War Thunder

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/270149-q-a-session-with-kirill-yudintsev-re-current-br-mm-qm-71015-1500-gmt/

QA出來了 暫時沒有翻譯

順便其他人找到的一個大亮點
Why did Russain BR6.7 Tanks need post war ammo ?
todace (Yesterday, 06:23 PM):
Why not?
The game is about vehicles, not exact historical events.

>>No.8981

記得剛開始(1.25那時候吧)時日本IL2社群就是因為這樣所以才沒有去玩WT的
他們一開始的擔憂源自於只要一但網路遊戲化，就必須非考慮平衡性問題不可
相對之下如果是單機遊戲就完全不需要考慮平衡性問題，要用史實數據也比較容易

所以早期WT在日本推廣比臺灣還慢了一兩拍
日文翻譯也比中文還要慢

後來那些人在WT紅了以後有沒有去玩WT就不知道了
但看IL2 1946至今在日本還是紅成那樣，恐怕是沒有吧

今天無意中發現水牛又被拔槍
銀幣跟金幣的都改回12.7*1+7.7*1

不去動BR反而閹割史實上應有的武裝是什麼智障邏輯?

>>No.8984

罵之前要查好

http://rc-guijarro.com/plansfiles/Doc_BrewsterF2ABuffalo.pdf

The XF2A-1 also featured split flaps, a hydraulically operated retractable
main undercarriage (and partially retractable tail wheel), and a streamlined framed canopy. However, the
aircraft lacked self-sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor. Fuel was only 160 U.S. gal (606 l), stored in the fuselage.
Powered by an 950 hp (708 kW) single-row Wright R-1820-22 Cyclone radial engine, it had an impressive
initial climb rate of 2,750 ft/min and a top speed of 277.5 mph (447 km/h), later boosted to 304 mph (489 km/h)
at 16,000 ft (4,879 m) after improvements were made to the cowling streamlining and carburetor/oil cooler
intakes.[9][10] With only a single-stage supercharger, high-altitude performance fell off rapidly.[11] Fuselage
armament was one fixed .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun with 200 rounds and one fixed .30 in
(7.62 mm) AN Browning machine gun with 600 rounds, both in the nose.[N 1] The Navy awarded Brewster
Aeronautical Corporation a production contract for 54 aircraft as the F2A-1.

While service testing of the XF2A-1 prototype began in January 1938 and in June, production started on the
F2A-1. They were powered by the 940 hp (701 kW) Wright R-1820-34 engine and had a larger fin. The added
weight of two additional .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning wing guns and other equipment specified by the Navy for
combat operations reduced the initial rate of climb to 2,600 ft/min. Plagued by production difficulties, Brewster
only delivered 11 F2A-1 aircraft to the Navy; the remainder of the order was later diverted to the Finnish Air
Force in modified form under the export designation Model 239.

所以要不然就是只有機鼻1個.50 1個.30 (前幾台)

要不然就是還要追加翼砲2根變成3個.50 1個.30 (後來US NAVY追加指定)

所以要嘛就是給他四管在1.3場大屠殺
就是給他兩管

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brewster_F2A-1_VF-3_3-F-18_1940.jpg

至少這張圖看起來有幾台真的沒翼砲

另外Thach 也有說過比起武裝他寧願性能好點所以也有可能把武裝拔掉

總而言之BR1.3 有1管.50 1管.30基本上也沒啥好抱怨了

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/4089324465
有翻譯了

這兒總結下重點透露的內容
1. 空戰的確實沒做好會調整(已經實裝) 但陸戰的認為沒問題 至少還要觀察更久
2. 1.53這個月就會更新
3. 持久戰模式會替代全真模式并常駐
4. 2 3個版本后就會變為正式版(現在是公測) 并在之後開啟基於持久戰模式的世界大戰模式 公測之後也會開始海戰

發覺有些特別彈/某些特性 性質不明
1."試射"燃燒?
2. 高爆(沒破片)>破片(沒高爆)?
3. 自爆?
4. 訓練/ball?
5. 瞬間指示(IAI) = 燃燒 (I)

請問以上特質在遊戲中有什麼別?

好好好... 筆誤改一下

無名氏: 沒什麼 遇到只是剪貼維基而且還沒讀通就敢上來要人查資料查好的案例 得讓他知道想在本版糊弄人沒那麼容易 (9MtkbpW. 15/10/09 14:56)
無名氏: 特別是這話題幾年前就開涮過 而蝸牛又持續擺爛到有目共睹的現在 想翻案得準備更充足一點才行 (9MtkbpW. 15/10/09 14:57)

我只有說

1. 拔槍並非完全非史實。
2. BR1.3 配上那個FM拿3挺.50 實在太OP
第一點可以驗證
第二點見仁見智

Source is source. 資料無誤即可引用

Source 1
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_F2A_buffalo.html

Development

The XF2F-1 was designed in response to a 1936 Navy contest to design a replacement for the Grumman F3F biplane. Brewster’s response was a mid-wing monoplane, with an enclosed cockpit, retractable undercarriage, and all metal construction. The XF2F-1 was armed with one .30 calibre and one .50 calibre machine gun mounted in the engine cowling. Additionally one .50 calibre gun could be installed in each wing.

