Talisman_VR

Also, will we be getting lots of shipping and the crucial Mulberry docks at Omaha and Arromanches beach heads? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour http://d-dayrevisited.co.uk/d-day/mulberry-harbour.html Any sneak previews of any models for the Normandy map would be greatly appreciated Racoon. Thanks in anticipation. Happy landings, Talisman

Thanks for the reply Racoon. Just to say that the railway infrastructure was crucial to the ground war for ground army operational effectiveness. Railway systems were major targets for air forces, especially for the Allies in 1944/45. We would need proper modelling of the railway system if DCS is to deliver WWII and historic ground attack mission capability. Mission builders need to be able to position and run train routes and timetables. Marshalling yards, sheds, Stations, locomotives, carriages and bridges need damage modelling. Ground attack by fighters and fighter bombers of various types was crucial to the Allied invasion plan and liberation of the continent. I would love to see DCS as the WWII flight simulation of choice for PC pilots, but we need a good interactive and dynamic map capability for mission builders in order to deliver and give pilots something tangible and realistic to do with the aircraft models they purchase. Otherwise we might just as well fly Nevada in the modern world and that is unlikely to generate and increase a decent customer base of WWII PC pilots. Perhaps you could have a word with whoever is leading the WWII project. Please forgive me if this is all in hand, but it should be one of the building blocks for delivering WWII on the Normandy map I would have thought. The railway system moved tanks, troops, food, spares, everything you can think of that an army needs. Happy landings, Talisman

LOL

Re 56. Looks like Tempest V from June 44 to the end. Short spell on Mk IX Spit prior to that and Typhoon before that. http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/56squadron.cfm Although used for anti-diver duties flying the Tempest V as part of ADGB, they also took part in OPERATION OVERLORD ops on the continent. For example, here are some combat reports from Jun 8th 1944 Pilot Accounts W/Cdr. R. P. Beamont, D.S.O., D.F.C. leading 150 (Newchurch) Wing recorded in his Combat Report for 8 June 1944: I was leading the Newchurch Tempest wing on a Fighter sweep to the Caen area of the beachhead via Rouen, Bernay and Argentan. We took off from Newchurch at 12.25 hours, and crossed the French coast at Pte d’Ailly at 10,000 ft. When we were a few miles to the West of Rouen at 12.50 hours over scattered cloud, I saw five aircraft in line astern at about 5,000 ft, turning from East to North. Leaving 486 (N.Z.) Squadron up above as top cover, I took No. 3 Squadron down to investigate. I closed in behind the aircraft at 370 I.A.S., and recognized them as ME.109G’s. They were traveling at approximately 300 m.p.h. and did not realize they were being bounced until just before I opened fire, when the e/a broke to port and dived for cloud with violent evasive action. I selected the fourth or last e/a, I am not sure which, and opened fire with a 2/3 second burst, starting with 30° deflection, and changing according to the e/a’s evasive action. I opened fire at about 500 yards range closing to pointblank, and saw strikes at the end of the burst on the starboard side of the fuselage. The e/a immediately poured smoke and flames. I had to break to starboard in order to avoid collision and then to port when I saw clearly the e/a enveloped in flames in an inverted dive. I broke to starboard as I finished my attack and heard a loud bang and saw a strike on my starboard wing. My No. 2 who subsequently saw my e/a disintegrate and the starboard wing break off, saw two ME.109’s diving down out of sun at him and myself. My U/C warning lights went on so I handed over to S/Ldr. Dredge, of No. 3 Squadron, and set course for base where I landed at 13.30 hrs. The aircraft I destroyed was camouflaged mottled chocolate and brown and no national markings were visible. I claim one ME. 109G destroyed. 1 F/O G. A. Whitman (U.S.A.) of 3 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 8 June 1944: I was No. 2 to W/Cdr. Beamont as he was attacking one of the Me.109G’s. As they were attacked they split into two sections and I observed strikes on the fuselage and starboard wing of the Wing Commander’s target. Then I saw it burst into flames and the starboard wing came off, the aircraft flicked over and went down in flames. Before making an attack myself I looked behind and saw two Me.109G’s slightly above on the port quarter diving in to attack out of the sun. I throttled back and the leader over shot. I opened fire at 300 yards with A.S.I. 370 m.p.h. with 15° deflection. The enemy aircraft did a climbing turn to port and I saw two strikes, one in the wing root and one in the cockpit, and then the target blew up. I claim a Me.109G destroyed and confirm W/Cdr. Beamont’s claim of one Me.109G destroyed. After this engagement I pulled up then heard the Wing Commander call up and say his aircraft was damaged and he was returning to base. I had lost him in cloud so I rejoined the formation which was orbitting up sun. 2 F/L A. R. Moore of 3 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 8 June 1944: I was Green 1, flying on the port of the Wing Leader when he sighted suspect aircraft. He turned and dived and went down with him. When at about 600 yards we recognized them as Me.109G’s camouflaged a mottled brown. As we closed to 300 yards the Me’s broke to starboard towards cloud. I saw the Wing Commander go for one of the enemy aircraft and I picked out another which was diving under cloud at about 7,000 feet quite straight. I was then indicating 300 m.p.h. and closed in easily to about 200 yards with I.A.S. 360 and gave it a 1 second burst from dead astern. Flames immediately appeared from the starboard side of the cockpit followed by almost complete disintegration of the cockpit area. It then turned on its back and went straight down in flames. (Upon landing a piece of this aircraft was found in my radiator which was damaged.) I continued straight ahead and saw another Me.109 at 4-500 yards. I had it dead ahead and gave a 1 second burst before it disappeared into cloud. No strikes or results were seen. 3 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html Happy landings, Talisman

