Thunderbolts

[cephian]

What? The P-47 Thunderbolt a flying tank??? McGinn you didn't tell me you toked it up!! Seriously I mean the Thunderbolt was the worse fighter plane that could have been developed by the Allies during World War 2. It's a black mark against American ingenuity to be honest. That thing should have never been able to fly.

You see the reason it's not a flying tank is because we (the Allied nations) won World War 2 and thus were the ones who got to write (or right) history as it should and shall forever be known on the subject. The military leaders and historians of the time knew this fact and collaborated together to write history otherwise to make the Thunderbolt look better than what it really was, a flying piece of c-r-a-p.

Yes I'm saying that history tells us the P-47 Thunderbolt was an awesome piece of machinery but otherwise a flying piece of junk fondly known as a "Jug".

If you don't believe me ask Phil from Battlefront. Scoutsout tried to express the same points you did but alas Phil is God and what God says goes until God see's his faults. However he's God so it's a moot point.

Remember not to be so greedy, it's puff-puff-pass!

[Tiger505]

Shakes his head sadly pondering why this Pandora`s box has been reopened.

[mcginn]

Hmm. An interesting point. I'll not waste anyone's time then. Any suggestions on some good research areas? I got my info from www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47.html. I know its a .com but they had some impressive citation. They seemed to give some pretty good accounts of how survivable they were and also they say that 0.7 percent of dispatched P-47s were destroyed.

[scoutsout]

Oh my God in Heaven! Was that sarcasm from Bill? From Bill? Sarcasm?

McGinn...he's messing with you...About a year ago I went on a rant and challenged Phil's take on this over on the Battlefront forums. He was dismissive of me, my points, and my suggestions. His explanation was that since there is no evidence that a "Jug" ever finished an attack run after taking a hit (despite several examples I and others laid out for him) and wasn't designed from the ground up to attack ground targets, the P-47 didn't rate "Flying Tank". Furthermore, it doesn't get rockets because the American rockets (the same ones the Brit Typhoons used, btw) were highly inaccurate, based on one account that Phil remembered reading but couldn't quote.

Hence the beginning of my disenchantment with Phil of Battlefront's expertise as a game designer.

Now, did I ever tell you how I feel about smoke missions in the game? How bout the interweaving of platoons on the defence....

-David

[cephian]

Sorry McGinn my bad but you know how I am. Just picture my facial expressions and going at it with Chuckles.

David please do tell whats up with the smoke and intermixed platoons? (cackle)

[mcginn]

I more removed it since I'd been told its a hot button issue around here and I didn't want to start trouble. Also the accounts I read are all from websites, I just dont know which books are reliable to buy.

[mcginn]

Well now that we've got one started I'll just say that my original post was a question asking why Thunderbolts don't have flying tank. Now I want to ask for a comparison from some of those with flying tank, then segue nicely into a conversation about weapons systems and American fighter support choices. So as far as I know the IL-2 Shurmovik did indeed have quite a bit of armor plating, but all my sources agree that despite Stalin's insistence that IL-2s were "as important to the RKKA as bread" they were largely ineffective even when against the most sparse Luftwaffe resistance. Now its just a game, and I like it as a game not as a simulation, that's just my opinion however. But the IL-2 Shturmovik only had armor plating on the front. I read a couple of accounts that stated Shtraf batallions were attached to the red air force and that they were put in the rear gunner seat in the IL-2, this compartment did not have armor plating, only the pilot benefited from the increased protection. I can't find anything reliable to tell me the armor plating of the IL-2 but sources say it was pretty substantial. The Thunderbolt on the other hand was a fighter-bomber, and it mystifies me as to why they would say "It was not designed as a ground fighter" then turn around and write about the German fear of the American "Jabos" (Jaeger-Bombers, the term Jaeger is used interchangeably as a way of saying both fighter and hunter). I read something that talks about 3/8" armor plating on the Thunderbolt, and the source above talks about how the requirements issued when commissioning the XP-47 required an armored thingypit. The rockets thing...I don't know all my research indicates that the HVARs were a pretty good delivery system and 6000 AFVs destroyed is a hefty number. I also seem to recall an account from a german tanker where the machineguns on a group P-47s ripped their tanks apart. My profile signature is actually a testament to the effectiveness of western air. Lastly the support choices are quite strange to me. Here I delve into the realm of not having any sources but I'm pretty sure that the P-51D when equipped with fuel tanks was able to interdict targets after escorting bombers. Also in Afrika we can opt for the P-38 lightning but it is conspicuously absent. Okay, this is my favorite plane of the war, I gotta be honest here. It's service was more as a reconnaissance plane but it did fly ground missions throughout Normandy and France. Since they aren't going to give the Thunderbolt rockets, at least the P-38 has a cannon...it also has rockets but apparently Phil hates American planes. I know it was more effective in the PTO but still it did fight in the ETO. As fas as smoke goes, hey I totally agree, from a realism standpoint and a game design standpoint. I used to play infinity which had thick terrain and you could drop smoke anywhere. They even had a race which didn't have access to smoke and they balanced out fine (granted its a future Sci-fi game with visors that allow the figures to see in different spectra which allowed them to see through smoke).

