Skewgear

Right, got it now. Will flag.

I think this is (finally!) correct. Not many YouTube videos out there of the P8, and this isn't the best, but you can clearly see that the needle and the reference lines are not locked together.

Just stumbled across a historical snippet which means there's a complete answer available. 453 Sqn recorded their aircraft serial numbers at the end of each month's Form 541, reconciling letter to serial number. At the end of May 1944 (i.e. a week or two before the photo above) these were: A MH443 B MJ789 D MK575 E MK288 F MH418 G MH355 H MK355 J MH487 K MK260 L NH244 M MJ333 N MJ779 P MH454 R NH208 S MK618 T MK285 U MK284 V NH274 Z MK421 ? MK379 K in the photo above is therefore MK260. A Castle Bromwich LF.IX, taken on charge by 9 Maintenance Unit from the factory on 2nd February 1944. The background Spitfire is clearly not coded ? which was the CO's personal marking; apparently he went through six such machines coded ? according to https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235017530-spitfire-mkixc-bs227-fuu/page/2/#comment-3605666 Judging by the part of the code letter visible on the background machine it must be one of these four, 453 having no FU-I: FU-L MK566 - Castle Bromwich LF.IX taken on charge by 39MU on 1st March 1944 FU-H MK355 - Castle Bromwich LF.IX taken on charge at 9MU on 4th February 1944 FU-U MK284 - Castle Bromwich LF.IX taken on charge at 6MU on 2nd February 1944 FU-J MH487 - Castle Bromwich LF.IX taken on charge at 33MU on 17th August 1943 MH487 was previously the CO's personal mount in April, being coded ? during that month before the delivery of MK379 in June which took on the ? code letter. Combining this with what looks like a squadron leader's pennant and a piece of unique nose art in the photo, I am fairly sure that the Spitfire in the background is MH487. With MH487 being the older aircraft, it seems likely to me it may well have been fitted with ex-Mk.V components of no critical importance on the production line. Incidentally, MH487 was destroyed in a crash recorded as so: "Crashed Coombe Hill W of Eastbourne on ferry flight 13-6-44 FSgt DG Saunders (RAAF)+"

I'm unclear as to why the M2HB gun enters the discussion at all in the context of WWII aircraft weapons. Both the P-51D and the P-47D carried the AN/M2 gun with the 36" (35.8") bbl. We should expect significantly lower MVs than for the 45" bbl M2HB, for the simple reason that the aircraft gun bbl is 9" shorter. I'm on the move so don't have access to my ballistic calculator software, but any of the free online ones will return ballpark figures illustrating that point. You don't need a university course in thermodynamics or exterior/terminal ballistics for this one! For Yo-Yo, I would caution that the mid/late 1940s was a huge period of data gathering and capture. Much of what we know about WWII tactics and equipment was written down in the years immediately after the end of the war as both British and American forces went on a spree of writing manuals and carrying out experiments to quantify "common knowledge" before too many soldiers were demobilised. A 1947 manual, in my view, just as likely to contain reliable data than a 1944 edition. Certainly much of what is known about British gun and ammunition performance today comes from post war trials.

What would be good is any design or maintenance (collimation?) instructions for the sight itself. The gunsight does seem particularly difficult to use although RAF training of the time focused heavily on lateral deflection shooting rather than the vertical plane we all seem to end up in.

Does this So what's labelled as QFE in the briefing is actually QNH? Or is this just a Spitfire-ism? We've known for ages that on Normandy 1 and 2 the altimeter value on spawn seems as if it's wound all the way to one extreme of the scale. I assumed that was intended behaviour to simulate setting up the cockpit for the first flight of the day, but in light of this perhaps that's not true.

Fantastic information, can't do much better than that. Looks like there were at least 3 different types of cannon/MG plug depending on time period and wing type: the rounded spitzer bullet nose; the semi-rounded flat face one in the diagrams above; and the almost flat plate taped into place as seen on Johnson's IXE (or was it a C converted to E armament spec?)