Please re read what I wrote and I think you will see that I have not denied anything, nor have I disregarded any possibility of error. I would be grateful if you would not give the impression to the casual reader that I have. I have merely suggested exploration of why someone might dismiss certain documents as falsified in some way or wrong. Some sort of evidence based consideration as to why someone has drawn a certain conclusion would be helpful in this case. I agree with what you say regarding the possibility of errors in documents generally and am grateful to those who genuinely are searching for a reasonable and as near as accurate picture of history as is possible. High handed dismissal of documents without explaining the rationale behind such a dismissal does not help us move forward. It can also cause friction and set up red herrings and distractions, whether intended or not. Happy landings, Talisman

Racoon, Will the map include detailed railway infrastructure that can be damaged as part of mission building? If so, if would help us with historic missions. For example, a general offensive was laid on against railway systems in France and Belgium by the Allies. From 19th May 44 to 1st June 44, there were 3,400 fighter sorties against the railway system. Individual locomotives were destroyed or damaged, as were railway bridges, loco sheds and tracks. All marshalling yards from Paris to Brussels were attacked and razed in the period from April to May 44. It would be great to be able to fly on missions like these from England to attack railway systems on the continent and also to try our hand at locomotive busting. [ame] [/ame] http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/6FCE5079_5056_A318_A80C60638BA71D99.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f5/90/c1/f590c12a931f0784ff7b6ac70f854991.jpg https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/img/USA-E-Supreme-p133b.jpg Happy landings, Talisman

Firstly, surely operational significance is about more than just air kills. To narrow a combat sim down to just air kills as being worthy above all else is surely not taking into account the wider picture and would not widely represent the use of airpower during WWII. I have given just one example of the many other uses of airpower in my post above regarding the fighter and fighter bomber attacks on railway infrastructure just prior to D-Day. Also included anti-diver missions. Surely operational significance is wider than just air kills on manned aircraft. Secondly, I do not understand the reference to dubious alternate history sites, nor the long discredited comment. I am not sure if we are to understand whether you consider the combat reports I posted above regarding Spitfire XIV sorties in 1944 to be falsified. If you do think they are falsified I would be very interested to know on what grounds you think it is so. These documents include pilots names and squadron number and all sorts of details. Perhaps you have cross referenced with other source information and found a discrepancy. If so, it would be nice if you could share the information so others can see why you have reached such a conclusion. Happy landings, Talisman

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157129

Pre D-Day missions from England to France to take out railway systems and locomotive busting would be a nice mission to do one day in a Spitfire, Tempest, Typhoon, Thunderbolt, Mustang or Mosquito :) I hope the DCS developers have ideas like this in mind for map mission potential. There could be many happy days ahead :joystick: Happy landings, Talisman

