prop based armament can be considered as the more consistent of the two in terms of spread. Your fire is restricted to a 'cone' at any given firing distance (to a simple approximation), giving you the freedom to open-fire and successfully hit a target at larger distances (or smaller distances if below convergence). The difficulty is in making sure you align your armament on target to the greatest possible effect.

 

A more shallow angle of attack suits the prop-based armament, as you want to give yourself as much time as possible to keep behind your opponent and in control of the situation, allowing you to seal the kill.

 

If it would be of use, I was considering putting together a supplementary video where I discuss how I tackle the more heavy armed and armoured bombers with planes mounting single 20mm Cannons (or even less).  :)s

[Taranok 3,920]

I never realized how much of a dark horse the plane really was historically, although I have heard about the squadron who employed the P-47 to great effect (Zemke's Wolfpack I believe?). I have read that they even wounded Rall and forced him to bail out during one engagement.

 

Indeed.  The P-47 was generally hated because it had some teething issues (gun jams, canopy jams, engine reliability problems due to how it was installed, radio issues) and, most notably, the pilots who were using it were transferred off of Spitfires.  The P-47 has to be used in a completely different way than Spitfires, as I'm sure you're well aware.  While its maneuver could match 109s and 190s, it took a very experienced pilot to pull it off, but all the P-47 pilots were either inexperienced or coming off of a comparatively easy plane to use, so it naturally bit them a few times.  The transition issue hit the 4th pretty hard, and until it was extensively combat tested using simple trial and error to push the plane to its absolute limits for pilots who survived to later explain how to use the plane, it was rendered pretty unloved during that transition.  It had a very rough transition before it joined what would later be the USAAF's big 3 planes of the war, the P-38, P-47, and P-51.

 

 

On the hit detection of the 0.50 cals, I will be honest and say that it occasionally feels as though I am putting a lot more rounds into the target than necessary. A prime in-video example would be the pass on the IL-2. At the same time however, I am trying to avoid drifting into the debate, and making the most of what the plane has. I did give the Tracer rounds a go, but I felt as though they were rather unreliable, as I was essentially firing with the expectation that my opponent would catch fire, and at the 3.3 BR where the contemporary planes are less competitive by comparison with the P-51D's contemporaries at the 5.0 BR, I felt as though the tracers were not as essential to the success of the plane.

 

It's worth noting that hit detection does happen, though, and that players should be made aware of it, especially if you're trying to teach people how to fly these planes.  You can stay out of the politics of whether it's right or wrong or this or that while still informing people of it.  :good:

 

As for M20s, while they are really good rounds, they're hit or miss rounds.  The whole "Every round is a tracer" means the Spastic Flail Defense is even more viable against the plane, while the rounds have overall more penetration than standard AP rounds (if modeled correctly) with significantly more penetration than standard M8 incendiaries, while also being an incendiary round while standard AP rounds are not.  The M20 is seriously the best round the USAAF line has access to in 0.50s.  But then again, if you expect fires all the time, you are going to be disappointed.  The big thing with M20s is that they're supposed to be better at running omni purpose work, since every round is incendiary and every round should penetrate better than standard AP rounds like the M2.  No one has really tested if this actually holds up in game, as far as I know, I just have history to say it should be this way.

 

 

No problem, I usually do try to give a little bit more lead than depicted in that "First Impressions" review. I have played with a fellow subscriber on the American server (I am from the UK), and the amount of lead I had to give due to latency was astounding!  :Ps

 

And just to add some math to this, at a ping of 100ms on a plane moving at 400kph true airspeed (that's fairly average for high era 2/low era 3), a plane has to be lead by about 11 meters over the standard lead distance.  That's as long as a P-47, one of the largest, if not the largest, single engine fighter made during WWII.  At a ping of 150, that lead distance becomes the length of an A-20G.  At 800 kph TAS (jet speeds) the length of lead at 100ms becomes 22 meters and change, and so on and so forth.  It's a very, very big issue with the game, and having a ping of a mere 100 can ruin your aim quite substantially.  At a ping of 50, you can aim just slightly ahead of the lead indicator and nail shots on a P-47's tail with ease, if not its fuselage, but at 100, the same shots will see you missing almost all of your shots leading to the same spot.

