Let's talk about old aircraft. Some of these stats on wikipedia and in pop-media don't make a lick of sense. I was on Youtube and somebody posted a comparison of aircraft and their relative max speeds and it listed the P51 Mustang as the fastest from that area at 481 mph. On Wikipedia, that number is much humbler at 440 mph. Clearly there was some inflation going on- but actually Wikipedia is inflating too. The numbers bear that out. Compare the Lavochkin 7 to the P51D Mustang:>La7 Empty weight: 2,638 kg (5,816 lb)>P51 Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,463 kg)>La7 Gross weight: 3,315 kg (7,308 lb)>P51 Gross weight: 9,200 lb (4,173 kg)>La7 Powerplant: 1 × Shvetsov ASh-82FN 14-cylinder, two-row, air-cooled radial, 1,380 kW (1,850 hp)>P51 Powerplant: 1 × Packard (Rolls-Royce) V-1650-7 Merlin 12-cylinder liquid cooled engine, 1,490 hp (1,110 kW) at 3,000 rpm;[175] 1,720 hp (1,280 kW) at WEPDrag should be nearly equal. The Soviet La7 is using a slightly more bulbous radial engine against the P51s slimmer counterpart, but the wingspan on the P51 is longer. Notice the WEP for moment being listed. Also notice that the P51D is given a range of "1,650 mi (2,660 km, 1,434 nmi) with external tanks"- the non-drop tank number is not listed in the stats block while the La7 is given "Range: 665 km (413 mi, 359 nmi) (1944 model)". This happens constantly with WW2 craft online: American planes are given the optional drop tank number, sometimes even using more modern post-war fuels, while other nations are left with maximum load combat ranges weighed down with armaments.
Let's go back to WEP for a moment and read this excerpt on the Soviet Klimov VK-107A/B engines. Those Klimovs were extremely advanced, lightweight, and high power output. Whenever America loses out on pure metrics there's one recurring piece of propaganda that is thrown out at as an immediate reaction: attack reliability and insinuate that American reliability was flawless. You can test this yourself in AI by simulating tank combat. Go through different nations, provide numbers and type of tanks. Save America for last. When you have the Germans or Soviets or whoever go up against the Americans, AIs like Copilot will start assigning reliability losses before contact is even made, usually accounting for 10% of immediate enemy casualties. That will happen with you soliciting it, especially in fights that are deeply unfavorable to, say, Shermans for example.Now remember WEP? That's wartime emergency power. It is supposed to be used for no more than 15 minutes at a time because it degrades engine life by overcharging them thermally. Here is how that advanced Klimov VK107 is described on Wikipedia: "The engine was not well liked by either pilots or mechanics – it had a life expectancy of only 25 hours and war emergency power was almost never used for fear of decreasing this even more.".The problem is that articles will describe that Soviets could not operate an engine more than 25 hours, as if it were standard, but WEP would never last more than 15 minutes for any faction's engines. There is no source given for a 25 hour conventional lifespan and the opposite is actually reported in wartime memoirs.The bottom line? Almost all American engineering from the wartime period is bullshit, up to and including even foreign craft because those will inevitably be compared. We can only imagine what the actual k/d battle boxes would be.
>AIOkay brownoid
>>651681655th generation vet with ancestors who fought in the Revolution, War of 1812, and for the Union in the Civil War. Both great grandfathers fought in WW2- one in the PI, the other in Europe.And if a brown person called out obvious fake disinfo, that person would be correct.
>AIThese images came out circa ~2010 btw. If they're AI, then the State department was leaking them 15 years too soon.
>>65168138Didn't the mustang get pretty beat up until its Merlin engine and drop tank upgrades? And how didn't people in charge of judging guncam footage acknowledge how poor CAS was actually performing?
>>65168180Mustangs from A-H were all decent to good aircraft. If you're an American pilot, you couldn't do much better. My problem is that there is obvious inflation of statistics and blatantly falsified information regarding performance parameters on all sides. It's clearly propaganda, even if it actually was a pretty good aircraft.It probably ranks parallel to German and Soviet designs from 1942, so it's a fitting aircraft in the year it was released. By 1944 there are too many better options abroad. Still better than most of what the Japanese had and certainly better than anything the Italians had, but not where the Germans nor Soviets were at with their conventional designs. The attempt to dress it up like a wonder weapon that stayed wonderful from 1942 all the way to 1945 is an exercise in insanity.
>>65168174Sure thing saar
>>65168138All Allied pilots who flew the P51D acknowledged its superiority to all preceding designs. Soviet sources are suspect because for the last 100 years they have always published information with an eye towards Western readers. As such even their own researchers and historians distrust their own documents. Wikipedia and Youtube are both lousy sources and if you're pretending to be an actual historian you should KYS for citing them.The only point I will allow is that actually P47 Thunderbolts killed the bulk of the Luftwaffe during the early 1944 air campaign, although the P51 Mustang is always cited as the alleged war winner because bomber escort yadda yadda. When those pivotal battles were being fought, only a couple of P51Ds Mustang had just been introduced to the European theatre.>>65168141>articles will describe that Soviets could not operate an engine more than 25 hours, as if it were standard, but WEP would never last more than 15 minutes for any faction's engines.Irrelevant. These are 2 separate factors entirely. The fact that you don't seem to have realised this casts a lot of doubt on your methodology.>the opposite is actually reported in wartime memoirs.Such as? Quote the text and cite the source.