Without having the engineering drawings to hand (!), by eye the gunport plug looks to be about the same diameter as for the cannon barrel fairing. I'd be surprised if the two were different diameters requiring two differently shaped items. For what it's worth, the original caption says: "Wing Commander J E Johnson, leader of No. 144 (Canadian) Wing RAF, rests on the the wing of his Supermarine Spitfire Mark IX with his Labrador retriever Sally, between sorties at B2/Bazenville, Normandy." 144 Wg had three sqns, 441, 442 and 443. No. 443 Sqn RCAF's Form 541 for June 1944 says Johnson was flying with them, but only gives the aircraft type as "Spitfire IX". 442's says "Spitfire" (no mark number) and 441's says "Spitfire L.F.". Cross-referencing a handful of 441's serial numbers from the .txt Spitfire production list on the internet shows the type only as "Spitfire LFIX" with no suffix. All are Castle Bromwich aircraft, MKnnn, delivered in the first few months of 1944. Some random website selling a model of Johnson's Spitfire says: "MK392, the Spitfire Johnson flew with 144 Wing has now been identified as being originally produced as a Spitfire IXc. In June 1944, Johnson had an MU modify the airplane by changing the gun positions, which was not difficult since MK392 used the large teardrop-shaped “universal gun cover.” Seems that the items pictured could have been local mods by this MU or whoever rearmed Johnson's aircraft with .50s, but my point is that we cannot baldly state that what's modelled in game at the moment is 100% wrong.

On the point about cannon blanking stubs not being rounded enough, here is one of the most famous photos of a Spitfire IX of all time.

It's been flagged. Problem looks like purely a graphics one. Worth memorising your boost needle positions for takeoff, climb and cruise power.

What was the mod, out of interest?

(edit - 453 did record airframe serial numbers on the final page of the monthly RAF Form 541) What I compiled for the PO archives for mission bort code creation purposes is this (edit, which turns out to be mostly wrong!), although I couldn't tell you now what the sources were or whether the serial/letter reconciliation are 100% authentic: Serial Fate Date Location Letter NH557 Hit by ground fire belly landed in front lines Bemmel and overturned 27/09/44 Bemmel G NH462 P MK618 Shot down by flak 24/07/44 Villers Bocage F MK575 D MK566 Hit by flak and crashlanded nr Montford [Bernay] Montford [Bernay] L If you google it there are other 453 Sqn serial numbers out there. Possibly the master Spitfire production list (linked from RAFCommands and other sites) has some serial number allocations to 453 Sqn. Sqn Ldr Donald Smith appears to have most often flown an aircraft whose letter is given in the Form 541 for June 1944 as "?" so either nobody knew what the CO was flying or possibly 453 had a Spitfire IX on charge with no code letter or an actual question mark on the side. With disproportionate effort, it's possible in theory to figure out that aircraft's identity. Aircraft mod states. AP 3397, 'Maintenance' at this link: https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/units/air-historical-branch/second-world-war-thematic-studies1/ Actual document title is "THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROYAL AIR FORCE MAINTENANCE, SEPTEMBER 1939 TO MAY 1945". No.41 Group was the formation which received new RAF aircraft from the manufacturers and repaired or overhauled aircraft from contractors. Page 124: and page 125, seems I misremembered the work on mod embodiments at MUs. Some were receiving aircraft with all required frontline equipment fitted and ready to go, stripping the equipment off and then refitting it!