 

If you have a fixed (or near-fixed) ping, the math is pretty linear, so it's fairly easy to calculate the lead distances, but it can really throw off aim.

[tx141 815]

It's worth noting that hit detection does happen, though, and that players should be made aware of it, especially if you're trying to teach people how to fly these planes.  You can stay out of the politics of whether it's right or wrong or this or that while still informing people of it.

 

As for M20s, while they are really good rounds, they're hit or miss rounds.  The whole "Every round is a tracer" means the Spastic Flail Defense is even more viable against the plane, while the rounds have overall more penetration than standard AP rounds (if modeled correctly) with significantly more penetration than standard M8 incendiaries, while also being an incendiary round while standard AP rounds are not.  The M20 is seriously the best round the USAAF line has access to in 0.50s.  But then again, if you expect fires all the time, you are going to be disappointed.  The big thing with M20s is that they're supposed to be better at running omni purpose work, since every round is incendiary and every round should penetrate better than standard AP rounds like the M2.  No one has really tested if this actually holds up in game, as far as I know, I just have history to say it should be this way.

 

And just to add some math to this, at a ping of 100ms on a plane moving at 400kph true airspeed (that's fairly average for high era 2/low era 3), a plane has to be lead by about 11 meters over the standard lead distance.  That's as long as a P-47, one of the largest, if not the largest, single engine fighter made during WWII.  At a ping of 150, that lead distance becomes the length of an A-20G.  At 800 kph TAS (jet speeds) the length of lead at 100ms becomes 22 meters and change, and so on and so forth.  It's a very, very big issue with the game, and having a ping of a mere 100 can ruin your aim quite substantially.  At a ping of 50, you can aim just slightly ahead of the lead indicator and nail shots on a P-47's tail with ease, if not its fuselage, but at 100, the same shots will see you missing almost all of your shots leading to the same spot.

 

If you have a fixed (or near-fixed) ping, the math is pretty linear, so it's fairly easy to calculate the lead distances, but it can really throw off aim.

 

I will highlight this in future videos (I will be doing a separate review of the P-47D-28 at a much later date). For reference, are there any other major "hit-detection" issues you feel that I should raise, or are they related solely to the .50 cals?

 

I will reconsider using the Tracer Belt on the P-47D-28, I never realized it was actually meant to be the more effective round historically. I hate to be rude, but is there any chance you could point me in the right direction for some sources related to this? I would really like to read up on it in my spare time.

 

Thanks for putting the ping into a more mathematical perspective (see my PM), and always, thank you for your insight.  :)s

[Taranok 3,920]

I will highlight this in future videos (I will be doing a separate review of the P-47D-28 at a much later date). For reference, are there any other major "hit-detection" issues you feel that I should raise, or are they related solely to the .50 cals?

 

I will reconsider using the Tracer Belt on the P-47D-28, I never realized it was actually meant to be the more effective round historically. I hate to be rude, but is there any chance you could point me in the right direction for some sources related to this? I would really like to read up on it in my spare time.

 

Thanks for putting the ping into a more mathematical perspective (see my PM), and always, thank you for your insight.  :)s

 

Every plane suffers hit detection issues.  0.30 cal planes don't suffer it as badly because their bullets are doing significantly more damage per strike than they should be, the planes primarily running 0.30s are low tier (the issue is primarily exacerbated by speed, so slower planes have less problems with it), and they have trouble shooting beyond 300m anyways.  Cannons, on the flip side, are doing far more lethal damage to some planes than they should be while needing comparatively smaller numbers of shells hitting to do lethal damage (this is also historically accurate, cannons were more lethal per-shot than 0.50s).  When you have rounds such as the Mine in play, as well, and have DMs that allow single strikes or 2 or 3 strikes hitting the plane to cripple or kill it, it should come as no surprise that spraying the rounds will help correct the hit registration issues, but even cannons are adversely affected by it.

