DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion

With a boom-n-zoomer you’ll want all 8 guns anyways... you wanna hit them hard and fast and start your zoom climb.

With a boom-n-zoomer you’ll want all 8 guns anyways... you wanna hit them hard and fast and start your zoom climb.

yeah for sure. and if i wanted a plane with only 6 50s i would fly the pony :lol:

NEVER, have I EVER heard of guns being removed from a P-47 in the combat zones. The 8 fifties were one of the planes biggest assets. Why the Hell would anyone do that?

NEVER, have I EVER heard of guns being removed from a P-47 in the combat zones. The 8 fifties were one of the planes biggest assets. Why the Hell would anyone do that?

Esports, air quake.

those 8 fifties will be lovely in ground and train smashing for me anyway

If the .50s in the P4D7 perform anything like the .50s in the P51D then they are not going to be very good.

If the .50s in the P4D7 perform anything like the .50s in the P51D then they are not going to be very good.

I have varying results - sometimes I pepper a guy for ages and nowt much seems to happen, others a single solid burst can cause a catastrophic failure.

Much depends on convergence, and concentrating a large number of shots in a focused area.

Having said that, that is the realistic compromise of a heavy machine gun round vs a cannon, you sacrifice stopping power of an individual shell for a combination of rate of fire/combined weight of fire.

However that requires the pilot to be able to land enough rounds in a given small area that allows the rate/weight concentration to be effective. This requires a good understanding of your convergence pattern, where it is most effective, what the target should look like depending on aspect when it's at convergence range, how adjust your aim for when the target is not at optimum convergence range and then top that off with calculating the correct lead for the targets aspect.

There is a famous gun camera film of a P-47 saddled behind a Fw-190, apparently wounded/damaged as the pilot makes no attempt to evade, and we see the Jug bobbing around well under convergence range unable to stabilise for a good shot but firing nonetheless and predictably he ends up peppering but not getting any concentrated bursts on the 190. None of these individual hits seems to cause much apparent damage, certainly not enough to bring the 190 down.

On the flip side you see footage of Fw-190s and 109s attacked that look far better set up for the convergence range which suffer catastrophic damage when a concentrated pattern of fire can be sustained during a good tracking shot.

I think the new damage model will help somewhat but I also suspect you're over endowing the .50s capabilities on a single hit basis.

NEVER, have I EVER heard of guns being removed from a P-47 in the combat zones. The 8 fifties were one of the planes biggest assets. Why the Hell would anyone do that?

Taking off 1-2 guns won't take much weight off the Jug. It weighs as much as some bombers. Even if the weight does come off the wings. The old gal is pretty plump.

There was multiple set for the armement.

Heard about US planes with less gun but more ammo per gun for long flight.

Heard about some with a switch added as field modification. Pilots have the ability to shoot all guns, or to shut down 4 of them to save their ammo for later. (heard about that for lot of different US fighter planes).

Heard again about training squadron that used only 4 guns (but maybe not somthing that interrest lot of people).

But as I didn't read lot of books about US P47 pilots, I didn't have precise information about this. But as I'm more interrested for campaign and realist mission than going on burning skies for only quick dogfight, I think it could be a great feature for this plane (and maybe more).

It's a dream, but DCS would became a lovely WW2 sim if we had a complete gun managment (choice of the gun and their number, choice of the ammo, choice of the convergence of each guns ...)

This image had as legend : training P47 with only 4 guns.

http://368thfightergroup.com/P-47-armament.html

Yes, it was a common practice in training squadrons in the States. That's why I made sure that I put "combat zones" in my post.

Yes that's why I add that it's probably something that wouldn't interrest people here.

But the 4 guns with more ammo or the "field modified" with the possibility to use half guns to save ammo for later in the 4 other would be a good thing. Not for short dogfight like on BS server. But for long mission, it would be great addition.

perform anything like the .50s

I'm a groundpounder and I routinely destroy even light armor (BMPs, BRDMs and such) with the .50s. So nothing wrong with them as far as I've noticed.

A more likely culprit IMO is the plane DMs not being up to par, and MP network packet losses may play a part as well. But there's nothing wrong with the guns / ammo per se that I can see at least.

I have varying results - sometimes I pepper a guy for ages and nowt much seems to happen, others a single solid burst can cause a catastrophic failure.

 

Much depends on convergence, and concentrating a large number of shots in a focused area.

 

Having said that, that is the realistic compromise of a heavy machine gun round vs a cannon, you sacrifice stopping power of an individual shell for a combination of rate of fire/combined weight of fire.

 

However that requires the pilot to be able to land enough rounds in a given small area that allows the rate/weight concentration to be effective. This requires a good understanding of your convergence pattern, where it is most effective, what the target should look like depending on aspect when it's at convergence range, how adjust your aim for when the target is not at optimum convergence range and then top that off with calculating the correct lead for the targets aspect.

 

There is a famous gun camera film of a P-47 saddled behind a Fw-190, apparently wounded/damaged as the pilot makes no attempt to evade, and we see the Jug bobbing around well under convergence range unable to stabilise for a good shot but firing nonetheless and predictably he ends up peppering but not getting any concentrated bursts on the 190. None of these individual hits seems to cause much apparent damage, certainly not enough to bring the 190 down.

 

On the flip side you see footage of Fw-190s and 109s attacked that look far better set up for the convergence range which suffer catastrophic damage when a concentrated pattern of fire can be sustained during a good tracking shot.