I can give you a list of serial numbers for 453 Sqn during June 1944 if you like. Nearest aircraft is possibly MK260, you can see the letter K, and that machine was lost on 6th July 1944 after sustaining blast damage during a strafing run. Furthest one could be L, I, H or U. That looks like a sqn ldr's pennant on the fuel tank, so whichever aircraft 453's CO flew most often is the likely candidate. I'm unconvinced everything was as black and white as you say it was with regard to individual aircraft mod states. There was at least one ex-Mk.Ia airframe in frontline squadron service after upgrade to VB standard (X4272, even scored a kill after D Day!) and other than receiving B wings with the hard points for bomb, upgraded radio and other role specific equipment, I would bet that had a lot of Mk.I specific features tucked away in it. Many 2TAF sqns couldn't accurately describe the very aircraft they were flying. In going through the ORBs for the three months after D Day I've seen mentions of the IXA, IXB, IXC, LF. IX, IXE (on a sqn whose Y appendices record expenditure of .303", not .50") and other variations. Doubtless the airfield CTOs and servicing commandos had precise records at the airframe level but those are long gone. I cannot imagine anyone caring about the number of spokes on a wheel in frontline service unless the wheel had failed. Different story, naturally, for a contractor or RAF Maintenance Unit charged with bringing a machine up to a given mod state before issue. One of the Air Historical Branch narratives about RAF logistics mentions that some MUs were receiving factory fresh Spitfires built to the latest mod state, only to strip some of those mods out because the latest orders hadn't reached them and their duty was to issue aircraft at whatever the last authorised mod state was. When I get home I'll dig out the references as this stuff is important.

Bumping this for the Type 15 as a potential addition to the WW2 Asset Pack as an Allied ground surveillance radar. Full details needed to model it physically and in game performance terms are at the links above.

The Spitfire gun harmonisation pattern was set at 250yds by the time the LF IX entered service. The DCS harmonisation pattern looks very similar to reality but I suspect it may be slightly different in terms of where the cannon are aimed. The convergence zone in game is more of an elongated box than a point but from my unscientific visual testing with tracer, it stretches between 260yds and 280yds. Bear in mind that no machine gun or autocannon produces a steady stream of shots through the same hole. Instead you have a beaten zone of a given size. For a specific application (aircraft gun, indirect fire ground machine gun, etc) there is a permissible variation in the mean point of impact and the intended correct zero position, where the CZP is the point where shots from all of the guns have the greatest probability of hitting the target even if the pilot has made mistakes in range estimation or deflection. Provided the as-zeroed MPI sits somewhere within that PV area, you could end up with significant (but permissible) differences in actual MPI between one airframe and another. The relationship between gunsight, airframe and gun mountings is also critical. An error of a few thousandths of an inch in the sight mounting may lead to all guns being skewed in one direction or another. I don't have time for the maths as I write this but that could be in the order of feet at the intended harmonisation distance. Remember also the concept of operations for these aircraft. Unlike the Il-2 game that all online flight sim pilots refer to on this topic, real pilots were expected to jump in any of their squadron's fighters on command and be able to shoot effectively. There was simply no question of messing about with individual aeroplanes' harmonisation unless the airframe was personally allocated to a wing leader. Guns therefore had to be zeroed to a common standard across the whole command. Gunnery was taught at rear echelon units and tested by number of hits scored on towed drogue targets. You cannot effectively teach these techniques unless all guns in all aircraft of the same type that the pilot will encounter are zeroed in the same way. I spoke to a researcher who's part way through writing up the history of the Spitfire gun harmonisation settings and he sent me some draft web pages and graphics he's prepared. Unfortunately he asked me not to share them as he intends publishing them, but they're very clear and logical and a good contribution to the historical record of how these aircraft were used in combat. They also explain how the British thinking on armaments, tactics and lethality changed over time. I have encouraged him to publish them soon so I can link them here. Incidentally, "just get closer" doesn't work unless you aim off. At 100yds you'll be hitting mid-wing or further out on a 109 if you aim for the fuselage. I'm not sure if it's a video game perspective thing but the RAF seemed to engage at very long ranges by DCS standards.