 

The problem is most important on 0.50 cal planes strictly because 0.50s need consistent shot placement, much like 0.30s, have a lower overall volume of fire than 0.30s, and are in tiers where registration problems become dominant, leading to the whole debate on P-51s being underpowered.

 

But, just because the problem is most obvious on higher tier 0.50 cal toting planes doesn't mean the problem doesn't affect every plane.  MK 108 toting planes will notice it due to their low velocity rounds especially, the M4/M10 37mm cannons of the P-39 and P-63 will notice it easily (how many times have I seen the rounds strike a tail for no damage...)  The list goes on.

 

It's an issue that affects every gun indiscriminately, but tends to not affect them equally due to how they combine with other mechanics.

 

Now, as for those sources, I would love to get them to you, but I don't have them handy.  I'll make sure to send the request to Cuteling though, he tends to have a much easier time finding sources than I do, and might have them handy.  It's worth noting, though, that the M20 round was more noteworthy for its ability to accurately follow the ballistic trajectory of the other rounds fired by the 0.50 cal.  They were in high demand because they pretty much were identical to the M2 and M8 rounds, ballistically speaking.  It just so happened that they also had more penetration (as a guess on my part, likely due to the extra weight of making it a tracer round to begin with, though I'm not well versed on the physics involved).  When I say they had more penetration, we're talking 21mm RHA at 500m versus 21 or 20mm RHA for a standard AP round.  It's by an inch, not a mile.  The thing that makes the belt so good is that it's strictly a belt of combined AP and Incendiary rounds, so you get all the penetration of one round, with all of the glorious fire of the other.  For the downside of having flamethrowers on your plane that are insanely obvious, making it easier for enemies to evade and so forth.  What's interesting, is, I haven't actually seen a source yet showing exclusive-M20 belts for any U.S. plane.  They might exist, I just haven't seen it (nevermind saved a link for it).

 

EDIT:  Fixed penetration value to not be completely and egregiously wrong.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Taranok

[StasRaskolbas 8,397]

I think you sell the Jug a bit short when comparing it to the Mustang.  Consider:

 

The P-47 had a better roll rate than any of its contemporaries except for the FW-190A/F series.

It had superior firepower to the Mustang in both air-to-air and air-to-ground role.

To get the extra range on the D Mustang, they had to add an extra fuel tank that adversely affected its stability and handling to such an extent that combat was prohibited until said tank was nearly empty.

As far as range that wasn't a design limitation of the Thunderbolt, considering they built the N variant for long-range use in the Pacific.

The Mustang also had problems initially considering they had to completely swap engines for it to be viable in the ETO.

[SunsetShimmers 7,929]

I will reconsider using the Tracer Belt on the P-47D-28, I never realized it was actually meant to be the more effective round historically. I hate to be rude, but is there any chance you could point me in the right direction for some sources related to this? I would really like to read up on it in my spare time.

 

Here we go: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

 

M2 AP = 19mm at 500 meters, 10mm at 1200 meters (and from the bottom of the page: 25.4mm at 200 meters, 17.8mm at 600 meters, 7.6mm at 1600 meters)

M8 API = 16mm at 500 meters, 8mm at 1200 meters

M20 = 21mm at 500 meters, 11mm at 1200 meters

 

 

Throwing that into a range/penetration calculation...

 

M2 API:

0 meters = 31mm

100 meters = 28mm

500 meters = 19mm

750 meters = 15mm

1000 meters = 12mm

 

M8 API:

0 meters = 26mm

100 meters = 23mm

500 meters = 16mm

750 meters = 13mm

1000 meters = 10mm

 

M20 API-T:

0 meters = 34mm

100 meters = 31mm

500 meters = 21mm

750 meters = 17mm

1000 meters = 13mm

 

 

I don't know exactly why the M20 API-T has more penetration than both M2 AP and M8 API; some sources say the M20 was just the tracer counterpart to the M8, and should have had inferior penetration to both.

