DD_Fenrir

:thumbup:

For the night-fighter variants try to find 'Night Flyer' by Lewis Brandon. For the Bomber Command Light Striking Force B.XVI ops 'Mosquito Victory' by Jack Currie. For a mixed collection of stories from across the Mosquito's history, try 'The Men Who Flew the Mosquito' by Martin W. Bowman.

Some are. But some seem to think they've got a nerfed plane somehow cos it's "1943". And that comes down to Top Trumps/War Thunder BR ethos yet again, instead of "did these types historically oppose each other at the performance levels modelled in DCS?", with the further consideration coming in the form of "are these appropriate for the map(s) we have". The answer to the first question with the Spitfire LF.IXc is yes to all. The second in 2 out of the 3 is resoundingly, no.

A baseline G-6 with DB606a, probably a Galland hood, maybe a tall tail, and the option for MW50 is by default the best representation for what the bulk of the Jagdwaffe were flying over Normandy in mid 1944, and without MW50 is suitable for late '43, early '44 scenarios on the Channel Map. The A/S was over Normandy but only after the start of the invasion when those Jadgruppen so equipped were transferred from their Defence of the Reich duties to the Normandy Front and ultimately represented less than 1/3rd of the Bf 109 units that took part. Prior to that I doubt many got further West than the Holland/Belgium border so suitably for the Channel map is a bit thin. The G-10 is nowhere to be seen in this scenario, and chronologically fits with the K-4 as a late '44 aircraft. The G-14 in July I suspect is something of a non-entity. Firstly, most of the Jagdgruppe had been fairly brutalized by even late June and getting supplied new aircraft when they suffered airfield moves every other day - an exaggeration, to be sure, but not without some evidence of occurrences - and with their supply situation for even spares and consumables in disarray it would seem optimistic at best (if not downright ridiculous) to assume that every Bf 109 unit in theatre was suddenly re-equipped with G-14s from 00:01 hours on the 1st of July. What is more likely is that spare aircraft would have been flown in piecemeal and suffering the attention of roving Allied P-51, P-47 and P-38 patrols en route. Those that make the gauntlet find they get sent to the wrong airstrip. Whilst trying to find the actual location it is supposed to be delivered the airstrip get's hit by some 9th AF/2nd TAF mediums or wholeheartedly strafed by more P-51s/P-47s/P-38s and the airframe made u/s if not destroyed. That was likely to happen even if they did find the right field! This was the experience of the Jagdgruppen in Normandy, harried on the ground, and outnumbered when they did get in the air. However, some would have got through and survived a night in theatre. Ergo, we may have seen G-6 units with the odd G-14. From what little evidence there is it appears more likely that the G-14s start arriving in units when they withdraw from the Normandy front to revitalise. I'm sure some of these units went back to the French front in the west sometime later but whether it was to take part in operations over Normandy as we have now, I don't know.

I agree completely Phil, just some are under the misapprehension that much changed between a '43 and '44 LF.IXc

The Spitfire IXc we have is a 1944 variant, save perhaps the gunsight, the wobble pump fuel pressurisation and an automated RPM governor. None of these elements would provide an increase in performance numbers. The IXe, whilst in some units from mid-44 and starting to increase in numbers, did so slowly and was not the prevalent Spitfire IX armament layout till 1945.

This all about antenna diameter and power as these will directly effect range and acquisition. Take the AMRAAM - at what range/ToF does the seeker actually go active? It's probably within the approximate range of an IR seeker head, yet you have to generate the wattage - from within the missile - to power the guidance system, control system AND provide enough juice to generate a radar signal that is going to allow the missile the necessary oomph to illuminate the target. That means batteries and substantial one's too. This means weight. This weight will mean a more powerful (=larger = heavier) motor is required than on a similar IR manpad even over short ranges as you have zero Potential energy launching from a zero speed zero altitude position. Pretty quickly you are going to end up carrying (or trying to!) something the size and weight of an amraam but with marginal advance in range over an IR. Also how do you acquire a target? Do you let the missile seeker maddog in the general direction of a target? How long are you letting the radar be powered whilst it's still in it's tube? Is it being powered by the onboard missile battery? If so, every second you spend doing that will decrease the range in the air as I would assume most active missile battery systems are designed to last only marginally longer than the time of 'pitbull', else that is extra weight you are carrying for little gain...