Thanks for the 98% tip. Nice one. Works great. Talisman

Prior to D-Day, in May, Spitfire Mk XIV operated over England, the Channel and France (which all appears in bounds for the upcoming DCS Normandy Map). For example: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/91_Form541_1May44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/610-Form541-13May44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/322-Form541-15May44.jpg 610 Squadron Spitfire Mk XIV upgraded to 150 Octane fuel on 15 July 44 and here they are over France: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/610-Form541-26aug44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/610-ORB-1sept44.jpg And, even though used on anti-diver (V1 flying bomb) duties you can see that they also took part in D-Day Operation Overlord missions as well. Just because a squadron was used for anti-diver duties did not mean they sat around doing nothing when another on of the many other 150 Octane Squadrons (Mosquito, Spitfire, Tempest, Mustang) was covering anti-diver duties. As side note, the Spit Mk XIV we are getting with DCS will not be the 25lbs boost version. These XIV Squadrons were also over France: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/130_Oprep-30Aug44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/350-ORB-11Sept44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/350-ORB-11Sept44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/402-Form541-12Sept44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/41-OpRep-17Sept44.jpg So, prior to D-Day and during the following weeks and months of Operation Overlord the Spitfire Mk XIV was very much a player over England, the Channel and France, all areas of operations due to be covered by the upcoming DCS WWII map named 'Normandy'. Likewise the Hawker Tempest V was not only used over England and the Channel but also over France. On May 21st 1944 a general offensive was laid on against railway systems in France and Belgium; Thunderbolts, Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests took part. From 19th May 44 to 1st June 44, there were 3,400 fighter sorties against the railway system. Individual locomotives were destroyed or damaged, as were railway bridges, loco sheds and tracks. All marshalling yards from Paris to Brussels were attacked and razed in the period from April to May 44. All this before D-Day, let alone after, so lets not hear any more talk of the Spitfire XIV or the Tempest V not having a place on the new map, because they have more of a place on the map than any other WWII aircraft released by DCS to date. Happy landings,

Me, my squad and many others I fly with who are WWII hard core on-line MP fans are still waiting for DCS to deliver regarding something more like real world air-to-air aircraft visibility. DCS will never be the combat simulator of first choice for enough WWII enthusiasts to make it viable if this issue is not overcome. Maybe its fine for modern fast jets using computer targeting systems and missiles, or pilots who like to fly off-line against AI, or pilots who just want to ground pound. However, for pilots who enjoy team fighting and tactics on MP competitive combat servers against other human pilots in the air DCS is severely restrictive. I fly DCS just enough to keep my hand in just in case it starts to improve and deliver WWII and give us decent air-to-visibility. I am not purchasing more aircraft models until I feel confident DCS can deliver; although I will make an exception for the Spitfire. The visibility issue is the main thing that makes DCS a less than satisfactory experience for me, others I fly with on other flight sims and, I suspect, the many silent majority who never post on these forums. It seems such a waste of an opportunity for DCS. I think that it is likely that many pilots attracted purely for WWII will start to drift further and further away from DCS if something is not done soon. Many are feeling disillusioned as far as this issue is concerned. P.S. The imposter system is a non-starter for me in terms of anything approaching a proper solution for simulated real life air-to-air visibility of aircraft. Happy landings, Talisman

I may not have fully understood your post, but I would just like to say that I hate the awful crazy in-cockpit zoom-out functions that give distorted and unrealistic views and would be glad to hear that they could be outlawed in some way. Happy landings, Talisman

I would not be interested at all. In our squad we talk over TeamSpeak and take each other through any new aircraft as need be. After all, this is not real life and we can learn a lot quicker by mistakes, like crashing, and not worry about what would be real life penalties. Setting up controls is just one of those things that has to be done and if someone is not keen enough then dual control is not going to help their commitment as far as I can see. I think the PC pilot world provides quicker and better training by having the rookie in the captain seat and using TS. For me, there is so much more the developers could be doing to improve and expand DCS. P.S. I successfully took off and landed the P51 on my first go after some keen and conscientious study on my part and with a P51 experienced squad mate instructing me on TeamSpeak. Happy landings, Talisman

Aircraft visual quality in the air I fly WWII and Korea and would like to make an observation regarding the visual quality of aircraft in the air. One of the things that I find slightly off-putting is that the aircraft in the air do not give the appearance of something really solid with mass and density. Rather, they are soft focus and give an almost lighter than air image like a feather or a fairy or a ghost (the imposter system makes this even worse at great distance). They do not seem to stand out as solid enough objects that are different from the lighter air atmosphere, but seem to blend in as part of the atmosphere and cloud system. When I look at real world aircraft flying in the air they give off a sense of something solid, more defined and mechanical with weight that stands out in the air environment; they appear in the air but definitely not of the air, whereas the DCS aircraft appear too much as part of the air, rather than a metallic intruder only present due to the ingenuity and interference of man. I think this is part of the reason why gaining and maintaining reasonable aircraft air-to-air visual contact is so far from realistic on the PC screen. I am using V 1.5, so perhaps things are better in V 2, but from what I see from posted movie clips it would appear not. I wonder if there is a way for DCS to give us aircraft models that are more visually defined, solid and weighty in appearance. Happy landings, Talisman