>>65168138the '51 had a laminar flow wing, that the Lavochikin lacked, and also was getting significant thrust from it's cooling system.It was a far more technologically advanced aircraft than you seem to know. >The bottom line? Almost all American engineering from the wartime period is bullshit, up to and including even foreign craft because those will inevitably be compared. We can only imagine what the actual k/d battle boxes would be.Someone is obviously butthurt over being waxed by P-51's in Wartchunder.
>>65168138Aerospace is inherently one of the most physically complex topics known to man. It's very misleading to try and deduce an airframe's performance from simple metrics like horsepower and top speed. This simplified information is so often wrong because 99% of people discussing it have never cracked open a flight manual let alone studied aerospace engineering formulae.Air density altitude, differing fuel energy density, manifold pressure settings, operational interval between engine rebuilds - the list of confounding factors goes on and on and the people in charge of collating these fast facts frequently chose to measure them using different standards even within the same nation or over slightly different but consequential periods of time. This leads to all sorts of weirdness, like expert pilots achieving better than standard/published ranges via experiential knowledge of advanced carburetor mixture leaning techniques.There is no easy way to solve this problem - anyone wishing to become informed on the topic must at minimum seek the official flight manuals when available and then identify and reconcile their differences in procedure or measurement, turn to CAD simulation and materials science to approximate a comprehensive evaluation of them, or else perform original research to locate any surviving primary source archival wind tunnel and flight test data. Armchair aces can rarely be assed to put in such effort.
>>65168138see >>65168225>"Let's talk aircraft!">"Wikipedia says..."Read a fucking book and learn about the campaigns they were used in. That will give you inifintely more knowledge than whatever it is you're now doing.
>>65168269I have,but I'm looking at engineering specs and quick fact data.>>65168225You're making a million excuses around the fact. You can just look at the numbers and see that popular sources are blatantly lying. All variables are easily accounted for. This is the modern American version of+2=5.
>>65168484You're looking for quick specs when they're going to always be at least somewhat arbitrary and misleading. Then bitch when their not arbitrary in the way you like or simply include extra data.
>>65168609You can look up the altitudes and HP ratings. All of this is quite structured - there's no mystery here. You can see propaganda creep and blatantly deceptive claims.
>>65168638And that's what you should be looking at instead of Wikipedia or AI which are likely just going to push whatever they get their hands on. Any set of uniform conditions for a single maximum speed value are going to cater to certain aircraft and not be available for others.
>>65168484>all variables are easily accounted forIf you have authoritative sources for which Soviet fighter squadrons had operational access to B-100, B-95, or lend-lease Shell RDE/F/90 instead of B-89 avgas at any given month, we and the larger historic community would love to know.It's not just about the octane rating and consequent allowable manifold pressure, the difference in blends weighing 6lb/gal vs 6.25lb/gal will also affect rate of climb, range, center of mass and thus control surface authority - all from altering one tiny piece of the overall performance equation. The UK and US were the only powers with the luxury of consistent fuel quality from factory to frontline - for anyone else it's yet another variable creating disparity between the design calculations, flight tests, and real-world performance.
The P-51H had a top speed of 470-487 mph depending on the source you cite. It was the last official mustang variant, about 500 of them were built for the battle of Tokyo, but it's unknown if any saw combat. It was probably the fastest prop-driven fighter around in any significant quantity and actually operational. The standard late-war mustang variant, the P-51D, had a top speed of 437-440 mph, which still made it faster than the vast majority of prop-driven fighters in front line service. As for why it's faster than the La-7, the answer should be obvious: it is a superior plane in almost every way. Better craftsmanship, higher quality materials, a level of quality control higher than not at all, better pilots who knew how to get the most out of the plane, and a more efficient production line. And other important factors in addition to that: 1. They were optimized for high-altitude flight, and aircraft go faster at high altitude.2. They could maintain their high altitudes longer, because they had phenomenal endurance. Even without drop tanks the operational range was between 1150-1300 miles which blows the La-7 out of the water3. Its radiator produced an additional 375lbs of thrust via the Meredith effect through clever design. It was a superior aircraft in every way, its designers did more with less, and were primarily motivated by making a fantastic airplane rather than by fear of getting gulag'd.
>>65168184>My problem is that there is obvious inflation of statistics and blatantly falsified information regarding performance parametersYeah by Russians.La-5FN max speed is quoted everywhere as 648 km/h. But during Soviet trials when they took aircrafts from combat units and tested them no one exceeded 600 km/h. That was in 1944.
>>65168198>The only point I will allow is that actually P47 Thunderbolts killed the bulk of the Luftwaffe during the early 1944 air campaign, although the P51 Mustang is always cited as the alleged war winner because bomber escort yadda yadda.P51 played key role in the early 1944 USAF offensive that buck broke Luftwaffe (2 month, February-March when decisive battle happened). Main bulk of escorts continued to be P-47 but they lacked range to cover (with enough fuel left for air combat) bombers at max range. This is where P-51 stepped in. It was first time when USAF could cover bombers over entire range deep into the Reich.
>>65168138What's burning in puuccya?
>>65168198Stop feeding the troll please.
>>65168638Would you buy a CPU solely based on clock frequency and Dhrystone benchmark reports?
In an era when industrial standards and manufacturing tolerances were still lax, and parts required careful fitting, there must have been individual differences in engine performance. In this respect, American production management technology was superior, and problems were likely fewer.In Japan, a major problem arose when a carefully crafted engine for testing the successor to the Zero fighter only achieved 60% of its nominal performance.