The prototype XF2A-1 first flew on 2 December 1937. It was based around a 950 hp Wright W 1820-22 Cyclone engine, but failed to live up to its promised performance. The competing Grumman XF4F-2 had reached 290 mph in September 1937. The Brewster design was expected to top this, but failed to do so until it had been extensively redesigned. Finally, after a series of modifications in early 1938 the XF2A-1 reached a top speed of 304 mpg at 16,000 feet and a climb rate of 2,750 feet per second. In June 1938 the U.S. Navy accepted the XF2A-1 and placed an order for 54 of the production model (only 10 of these ever entered U.S. Service, with the rest going to Finland).

Variants

F2A-1

After tests of the XF2A-1 proved successful, the U.S. Navy placed an order for 54 of the aircraft. A series of minor changes were made, including the installation of a telescopic gun sight and an improved cockpit canopy. The same engine was used as in the final prototype. The aircraft were produced with the two gun configuration, but after exercises in the spring of 1940 the wing guns were added.

此source寫說F2A-1製造出來的時候就是2槍版本(12月的時候)
而是到了1940春天才加裝翼槍
所以我們由下面的另外三個Source來源印證說法

Source 2
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buffaloconstnumbers.pdf

2~55 台都是F2A-1
我們要特別注意的是第三台到第11台 (交給VF-3的)
因為後面的全部都外銷、就不會有US Navy的編號

這幾台的在VF-3運作的時候的編號是

c/n 2 3-F-1
c/n 3 3-F-18
c/n 4 3-F-17
c/n 5 3-F-16
c/n 6 3-F-15
c/n 7 3-F-14
c/n 8 3-F-13
c/n 9 3-F-12
c/n 10 3-F-11
c/n 11 3-F-10

裡面也證明了還能用的全部都在11月改裝為F2A-2
而Thach 的 F2A-1 是3-F-13, 1939 December 4 交貨

Source 3
http://s262.photobucket.com/user/Duggy009/media/Duggy009-2/Brewster%20Buffalo/BrewsterF2A-1BuffaloBuNo1388ofVF-3parkedatLongIslandNYonNovember141939-2.jpg.html
此照片證明是 1939 Nov. 14 照的 3-F-18(七月交貨), 也就是第四台F2A-1、明顯沒有翼槍

Source 4
然後沒錯、後來1940 March 19的時期似乎已經有加裝翼槍。啥時裝的不知道、不過可以確定的是三月的時候這一台已經有翼槍了
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F2A_Thach_accident_USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)_1940.jpg

Source 5
http://www.aviatorsdatabase.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The-Sorry-Saga-of-the-Brewster-Buffalo.pdf

One month later, Germany attacked Poland from the west while the Soviet Union invaded from the
east. The Russians then turned on Finland, which to many Americans was a more heinous crime. I
can remember my father arguing that "Little Finland" had repaid its World War I debt, unlike larger
and richer countries, and therefore deserved our help in this new travail. The State Department
evidently agreed, for it asked the Navy to release the rest of its Brewsters in exchange for a more
powerful model the following year.

As required by the "Neutrality Act," Brewster modified the F2A by replacing its government-supplied
engine, gun sight, and direction finder with export-approved equipment. It took out the life raft and
arresting hook, and doubled the firepower by installing two half-inch machine guns in the wings. (Like
most American fighters of the time, the F2A had two nose-mounted machine guns, synchronized to
fire through the propeller arc.) Lastly, it painted out Felix, the bomb-carrying cartoon cat that was the
mascot of VF-3. The company produced 44 of these "de-navalized" fighters under the designation B-
239.

根據此SOURCE搞翼槍最一開始也是這一批給芬蘭的才改出一個有翼槍的外銷版
蘇聯跟芬蘭打起來也是11月30日的的事了、所以可以確定要裝翼槍在怎麼快也要12月之後


所以F2A-1 一開始製造的時候的確是一個.30 一個.50。
第一批7月31日 (1台)
第二批10月6日 (2台)
第三批11月28日 (2台)
第四批12月4日 (3台)
最後一批12月11日(3台)就全deliver給VF3(時程上這一批沒有翼槍)
然後1940年春天(估計是3月左右)加裝翼槍
然後最後在1940年10月~11月就全改裝成F2A-2


我同意把他BR拉高點也可、但是至少拔掉那兩管放BR1.3不會不能接受。
而且根據這些資料也說不上不史實

>>No.8995
無名氏: 這跟以前某strange搞的論證一樣啊,一部份特殊群體當整個型號的標準 (8BSZ8P7w 15/10/10 17:15)
無名氏: 如果初期生產型的裝備狀態就能當整個型號的常備狀態的話,頭四架P-51D還沒上淚滴艙罩而還是高背呢 (8BSZ8P7w 15/10/10 17:16)
無名氏: 這樣蝸牛是不是又有理由砍P-51D的後向視野? (8BSZ8P7w 15/10/10 17:17)


強求一定要照自己喜歡的型號才行的不是我。
我已經證明無翼槍版本確實存在而且有一定數量、而有翼砲應該是後來加裝上去的。
而我從來沒有說過一定要最一開始的版本才是ok的。

我只有說這種無翼槍的版本確實存在(而且明顯不是特例)、而不能說不合理or不史實。
實際要選哪個型號哪個configuration我認為給GAIJIN決定、我覺得不要太離譜即可。

假如說今天F2A-1的型號是寫B-239、ok 這個版本一定有翼槍，那就不可拔一定要有四管。
不過那幾台並不是遊戲內的F2A-1、因為遊戲中的兩台都很明顯印著"US NAVY"在機身上。
B-239都被de-navalized 了還寫US NAVY?不可能吧

倒是有人一直要把他打成不史實、要不然就是特規是什麼心態我就不懂了。


還是說少了兩管.50無法像以前一樣虐菜才是重點?