[buthrakaur]

Stuka, Stuka, Stuka!

If you get Flying Tank for P-47s, I want my special rules for Stukas.

On any turn you roll for air and fail to have any show up, roll a D6. On a 1-5, you loose the ability to call for air for the rest of the game, because the pilots bucked on getting in those POS's.

Oh, and lets be honest. Sure, the P-47 should have flying tank, the american AA track should not have akward layout, and several other discrepencies. However, fix the big two that are not only historical issues, but game play issues as well. AOP's do not work in the system as written, and neither do flamethrowers. Granted, everyone complains to BF and these have not been fixed yet, but look what all the Fin-Heads got. They wined and wined and got one of the most rediculous, un-historical, and un-balanced lists yet.

[mcginn]

My concerns are more game balance than history...though there are certainly osme historical issues there. My point is that Americans didn't have heavy tanks. This pershing stuff I keep hearing is fairly irrelevant to me. As we are fighting through Europe to Germany we had to have a way of dealing with German tanks. By accounts this was taken care of by our air superiority that the planners knew we would need during and after D-day. Throughout Cobra we were hitting the germans hard. Lehr was really cut down by bombing efforts alone. Heck, our bombing runs were so effective we managed to kill the highest ranking American officer killed during the war >.> . Look at the Bulge, Germany shoots out with effective tank companies and due to the poor weather we aren't able to fly interdiction and are left with only our ground soldiers to fight them off. Given those guys did extraordinary things there and all. Here is my game balance point, Americans should have something to level the playing field. After having played both Soviets and Germans and now turning my attentions to Americans I can see the issues. The Germans have fantastic tanks with special rules to make them great, they are also veteran. These guys are fine, I think Germans are a good solid balanced army. Soviets have great air support in the IL-2 and ISU-122s and the T-34/85. They are only trained and have a lot of rules that hold back their enormous formations such as hen and chicks. Pretty fair I'd say, maybe a couple of issues but alright. I think we all know about the British, British rifle lists are fantastic and to be honest there is really no reason to run British armored since you can get almost as many tanks with rifles. Their special rules for their big artillery batteries do not rely on a roll to go off, if you range in you get it as long as you have 6 guns or more. Americans, they get 76mm shermans which aren't near as good as the T-34/85 because they dont have the numbers and are just a tad worse than the Firefly. Their M10 is also not on par with the 17 pdr gun in the british M10s. Artillery...ahh what a fantastic bunch of rules. Except that we need to range in on our first attempt to get it. The guns are a little better than the QQF25 pdr in the bombardment, but we have got to rely on a roll for that special rule to go off. You made some great points to me before Buthrakaur, you made the observation that Americans are weak because they are a version of the soviets with less infantry as far as their rifles and are a version of british artillery without the big batteries and special rules. So all I'm saying here is that Americans are a little behind the power curve for the following reasons and they need something to help them. So long as we are going for a bit of historical accuracy why not improve their air cover? The plane...one plane...that we have to choose from doesn't have decent weapon systems and gets shot down easily. Meanwhile dot Soviet Union has ISU-122s on the ground and in the air and more T-34/85s than you can shake a stick at. I wouldn't say that I'm whining because I really like Americans, honestly I do. I'm just saying that maybe they need to be reevaluated. Let's face it anyway, Air is something else that depends on a roll and I think I've made it clear that I'm not a fan of relying on rolls. This post is less about trying to get the game changed than discussing game balance in an intelligent and unhostile manner. Thoughts?