>>65168995>This is where P-51 stepped inThey didn't have enough squadrons to make that big a difference. P47s did more of the killing.
>>65169350Important point that bombers were covered all the way.If no cover at some part Germans would simply transfer fighters and concentrate their fighter attacks in that area. They already did that. As USAF concentrated bombers and fighters in a single rwidd to overwhelm fighters defenses Germans did the same. They started to concentrate fighters in one large "death ball" before commiting to attack runs. They had group of fighters following bomber box, with more and more fighters joining from airfields all around untill they get giant "death ball" that was unleashed at once against bomber box. Kinda fight fire with fire.
>>65168730>The P-51H had a top speed of 470-487 mph depending on the source you cite.Look at the drag ratios/coefficients, the weight of the aircraft with or without fuel and weapons, and all engine types- then compare those metrics to late Soviet and German aircraft. It doesn't make any fucking sense. >Its radiator produced an additional 375lbs of thrust via the Meredith effect through clever design.That's to compensate for radiators adding to drag. If you look at inline engine aircraft, they're already getting the benefit of reduced drag along the front. This doesn't count for as much as you think it does.>They were optimized for high-altitude flight, and aircraft go faster at high altitude.So are literally all the comparison aircraft. If anything, you should look up the numbers on Soviet interceptor type aircraft and see that they're given 20-60mph less in American stat blocks, starting with the MiG-3. >Even without drop tanks the operational range was between 1150-1300 milesYou're going to have to describe how that's possible without modern fuels. The Zero got away with it through air cooling and high altitude cruises at lower speeds.>there must have been individual differences in engine performance. In this respect, American production management technology was superiorThis is handwaving. You have not actually described anything mechanical or actionable. >In Japan, a major problem arose when a carefully crafted engine for testing the successor to the Zero fighter only achieved 60% of its nominal performanceWhich performance metrics? How much did they allegedly falter by? Zeros actually did have extreme maneuverability and long cruising ranges- no one doubts that. There doesn't seem to be any tomfoolery with speeds, given its ~940 hp Sakae engine.
>>65168882>But during Soviet trialsCite them.Powerplant: 1 × Shvetsov M-82FN 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,460 kW (1,960 hp)^This is the engine for an La-5. It's radial, so there's slightly more drag over the front, but the wings are tighter than the Mustang. The result is similar drag. The La-5 is boasting about 470 more HP than the Mustang. If anything, those numbers should be flipped: the La-5 should be hitting around 460 mph and the P-51 should be maxing around 403 mph.
>>65169505>You're going to have to describe how that's possible without modern fuels. The Zero got away with it through air cooling and high altitude cruises at lower speeds.P-51D had 1020 liters internal fuel capacity.A6M2 520 liters La-5FN 460 litres
>>65168138OP reminded me of Secret Weapons Over Normandy and how it had unlockable TIE and X-Wing fighters.
>>65169509For a simplistic piece of counterevidence, consider that the P51D had not only four propeller blades compared to the La-5s three, but that the entire propeller was a foot larger in diameter on the Mustang. But what other have tried to tell you already is that aircraft design is an incredibly complex science, and looking at engine power and one or two other metric will never give you the complete story. Knowing what you dont know is equally important: I can't quantify exactly how having a 23016 to 23010 wing will impact your flight performance, but I don't think its out of the question that a wing designed for a 1000hp engined fighter might not be ideal for getting the most out of the 2000hp engine you bolted on
>>65169509ASh-82FN clocked max 1850 hp at sea levelAt 6250 meters (max speed altitude of the La-5FN) it clocked 1150 hpMustangs running on 100/130 fuel (before June 1944) had max1640 hp at sea level1550 hp at 6250 metersP-51D Mustangs running on 100/150 fuel (introduced around June 1944) had max1810 hp at sea level1570 hp at 6250 meters
>>65169747P-51H (post war entered service July 1945) also got water infection system that allowed to increase max boost from 72" HG (P-51D running 100/150 fuel) to 90" HG.P-51H clocked max power 2130 hp at sea level1820 HP at 6250 meters
The American superpower was producing decent equipment to high tolerances at high efficiency.I fully believe the Russian plane to be faster in theory, on paper. The P-51 was a decently large, heavy long ranged plane. Not as heavy as a thunderbolt, but those are particularly Amerifat. Also the P-51 carried a heavy, ineffective armament suite of wing mounted outdated .50 cals, compared to the Rusnigger with his Centreline cannons having more combat power at a fraction of the weight.The American superpower was that every one of the P-51s is build by educated, trained workers using the most modern tools available.The Russian plane is finished by an Ork Mek hitting on protruding parts with a hammer. I'm only slightly exaggerating.This means that on paper a flush neat plane could go zoom, but IRL the quality of finishes will be much lower and draggier.The engine will make X HP on paper and much less in reality, and if you run it at anything close to full power it'll go to fuck quickly.So on paper and in a game based on paper stats the Russians come out much better than in reality.If the US built an interceptor of La-5 style to American standards, it would be similarly better but not only on paper.Bongs and Germans were similar quality to the US but less efficient, until Germany went to shit.