 

I think the new damage model will help somewhat but I also suspect you're over endowing the .50s capabilities on a single hit basis.

From my experience its shooting from behind that is the problem. I can take them down quickly from side/top/below but from behind they absorb so much fire.

I made this video to show what I am talking about:

It seems you have to shoot them so much that the rear section of the aircraft comes off. Anything less and they keep flying at the same speed as if they were undamaged.

Yes, being at convergence range helps a lot. I agree that cannons are more effective but I do think that the .50s may be under performing a bit.

the .50s may be under performing a bit

I'm pretty certain they're not. See my post above. It's the DM.

From my experience its shooting from behind that is the problem. I can take them down quickly from side/top/below but from behind they absorb so much fire.

 

 

 

I made this video to show what I am talking about:

 

 

It seems you have to shoot them so much that the rear section of the aircraft comes off. Anything less and they keep flying at the same speed as if they were undamaged.

 

 

 

Yes, being at convergence range helps a lot. I agree that cannons are more effective but I do think that the .50s may be under performing a bit.

I think guns are good.

P51 pilots complain and complain but this is the same issues on both side. Some P51 and Spit do exactly the same as the Bf 109 you showed (but less as we have 20mm and 30mm canon). But still, sometimes we see allies plane take lot of damage and still flies.

Today you can hit every planes and down them in few rounds. Or you can shoot everything at them and see them flying like nothing happen even if there are holes everywhere.

I don't think it's a gun problem. But only the fact that some parts of planes have only 3D/visual damage model. So wathever the gun is good or not, if there is no internal damage modelisation yet, guns will not do anything.

We just have to wait and see for the release of DM. After the toppic of gun effectiveness will be interresting. But still, I think they are good now and the problem come from planes damage modelisation itself.

I do not think it's as difficult as most players say, I think the convergence setting, which is the distance and the range of the target, is important.Maybe more with the p51 D.

Before complaining it should be sure that a bug exists.It is not by playing five minutes to miss everything that can describe a programming problem, even if many players report that.The practice and Training is more important than casual play.

Been doing allot of testing. I’ve come to a personal conclusion that it’s all about shot placement and volley of fire. Especially .50cals. I think currently the damage model is at its best in each aircraft until new damage model comes out.

It seems to me much more systems are modeled and become inoperable do to damage which is a cool thing.

At first it seemed the 109 an iron ass but doing repeated drills with p51 you must be within the convergence settings and get a good volley in the right spot. Same goes against a p51, you can pew pew all day hitting non vital systems but need to hit the vital areas to take it down instantly.

Anyways look forward to jug and new damage model, lots of penetration taking out systems will indeed be fun:thumbup:

based on the quality of the recent fw190A8 I can't wait for the P-47

I really hope we get the possibility to set the convergence in the planes in future updates. That is really one of the things I really miss from Cliffs of Dover.

I really hope we get the possibility to set the convergence in the planes in future updates. That is really one of the things I really miss from Cliffs of Dover.

different convergence for each gun please:)

different convergence for each gun please:)

Yes, like in Cliffs (where you can decide how your belts should be loaded), that would be best, but even a general setup would be a big improvement over how it is now (is there any convergence at all in for example the Spit?).

to set the convergence

Well that's a controversial one. We had a debate about it a while ago, and I think the conclusion was that it wouldn't be realistic since it wasn't done on a whim IRL either.

I really hope we get the possibility to set the convergence in the planes in future updates. That is really one of the things I really miss from Cliffs of Dover.

Well that's a controversial one. We had a debate about it a while ago, and I think the conclusion was that it wouldn't be realistic since it wasn't done on a whim IRL either.

It is historically correct. Lot of pilots set personalised convergence.

See here, I made a post with some sources that explain it :

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4016715&postcount=28

So yes, It's a feature missing for a true ww2 sim lover.

And for the ammo belt personnalisation is again correct historically. That's not something that you can find information a lot, but I can remember that IL2 1946 add an easter egg related to this. If you name your pilot with the name of a particular aces andtake a particular model of planes, they replace the ammo with only AP or incendiary (don't remember) as the pilot had done during WW2. And because of his special belt and his abilities he became an aces.

Couldn't remember if it was a dutch or a norvegian.

And because of his special belt and his abilities he became an aces

Anyway, don't worry you wouldn't be one of those IRL but the one being killed the very first day like many more, so no special ammo belts for you :lol::lol::lol:.

S!

I don't think ammo belts had nothing to do with become an ace back in the day or not.

 

 

Anyway, don't worry you wouldn't be one of those IRL but the one being killed the very first day like many more, so no special ammo belts for you :lol::lol::lol:.

 

 

S!

In late war the major thing required to become Ace was actually seeing the german plane :P

Rest was just shooting targets of opportunity.For example some german civilian trying to flee from burning town in motor vehicle :P

It is historically correct.

Yeah, it was done at least occasionally. But how common was it is another question altogether.

I don't think ammo belts had nothing to do with becoming an ace back in the day or not.

 

 

Anyway, don't worry you wouldn't be one of those IRL but the one being killed the very first day like many more, so no special ammo belts for you :lol::lol::lol:.

 

 

S!

I wasn't complete enough. He became acein 1 flight. As he use only one kind of round that was particularly effective on german plane, he was capable of destroying enough plane in one day to get ace score.

Yeah, it was done at least occasionally. But how common was it is another question altogether.

Occasionally or not, it is somthing that was done. So to be a correct ww2 flight sim, DCS should add this feature.