>而有翼砲應該是後來加裝上去的
Yeah yeah
後來的確是有裝"翼砲"啦

不過這就真的叫做特例了(ry

無名氏: 對初期剛交付不到10架的例子說這是官廠正版、軍方有採用所以是"正規" (DKZwBsT2 15/10/10 18:38)
無名氏: 後面帶跟隨外銷版改裝的四挺槍狀態，機數要更多、時期要更長，也是海軍後來規格單上的標準 (DKZwBsT2 15/10/10 18:48)
無名氏: 要求以此為標準怎就成了把芬蘭版當正規？偷換概念也不是這麼搞的 (DKZwBsT2 15/10/10 18:49)

對初期剛交付不到10架的例子說這是官廠正版、軍方有採用所以是"正規"
這些叫做F2A-1

後面帶跟隨外銷版改裝的四挺槍狀態，機數要更多、時期要更長，也是海軍後來規格單上的標準

我們看一下編號

1 Protoype F2A
2/55 US Navy (F2A-1), with some diverted to Finland
56/103 Belgium, with some diverted to Finland and United Kingdom (RAF)
104/146 US Navy (F2A-2)
147/316 United Kingdom (RAF)
317/388 Neth East Indies

然後編號2-11 這10台是叫做F2A-1
編號12開始之後的都是所謂的"外銷版。外銷版的編號不是F2A-1、是叫做B-239
即是這兩台要放也是放德國(芬蘭在德國下打蘇聯)、或者是蘇聯(後期反過來被蘇聯控制)
所以不管怎麼放也不會放在美國線。

也就是F2A-1從頭到尾也就只有10台
有翼槍的全部都是由沒翼槍改出來的(而且改出翼槍之後起落架還變得很容易collapse)
就算改裝出翼槍也是這10台。
所以沒有所謂的"有翼槍的比沒翼槍的多" 這一回事

然後之後編號104開始即是叫做F2A-2。
我上一次開WT遊戲內這台飛機叫做F2A-1 而沒有包含F2A-2。
再更後面當然就沒有再生產了、就直接改F2A-3啦

由此可見F2A-1 從頭到尾也就這10架。這10架2槍版的不是正規的要不然什麼是正規的?
海軍一開始的規格只有2槍、1939/11~1940/2魔改的"非海軍化外銷版"有4槍、之後大概是1940/3才決定這十架多追加2槍
這裡又一個source。

http://www.aviatorsdatabase.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The-Sorry-Saga-of-the-Brewster-Buffalo.pdf

Brewster got the contract: 54 planes. It delivered one in May 1939, another in July, and a third in October.

假設修改時間訂在3月初好了
1939/6~1940/2 9個月的時間是2槍版
然後
1940/3~1944/10 8個月是4槍版
所以真的硬要說時間上也是大約一半一半
我是認為兩個版本你都可以當作正規版。
Not a big deal 別太離譜就好。
堅持哪個特定版本才是正確的人是你不是我。

>然後最後在1940年10月~11月就全改裝成F2A-2
>常備? 這幾台F2A-1根本沒打過仗就被改成F2A-2
要注意一件事
即使這些入役的F2A-1根據F2A-2標準改裝到與-2無異
它們還是F2A-1 並不會在海軍的登錄序號上就變成F2A-2
>不過那幾台並不是遊戲內的F2A-1、因為遊戲中的兩台都很明顯印著"US NAVY"在機身上
但F2A-1帶四挺槍的時候一樣印著"US NAVY"在身上 甚至按照F2A-2標準升級後也帶著這標記和原來的編號
所以你反指別人拿芬蘭版當正規只是在玩文字遊戲而已
因為不是外銷芬蘭版的降級改裝F2A-1才帶有四挺槍 而是F2A-1改裝四挺槍的工作以這批芬蘭版為時期分際
從這批訂單後水牛就以四槍為基準生產 原本兩槍的則逆向改裝跟上規格要求
F2A-1在美國海軍服役時期內還是帶四挺槍的時期長 即使它們總機數不多
並不會因為你證明了兩槍版本是正規 所以對方講的四槍F2A-1就變成特規或外銷版
兩邊都是史實 只是有時期分別 而不是一方成立而另一方就變成特例

就像1944年六月中旬以後P-51D-5也多數改裝了D-10以後的背鰭
引擎也都對應150高標號汽油而能發揮75"設定飆出1868馬力的性能
但它還是P-51D-5 (見圖)