>>65169791>Also the P-51 carried a heavy, ineffective armament suite of wing mounted outdated .50 cals, compared to the Rusnigger with his Centreline cannons having more combat power at a fraction of the weight.Guns can be good ... but not Shvak canonn. It was overweight (build from hight RPM machine gun but cant utilize this RPM. In 1944 Berezein was permitted to develop his MG into canon and it ended 2 times lighter than Shvak...)But most importantly Shvak rounds were chopped and carried absolutely pathetic charges.
>>65169687Excellent! Now this is a good post. Yes I agree with that, and it explains why the P-51's dimensions are larger than what one would expect. >>65169690lmao that's funny>>65169747Interesting report. Water-methanol startups were already introduced in many Soviet engines even earlier, between 1942-1944 they went hard and heavy getting those in for startup phases. I think you're looking at WEP and startup phase, not conventional running horsepowers in this post">>65169772For the ASh-82, that graph might explain it. I was looking at the ASh-82T, not the ASh-82FN used on the La-5, so the horsepower would have been slightly lower across the border from what I was anticipating by between 100-200 hp. As for your P-51 Mustang numbers- they're still too skewed. The drop off is incorrect and should be much lower, and you've seemed to have added higher hp than other sources. For example, Wikipedia has the P51D producing 1,720 hp at maximum wartime emergency power and 1490 hp on average according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang. But if you go to the engine page- that also has been inflated:>V-1650-7: 1,315 hp (981 kW); Similar to Merlin 66, primary powerplant of the P-51D Mustang.And this is exactly what I'm talking about. One page says 1315, changes it to 1490 later on, and now the claim shifts to 1810. The later version of that engine maxed out around 1,380 hp at sea level. Someone mentioned the Merlin engines earlier, and that's referenced here: "The definitive version, the P-51D, was powered by the Packard V-1650-7, a license-built version of the two-speed, two-stage-supercharged Merlin 66"- the Packard is a converted Merlin. At any rate, this proves my point about power creep when it comes to American engines. They mysteriously gain hundreds of horsepower whenever the argument necessitates.
>>65168138reminder that soviet plywood garbage was so bad that air forces fighting against them get aces with several times higher number of kills compared to those fighting in other theaters and wars, and not even just the German ones.soviets also managed to lose and never acquire air superiority against one fifth of the German air force that was fighting on the eastern front.
>>65168138How many ww2 aircraft would it take to bring down the death Star
>>65169880>And this is exactly what I'm talking about. One page says 1315, changes it to 1490 later on, and now the claim shifts to 1810.Because all numbers are right.
>>65169815>Guns can be good ... but not Shvak canonnThe Soviet 20mm Shvak:>20×99mmR>750–790 metres per second (2,500–2,600 ft/s)The Soviet 20mm Berezin:>20x99mmR>790–815 m/s (2,590–2,670 ft/s)The German MG 151/20 20mm Mauser:>20×82mm >705 to 805 m/s (2,310 to 2,640 ft/s)For reference, the Japanese Type 99>20×72RB>600 m/s (2,000 ft/s)The Soviet Shvak was introduced in 1936, the Japanese Type 99 in 1937, the German MG 151/20 in 1941, the Soviet Berezin in 1944, the US Oerlikon first released in 1935 and went through a bunch of iterations, rated at:>20×110mmRB>L70: 820 m/s (2,700 ft/s)And weighed 2.5x as much as a Berezin, not including ammo. Apparently the Japanese made a lightweight modification of the US Oerlikon, while the US flirted with modifying a lightweight MG151/20 themselves but dropped that program. Overall, they're all tailored to meet dimension and weight specs while most US aircraft went with .50 calibers as their primaries. Why do I bring that up? Because in 1941 the Soviets develop the 14.5x114mm, which makes the .50 look like a limp-dick. And yes, I've shot a .50 before and I love it, but the 14.5mm is just better. But you're also ignoring that the Soviets went to a 23x152mm in 1941 which had a velocity of 905 m/s (2,969 ft/s) in the VYa-23. So in the battle of the light guns, the Soviets beat the .50 cals with the 14.5mm and beat the 20mms with a 23mm. Unless you want to jump up in class to German 30mm or various 37mms and start comparing apples to watermelons, the argument ends there.
>>65169911The number has now jumped a fourth time, from 1315 horsepower is where we started, now you're claiming over 2k. The middle graphs for 70in and 61in of mercury are what you should be looking at. The crazy numbers for the graphs on the left are only during startup for takeoff purposes. You're definitely posting the corporate brochure version of propaganda, but it's propaganda nonetheless. You can even see where they nudged it to over 1500 hp for standard operation, which is the fourth time these numbers have increased over commonly accepted figures.I'll concede that my original numbers were skewing 100-200 hp too high for the La-5 also though.>>65169898How many force users are involved? We also have to use active rocket programs, and only one country had one at the time, and that's the same country that actually breached space for the first time. >>65169892>soviets also managed to lose and never acquire air superiorityThey lost air superiority because Germans were absolute manimals in warfare and engineering, but according to various memoirs such as Hermann Hoth's, they did lose air superiority and it was noticeable to many more that the cakewalk period was over by late 1942. I think it's Manstein's Lost Victories that talks about getting slammed in 1943, where he starts becoming hopeless and frankly a toxic personality. That's all better left to a different thread though.
>>65168484You cant even directly compare top speeds because level speeds are functions of altitude Op's p51 and la7 achieve their top level speeds at very different altitudes and the la7 indeed is closer at altitude where its engine can still develop full power
>>65169958>The crazy numbers for the graphs on the left are only during startup for takeoff purposes.These graphs go for all flight conditions and all altitudes.
