DD_Fenrir

It’s an interesting and seemingly reasonable hypothesis I grant you, but there’s a lot of supposition and extrapolation to get from the limited evidence presented to the conclusion. Personally, I’d like to see some more sources that confirm or corroborate before this is made a reality in DCS. However, this is a good starting point to an investigation to see if the hypothesis can be proved… or otherwise.

Fluffy Dice and a novelty gear knob.

Lol! Fair enough!

Here's the issue. If you're going to play in SAM MEZs (a bad idea in any aircraft) you need to be flying around trees rather than over.

There is no DCS: WW2 Night Fighting environment. Ergo the P-61, among many others would be a white elephant. At a minimum you'd need: ETO: 1x RAF Heavy 1x Luftwaffe night fighter (Ju 88C/G/Bf 110G/He 219) 1x late war Luftwaffe bomber (Ju 188/Do 217) Red GCI Blue GCI Historical Nav-aids Relevant Map(s) PTO Pacific WW2 Assets Relevant Map(s) I've said it one, I will say it again: as much as I'd love to see it (and I really do, I'd love to try night interceptions or bomber support in a Mosquito NF.XII/XIII) there is just not the community interest to make this hugely demanding form of WW2 aerial combat viable. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I just don't see it happening.

If it didn't seem like you'd swallowed the Grumman PR campaign for the F-14 hook line and sinker you're point would be valid. You're so in love with the F-14 (and I get it, I really do) that you point to the flimsiest sources or out of context data to validate your affection. This is why you fail to recognise that your "Mach 2.5" source is the absolute dictionary definition of anecdotal; there is no accompanying data to corroborate, no defining parameters as to how, where and why the aircraft was able to reach these speed. What if the TF-30s were being one-off tested to a limited high power setting to see what stresses they could endure? What if the aircraft was stripped of pylons and some other drag inducing elements? What fuel weight was the aircraft at? What about the rest of the airframe? Was a gun fitted, was there even a RIO in the aircraft, or Radar? What altitude/air pressure/air density was this achieved? What if all the elements combined to give this? Even then, even if it could make 2.5 under some special circumstance, perhaps there are structural reasons the aircraft shouldn't.

The appeal would last as long as it takes to joy-ride around in it - and I get it, I really do, would be fun to bash around in a DCS: Lancaster. But to use it in a realistic operational context? Where's the map? Where's the night fighters? Where's the Gee or H2S?

In relation to what parameters? Peacetime training? Actual all out war? What radar system are you trying to avoid? What terrain around the system and your aircraft? All of these can define how low you can or have to fly to avoid radar detection.

Errr... Not Amiens Prison. But thanks for linking the latest Mossie vid!

The .303 loadout. APIT = Armour Piercing rounds + De Wilde Incendiary + Tracer BalT = Ball (solid metal slug) rounds + De Wilde Incendiary + Tracer The API and Bal are the same as above with the tracer omitted. The 20mm only have HEI/SAPI round options with no tracer, as per authentic WW2 loadout.

The attack profile: At a point ten miles from target the 2nd section of each wave separated from their lead section, breaking off to the north to await the bomb detonations from the 1st Section before making their own attack runs. Aircraft attacking the walls were to release their bombs from 10-20 ft altitude(!). Aircraft attacking what were (wrongly) assumed to be the guardhouses to release their bombs from 20-30 ft altitude. During briefing there were concerns that the bomb casings could break up on impact and it was decided that, to try and prevent this, all attack runs would have to be made at under 240mph IAS. As it was, the sturdiness of the wall construction had been overestimated and in reality a number of bombs punched holes straight through the walls, accounting for some of the damage to the main prison building. Furthermore, with the ground frozen hard a number of the bombs skipped wildly, careening long past the target, one demolishing a civilian home some 220m beyond the prison and another demolishing the wing of a Luftwaffe hospital nearly 900m distant. Contrary to popular belief, there is evidence to suggest that the 3rd wave (21 Sqn) was not to flatten the prison in the event of the failure of the first two waves to breach the prison walls or the presumed guardhouses, but rather endeavour a second time to make the breaches necessary to aid the inmates escape.

Here's how I reconcile the decision of the DoD; 1. Radar based stealth has been a requirement of 5th Gen and future designs 2. IRST technology is rapidly being developed as a viable counter to radar Stealth 3. of the US fighters of the 90's/2000's the F-14D is the only one equipped with an integrated IRST (and a reportedly pretty good one - was able to track F-22 at useful range in testing) 4. IRST capabilities now becomes something of a sensitive subject based on US reliance on radar stealth force multiplier strategy 5. F-14D IRST maybe 30 years old but if it works why give your opponents any clues what it is A. capable of (even 30 years ago), or B. potentially capable of given 30 years more development? It's a good a reason as any to explain the clamp down, and as Tharos points out, their bloody right to. Amazing how some here measure their computer game desires as more valuable than the security of those who might be called on to give their lives for our freedoms....