It's not that cut and dried gav; some areas of the map are superb, others not so much. My research suggests that it seems that they have used satellite data to get the terrain mesh accurate but then are having to go back and slowly edit out the non-period elements. At this stage it appears that they started on the NE tip of the Kent coast near Manston and are gradually working their way West & South, as towns such as Eastbourne and Hastings reflect modern day arrangements, yet Dover, Canterbury and Maidstone look very much like the period maps. I suspect the French elements are similar. We know that there are further improvements and additions planned, and that there are hints of future dynamic terrain/airfield features tied to mission date. If these all come to fruition it will be a moderately useful map, particularly for the Mosquito, or for Anti-V1 campaigns. However, it won't be a truly versatile map until we see some earlier war aircraft, or the map limits pushed further East and or North.

There should be a delineation between G-6 with MW50 and G-6/AS: G-6: DB 605A G-6/AS: DB 605AS - Altitude optimized version using the larger DB 603 supercharger Note: there appears to be no offical Rüstsatz or Umrüst-Bausätze designations covering the installation of MW50 to these airframes; if it was fitted it appeared that /U1 (GM-1) aircraft were converted, sometime during and after April 1944. Records are non-existent to establish any kind of numbers on this. Three Gruppen that I know of (III/JG1, 1/JG5, and II./JG11) employed the Bf-109G-6/AS in Defence of the Reich in 1944. III/JG1 was sent to France to support the Defence of Normandy landings but was in such poor condition it did not become operational over Normandy and returned to Germany on 14 June. JG5 were based in Norway but it seems I. Gruppe may have ben transferred to reinforce Luftotte 3. II./JG11 were again Defence of the Reich sent to Normandy, withdrawn in early July. Sources indicate they received G-14s of unspecified engine type in July, but whether this was before or after they withdrew to Wunsdorf is unknown. I suspect the latter. That leaves the following Gruppen equipped with DB605A engined airframes: III./JG2 III./JG26 Who were Luftotte 3 from the start of the Normandy Campaign, with the following units transferred in from Reichs Defence: II./JG3 III./JG3 I./JG27 II./JG53 Thus there were twice as many G-6 as G-6/AS equipped units in the Normandy theatre.

This here is your issue. You're still playing top-trumps, and essentially arguing gaming balance. The argument has matured beyond that. Whether you like it or not, the very simple inescapable fact is that, as much as you'd like it to be, a Bf-109K-4 is not a Bf 109G-6 or even a G-14. As soon as a G-6 is available and Normandy Map missions updated for it on SoW then - even with MW50 - I will have no issue. Further if a map becomes available to better suit the K-4 and D-9 (and the mission date falls in line with MW50 usage on the Dora - which by the way, seems like it wasn't widely introduced on that airframe till the winter of '44) and SoW decides to create missions and templates for that, I will happily fly against them. You clearly know nothing of my skills - which are ultimately irrelevant to this argument anyway - and are, despite my repeated exhortations here, apparently STILL ignorant of my motivations, which even a cursory examination of my posting history here will provide reams of evidence thereof; I desire historical authenticity. I'd rather have a P-51B than a P-51D in Normandy. I'd rather see a P-47D-25 than the D-28, or better a razorback for Normandy. I'd like to see a Hawker Typhoon for Normandy. I'd like to see a Siegfield Line'44/'45 map for The K-4 and D-9. I'd like to see options for P-51s and P-47s using 150 Octane ratings when flown as 8th AF units from UK bases only but not when flying as 9th AF units flying from their UK bases or the continent. Right planes with the right maps. That is all.

I'm curious, does being an ignorant, oboxious member come easy to you or do you have to work at it? Because you're very good at it.

Which Jagdgeshwader? My research indicates that it's very difficult to pin down any allocations as with units being moved around so much the situation even on the Luftwaffe side was confused to say the best. G-14s may have started being issued to units in July but I can't find any hard data on when these were operational and I find it highly unlikely that the entire Western Jagdwaffe was either a) re-equipped overnight or b) took immediate priority over other fronts. III./JG26 shows it still being equipped with G-6s in September of 1944! The same applies to G-6 with MW50; in late May/early June the only units in France with any Bf 109G-6 were III./JG26, and whilst I'd put money on at most of them having MW50 there's no actual hard evidence. And again the argument isn't over MW50 or not; it's about trying to get the closest approximation in performance to a late G-6/G-14.

Be wary of some of the 109 performance charts - there are a selection floating around out there that are of predicted performance based on mathematically calculated performance increase with HP uplift and tend to be a little optimistic when compared to actually test flown examples.