>>65169974You could try arguing that because there's less air friction at high altitude, that the difference is made there. But that begs the question why other craft like the MiG-3 are being underrated. If you look at Wikipedia's entry for the Am-35A it even keeps that engine rated down to 2k RPM instead of something more comparable for a high altitude interceptor. That feels disingenuous to me because they're only rating cruise performance.
>>65169977>These graphs go for all flight conditions and all altitudes.That's exactly the problem- water-methanol injection is only for startups in order to take off. You don't have infinity water tanks to keep bursting into fuel-air mixture. It's just to help get off the ground from short runways. You can even see where it says "War Emergeny Ratings"- those are short bursts of speed the pilot can access for dogfighting or narrow escapes, lasting only up to 15 minutes but usually less than that (about 5 minutes is normal). The "military rating" is what you should be looking at, at 61 in mercury and 3k RPMs (still 1k more than Soviet aircraft often get rate at).
>>65169985Afaik lota of soviet tests and ratings are like that. Cruise speed, sustainable power. Turn times for first 360 but continuous never tested let alone at different altitudes. Less science, more data thats immediately useful at front.P-51 is faster than Lavochin because its less draggy. It loses power to weight ratio to many contemporary planes but its very sleek. If you need examples of how bog effect mere radiators, cowling and retracting tail wheel had look at Bf 109 E vs first Fs or G-14 vs K-4. Sometimes its like 30 mph between planes with same size, weight and engine.
>>65169924retarded vatnigger wanking to meaningless paper stats
>>65169958>they did lose air superioritythey did lose air superiority but soviets never gained it despite having something like 20:1 numerical advantage
>>65169999>Less science, more data thats immediately useful at front.That's an incredibly stupid thing to say. Collecting cruise data doesn't mean "less science", and max speeds are relevant for range envelops for interceptors especially- not to mention simply outpacing anything else, especially bombers. "P-51 is faster than Lavochin because its less draggy"- I already went over this: the La5 has a radial engine for slight drag increase over the front aspect (yes, cowling region), but the P51 has a longer wingspan, meaning the drag surface is greater. The 4 propellers vs 3 propellers actually favors the La-5 because 4 propellers are grippier equaling more control and acceleration but more drag per moment, meaning the La-5 should have less drag there as well. These problems are across the board. You can easily see where western sources only use the 2k RPM ratings, overvalue their own engines between articles or even in later paragraphs of the same websites. Hell we've seen that here where the P51D page on Wikipedia just gives another nearly 200 horsepower to the engine between the engine and plane web pages. I can forgive a company for printing its brochures with fudged numbers but this is getting ridiculous. The P51 is heavier than the La-5. So far the La-5 should have>less weight>less overall drag but only slightly>more horsepower but only slightly (about 200-300 horsepower at low altitude, same RPMs, no WEPs application)That means the numbers should be switched. The P51D should be maxing out around 400 mph still, and the La-5 around 440-460 mph.
>>65169880>this proves my point about power creep when it comes to American enginesNo, it proves reading a wikipedia article doesnt teach you shit about complex interconnected system>One page says 1315, changes it to 1490 later on, and now the claim shifts to 1810. The later version of that engine maxed out around 1,380 hp at sea levelThose numbers mean nothing without knowing the specifics under which each was obtained. What octane fuel? What manifold pressure? What super/turbocharging system? Running only to rated specs or with field modification? Squeezing extra horsepower out of an engine by replacing individual engine components so as to permit running a higher manifold pressure was not an uncommon occurrence, on both sides.
>mimimimi why is wikipedia bullying poor poccnrKill yourself my man
uppity wikipedia scrolling kids should be beaten with a stick. prove me wrong.
>>65170018>but the P51 has a longer wingspan, meaning the drag surface is greaterThe 45-100 and 23016 do not generate drag in the same manner
>>65170013>but soviets never gained itThey were flying Po-2 biplanes over German AA sites at night. Max speed: ~90 mph lmfaoNo radars btw. And those were often Night Witches. Imagine going from terror of the world to getting dabbed on by women in crop dusters. Honestly, I think Chuikov's 8th Guards army could have taken on Patton and beaten him out of Europe in six weeks.Stopping at Berlin was a mistake and I find it amusing that Patton says he stopped at Berlin when he never even made it that far because he was getting dabbed on by under agers and old men at the Battle of the Bulge. >>65170019>doesnt teach you shit about complex interconnected systemWe're throwing out numbers and metrics. Unless you disagree with something in particular, you've got no room to talk. You keep falling back on "it's impossible for us to understand physics and engineering numbers", but you're going to have to speak for yourself there. It's really not all that complicated. Once we have the ratings we can assess any factor in minutes. The problem is interpreting data, fact from fiction, and realizing at first contact that the information we're being presented with is very much fake and purely for propagandistic purposes for a war that ended 70 years ago.
>>65170039>They were flying Po-2 biplanes over German AA sites at nightand this doesn't mean jack shit, soviets never had air superiority and their biggest contribution was poorly holding back a tiny underdeveloped fraction of the Luftwaffe.
>>65170039>Honestly, I think Chuikov's 8th Guards army could have taken on Patton and beaten him out of Europe in six weeks.Stopping at Berlin was a mistake and I find it amusing that Patton says he stopped at Berlin when he never even made it that far because he was getting dabbed on by under agers and old men at the Battle of the Bulge.