>假設修改時間訂在3月初好了
>1939/6~1940/2 9個月的時間是2槍版
>然後
>1940/3~1944/10 8個月是4槍版
>所以真的硬要說時間上也是大約一半一半
我覺得這種劃分方式也有充數的嫌疑
首先我們無法確定F2A-1改裝成四槍的確切月份是三月
再者這個改裝進程也有可能存在兩槍和四槍並存的時期
而你所謂九個月的頭兩個月根本只有兩架 當時連考證沒問題的兩槍版薩奇座機都還沒交付
而如我最前頭所說 F2A-1改裝成F2A-2標準後它還是F2A-1
就像登錄為P-51D-5的野馬不會因安裝背鰭或吃高辛烷後變成P-51D-10或後面的型號 它依然是D-5
如果我要搞你這種文字遊戲的話
這些F2A-2標準的F2A-1服役到1941年之後 這樣算下去肯定不止八個月
最後一架還挺到了1944
如果用你不管架數只看月份的玩法的話 那就是四年多vs 九個月 (姑且算九個月好了)
....假如我們無視後面好幾年根本只有一架在役的事實的話 就像你無視你九個月前面六個月根本只是逐步交付的過程那樣
而就算這批F2A-1因為事故和備料問題還有性能跟不上時代而被快速除役
到確定只剩下最後一架BuNo.1393的時間至少還到1941年中
從1940年3月全機在役而開始接受四槍改裝到升級成F2A-2標準至少也有一年以上
無論怎麼算F2A-1帶四槍的"時期"還是遠遠長過兩槍的時期
即使它的數量是遞減 基數一開頭也是近10架
而不像你舉證的期間是從1~2架漸增 而前半時期基本只有五架

我認同你說F2A-1只帶兩挺槍"並非違反史實"的論點
而在BR 1.3給三挺重機槍和一挺輕機槍也真的太過份了 (所以才該拉高BR打類似時代的對手不是嗎？)
但你立論和強化自身合理性的方式就如我在推文說的 很像在鑽法律漏洞的玩法
我也用同樣邏輯下去玩的話可以得到比你更噁心的結論 所以還是算了吧

今天蝸牛被爭議的點就在於這種採樣的奇特標準
因為要滿足只帶兩槍的歷史事實 所以它把F2A-1分類到了"Trainer"
而這也是早期玩家很困惑的一點：它不是Fighter嗎？
實際上就是 它是作為戰鬥機標案的初期勝者而被決定採用 但服役後-1都只被作為高教機使用
蝸牛在這邊玩了點技巧讓它的低武裝和低BR有了免戰牌 但老實說是有點投機取巧

因為如果都要這樣鑽漏洞 將部份史實擴大解釋
那麼 在零戰三二型和五二型被決定採用並逐漸頂替主力位置後 仍持續生產的零戰二一型
有一部份進入了本土飛行教導團單位作為高教機
這些零戰被拆除了翼內20mm砲 有些還被拆除了主起落架艙門/機尾空力套件
表面的理由是減重和減低後勤壓力 另一部份實質的理由是要保留更多的備料給參戰的零戰
這樣改裝的零戰比普通的A6M2更輕巧 但空力變差 速度降低 俯衝限度也降低
但反正學員們用不到 所以並不構成問題
就像他們不需要練習九九式一號砲的手感 用機槍學會空中射擊實技操作後 上現役的零戰直接享受二號砲的優點就得了
而這樣改裝的高教機零戰常態化之後 發展出來的就是我們認識的A6M2-K 就是把省料減裝零戰弄成雙座的正式教練版

那麼問題來了
這些零戰二一因為是作為戰鬥機生產的 並不是零式練戰 所以沒有獲得教練機的特殊編號 它們依然是A6M2
既存在一定機數也服役了有相當時間 絕對不違反史實
那麼 蝸牛若採用這種只有兩挺7.7mm而且速度和俯衝都被閹割 但操控性更UFO的機體當作正常開發線預設的A6M2
強調它於史有據 (到1944還見得到呢) 然後給它BR 2.0當戰力減低的補償
但就不放上我們認知戰史中太平洋戰爭初期威猛奮迅王牌輩出的軍規版A6M2
然後BR相隔1.0以上 直接接上A6M3

你覺得零戰玩家接不接受蝸牛這樣解釋和採樣A6M2？.........(其他例子還很多我就不一一列舉了)

我對於F2A-1因為目前美國海航線闕漏F3F和F4B所以必須降BR填坑 再想辦法找點歷史理由圓過去的做法
沒像某些人那麼排斥 還算可以接受
但排在正式軍機開發線下的機種還是應該要有個比較普遍的採樣標準
不該各國初期戰鬥機線放的都是服役或參戰的戰鬥機 美國海航就要塞台"教練定義的戰鬥機"
只 因 為 這 樣 符 合 分 房 平 衡
我認為這種比較特殊的採樣放在金幣機中倒是滿有趣的
就像海航線不要放這種尷尬的F2A-1
要用教練機解釋它就去金幣區享受低分房和收益優勢
(而這點薩奇水牛完全符合需求 甚至運動性能也不用比照四槍重量而砍低了)
要用F2A-2規格則乾脆就在軍機開發線上放F2A-2而非F2A-1 然後給個比F2A-3稍低的BR就成
這樣美系玩家既不會歷史認知錯亂 而且水牛-1到-3三個型號都齊了 肯定更高興
同樣我也樂於在日本線的金幣區看到減裝教練版的A6M2 甚至是A6M2-K (飛行員可以死兩次？XD)
然後享受低分房和高收益的優勢
反正在那麼低階 教練機零戰不滿500km/h的速度還是很高速 也沒啥需要俯衝到600km/h以上的刀鋒處境
還可以滿足零戰控的收藏慾 何樂不為呢？