 

See here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?s=2f61da9926b097c25bdba298e560aeab&p=354995&postcount=12

 

Armour Piercing (AP) M2 (hard-steel core) 45.88g, 885m/s proof required penetration of 22mm RHA plate at 91m. Available pre-war, it was used extensively throughout the war until completely supplanted by M8 API.

 

Armour Piercing Incendiary (API) M8 (IM fill hard-steel core) 42g, 888m/s contained 0.9g IM (Incendiary Metal) compound. This burned far more fiercely than phosphorous and was estimated to be 2x as effective on a weight for weight basis. M8 API proof required minimum 90-95% of the performance of both the M2 AP and M1 I rounds. This was a pre-war design and was hurriedly put into production after combat reports from Europe were analysed in the first two years of the war. It started appearing in 1942 and was effectively standardised in Europe by the beginning of 1944.

 

Armour Piercing Incendiary Tracer (APIT) M20 (IM fill hard-steel core) 39.66g, 888m/s contained 0.9g IM (Incendiary Metal) compound. This was the trace partner of the M8 API. The trace cannister meant that the penetrator was shorter and lighter than the M8 API penetrator. It was expected that M20 APIT should penetrate with 90-95% of the M8 API performance however. Developed and issued alongside the M8 API.

 

So yeah... one source could be wrong, but I have no way of knowing which one /shrug

 

 

Another interesting tidbit:

 

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?s=b55fee50d8d91097f2b1e62cf7164c81&showtopic=9832&page=2#entry189251

 

The API/API-T first showed up in the ETO about late 1943 for the AAF. The fighter group (Col. Gresky's {spelling bad}) that did the quick change (a couple of days) from P-47's to P-51's was the first to use them. Kill rates went up with the use of API/API-T in pure belts, instead of the mixed belts of AP, Incendiary, & Ball.

From what I remember reading; until the supply of M8/M20 got built up, Fighter Group C.O.'s almost came to blows over who got the API.

 

They really loved their API!

[tx141 815]

Every plane suffers hit detection issues.  0.30 cal planes don't suffer it as badly because their bullets are doing significantly more damage per strike than they should be, the planes primarily running 0.30s are low tier (the issue is primarily exacerbated by speed, so slower planes have less problems with it), and they have trouble shooting beyond 300m anyways.  Cannons, on the flip side, are doing far more lethal damage to some planes than they should be while needing comparatively smaller numbers of shells hitting to do lethal damage (this is also historically accurate, cannons were more lethal per-shot than 0.50s).  When you have rounds such as the Mine in play, as well, and have DMs that allow single strikes or 2 or 3 strikes hitting the plane to cripple or kill it, it should come as no surprise that spraying the rounds will help correct the hit registration issues, but even cannons are adversely affected by it.

 

The problem is most important on 0.50 cal planes strictly because 0.50s need consistent shot placement, much like 0.30s, have a lower overall volume of fire than 0.30s, and are in tiers where registration problems become dominant, leading to the whole debate on P-51s being underpowered.

 

But, just because the problem is most obvious on higher tier 0.50 cal toting planes doesn't mean the problem doesn't affect every plane.  MK 108 toting planes will notice it due to their low velocity rounds especially, the M4/M10 37mm cannons of the P-39 and P-63 will notice it easily (how many times have I seen the rounds strike a tail for no damage...)  The list goes on.

 

It's an issue that affects every gun indiscriminately, but tends to not affect them equally due to how they combine with other mechanics.