>>65170018Sorry but reality doesnt care about what you think it should or shouldnt be. It just is. And Im talking to a bad ryssä AI
>>65170019>Those numbers mean nothing without knowing the specifics under which each was obtainedIf you're looking to do a total build, yes, but we don't need to fabricate all of the data. We just need reliable data points for engines RPM and hp, approximate drag, and weight. That's it. Fuel is more useful for range than for speed, but everyone is pretty much using sodium valvetrains, water-methanol startups, similar WEP RPM increases, etc, etc, etc. Manifold pressure is irrelevant if you already have horsepower, you would use that to find horsepower. >replacing individual engine components so as to permit running a higher manifold pressure was not an uncommon occurrenceThat would be pretty rare for the USSR. Design chiefs held extraordinary power over their departments and they were heavily involved in technical work. There are stories where designers would be confronted by improvements last minute and get angry at the presenting subordinates for not alerting them sooner, even when the gains were basically free and obvious. >>65170036Did you have a point to be made? My argument is that Soviet aircraft are being underrated by overestimations made to their drag and underestimations made to their power outputs. >>65170048The Soviets knocked out more of the German air force than the US and UK combined. Tactically, the UK and US never had to fight the Germans on equal footing. Even the British just sat on their side of the canal because they got brutalized when they tried to cross too soon. They waited for the Soviets to wear them down before bombing civilian targets.>>65170055What you have to understand is that the American is by and large not of European character. The ruling class is, the bourgeoisie elements often are, but for the most part is of a greatly mutted disposition. It is a barbaric, primitive mixture of gangsters and simpletons. For example, did you know that the US military conscripted Luciano to help the war effort?
>>65170039Lmao, how quickly the mask slips.
>>65170068>The Soviets knocked out more of the German air force than the US and UK combinedThe soviets knocked out fewer German aircraft than US and UK combined did over North Africa, lol.
>>65170093Everything I said about being a vet with a family going back to the founding of America is true. But... I wish I was Russian so bad.
>>65170068>muh burgeoisie>mutted dispositionzigger projections know no limits
>>65170095>Germany produced about 119,907 aircraft during WWII, of which roughly 116,584 were destroyed or damaged Wikipedia. Of these, the Eastern Front accounted for the majority of combat losses due to the scale and intensity of the fighting.>Historical analyses of the Eastern Front (1941–1945) indicate that two‑thirds of all German combat aircraft losses occurred in this theater Google Books. Given that total German combat aircraft losses were estimated at 63,000+ (including fighters, bombers, and other combat types) Wikipedia, this means the Eastern Front alone accounted for around 42,000–45,000 aircraft.My own estimates are higher for both total German losses and those lost in the eastern theater in the Great Patriotic War, including the period of British-French aggression whereupon they declared war on Germany, only to surrender Poland to her rightful sphere of influence (Russian).
>>65170098you can become completely and fully russian by doing some crime and going into prison where you'll get bulled by the nigger cattle to the same experience you'd get as if you were surrounded by mongoloid rusnig population out there. they even have the same distaste of mentally ill fatherless neet communists like you and will rape you equally badly.
>>65170068>The Soviets knocked out more of the German air force than the US and UK combined. Tactically, the UK and US never had to fight the Germans on equal footing. Even the British just sat on their side of the canal because they got brutalized when they tried to cross too soon. They waited for the Soviets to wear them down before bombing civilian targets.iirc theres only 4 month or so period from start of Barbarossa where Luftwaffe lost more planes in the East than Channel-Reichsdefence-Mediterranean combined.
>>65170111>according to wikipedia>unsourcedi really hope this is bait by this point
>>65170117this never happened actually
>>65170117I think you're misremembering that, there would have been about 4 months where the Luftwaffe had free reign before Soviet forces recuperated and reorganized. Then the pummeling would start and not let up. The US and UK didn't need to be relevant in Africa because Italy never produced enough aircraft to matter, and for that matter, neither did the capture French air force. >>65170121lmfao I'm dying right now what source is that holy shit>>65170124>From June 1941 to December 1941, the Luftwaffe lost over 3,800 aircraft on the Eastern Front, with the majority destroyed in combat Wikipedia. Over the next three years, losses continued at a high rate, contributing to the Luftwaffe’s eventual inability to sustain air superiority in the East. These losses were a major factor in the failure of the German strategic offensive and the eventual Soviet counteroffensive.>1942–1943 attrition: The Luftwaffe fought large-scale air battles over the Eastern Front, often without adequate fighter cover for ground forces. The reconstituted Soviet Air Force began interdicting Luftwaffe supply missions by late 1942>German aircraft lost in the eastern theater totalsThe total number of German aircraft lost in the Eastern Theater during World War II is estimated to be around 52,850 aircraft.
>>65170140ok this is definitely baitgood effort, i almost believed such unironic tankies still exist and hadn't hidden in the deepest holes or killed themselves in shame at this point.
>>65170140NTA but IIRC those are from "strategy for defeat, Luftwaffe in ww2" or something like that by Dr. Murray. You just havent yet realized what a slog and a war of attrition war in the air was in the West especially after early 1943.
>Source for more western theater German losses: Don Caldwell Wrap it up guys. Caldwell's baseless assertions have tied everything together. >The air transport system enabled it to evade supply bottlenecks and to move winter clothing forward to its units in Russia. Nevertheless, the weather was no kinder to the Luftwaffe's ground transportation system; by January 1942, only 15 percent of the 100,000 air force vehicles in the east remained in working condition.