:doh: How blissfully ignorant are you? The stated case TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN is to provide an approximation to a HISTORICAL SCENARIO given the constraints of DCS. Christ I'm starting to understand that playing chess with a pidgeon analogy!

Well then YOU provide the perishing charts!!!! At least Krupi's done some bloody leg work you hypocrite!

"My feelers"? You're the one instigating bad feeling with the use of deprecating terms and casting aspersions on those who utilise the server and that smacks of a pretty petty form of jealousy. The fact you assign bias to their choices rather than their repeated explanation of their reasoning only exposes your own prejudices.

Wow... your indignation is telling. Guess what; SoW owes you nothing. You pay nothing, you thus far contribute no useful - and in particular, polite - critique to benefit the server and thus you and your opinion are of f-all value. Besides which Phil & Dietrich are completely entitled to run their server in which ever way they so wish, cos they're putting in the effort, they're putting up the hardware, they're spending the money, so it's their house, their rules. Go create your own little Lufty wet dream server where you can out climb, out run and one shot all the Allied planes if it makes you feel less butt-hurt.

I have some issues with the timeline - according to the FPP interview with Nick “Mongo” Mongillo, who along with Mark Fox each downed a MiG-21 during their run-in to attack on H-3 airbase, Lieutenant Commander Speicher was shot down by the MiG-25 during the night attacks prior to their daytime mission; however, this video shows the timeline of their attack coming before Speichers downing which would seem erroneous.

Considering the D-9 shouldn't even be seen over Normandy in 1944 it's a sop to D-9 owners who don't own the A-8 to allow them to fly on the server whilst attempting to maintain some historical levels of performance. Be assured as soon as a map module is available where Bf 109K-4s and Fw 190D-9s operated historically with MW50 I have no doubt that the server admin will create and host missions that these features are fully enabled on.

Then you are going to be disappointed. Time and time and time again ED have said that they won't be making full up Redfor fighters. And not because they don't want to. They have been "asked" not to by the Russian government. (If the inference escapes you asked = told). How easy do you therefore think it is to glean any information on those very systems you have been instructed NOT to simulate when both the A-10, F/A-18 and F-16 required cooperation from both the USAF and the aircraft manufacturers in order to complete to a high level of fidelity?

It clearly represents a lot of work, that means man-hours and that means costs. Money has to come from somewhere. Christ from what I read the Falcon 4.0 DC engine was a money-pit for Microprose. And not everyone is interested in DC (not me by the way!). If I had to pay, and I felt the cost was reasonable, I would.

And what proof do you have that the AIM-9X is modelled in the way you suggest? You don't. You know absolutley NOTHING about what data ED was given by their contracted military partners. Kind of a precedent for the data to back your opinions on most things, apparently.

As a side note, many of us have been seeing de-sync issues in the same server when attacking ground targets - when you destroy a ground target the position of the wreckage jumps about 10-15m away from the position shown to you of the unit when it was alive? I wonder if this has some part to play, particularly in PvP?

Funny, but I haven't been seeing these issues; I had 4 engagements over 3 sorties last night with Jester only in our squad MP server against AI opponents. Sortie 1; Vs 3x MiG-21, Bandit Angels 20, Friendly Angels 16. TWS lock maintained to 20-25 NM 2x AIM-54 fired and TWS tracked till active. Splash 2x MiG-21. Final MiG splashed with AIM-7MH in PAL. Sortie 2; Vs 2x 2x MiG-23, Bandit Angels 20, Friendly Angels 16. TWS lock maintained to 20-25 NM 2x AIM-54 fired and TWS tracked till active. Splash 1x MiG-23. 1x AIM-54 spoofed/trashed. Remaining MiGs splashed with AIM-7MH/AIM-9/Guns in merge using VSL/PAL. Sortie 3a: Vs 3x MiG-29, Bandit Angels 8, Friendly Angels 4. TWS lock maintained to 15-20 NM 3x AIM-54 fired and TWS tracked till active. Splash 2x MiG-29. 1x AIM-54 spoofed/trashed. Final MiG splashed with AIM-7MH in PAL. Sortie 3b: Vs 3x MiG-25, Bandit Angels 20, Friendly Angels 16. TWS lock maintained to 15-20 NM 1x AIM-54 fired and TWS tracked till active. Splash 1x MiG-25. Final MiGs splashed with AIM-9/Guns in merge using VSL/PAL. I'm not for a minute saying you guys are not experiencing the issues you are - rather just observing that there is some strange inconsistency occurring.

VF-11 Red Rippers c. 2001? That'd be an F-14B.