 

Now, as for those sources, I would love to get them to you, but I don't have them handy.  I'll make sure to send the request to Cuteling though, he tends to have a much easier time finding sources than I do, and might have them handy.  It's worth noting, though, that the M20 round was more noteworthy for its ability to accurately follow the ballistic trajectory of the other rounds fired by the 0.50 cal.  They were in high demand because they pretty much were identical to the M2 and M8 rounds, ballistically speaking.  It just so happened that they also had more penetration (as a guess on my part, likely due to the extra weight of making it a tracer round to begin with, though I'm not well versed on the physics involved).  When I say they had more penetration, we're talking 22mm RHA at 100m versus 21 or 20mm RHA for a standard AP round.  It's by an inch, not a mile.  The thing that makes the belt so good is that it's strictly a belt of combined AP and Incendiary rounds, so you get all the penetration of one round, with all of the glorious fire of the other.  For the downside of having flamethrowers on your plane that are insanely obvious, making it easier for enemies to evade and so forth.  What's interesting, is, I haven't actually seen a source yet showing exclusive-M20 belts for any U.S. plane.  They might exist, I just haven't seen it (nevermind saved a link for it).

 

I understand your point on the hit detection issue. Thinking back, when I first got my P-63A-10, I used to engage bombers such as B-17s from 0.75km out with the 37mm Cannon and see the cannon shell spark off their main fuselage/tail to no effect. I just thought that I would need to get in closer to actually do some damage, and so I only usually now open fire with the 37mm (where possible) at less than 0.3km on any given target unless they are mid-stall.

 

I can see why 0.50 cals experience so much debate as to their effectiveness; they need to be applied consistently to get the best results whereas a 20mm Cannon shell can be more of a "one-hit wonder" (bit extreme, I know). 

 

I should really refer to yourself and Cuteling as the "War Thunder Librarians"! I would assume the extra weight due to the tracer component would add to the overall mass of the bullet and hence its effective force on target (assuming equal impact velocities for the numerous types of round fired from the same 0.50 cal machine gun).

 

I think you sell the Jug a bit short when comparing it to the Mustang.  Consider:

 

The P-47 had a better roll rate than any of its contemporaries except for the FW-190A/F series.

It had superior firepower to the Mustang in both air-to-air and air-to-ground role.

To get the extra range on the D Mustang, they had to add an extra fuel tank that adversely affected its stability and handling to such an extent that combat was prohibited until said tank was nearly empty.

As far as range that wasn't a design limitation of the Thunderbolt, considering they built the N variant for long-range use in the Pacific.

The Mustang also had problems initially considering they had to completely swap engines for it to be viable in the ETO.

 

I completely appreciate your sentiment. The difficulty I found when reading up on the P-47 in general was that the literature available to me never seemed to highlight the P-47D as serving a particular role, but rather switching between roles. I did not encounter any reference to the P-47 having a better roll rate than most of its contemporaries in the sources I used, yet I would be interested to check this out.

 

The problem with reviewing the P-47D in-game is that it is a plane which can, alike its historical counter-part, take on a number of roles effectively up to a given limit. As a result, what I am considering doing is taking my review a little further. The review I have provided has mainly been concentrated around the escort role. My intention is to unlock the P-47D-28 at a later date, and take this into BR 5.0 games to push the plane to the limit and compare it with the P-51D, as I know some pilots kept with the P-47 over the P-51 in the fighter role.

 

Additionally, I will probably amend a game into that review where I use the plane in the "Ground-Attack" role. It is an incredibly versatile plane, and that is something I cannot stress from a single 10-15 minute video. This is the only plane thus far (minus the Spitfire Mk. Vb) that I have found to be highly effective in a multitude of roles, and I was originally considering putting together a 30+ minute video to compensate for this, yet I decided against it for viewer engagement purposes.

 

I do feel as though I have let the legendary plane down a bit in this regard, and if I have let yourself, or anyone else down, I apologize and I will try to make up for this in the future when I re-review the plane.

[tx141 815]

Here we go: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

 

M2 AP = 19mm at 500 meters, 10mm at 1200 meters (and from the bottom of the page: 25.4mm at 200 meters, 17.8mm at 600 meters, 7.6mm at 1600 meters)

M8 API = 16mm at 500 meters, 8mm at 1200 meters

M20 = 21mm at 500 meters, 11mm at 1200 meters

 

 

Throwing that into a range/penetration calculation...