>>65170145ROFLMAO fucking called it. Don Caldwell strikes again. >>65170147>strategy for defeat, Luftwaffe in ww2Says what I posted here:>>65170150>>The air transport system enabled it to evade supply bottlenecks and to move winter clothing forward to its units in Russia. Nevertheless, the weather was no kinder to the Luftwaffe's ground transportation system; by January 1942, only 15 percent of the 100,000 air force vehicles in the east remained in working condition.
>>65170150this reads like AI script
>>65170159You're literally asking AI to help you right now, you didn't know that Don Caldwell was THE most infamous propagandist of his time on the topic or that I was already citing the source you wanted to cite. Interrogate whatever model you're using and you'll eventually start seeing eastern Axis losses totaling between 53-65k. Some estimates run a little higher. If you see numbers that half that or lower- you're dealing with a propagandist. No two ways about it. I'm a history major, this isn't new to me bud.
>>65170161if a tankie is screaming about propaganda then you just know it's right, doubly so if wikipedia history major certificates get throw around.
>>65170140>The total number of German aircraft lost in the Eastern Theater during World War II is estimated to be around 52,850 aircraft.Even if we assume that to be true that figure is still less than 50 % of what Germany made(and mostly lost) just before the war and during it.
>>65170167We can go through the handful of propagandists on your side. There's like three but they're over represented in Google search engine results and coincidentally in Microsoft Copilot answers. >The user made some pretty good points about how many of the overman figures on german casualties on many theaters doesnt match the official reports of western armies (for example, overmans states that in the 1945 about 1/3 of german deaths occured in the west, while contradicts the Heeresarzt weekly casualty reports for the army regarding the period from 1.1.-20.4.1945, according to which ca. 83 % of the KIA and 87 % of the WIA in the "final battles" occurred in the East.),https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/on7jeu/german_war_losses_by_theater_during_ww2/You ready to go down this rabbit hole? The engineering is just scratching the surface. By the end you'll see how badly we actually did at the Battle of the Bulge and how that was the first thing that got covered up. >>65170173In Rommel's memoirs (collected by his son after his death), he recounts how Halder told him that Africa was a distraction and that he was not going to get supplies, including aircraft, because something bigger was about to unfold. The missing piece is that French and Italian aircraft, as well as most Axis aircraft across the Balkans, were deployed against the USSR. Not Britain. Not the United States.
>>65170182>reddit linksi guess unsourced wikipedia quotes weren't enough
>>65170185https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=226986https://www.quora.com/In-the-ground-war-in-World-War-II-did-the-Americans-cause-more-German-casualties-or-did-the-Germans-cause-more-American-casualties/answer/Roberto-Muehlenkamp>the Western Allies suffered 766,294 total casualties including about 196,000 killed, see the Wikipedia page Western Front (World War II). As concerns German casualties, a range of 263,000 to 655,000 killed is mentioned on the same page.>Overmans’ overblown figures, which can be found on several Wikipedia pages (besides those already mentioned above there is the page Western Allied invasion of Germany, whose info-box contains the preposterous claim that 410,000 German soldiers were killed on the Western Front between 22 March – 8 May 1945, versus 15,009 Americans and 1,482 Canadians) are an example of how even serious and respected historians can - to borrow an expression from R.S.Bray’s Armies of Pestilence (p. 60) - be cantankerously wrong, especially when it comes to numbers.What you're seeing is real. Other people are seeing inflated, clearly propagandistic numbers, and trying to square that with comfortable narrators drafted by formally trained historians- who serve as poor accountants. >In General George C. Marshall’s Biennial Reports of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the Secretary of War for the period from 1 July 1939 to 30 June 1945, battle casualties of the US Army in the mentioned period were stated to have been 943,222, including 201,367 killed, 570,783 wounded, 114,205 prisoners and 56,867 missing. Marshall pointed out that US Army battle deaths in World War II were higher than the combined losses, Union and Confederate, in the American Civil War.[17]You can see historians, in this case American historians, retroactively taking a casualty figure close to a million and yanking it down arbitrarily to less than 20k.
>>65170197>What you're seeing is real. Other people are seeing inflated, clearly propagandistic numbers, and trying to square that with comfortable *narratives* drafted by formally trained historians- who serve as poor accountants.Let's continue:>Overmans has also exaggerated losses of German ground forces in Italy (gap likely 60 000 - 70 000 deaths). And his claims that German system didn't give right numbers of deaths even before 1944 is mostly untrue."The example given by Overmans does not suggest that the reports were inaccurate, rather it suggests a less than perfect understanding of the documents on his behalf. If the strength of the Fechtende Heerestruppe,Heeresversorgungstruppe and Sonstige Truppe is added to the strength of the Verbände, we reach the level given by other documents."https://web.archive.org/web/20060219111518/http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/overmans.pdfWe can push into source criticism, engineering, battle boxes- just let me know. RPM ratings, horsepower lies, and faked ranges for aircraft was just scratching the surface. >
>>65170197>reddit didn't work, switched to quora quoteskek
That's rude. But you could have read Overmans.pdf if you were concerned about avoiding what many others like us have already discovered for themselves.
>>65169358Actually read the mission details. P-51s made up less than 20% of the escort fighter force on any given mission, sometimes as few as 10%.
>>65169350>>65170257I agree in that the Republic produced aircraft feel underrated in both pop-culture and historical references. I'm interested in more details if you have anything juicy.