Whilst I agree it would be a nice modification to have as a great number of the 2nd TAF Spitfires had the MkII Gyro Gunsight fitted prior to D-Day, only one of the Wings (135) was equipped with the E-wing armament, with 125 Wing of 83 Group (those wings first to France) being converted in mid June and much of 84 Group (those wings still based in the UK until late July/August) gradually having their Spits brought up to 'E' armament through June and July. 83 Group would have to wait till December 1944/January 1945 to see .50 armed Spitfire IXs and XVIs across it's entire OOB, though it would be good to have a variant as you describe to better represent the version of the Spitfire IX/XVI that face Bf 109K-4s and Fw 190D-9s... and a Westwall map to place them in...

@Basco1 @xvii-Dietrich Gents, given the historical relevance of the airfield to the apparent chronology of the DCS: Channel Map perhaps you would add your approval to my post requesting its addition:

Note to all. In light of fresh information I have amended the first two posts. I will continue to update should further clarifying detail come to light.

Not far from reality by a lot of accounts.

Having watched the video - set-up your K14 so it's a help not a hindrance! Put the range to 1000ft (the optimum harmonisation setting). Adjust the wingspan to 35ft (a good balance between the 109 and 190) and fire when the targets wingspan is touching the inner edges of the graticule. Keep the fixed centre dot so you have an aiming reference when the graticule is catching up with the aircraft movement. Your issue is you are spattering the target, not getting a decisive concentrated cluster of hits in essential area.

Ammo belting plays a part here; Nineline is currently working on getting more authentic belting options implemented in game, which in it's 1944 pattern should be more effective. Don't forget that a single .50 cal bullet, unless it's through the pilot's noggin, is going to have to be very well placed to bring a plane down, and even 41 of them could be ineffective if they're not in the right place. There's a lot of empty space in an aeroplane. The key is to concentrate your burst by getting a good tracking solution and - even more - crucially trying to use your convergence patterns to your advantage. This is the wonder of the new damage model. I too have peppered an e/a with many small hits and not seen much happen; conversely at other times I've lit up his fuel tank with my first half-second burst. Also what damage you do can cause issues for the enemy but not bring down the plane; he might be leaking smoke and/or fluid, but if he's got control and the motors still running, then he'll be on limited time but could still present a threat. Until he's on fire, missing major sub-assemblies or hit the silk, keep at him.

I was there 8 years ago bashing about in the P-51D with no cogent era appropriate targets or air opponents. I was there when the F-86 and MiG-15 came and then... nothing, no '50s era ground assets, no map no B-29 to escort or intercept. Without these the sandbox is a pretty place and superficially absorbing but as soon as the "ooh shiny!! effect is gone and your skills in the aircraft are procedurally adept, one is left hankering for a deeper experience. I find that in trying to replicate the historical combat experiences of the brave men & women who were obliged to fly and fight in these aircraft, to gain a tiny fraction of understanding of what they went through. DCS is a combat simulator. To simulate one has to have a model, a real world example, for which to strive for your simulation to emulate. If you produce historical units for that simulation surely you should strive to emulate the circumstances in which those units were employed? If DCS WW2 wasn't a thing yet and the Me 262 had been released into the DCS modern era environment alone, facing off against F-86s, MiG-15s at best and at worst late Cold War MiGs and teen series fighters, I bet my mortgage the vast majority of you erstwhile 262 jocks would be screaming for WW2 era opposition within days if not weeks. That's bloody arrogant. Who the hell are you to dictate to me where and how to find my enjoyment? Last time I checked I pay the same as you and I have every right as a current and future customer to voice my opinion on what I'd like to see for the future. If anything, your argument makes more sense if it's turned back on you; if you want to fly an Me 262 so bad and you don't care about a cohesive combat environment why don't you go get X-plane/MSFS/Prepar3d and fly it there.

Er... No. I want chronologically relevant and historically authentic opponents and maps for my DCS experience thanks.

The roadmap when the new cloud tech landed was the static templates for now, with dynamic and wind affected clouds further down the development timeline. It’s an iterative process. No timeline has been given as to when these improvements will be available.

Weather: Details now added to first post.

Whoops! Been a long week... thanks Bart, correcting...

Hi all! Please note that I have updated the first post to read as I had originally intended! More to follow.