 

M2 API:

0 meters = 31mm

100 meters = 28mm

500 meters = 19mm

750 meters = 15mm

1000 meters = 12mm

 

M8 API:

0 meters = 26mm

100 meters = 23mm

500 meters = 16mm

750 meters = 13mm

1000 meters = 10mm

 

M20 API-T:

0 meters = 34mm

100 meters = 31mm

500 meters = 21mm

750 meters = 17mm

1000 meters = 13mm

 

 

I don't know exactly why the M20 API-T has more penetration than both M2 AP and M8 API; some sources say the M20 was just the tracer counterpart to the M8, and should have had inferior penetration to both.

 

See here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?s=2f61da9926b097c25bdba298e560aeab&p=354995&postcount=12

 

Armour Piercing (AP) M2 (hard-steel core) 45.88g, 885m/s proof required penetration of 22mm RHA plate at 91m. Available pre-war, it was used extensively throughout the war until completely supplanted by M8 API.

 

Armour Piercing Incendiary (API) M8 (IM fill hard-steel core) 42g, 888m/s contained 0.9g IM (Incendiary Metal) compound. This burned far more fiercely than phosphorous and was estimated to be 2x as effective on a weight for weight basis. M8 API proof required minimum 90-95% of the performance of both the M2 AP and M1 I rounds. This was a pre-war design and was hurriedly put into production after combat reports from Europe were analysed in the first two years of the war. It started appearing in 1942 and was effectively standardised in Europe by the beginning of 1944.

 

Armour Piercing Incendiary Tracer (APIT) M20 (IM fill hard-steel core) 39.66g, 888m/s contained 0.9g IM (Incendiary Metal) compound. This was the trace partner of the M8 API. The trace cannister meant that the penetrator was shorter and lighter than the M8 API penetrator. It was expected that M20 APIT should penetrate with 90-95% of the M8 API performance however. Developed and issued alongside the M8 API.

 

So yeah... one source could be wrong, but I have no way of knowing which one /shrug

 

 

Another interesting tidbit:

 

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?s=b55fee50d8d91097f2b1e62cf7164c81&showtopic=9832&page=2#entry189251

 

The API/API-T first showed up in the ETO about late 1943 for the AAF. The fighter group (Col. Gresky's {spelling bad}) that did the quick change (a couple of days) from P-47's to P-51's was the first to use them. Kill rates went up with the use of API/API-T in pure belts, instead of the mixed belts of AP, Incendiary, & Ball.

From what I remember reading; until the supply of M8/M20 got built up, Fighter Group C.O.'s almost came to blows over who got the API.

 

They really loved their API!

 

Thank you, I know what I will be spending my Sunday afternoon reading about now!  :)s

[SunsetShimmers 7,929]

Thank you, I know what I will be spending my Sunday afternoon reading about now!  :)s

 

You're welcome!

 

I'm doing a bit more searching for other penetration figures, but not having a much luck.

 

According to here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/33283805/MIL-C-3066B-Cartridges-50-Armor-Piercing-Incendiary-M8-and-APIT-M20-1969 both M8 and M20 were rated to penetrate at least 7/8th of an inch (22.225mm) at 100 yards range.

That doesn't indicate which round was superior, and according to the figures I extrapolated above, all 3 AP type rounds were capable of that, so it doesn't provide much more than a minimum figure.

 

 

Also, this would be an awesome pen: http://www.artfire.com/ext/shop/product_view/woodturner2/3952880/50_Caliber_M20_API-T_Bullet_Ballpoint_Pen_with_24kt_Gold_finish_146/Woodworking/Pens

[StasRaskolbas 8,397]

 

I do feel as though I have let the legendary plane down a bit in this regard, and if I have let yourself, or anyone else down, I apologize and I will try to make up for this in the future when I re-review the plane.