Our current Spitfire seems to be modelling an early (late 1942) production line conversion of a Mk.VB, hence duplicating things like the wobble pump and electric fuel pump. I have a feeling the F.IX performance wasn't that much different from the LF.IX except at lower altitudes where the LF's Merlin 66 had had the supercharger impeller cropped and its gear ratios adjusted for greater power output below 10,000ft. This gave the M66 a lower full throttle height than the M61 in the F.IX but an otherwise similar performance profile. In theory all that would need doing to create a late production F.IX in DCS is adjusting the engine and associated flight model parameters of our current LF.IX, no 3D model changes or major work. Normandy didn't have that many E wing Spitfires until the very end of the campaign as it progressed past Paris and into the Low Countries and Germany proper. If ED was to model an E wing Spitfire then for the effort involved (new 3D model, new damage model, flight dynamics changes with the different parasitic drag characteristics of the E wing from removing the outer .303" guns and adding the inboard .50" guns) you may as well go the whole hog and model a full Mk.XVIe as if it was fuelled with 130 grade, giving 25lbs boost. I'd really like the option of an E wing but having read up on what it involves after suggesting it myself a while ago, it's far more work than it might seem given how similar they are in reality. What are the 3D inaccuracies you mention?

Why would you buy an addon plane for a simulation title that prides itself on being as realistic and in-depth as possible, and then repeatedly, over a period of months, complain that the game isn't arcade-y enough for you? I suspect we're all being gently trolled here.

It seems 18 Sqn RAF actually did fly A-20Gs, albeit semi officially. Intriguing photo here including markings from both RAF and USAAF on the same airframe: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/raf-a-20gs-yes-they-did-operate-them.50238/ But you are right, the vast majority of RAF Bostons were A-20Js with the glazed nose. From some brief reading it looks like the Soviet A-20s were RAF orders diverted straight over there after the USSR entered WW2.

It's nice that skinners are turning their talents to the lesser known and loved AI assets, but it would also be good to have some more generic liveries for formation use, complete with user-customisable bort codes. A correct generic RAF livery would be a huge help for big missions and multiplayer servers because the stock one looks like a child's first Airfix kit.

Have you got links to these manuals? They may have been written for different marks of Mosquito or different engine types. Our one is modelled with Merlin 25 engines so the boost cutout for the M22 and M23 is inoperative.

Server is Normandy 2 only. Also requires the WW2 Asset Pack. On a different note, while researching archive material for overhauling one of our missions I came across something unusual, so I wrote about it: https://www.projectoverlord.co.uk/documents/what-happened-to-hawker-typhoon-mn293/

Did you solve this? There's a longstanding bug with WW2 ground units not rearming from supply trucks. Seems to mainly affect armour, artillery and AAA.

|269| Tofu created a very similar thing which we put on the Project Overlord website. There are smaller excerpts of key areas too. https://www.projectoverlord.co.uk/documents/tofus-normandy-2-supermap/

MISSION REWORK FOR NORMANDY 2 Mission 30th June 1944 Complete rework of the mission to fit better to the Normandy 2 map: - new airfield layout using historical German airfields - new airfield layout of the Allied airfields in England, using mostly historical airfields - new historical ground target at chosen locations to focus encounters - trains and moving convoys as targets of opportunity - reworked AAA - AI fighter-bomber raids spawning at intervals to attack targets when population is low - implemented new Mosquito liveries - Changes to airfield AAA: Axis fields now use 37mm guns, British fields use 20mm - included mission registration script into this mission - Filled auxiliary tank of half the German slots (labelled with extra fuel or aux fuel in their group name. OTHER CHANGES: Mission 18th July 1944 - Bug fix for the point system (caused erroneous premature Allied wins) EWRS - Implemented a minimal detection altitude for the radar. If you fly on the deck, you won't get any nearest bandits callouts, but you will also not be visible for the enemy's radar. Happy flying!

Paris and back can be done with a 45 gallon tank provided you're happy to cruise at 190mph, don't get into combat for longer than 6-8 minutes and land at Friston. Cruising at typical bomber speeds of 230mph robs you of vital range. Most Normandy Spitfire sorties were 2 hours long. Difficult to stay aloft for that length of time and be militarily useful without the 90 gallon tanks.