自我補充一下
>就像1944年六月中旬以後P-51D-5也多數改裝了D-10以後的背鰭
>引擎也都對應150高標號汽油而能發揮75"設定飆出1868馬力的性能
>但它還是P-51D-5 (見圖)
一架編號44-13926 "E2-S"的P-51D-5 攝於1944年
注意它明明是D-5 卻帶有背鰭 - 因為用後續型號的料件逆向改裝了
這種改裝在D-10投產後快速普及化
此機登錄在另一位飛行員名下 但攝影當時由Urban Drewr少尉駕駛
此人就是後來首開單日擊落兩架Me262紀錄者 也是史上唯二以螺旋槳單日擊落兩架噴射機獲此殊榮的第一位
(不過他創紀錄當時的座機是黃鼻子的"底特律小姐"而不是圖中這架)

如果用蝸牛邏輯比照Yak-3模式辦理
P-51D-5就會又帶背鰭又多170馬力然後被分到三階房
...不過蝸牛的行事風格大家應該都很明瞭 就不必期待了

老實說我是支持D-5該弱一點然後排低一點的 不然後面和D-10/20/30就沒有區別性了
不過對D-5斷翼和搖晃的擴大詮釋 讓D-10和D-20也帶著這種不存在的毛病 然後D-30不是戰後設定外加神奇燒開水
.....嗯 應該不是只有我覺得蝸牛對野馬系列的理解怪怪的吧

>>No.9003
> 它們還是F2A-1 並不會在海軍的登錄序號上就變成F2A-2
> 但F2A-1帶四挺槍的時候一樣印著"US NAVY"在身上 甚至按照F2A-2標準升級後也帶著這標記和原來的編號

你是跟我說升級為F2A-2 之後他尾巴還是會印F2A-1?

F2A-1 Convert 成 F2A-2 卻還要叫他F2A-1喔? 好吧我們就按照你的邏輯
P-38H Convert 了一部分成了F-5C 、但是按照你的邏輯F-5C還是要叫他P-38H對吧! 因為還是要用原來的編號!
P-38L Convert 了一部分成了P-38M、不過我們也把兩台都叫P-38L! 因為原來的編號一致!
噴火光改個翅膀就會改成a b c e 型、所以全部都要記得出場的翅膀是什麼然後只用原來翅膀來叫每一台機體對吧

Convert 了還用原來的型號下去叫、不整個精神錯亂嗎你?
> 因為要滿足只帶兩槍的歷史事實 所以它把F2A-1分類到了"Trainer"

Trainer 又是啥鬼東西?
假如你其實是再講Reserve 的話那我只有看到三台P-26

> 但排在正式軍機開發線下的機種還是應該要有個比較普遍的採樣標準

取哪個都有意見啦
今天就算是拿4槍我也看不出哪裡比2槍有多出什麼正當性
結論就是可以拿你的論點說四槍版本也是out

> 要用教練機解釋它就去金幣區享受低分房和收益優勢

請你認真解釋一下遊戲中什麼叫做教練機
我只看到兩台都被歸類為Naval Fighter
經驗上 BR1.3 也絕對不會如你所講的有分房保護

不是很愛貼嗎？
不是很會講
>Source is source. 資料無誤即可引用
嗎?
During 1940, the Navy decided to install the optional 0.50 cal guns in the wings of its F2A-1s, and immediately started to encounter landing gear failures because of the additional weight. Later that year, VF-3 traded in its F2A-1s for more powerful F2A-2s, and the F2A-1s were returned to Brewster for modifications. Eight of them were remanufactured to F2A-2 standards, and were reissued to VS-201 for service aboard the escort carrier USS Long Island. By mid-1941, only one of these was left (BuAer 1393), and it remained with a training squadron until 1944.

這段在講什麼?
to F2A-2 standards叫做變成F2A-2?

Serials of the Brewster F2A-1:

1386/1396 Brewster F2A-1

海軍怎麼不在接收改裝後刷掉它們的序號啊?
布魯斯特怎麼不把它們的存在抹掉而把生產機數算到F2A-2上啊?
自己對當時狀況理解差在這邊惱羞高喊[都給你們玩就好]喔?
你哪次討論不開這個大絕的? 還要喊幾次啊?

無名氏: 按照後續型號升級並不會改變飛機出廠的登錄序號 我上面貼的圖片你有看嗎？ (fPy7cuXo 15/10/10 22:25)
無名氏: 是的 即使升級成後面的規格也只是把戰機的能力拉到符合時代而已 不會改變機號 (fPy7cuXo 15/10/10 22:26)
無名氏: F-5C雖然由P-38H發展而來 但出廠時就作為F-5C生產 若有從P-38H改裝而來 (fPy7cuXo 15/10/10 22:31)
無名氏: 由於用途 軍方還是會把它登錄為F-5C 你舉P-38L變夜戰M型的例子也一樣 不存在混淆 (fPy7cuXo 15/10/10 22:32)
無名氏: 但P-51D-5根據後期生產指標提高配備 並不因此改變用途 生產時序也沒被變更 所以還是D-5 (fPy7cuXo 15/10/10 22:33)

很好所以你界定是一定要出場後?
例外也太容易找

The first P-38E rolled out of the factory in October 1941 as the Battle of Moscow filled the news wires of the world. Because of the versatility, redundant engines, and especially high speed and high altitude characteristics of the aircraft, as with later variants over a hundred P-38Es were completed in the factory or converted in the field to a photoreconnaissance variant, the F-4, in which the guns were replaced by four cameras. Most of these early reconnaissance Lightnings were retained stateside for training, but the F-4 was the first Lightning to be used in action in April 1942.

為什麼全部都叫F-4呢?