 

I wasn't complaining about your review, I was responding to Cuteling's post on how he argued the P-51 was a superior fighter. 

 

Basically I fly it like I would a Focke Wulf. 

 

The German version makes awesome money, too.

[Taranok 3,920]

I wasn't complaining about your review, I was responding to Cuteling's post on how he argued the P-51 was a superior fighter. 

 

Basically I fly it like I would a Focke Wulf. 

 

The German version makes awesome money, too.

 

Well, it was a superior fighter, in the same way the Pzkpfw IV was a superior tank to the Tiger.  The P-47, much like the P-38, was an expensive plane to produce.  It had better armor and armament than the P-51 (....both of them), but were more expensive to produce both in time and resources.  In actual comparison trials it was found that the P-47C's only real maneuverability advantage over the Mustang X (P-51B/C prototype) was its rate of roll.  Even the Mustang X could out-dive the P-47C.  Rate of roll is important, but not important enough to secure a plane's desirability.

 

It had other soft features, though, such as its legendary durability, its roomier cockpit, its lack of a water radiator, and its far more forgiving stall characteristics.  Not that the P-51 had bad stall characteristics, the P-47 was just better and gave more warning.  But when you can build nearly 2 mustangs for every 1 thunderbolt, it makes the t-bolt less desirable as your mainstay fighter, especially given the requirement for range.

 

Despite this, the P-47 and P-51, especially once the P-47's props were upgraded, were near-equals as fighters.  It's obvious the P-47 was a larger logistical drain that also had inferior range up until the N version, but it could still dogfight and toy with P-51s if it needed to.

 

<snip>

 

They really loved their API!

 

America clearly elected Trogdorr the Burninator as their president during WWII.

 

That said, those penetration values are interesting.  It contradicts what I know (well, one source does, though I jumped numbers anyways when I reported 500m pen values as 100, whoops :facepalm:) but that throws into doubt their actual penetration values, short of the incendiary metal increasing the penetrative capabilities due to their heat possibly plasticizing the metal or otherwise making it more fluid.  It's safe to assume they're "about the same," however.

[tx141 815]

I wasn't complaining about your review, I was responding to Cuteling's post on how he argued the P-51 was a superior fighter. 

 

Basically I fly it like I would a Focke Wulf. 

 

The German version makes awesome money, too.

 

Oh dear, sorry about that (Forum Problems!).  :lol:

[Taeya 90]

Nice videos! You should rate the planes out of 10 or something. Also, consider having a cool flashy intro, not a plane and your name xD.

 

I really like the historical background information.

 

You've earned a sub, well done!

Edited March 29, 2014 by DRAG0NFEU

[Renegade61 651]

Been subbed for a while (under my youtube account-Dano_UK) and know that tx doesn't make his videos for teaching purposes, as he states in almost all of them...he makes them purely as a casual,visual guide and offers his own personal opinions on each plane.
Rating planes out of 10 promotes the idea a person is an expert, tx knows he isn't and doesn't want or need his video and forum comments to end up full of criticizing and arguing! They're more "this is how i fly them...you fly them how you like!" kinda vid's. People just take what they want from them and add any knowledge or tactics gained into their own style of play.

I'm cool with that.....although yeah, i do hate the intro music! (I'm old and wear headphones....hurts! lol.)

[BlaZebura 3,688]

This seems interesting as I'm mainly an AB player

 

Are you going to do reviews for the Mustang MkIa and Tempest MkV?

 

Oh

And subbed ;D

Edited March 29, 2014 by BlazeWingbreaker

[JA_37D 718]

Yeah there were bunch of great-performing Fighter Groups using the P-47. Sounds like you mentioned the 56th FG which was called Zemke´s Wolfpack yes. :) But the 78th, among many others, were also racking up fame and kills.

(Robert S Johnson & "Gabby" Gabreski was in 56th - Robert´s book is another tip on a good read... ;)s :yes: )

[tx141 815]

Sorry for the delay in replying to your posts.