[knightofzero]

Here Andrew is trying to make a valid point, and Buthrakaur comes in with a flame post! And not only did you have to flame a single American player for suggesting a little change to the game, but you have to flame my Finns as well! So after you're done shooting down Andrew's posts, why don't you tell me how my Finns are the most broken thing ever made by BF?

And just to let you know, my Finns with the new list have won maybe two games, and lost twice that; and in one of those I had the cool albeit broken Motti rule. The only reason I beat Andrew a few weeks back was because of really bad luck on his part and really good luck on mine, but then I get yelled at for having a broken list that had 5 AT12 guns (3 T-34/85 and 2 PaK40) and 3 Stugs. HOW IS THAT BROKEN?? OOOhhh, look at my FV infantry stands and my sparse AT gun platoons and my tank platoons of 3 effective tanks (the crappier tanks can get more) and my "super awesomely broken movement rules" and my "super fantastic artillery range in device."

Ok, so I may have just sounded like an ass, but I am confused at why everybody except Warren has accused the Finns of being broken.

[Tiger505]

Tank for Tank the US 76MM is better than a T34 85. AT 12 stablalizers, Protected ammo and a 50cal =) The only draw back is one platoon. US armor tactics relie on the melee. You have to close down and fight inside the other guys formations to kill anyones heavys. The thing with the US is that you have use all of its tools correctly because with its flexablity comes a step learning curve. If anything it struggles against infantry just like British and German Medium armor lists. I Consider any medium armor list other than the Cromwell horde and the Tankovy to have problems against Infantry.

The Finns are really just another FV infantry list in the mold of US, Brit, or FJ. Large FV infantry units with highly limited armor support.

[mcginn]

Yes I admit that is true, but in my post I specifically laid out numbers as why they aren't as good as T-34/85s. Again, I'm not saying they are bad, just behind curve. I do agree too, I think Finns are okay, definitely more powerful than they used to be, but still pretty balanced on an other rule read through.

[cdebeer156]

I want to go on record by saying that Chris soundly beat me with tactics. The list had flaws and I exploited them such as killing the ISU-152 and the other tanks. Chris drew me into the forest where his T-34/85 ambushed my tigers and his pioneers assaulted me. I lost to him because I made pitiful mistakes and he exploited him.


Saying that I still want to whine about losing. He broke me bad. Waaaaaa....

[buthrakaur]

Knightofzero accuses me of flaming, wow, what comes next? The American lists have a lot of strength, just not a lot of variation. US Armored Rifles are one of the best lists once you learn the steep curve, and so are boat weasels. However, this is not what Mcginn posted about, nor what I replied to, and par usual, Knightofzero posts some off topic BS as if he thinks he is Dagrinch or something.

Knightofzero, you need to grow up, learn to read, and garner some comprehension skills. Half the people, including myself, that used to enjoy HT on Sundays avoid it like the plague, and that plague is you. Have an issue with the truth, fine, reply with some more dribble. All I do is sit back and laugh at every stupid, misguided, assinine thing you type.

[knightofzero]

I'm not avoiding the truth, I was asking a question. And I already apologized for sounding like an ass, because yes I did sound like an ass. It was all in an effort to get at least one answer out of at least one person. And I apologize if I misread the rest of your post as sarcasm; and I'm not DaGrinch.

And I want to ask another question; I'm a plague? I've been coming to HT regularly for the past few months, and I've only brought Finns in the last month. And in all these months, I've only seen you come once, that time being the paint and take. So how can you avoid me if you've never played me.

Now I admit that I definitely threw the proverbial fuel on this fire, but you should know me first before accusing everything I say as asinine. I am also not an imbecile who spouts dribble all over the internet, so please talk to me like an intelligent adult and we can resolve this.