In September 1944, four P-47D-27-RE airframes (s/n 42-27385 / 42-27388) were modified into prototype YP-47Ms by fitting the R-2800-57(C) engine and the GE CH-5 turbo-supercharger, a combination which could produce 2,800 hp (2,089 kW) at 32,500 ft (9,900 m) when using Wartime Emergency Power (water injection).

The second YP-47M (of the batch of four converted P-47Ds) was later fitted with new wings and served as the prototype for the P-47N.

為什麼要這裡要說是YP-47M呢?


其實我覺得跟你討論這一個"convert" 的定義很無聊
因為source 寫得很清楚

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_F2A_buffalo.html
F2A-1
The remainder of the F2A-1s were diverted to Finland to help them in the Winter War against Russia. However, they did not arrive in time to take part in that war. Instead, they were used by the Finns when they allied with the Germans. The F2A-1s in U.S. service were phased out in October 1940

我不知道你看不看得懂"phased out in October 1940"是什麼意思

http://www.warbirdforum.com/buffaloconstnumbers.pdf

2 Completed with c/n 2
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1387; delivered on 6 October
1939
Ref: 45
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-1 Ref: 1
Operated by VS-201 Ref: 1
Converted to F2A-2 on 17 November 1940 Ref: 16
W/o 20 February 1943 or 28 March 1943 at NAS Miami, FL Ref: 2, 16

我不知道你看不看得懂"Converted to" 是什麼意思

http://www.warbirdforum.com/f2a1.htm

BuNo: 1388 Accept Date: 07/31/39 Strike Date: 06/28/44

08/29/39 NAS Anacostia
08/31/39 INA Brewster
11/28/39 BatFor San Diego
12/11/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
11/28/39 BatFor San Diego
12/11/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
11/07/40 BatFor San Diego
11/08/40 NAS Anacostia
11/17/40 INA Brewster [conversion to F2A-2]
08/04/41 NAF Philadelphia [conv to XF2A-4]
09/26/41 NAS Norfolk
04/27/44 NAM Philadelphia

同上: "Conversion"

再說一次、Serial number 理所當然不會變
但是當你是"convert" 到某一型、他就是新的

不用找太遠、M1坦克系列一大堆M1 改成M1A2

M1A2 (Baseline): Production began in 1992 (77 built for the US and more than 600 M1s upgraded to M1A2, 315 for Saudi Arabia, 218 for Kuwait).

所以美國只有77台 M1A2 其他那600+台依然叫普通M1

>>No.9009

大爆笑
序號跟型號完全混在一起。

United States – United States Army and United States Marine Corps have received over 8,100 M1, M1A1 and M1A2 tanks combined.[121][122]
U.S. Army
1,174 M1A2 and M1A2SEP variants
4,393 M1A1 variants
U.S. Marine Corps
403 M1A1


M1A2 (Baseline): Production began in 1992 (77 built for the US and more than 600 M1s upgraded to M1A2, 315 for Saudi Arabia, 218 for Kuwait). The M1A2 offers the tank commander an independent thermal sight and ability to, in rapid sequence, shoot at two targets without the need to acquire each one sequentially, also 2nd generation depleted uranium armor components.[94]

M1A2SEP (System Enhancement Package): Has upgraded third-generation depleted uranium armor components with graphite coating (240 new built, 300 M1A2s upgraded to M1A2SEP for the USA, also unknown numbers of upgraded basic M1s and M1IPs, also 400 oldest M1A1s upgraded to M1A2SEP).

照你們的標準升級版的不能被稱為M1A2系列
請告訴我只有造了77台M1A2, 240 M1A2SEP 卻升級了剩下的600+台是怎麼產生1000多台M1A2系列的?


胡扯得太凶無法自圓其說接下來只好隨便扭曲

升級到新的型號就是新的型號了。序號當然為了完整的歷史會保留起來。但是序號保留了不代表型號不可變OK?

>>No.9011

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_F2A_buffalo.html
The F2A-1s in U.S. service were phased out in October 1940

1940 年10月之後沒有F2A-1了。
1942 年改為F2A-2的F2A-1 依然在飛
End of Story

別再扯什麼型號了。

In October 1940, the Saratoga's air group participated in the Barclay camouflage experiments, and then started replacing their F2A-1s with F2A-2s. The older planes were returned to Brewster where eight were remanufactured to -2 standards and later reissued to VS-201, flying off the USS Long Island. By mid-1941, only a single example of the F2A-1 remained and it soldiered on until 1944 in a training squadron.

我知道這一架刺到你的眼
但海軍就是這麼認定的

BuNo: 1386 Accept Date: 10/06/39 Strike Date: 12/03/43

07/06/39 NAS Anacostia
08/24/39 INA Brewster
10/16/39 NAS Anacostia
10/25/39 NAF Philadelphia
11/01/39 NAS Anacostia
11/04/39 INA Brewster
11/09/39 NAS Anacostia
12/05/39 OPER Norfolk
01/09/41 INA Brewster [conversion to -2]
06/29/41 VS-201 Norfolk
06/21/42 NAS Miami

11/27/40 accident at Norfolk. Left landing gear leg buckled, bent prop, minor damage; photo circa 7-42 as aircraft "19", training unit NAS Miami

BuNo: 1387 Accept Date: unk Strike Date: ? 03/31/43

05/18/39 INA World's Fair, NYC
12/28/39 NAS Anacostia [engine change]
01/08/40 BatFor San Diego
01/29/40 VF-3 SARATOGA
11/06/40 BatFor San Diego
11/07/40 NAS Anacostia
11/17/40 INA Brewster [conversion to F2A-2]
06/29/41 VS-201 Norfolk
10/26/41 NAS Miami

02/20/43: During take-off hit trees at low altitude Crashed and burned 3mi.SE,of Nas Miami.1/killed

BuNo: 1388 Accept Date: 07/31/39 Strike Date: 06/28/44

08/29/39 NAS Anacostia
08/31/39 INA Brewster
11/28/39 BatFor San Diego
12/11/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
11/28/39 BatFor San Diego
12/11/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
11/07/40 BatFor San Diego
11/08/40 NAS Anacostia
11/17/40 INA Brewster [conversion to F2A-2]
08/04/41 NAF Philadelphia [conv to XF2A-4]
09/26/41 NAS Norfolk
04/27/44 NAM Philadelphia

BuNo: 1389 Accept Date: 11/28/39 Strike Date: 10/31/44

12/08/39 BatFor San Diego
12/11/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
10/31/40 BatFor San Diego
11/01/40 NAS Anacostia
11/05/40 INA Brewster [conversion to F2A-2]
06/25/41 VS-201 Norfolk
10/27/41 NAS Miami
06/25/41 VS-201 Norfolk
10/27/41 NAS Miami
04/01/42 BatFor San Diego
06/28/42 NAS Miami
01/08/43 NAS Jacksonville
07/08/43 NAOT Miami
10/31/44 GNATT Glenview

BuNo: 1390 Accept Date: 11/28/39 Strike Date: 09/23/40

12/08/39 BatFor San Diego
12/08/39 VF-3 SARATOGA

09/23/40: aircraft crashed into ocean eight miles from Dana Point, CA; total loss, 322.5 hours flight time

BuNo: 1391 Accept Date: 12/04/39 Strike Date: 10/31/44

12/11/39 BatFor San Diego
12/11/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
11/07/40 BatFor San Diego
11/08/40 NAS Anacostia
11/07/40 BatFor San Diego
11/08/40 NAS Anacostia
11/17/40 INA Brewster [conversion to F2A-2]
06/25/41 VS-201 Norfolk
11/02/41 NAS Miami
04/21/42 NAS Jacksonville
11/06/43 NATTC Jacksonville

BuNo: 1392 Accept Date: 12/04/39 Strike Date: 05/21/43

12/04/39 BatFor San Diego
12/18/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
10/30/40 BatFor San Diego
10/31/40 NAS Anacostia
11/05/40 INA Brewster [conversion to F2A-2]
06/11/41 VS-201 Norfolk
11/10/41 NAS Miami
12/15/42 NATT Jacksonville
11/10/41 NAS Miami
12/15/42 NATT Jacksonville

BuNo: 1393 Accept Date: 12/04/39 Strike Date: 05/09/44

12/11/39 BatFor San Diego
12/18/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
03/14/40 BatFor San Diego
03/28/40 VF-3 SARATOGA
08/22/40 BatFor San Diego
05/16/41 NAS Norfolk
08/22/42 NAS Miami
04/11/44 ? Norman OK

crashed 08/22/40, major overhaul to 04/15/41; at aircraft armament unit to 11/08/41; crash at Jacksonville 05/07/43

BuNo: 1394 Accept Date: 12/11/39 Strike Date: 04/09/42

12/16/39 BatFor San Diego
12/18/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
10/30/40 BatFor San Diego
10/31/40 NAS Anacostia
10/30/40 BatFor San Diego
10/31/40 NAS Anacostia
11/05/40 INA Brewster [conversion to F2A-2]
06/11/41 VS-201 Norfolk
11/10/41 NAS Miami
03/04/42 ? Norfolk

01/29/40, crashed on SARATOGA, belly, landing gear damaged
28 feb 42; Low altitude aerobatics, crashed 10mi SW NAS Miami
aircraft crashed 03/04/42 and destroyed, 628 flying hours

BuNo: 1395 Accept Date: 12/11/39 Strike Date: 04/09/42

12/11/39 BatFor San Diego
12/18/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
11/06/40 BatFor San Diego
11/07/40 NAS Anacostia
11/17/40 INA Brewster [conversion to F2A-2]
06/29/41 VS-201 Norfolk
11/10/41 NAS Miami
06/29/41 VS-201 Norfolk
11/10/41 NAS Miami

02/23/40, bent prop, no damage to engine
9 Feb 42 Stalled at 100' 5mi west of Davis FL
02/18/42, crashed beyond repair, 552 flying hours

BuNo: 1396 Accept Date: 12/11/39 Strike Date: none given

12/16/39 BatFor San Diego
12/18/39 VF-3 SARATOGA
10/31/40 BatFor San Diego
11/01/40 NAS Anacostia
11/05/40 INA Brewster [conversion to F2A-2]
06/29/41 VS-201 Norfolk
-no date- NAS New York
11/15/41 NAS Miami
05/08/42 NAS Jacksonville
06/09/43 NAS Miami

Fkers don't read.

Lets don't read part 2

http://www.warbirdforum.com/buffaloconstnumbers.pdf

-
Completed without a construction number
Delivered to US Navy as XF2A-1, serial BuA 0451; delivery date not known
Converted to XF2A-2 Ref: 2

Fate not known

1 Completed with c/n 1
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1386; delivered on 6 October
1939
Ref: 16
Operated by VS-201 Ref: 1
Converted to F2A-2 on 9 January 1941 Ref: 16
W/o 27 November 1940 at NAS Norfolk, VA Ref: 45

2 Completed with c/n 2
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1387; delivered on 6 October
1939
Ref: 45
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-1 Ref: 1
Operated by VS-201 Ref: 1
Converted to F2A-2 on 17 November 1940 Ref: 16
W/o 20 February 1943 or 28 March 1943 at NAS Miami, FL Ref: 2, 16

3 Completed with c/n 3
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1388; delivered on 31 Jul
1939
Ref: 16
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-18 Ref: 1, 45
Operated by VS-201 Ref: 1, 45
Converted to F2A-2 on 17 November 1940 Ref: 16
Converted to XF2A-4 on 4 August 1941 Ref: 16
Wfu 28 June 1944 Ref: 16

4 Completed with c/n 4
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1389; delivered on 28
November 1939
Ref: 16
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-17 Ref: 45
Converted to F2A-2 on 5 November 1940 Ref: 16
Wfu 31 October 1944 Ref: 16

5 Completed with c/n 5
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1390; delivered on 28
November 1939
Ref: 16
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-16 Ref: 1, 45
W/o 23 September 1940 at Dana Point, CA Ref: 2

6 Completed with c/n 6
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1391; delivered on 4
December 1939
Ref: 16
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-14 Ref: 1, 45
Operated by VS-201 Ref: 1, 45
Converted to F2A-2 on 17 November 1940 Ref: 16
Wfu 31 October 1944 Ref: 16

7 Completed with c/n 7
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1392; delivered on 4
December 1939
Ref: 16
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-14 Ref: 1, 45
Operated by VS-201 Ref: 1, 45
Converted to F2A-2 on 5 November 1940 Ref: 16
W/o 21 May 1943 at Jacksonville NAS, FL Ref: 2

8 Completed with c/n 8
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1393; delivered on 4
December 1939
Ref: 16
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-13 Ref: 1, 45
Crashed 22 August 1940 but repaired Ref: 16
Converted to F2A-2 Ref: 45
W/o 7 May 1943 at Jacksonville NAS, FL Ref: 16

9 Completed with c/n 9
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1394; delivered on 11
December 1939
Ref: 16
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-12 Ref: 1, 45
Operated by VS-201 Ref: 1, 45
Converted to F2A-2 on 5 November 1940 Ref: 16
W/o 28 February 1942 and 4 March 1942 at Miami NAS, FL Ref: 2, 16, 45

10 Completed with c/n 10
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1395; delivered on 11
December 1939
Ref: 16
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-11 Ref: 1, 45
Operated by VS-201 Ref: 1, 45
Converted to F2A-2 on 17 November 1940 Ref: 16
W/o 18 February 1942 at Davis, FL Ref: 2, 16, 45

11 Completed with c/n 11
Delivered to US Navy as F2A-1 probably with serial BuA 1396; delivered on 11
December 1939
Ref: 16
Operated by VF-3 as 3-F-10 Ref: 1, 45
Operated by VS-201 Ref: 1, 45
Converted to F2A-2 on 5 November 1940 Ref: 16
Fate not known
Yes 3-F-13 was converted.

>同樣我也樂於在日本線的金幣區看到減裝教練版的A6M2 甚至是A6M2-K (飛行員可以死兩次？XD)
在全真模式下
前座死了就要強制用後座視點操作....那個視野....我還是跳機好了=_=

雖然我覺得多了或少了這幾個月
或多幾台少幾台四槍F2A-1
也不會損及F2A-1裝兩槍OK的論點
Eight F2A-1s were also rebuilt to F2A-2 standards. Initially serving with VF-3 and USS Lexington's VF-2
八架F2A-1以F2A-2標準重造
進入沙拉托加的VF-3和列克星頓的VF-2服役
Lexington leaving San Diego, California, 14 Oct 1941, with F2A-1 fighters parked forward, SBD scout-bombers amidships, and TBD-1 torpedo bombers
海軍的紀錄照片這麼說明艦載機的搭載內容
列克星頓上的VF-2根本不是原本操作F2A-1的單位
為什麼41年初開始受領F2A-2的該部對會有F2A-1?
要嘛是誤植
要嘛就是已領到的F2A-2中有F2A-1改裝而來而依然登錄為F2A-1的機體存在
兩種可能性都是有的
當年布魯斯特的管理有很大問題
出廠的紀錄跟軍方對不上也不算稀奇
>你是跟我說升級為F2A-2 之後他尾巴還是會印F2A-1?
不要以為這種事情不會發生
你一定沒看過帶K-14瞄具的P-51D-10 (部隊紀錄和機身漆的編號都還是D-10)
機身特徵完全是D-20但機身側邊印著P-51K-15
或帶著K型專屬達拉斯艙蓋和AP槳的D-20
帶後期特徵的D-5上面有人貼了
至於德機後期那種出廠型號與機體特徵對不上號的照片多到數不清了
完全是G-14特徵的後期G-6
部分G-14部分K-4的G-10
拆得像G-10的K-4
工廠說是G-14而部隊說是G-10
各種例子眼花撩亂 族繁不及備載
如果沒有從序號去追 你都不知道你眼前的是哪一型

要用M1A2這種領域和時期不同的例子去逆證 以今非古
只顯示你對當時狀況看得不夠
說別人錯亂之前最好先多看看當時的狀況