 

Nice videos! You should rate the planes out of 10 or something. Also, consider having a cool flashy intro, not a plane and your name xD.

 

I really like the historical background information.

 

You've earned a sub, well done!

 

Thank you, and thank you for subscribing.

 

I did originally consider a rating system, however, as mentioned in Renegade61's post, I am doing these videos as a guide to how I use each plane. I do not want to come across with a my way or the highway attitude, but rather provide an insight into a possible play-style for a given plane which you, or any other prospective viewer may currently enjoy, own, or wish to purchase in the near future.

 

To set the tone: I came to War Thunder from games such as Call of Duty and World of Tanks. I had never played any Flight-Sim (regardless of how realistic it is) prior to War Thunder, and so I had to learn the basics from day one. Everything I have learnt has been from my own personal reading and from simply playing the game, and so I want to try and reflect this in my content, hence the phrase I commonly state: What works for me may not work for you.

 

With regards to the intro, I will eventually try and put together a more enticing intro. I thought I would get to work on putting out my content first, and consider worry about the icing on the cake at a later date. In my next set of videos, I have cut the intro down even more, and changed the music to something with a faster pace. I am rather inexperienced with designing content in software such as Sony Vegas (I still make thumbnails using MS Paint!). If you have any suggestions, or want to put forward an intro (for free?), let me know.

 

I am glad to hear you enjoy the historical background. I thought I would add that in to balance out the videos a little bit, as I am a bit of a historical aficionado myself, especially with regards to the Second World War.

 

Once again, thank you for the feedback, I will do my best to maintain and improve my content when and where I can!  :)s

 

Been subbed for a while (under my youtube account-Dano_UK) and know that tx doesn't make his videos for teaching purposes, as he states in almost all of them...he makes them purely as a casual,visual guide and offers his own personal opinions on each plane.
Rating planes out of 10 promotes the idea a person is an expert, tx knows he isn't and doesn't want or need his video and forum comments to end up full of criticizing and arguing! They're more "this is how i fly them...you fly them how you like!" kinda vid's. People just take what they want from them and add any knowledge or tactics gained into their own style of play.

I'm cool with that.....although yeah, i do hate the intro music! (I'm old and wear headphones....hurts! lol.)

 

You hit the nail on the head there!

 

If you have any suggestions for more suitable intro music, please let me know, it is very difficult to find music which is non-copyrighted and easy to listen to.

 

Thank you for the feedback as always  :)s

 

This seems interesting as I'm mainly an AB player

 

Are you going to do reviews for the Mustang MkIa and Tempest MkV?

 

Oh

And subbed ;D

 

Thank you and thank you for subscribing.

 

It is quite amazing how little Youtube content there is for AB.

 

With regards to the Tempest Mk. V, eventually (I only unlocked the Typhoon Mk. Ib/Late last month), whilst the Mustang Mk. IA is a more uncertain prospect. I am nearing the possibility of a partnership, and since I am doing this as a hobby rather than for monetary intentions, I thought I would use any money I earn from this to purchase highly requested Premium Planes and review them. I do not intend to spend any money on War Thunder merely because it is a free-to-play game, and I am quite happy to grind away and take things slowly.

 

I hope my response has not disappointed you.  :)s

 

Yeah there were bunch of great-performing Fighter Groups using the P-47. Sounds like you mentioned the 56th FG which was called Zemke´s Wolfpack yes. :) But the 78th, among many others, were also racking up fame and kills.

(Robert S Johnson & "Gabby" Gabreski was in 56th - Robert´s book is another tip on a good read... ;)s :yes: )

 

Aye, Zemke's Wolfpack was the group that came to my mind! 

 

I will be sure to check Robert's book out.

 

And here is a thought...for a milestone video I would love to form up a squad of P-47s  and see what carnage our little wolf-pack could cause in AB (or RB for that matter)! 

 

Thank you as always.  :salute: