Skewgear

(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.

It would be excellent to have a 90 gallon drop tank as well as the existing 45 gallon options. The tank was introduced in 1943, which is the year/mod state modelled in our Spitfire. It's difficult to reproduce historical Spitfire mission profiles without the 90 gallon tank as from early 1944 onwards it was a routinely used piece of equipment.

We have rolled out some statistics updates on the PO website. First of all, pilot stats search. You can now track your own progress over the last 12 months. https://www.projectoverlord.co.uk/monthly-statistics/individual-pilot-statistics-search/ We have also built the first phase of our squadron stats page: https://www.projectoverlord.co.uk/stats/squadrons-monthly/ Enjoy!

He's not talking about bullets or cannon shells. It is one thing to model a bullet directly hitting a structure. Quite another to define how that structure reacts to a guided missile detonation.

There's some great advice in this thread and 4eyes' post about learning to taxi in a straight line at low speeds first is an excelent starting point. The quoted post above is good but try it on a long runway (Channel map Manston is both wide and long, perfect for learning) with no load at first. I'd also suggest +7lbs boost on the brakes and then throttle up to 12lbs. No need to go to +18lbs unless you're taking off at max weight from a short runway - which is not an easy way to learn. If you make your own practice mission, be sure to set the wind at no more than +5kts coming straight down the runway (meaning blowing towards your aircraft when you're lined up ready to go). Crosswinds will make it far harder so avoid those until you can take off successfully. From personal experience, it takes a while to get the hang of the Mosquito and even now I'm nervous on formation takeoffs in case I swerve into the guy next to me. You will crash, it's part of learning the addon. When advice says "tap the rudder" this means "press and then release straightaway". Tap dancing = press first one way and then the other. The Mosquito takes a long time to respond to rudder inputs on the ground while rolling so for the first 10 seconds or so of the takeoff roll, very lightly use the brakes at the same time as the rudder. You need the brakes bound to an axis as well for best effectiveness. I find holding the stick fully back for the first 10 seconds and then easing forward to lift the tail helps me. Are you setting the trims before takeoff? 2 divisions nose down, 1.5 divisions right aileron, rudder to M of 'trim' on the dial. Flaps 15-20 degrees approx. (Lowered until needle on flap angle indicator is almost touching the 3 of the 30 degree mark). Let us know how you get on.

Oddly enough 501 Sqn was flying a Mk.VB Spitfire in August 1944 that started its service life as a Mk.Ia in 1940. One of the unit's flight commanders scored a kill in that machine in June 44 as well. 84 Group had a surprisingly small holding of Mk.IX airframes as attrition replacements for 2nd Tactical Air Force in Normandy; iirc it was scaled for something in the order of half a dozen airframes and pilots held at Ford for immediate despatch and something like two dozen at Cranfield. Sqn ORBs vary as to what exact type of aircraft they had at a given moment in time (B, C, C with 50-cal guns) and many units themselves seemed a bit sketchy. I suspect a lot of IXCs were recorded in non-technical documentation like ORBs and combat reports as IXBs simply because pilots were used to cannon armed aircraft meaning B variants (IB and VB). --- Edit to add: 84 Group in fact held 3 spare airframes and pilots *per squadron*. Significantly more than I thought when I posted above! A 453 Sqn pilot's logbook records something very interesting: his unit was apparently flying IXEs and IXBs at the same time. See 4th image from the end. https://www.rustyleith.com/log-book#gallery_2-7

It is possible to use the original GSGS 1:250k maps of Normandy for high level navigation on our Normandy 2 map. I haven't yet looked to see if the 1:100k series gives things like church spires and factories in the same location as our map - I strongly suspect not, partly because every parish church is the size of a cathedral on N2. I did briefly ponder marking up the Project Overlord supermaps with church spires and lighthouses for low level nav but it would be a vast undertaking. Unless there's a way to extract the map information into a web based viewer I think we're stuck with what we've got.

Speaking as a regular Mosquito nav and pilot, no. This is aimed at the tedious people who constantly fly in little circles over the Caen rooftops while ignoring every single mission design feature of the Project Overlord server and then whine about being bored. I'm sure we've all experienced the chain of 8 or 9 non-SRS Mustangs and Spitfires chasing a lone 190 or 109 in that area. The typical Mosquito mission profile should involve popping up to check navigation every so often, or over cliffs or hills. That should reduce the odds of bird strikes to a realistic level. We're monitoring the implementation and will review if it's causing problems.

You might find the intellectual property in all those RAF badges belongs to the Ministry of Defence, not you.

Wake turbulence is now enabled in all missions following successful testing yesterday. Birdstrikes are also now enabled - pilots who constantly fly at treetop height may find engine failures occur, simulating a bird hitting the propeller. DCS does not display visual models of birds but calculates the probability of strikes occurring. Fly above 600ft to avoid birdstrikes. LotATC settings updated to make them more realistic to WWII for our GCIs and to use our radars' performance in a more realistic manner. Enjoy!

Having read over this, it looks like the parts of immediate relevance (assuming the game engine is accurate and the derivations of velocity aren't needed to further validate ingame performance after the bullet leaves the muzzle) are the first and third tables in the first post. These clearly show: The DCS M2 muzzle velocity is 34m/s too slow The DCS M8 MV is 39m/s too slow M20 MV is 25m/s too slow The M8 bullet is too light by 0.017kg The M20 is 0.0014kg too heavy The 100% dispersion cone is 1.2 mils too small for the DCS bullets. Cumulatively, it seems our 50-cal guns are all firing too low because of increased bullet drop with too low MV, and that they're also grouping tighter (more accurately) than they should be.

Just been watching someone on the PO server in a Spitfire trying to shake off a 109. F2 view G meter registered more than 9G, then -2, then +6, all in the time it takes to read the sentence. It's a bit immersion-breaking.