Giorgio N Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 3 hours ago, 72modeler said: Outstanding photo of two Thunderbolts together...both could punch 'way above their weight! Mike Considering that the P-47 was much heavier than other WW2 fighters, I doubt it could punch above its weight.. 😆 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt-92 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 hours ago, Blimpyboy said: An interesting aside - perhaps a good subject for another thread... - is the discussion about the effectiveness of the P-47 (and Typhoon and Il-2) against tanks. On one hand, their individual capabilities seem to be waaay overstated, while their mission effects were amazing! Overclaiming and how claims & 'kills' were verified, and what procedures were used? Seems like a good thread for the Aviation Chat subsection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Attack helicopters be damned! You can never have enough A-10s! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted July 2, 2020 Author Share Posted July 2, 2020 I've seen that picture of the sloppy mop applied stripes but couldn't stomach doing something "realistic" like that after the effort I spent getting a coat of white fine enough to then highlight the panel lines. Which is really about as wrong as having stencils if not moreso, since that paint is so thick it hides any rivets and lines. And those brush marks on the real thing are so big even a ham-handed finish on a model would look under-scale 🤣 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 16 minutes ago, Giorgio N said: Considering that the P-47 was much heavier than other WW2 fighters, I doubt it could punch above its weight.. 😆 Oh, very well done, sir! Brilliant! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 8 minutes ago, alt-92 said: Overclaiming and how claims & 'kills' were verified, and what procedures were used? Seems like a good thread for the Aviation Chat subsection Hmmm, 🤔 Tempting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 5 hours ago, Giorgio N said: I doubt it could punch above its weight.. Try telling that to all the Luftwaffe fighters that Robert Johnson and Frances Gabreski shot down while flying them, not to mention all of the locomotives, vehicles, and barges that got shot to pieces. Eight fifties shooting API were just about as destructive back then as the 30mm GAU is today. If they had depleted uranium back then.... Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 24 minutes ago, 72modeler said: Try telling that to all the Luftwaffe fighters that Robert Johnson and Frances Gabreski shot down while flying them, not to mention all of the locomotives, vehicles, and barges that got shot to pieces. Eight fifties shooting API were just about as destructive back then as the 30mm GAU is today. If they had depleted uranium back then.... Mike Sure, but all that came from a fighter that was very, very heavy for a single seater, hence my tongue-in-cheek comment that the P-47 hardly punched above its weight, considering that its weight was huge 😀 P-51s achieved even better success with a lower weight, so that comment should apply to the Mustang even more 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted July 2, 2020 Author Share Posted July 2, 2020 5 hours ago, Giorgio N said: Sure, but all that came from a fighter that was very, very heavy for a single seater, hence my tongue-in-cheek comment that the P-47 hardly punched above its weight, considering that its weight was huge 😀 I had the pleasure last year of seeing a P-47, P-51, Spitfire and Buchon flying in formation at the Biggin Hill Festival of Flight. It really dawned on me quite how enormous the Jug is for a WWII single seater. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 4 minutes ago, Vlad said: I had the pleasure last year of seeing a P-47, P-51, Spitfire and Buchon flying in formation at the Biggin Hill Festival of Flight. It really dawned on me quite how enormous the Jug is for a WWII single seater. ...and how small a Bf-109/Ha-1112 was! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted July 2, 2020 Author Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, 72modeler said: ...and how small a Bf-109/Ha-1112 was! Mike Yup, if I didn't know better I'd say one or the other was over/under-scale 🤣 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torqueofthedevil Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 (edited) On 7/1/2020 at 1:44 PM, Vlad said: Given the hasty and sometimes sloppy nature of D-day stripe application, I assume the stencilling below suffered. Would some of it have been painted back on? Or do I just avoid putting any stencils at all in these areas? Having spent many years around military aircraft, I would say it's impossible to give a definitive answer to your question. The condition of each aircraft - not just stencilling but cleanliness etc - varies wildly depending on its age, the time available to the ground crew and their motivation at the time, and the direction they received from their superiors. In the hours before and the days and weeks after Overlord, the only thing that mattered (as in most military situations other than parades and airshows) was generating the maximum number of serviceable aircraft. At some units, the direction would have been 'Just put the bloody stripes on and get your heads down ready for the big show'. Other bosses would have mandated strict adherence to every detail, and kept the men working all night if need be. In the latter case, some of the ground crew would have worked until the boss disappeared, and then downed tools in favour of sleep or food. Other ground crew might have worked faithfully all night but simply not had time to finish the job, leaving some aircraft finished, others lacking some or all of the detailed markings. That said, how practicable would it have been for operational units to apply stencil data on the eve of a big operation? As someone else has said, stencils were usually factory applied - I doubt front line units would have had stencils available especially at such short notice. I think the best answer is check your references, but if in doubt, go without! Edited July 4, 2020 by torqueofthedevil Typo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torqueofthedevil Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 On 7/1/2020 at 7:47 PM, 72modeler said: I would imagine after so many hours of flight time in the type being flown, if a pilot or ground crew needed stencils to tell them where to step, not step, put fuel, etc., they most likely shouldn't have been wearing the uniform! @corsaircorp Disagree - one constant in the military is turnover of personnel, so every unit would have had at least some FNGs with very little experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 On 7/1/2020 at 8:38 PM, brewerjerry said: not just groundcrew, everyone on station, cooks, clerks etc .. using mops and brooms, to complete the job in time There is at least one documented instance of everyone available participating, up to and including the Station Commander. Many of the stripes applied 4th/5th June were nevertheless done neatly - again, documented. And in any case, if you try and show anything other than one edge not being entirely parallel with the rest, it just looks like sloppy modelling, especially in the smaller scales. If I had £1 for every time that photo (posted above) of the Spitfire has been used to "prove" that stripes were painted sloppily, I'd be able to afford a few more Tamiya 1/32 Mk IXs to put some stripes on. In any case, there is a body of opinion that suggests it was posed. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvyn hiscock Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 I definitely found they carried slightly in size. 18 in ‘May’ have been specified but MTF (making them fit) was also used and can be seen in photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 35 minutes ago, MikeC said: And in any case, if you try and show anything other than one edge not being entirely parallel with the rest, it just looks like sloppy modelling, especially in the smaller scales. It is a vexed issue! Regardless of the objective truth of some reference photos, the subjective part of the brain just can't seem to accept the unevenness! It doesn't fit with our desire for neatness. I suppose it's just not as black and white as we'd like it to be... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corsaircorp Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 5 hours ago, Blimpyboy said: It is a vexed issue! Regardless of the objective truth of some reference photos, the subjective part of the brain just can't seem to accept the unevenness! It doesn't fit with our desire for neatness. I suppose it's just not as black and white as we'd like it to be... Quite right you are... Depending of the amount of white paint and the amount of rain that fell on it.... The winter camo of the german aircrafts on the eastern front is also a subject for a future squabbling.... Sincerely. CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11bravo Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 On 7/2/2020 at 10:35 AM, Giorgio N said: Sure, but all that came from a fighter that was very, very heavy for a single seater, hence my tongue-in-cheek comment that the P-47 hardly punched above its weight, considering that its weight was huge 😀 P-51s achieved even better success with a lower weight, so that comment should apply to the Mustang even more P-51’s, with their vulnerable liquid-cooled engines, were unsuitable for low level strafing missions and suffered very high losses compared to the Jug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 5 hours ago, 11bravo said: P-51’s, with their vulnerable liquid-cooled engines, were unsuitable for low level strafing missions and suffered very high losses compared to the Jug. It’s a pity the US (and Commonwealth/Korean forces) kept the P-51s for ops in Korea - P-47s might have fared better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 5 hours ago, Blimpyboy said: It’s a pity the US (and Commonwealth/Korean forces) kept the P-51s for ops in Korea - P-47s might have fared better... They certainly would have, but the US Navy was much better equipped than the USAF for that kind of close air support as the Corsair and Skyraider demonstrated 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11bravo Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 7 hours ago, Blimpyboy said: It’s a pity the US (and Commonwealth/Korean forces) kept the P-51s for ops in Korea - P-47s might have fared better... Agreed... The F-51D's were horribly unsuited to ground attack missions over there. It was a matter of simple economics - the USAF had a few thousand Mustangs in storage, not nearly as many P-47's since they were already being phased out of the guard at that point. If money was no issue, the USAF would have been much better served ordering A-1's, they were arguably the best piston engined ground attack aircraft ever made (maybe except the Il-2). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyOD Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 On 7/1/2020 at 11:48 PM, corsaircorp said: Hello Vlad... Is this one talking to you ?? Not only stencils are not re applied but in fact, the nice straight lines are wrong too.... How many swearing would have been spared for all of us modellers !! Masking ?? What masking ??? Sincerely. CC I've wondered about those D-Day stripes before... invariably on models kits they are presented very neatly, but I'd heard about them being slapped on in a hurry, sometimes even with mops and brooms, which surely would have given a rather rough and ready look to the end result - your picture certainly supports this! I guess the stencils were a casualty on this particular Spit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toryu Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 Just look at the scores of P-51 pictures with fresh invasion stripes. Although they varied somewhat in position and size, they were almost always straight (due to masking). Star & bars and code letters had to be masked or re-applied, too. There was no room for a sloppy job - of course poor examples existed. Not to forget all those planes that were decorated in the depots upon their arrival after D-day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 22 hours ago, TonyOD said: I've wondered about those D-Day stripes before... invariably on models kits they are presented very neatly, but I'd heard about them being slapped on in a hurry, sometimes even with mops and brooms, which surely would have given a rather rough and ready look to the end result - your picture certainly supports this! I guess the stencils were a casualty on this particular Spit... But are these stripes really so badly applied to justify reproducing them as badly painted on a model ? Let's forget for a moment the black stripes on the wing and look at the fuselage stripes: there are some ragged edges, but if I scale these down I get the kind of edges that can result using generic masking tape. Particularly in 1/72, I wouldn't be able to reproduce these correctly unless I go over the stripes edges with a lens and a micron sized brush. The worst offenders would be the white area painted over the rear roundel yellow edges and the way the white bordes the R in the code, Now the wings are painted worse than the fuselage, mainly because there are serious brush marks on the black sections while the white ones are much better from this point of view... with the exception of the white stripe closest to the fuselage... that in itself is curious: two stripes have received coats that cover the original paint very well, the other has not, why ? Probably because the airman in the picture is applying a second coat and this has not been brushed onto the last stripe yet. That also means that we don't know if the black stripes would have received a second coat on top of what we see or not. The black stripes on the fuselage are well painted, apart from the ragged edges, are we sure that the wing black stripes would have not been completed to the same standard of the fuselage ones ? There are plenty of pictures of aircraft around D-Day with very neat stripes and plenty with less so neat stripes and modellers should ideally base their model on these as they are all representative of the completed job. This very famous picture however does not really represent much of a proof of what the aircraft looked like after the stripes had been completed. Did they remain as rough as in the picture ? Was the picture taken halfway in the painting process ? The only fact is that we don't know ! We can assume certain details but we don't know for sure at what stage of the paintjob the picture was taken and how the aircraft looked like when she took off for her first mission on that fateful day Edited July 7, 2020 by Giorgio N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 On 7/5/2020 at 4:20 PM, 11bravo said: Agreed... The F-51D's were horribly unsuited to ground attack missions over there. It was a matter of simple economics - the USAF had a few thousand Mustangs in storage, not nearly as many P-47's since they were already being phased out of the guard at that point. If money was no issue, the USAF would have been much better served ordering A-1's, they were arguably the best piston engined ground attack aircraft ever made (maybe except the Il-2). Let's say it's 1945 and you have two fighters in service... one has overall better performance, is easier to maintain and to fly. The other has lower performance, is more maintenance intensive and has a worse accident rate. Which one would you keep in service of the two ? The P-51 may have been less suited to ground attack missions, but it was a much better option from every other point of view. The Jug may have been tough but its peacetime service was much less than stellar, air forces that received both types always praised the Mustang and had problems with the Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt that had already shown a worse accident rate during the war. So the choice of retaining the P-51 over the P-47 made perfect sense in 1945 and for the following 5 years. t We don't really know if the P-47 would have fared better in Korea, people assume this to be case based on WW2 but there's no proof. Best we can compare is with the use of radial engined types by the US Navy, of which the F4U was found to be vulnerable itself, so much that the Marines requested a variant specifically dedicated to ground attack missions. Even the Skyraider had to be up-armoured, something that with 2700 HP was easily feasible on this aircraft but would have been less feasible on older less powerful types 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now