>>65170263TDA one so far unmentioned detail is that drop tanks became widely available about the same time as the P-51. So for most early 1944 missions escort and sweeper P-47s and P-38s had enough range
>>65170182I know youre probably on psychedelics/krokodil but itd be polite if you at least tried to stay on topic in your own thread.
>>65170287Right- I've got no problem with drop tank availability. It's not complicated technology. I just find it troublesome that Wikipedia and popular sources often take the drop tank number for range when it comes to American aircraft but for other aircraft do not include a drop tank or ferry range number, instead pushing the number down to the minimum combat capable radius. It distorts capabilities and technical achievements.>>65170295If you would like to take this moment to improve your reading comprehension; you will find that the heading for this thread is WW2 Era Aircraft Stats *AND* Modern Propaganda. It's two bundled and related topics. If you would take care to stay on topic for the duration of the thread that will be appreciated.
>>65170301>popular sourcesvast majority parrot Wikipedia>I just find it troublesome that WikipediaWiki is pure infotainment. Nobody halfway serious takes it seriously. Yes, it can give a simplified general overview of things. I refer to it when I want exactly that, a simple view. But anything approaching fact... lol.
>>65170308>vast majority parrot WikipediaThat's the problem. If it was Don Caldwell on his lonesome I wouldn't complain because no one takes him seriously. Tons of people are citing the popular sources which is equally prone to overly pro-American propagandic distortions.
>>65170039>computational fluid dynamics is really not all that complicatedI already tried acknowledging that less observant people never notice or question these discrepancies you've identified but mistaken as "propaganda numbers" and offered general guidance on the complex causes of this variance on the chance you could learn something about aerodynamics, but alas you appear to be terminally brown. For the anons reading who do not know how to fly but are neither midwits or subscribers to deranged troll physics, this particular prior is laughably incorrect> The result [of comparing the P-51 and La-7] is similar dragand the aforementioned engineering discipline exists because Lord Rayleigh’s general drag equation, though foundational, is reliant on experimental measurement of the drag force while also as accurate to real-world conditions as relying strictly on Galileo’s projectile motion equation to determine the trajectory of a supersonic rifle bullet. Initial misconceptions are understandable so long as they do not endure; even Dr. Karl Bussmann’s team were stunned by the gap in German theoretical understandings of fluid flows versus the exceptional test results of recovered Mustang aerofoils and what that implied of the NACA-NAA team’s design prowess. A very simplified Hoerner analysis of wetted drag coefficients under the generous conditions of identical prop and radiator efficiency speaks for itself:P-51D 0.0062Fw-190A 0.0071La-7 0.0077BF-109G 0.0105
>>65170301>pushing the number down to the minimum combat capable radius. It distorts capabilities and technical achievements.La-7 range listed probably isn't combat range unless else had a longer range than the P-51D or A6M2(which also didn't have combat range listed).
>>65169992>That's exactly the problem- water-methanol injection is only for startups in order to take off.Again you are inventing things to suit your agenda.
>>65169992109s had water for 25-28 min iirc. hat means they could stay wide open and run out of water only couple of minutes before running out of fuel
>>65169924>Because in 1941 the Soviets develop the 14.5x114mm, which makes the .50 look like a limp-dick. And yes, I've shot a .50 before and I love it, but the 14.5mm is just better. But you're also ignoring that the Soviets went to a 23x152mm in 1941 which had a velocity of 905 m/s (2,969 ft/s) in the VYa-23.No Soveit fighters were armed with those.VYa-23 was used for Il-2 and eventually judged as failure. Midwar Soviets started future aircraft guns projects based on WWII experience and they were nothing like afformentioned guns.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman-Suranov_NS-23They developed middle velocity ammo and gun that concentrated on the light weight if the gun, low recoil and maximizing launch weight per second but reducing muzzle velocity.Post war La-9 and Il-10 got 4 NS-23 guns.
>>65169992>That's exactly the problem- water-methanol injection is only for startups in order to take off.No. That's just part of what ADI is used for.You don't know what you're talking about.
>>65169992>That's exactly the problem- water-methanol injection is only for startups in order to take offThat's not what MW50 is for you retard.MW50 and similar injection systems are to be used at the pilot's discretion, when additional power is required. Usually during chases, escapes and dogfights.
>>6516992414.5mm and the KPV are an anomaly, a tumor really. The mid between .50 and the autocannons doesn't really need filling and only stayed on through soviet inertia. Experiments for a big brother to .50 BMG went on through the 20th century and never bore fruit simply because it's just not worthwhile. 20mm does a far more impressive job for just a bit more bulk. I know it's in vogue to fetishize it, for some idiotic reason often for drone defense, but it's just a dead end even the former USSR is moving away from.
>>65171001It's a classic Russian/slavaboo logic failure, for various reasons (often pride) they frequently project or assume that their technological limitations or procedures are universally shared. Having just scoured the RKKA manuals I know exactly where that particular invention of his came from too - turns out that the ASh-82FN(v) is rated for only 47" boost (for 5 minutes lol) and just 39" after the 2nd stage blower is engaged at 10000ft (inefficient/lossy turbine cannot supply enough air, I surmise)! Simply no awareness or envious disbelief our Merlins could handle 61"+ the entire sortie.
>>65171380>>65171395>>65171412that guy makes me remember armatard, specifically his rants on airplanes on other forums