Once the pilot was at the holding point for the runway, the hand held Aldis lamp, red, white or green, was used by the controller to signal RAF pilots to either hold (red) or take-off (green). http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/h04AAOSwZVhWSc--/s-l225.jpg http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/FhIAAOxydlFS~PC5/s-l225.jpg Glim lights used to mark runway (RAF) http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/equipment-field-gear/emergency-airfield-lights-12495/ Chance light used by RAF http://www.milweb.net/webvert/a1932

U.S. ATC trailer http://www.twinbeech.com/images/vehicles/trailers/airfieldcontrol/airfield1.jpg http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234940206-ww2-runway-control-caravan/ British RAF ATC trailer http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?73758-Flying-Control-Caravans-Info-needed&highlight=Control%20caravans

Racoon, is this information of any use to you or do you already have it? The Drem Lighting System Of considerable significance was the development at Drem of a special airfield lighting system, which enabled Spitfires and Hurricanes to circuit and land safely at night. So successful was this system that it became standard at all RAF airfields, and was known as the DREM LIGHTING SYSTEM - click on link for more details. THE DREM AIRFIELD LIGHTING SYSTEM The Problem The Spitfire was a magnificent fighter, one which still kindles the imagination and awe in this age of fast jets. However, its spectacularly pleasing design had a few drawbacks. The aircraft had a very long nose, thanks to the powerful in-line Rolls-Royce Merlin engine it employed. When taxiing, or more importantly landing, the nose got in the way of the pilot's vision. While taxiing, the pilot would merely work the rudder pedals to weave slightly side-to-side and obtain the view ahead until, during the take-off run, the tail of the aircraft would rise and give an unobstructed view ahead. On the landing approach however, things were not quite so easy. At lower airspeeds, the angle-of-attack had to be steeper to prevent stalling, meaning that a nose-high attitude needed to be maintained. The position of the wings on the Spitfire also meant that the downward view from the cockpit was quite poor when in level flight. During daylight hours, this could be overcome by briefly altering the aircraft's attitude, but at night doing so even briefly to view the landing lights could be both dangerous and impractical. Compounding the restricted forward visibility caused by the aircraft's structure, the glare from the six (later twelve) engine exhaust stubs also tended to drown out the pilot's view of the standard runway approach lights. This glare equally affected Hurricane pilots. The Solution The RAF Drem Station Commander in 1940 was Wing Commander "Batchy" Atcherly, who personally addressed this problem, and devised a revolutionary new system. Essentially, it involved mounting shrouded lights on poles 10 feet high at dispersed designated positions around the airfield in a particular pattern. These lights were only visible to aircraft in the circuit, and could be dimmed sufficiently to render them invisible to attacking enemy aircraft. A circle of lights was laid out around the field, the radius being 2000 yards from the centre. A pilot would fly his landing circuit around this circle of lights, until he saw the flare path lights on the runway which were so mounted as to be only visible to aircraft on the approach. All these lights were on poles and specially angled to be seen only at the correct position. They were also hidden where possible, in hedges and bushes, to make them inconspicuous to enemy reconnaissance. At the runway ends, lights were also mounted on poles 10 feet high, with only the runway flare path being at ground level. When used in conjunction with special baffles fitted to the aircraft exhausts, the system virtually solved the glare problem, as pilots could see the lights at oblique angles instead of just dead ahead. The pattern was also specially designed to allow for Spitfire blind spots. Atcherly's lighting arrangement was simple and worked well in operation. It certainly made landing fighters at night vastly safer. The Air Ministry was so impressed with the Drem Lighting System that they made it standard at all RAF stations, and in due course it was improved upon and perfected. This diagram shows the Drem Lighting System. The Outer Circle, Funnel Lights and Runway Flare Path are all white lights. The inner circle with blue lights is the taxiway. At each end of the runway are Totems, either showing white lights (far-end of runway) or red lights (near-end of runway). These indicate landing direction. At the near-end of the runway is the Glide Path Indicator, which shows Amber/Green/Red, depending on whether an approaching aircraft is Too High/Correct Glide Slope/Too Low. A white double-flare and two amber lights on the left hand side of the active runway were distance indicators. Just to clarify the Drem lighting system + Funnels http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121779-Origin-of-calling-Final-is-this-true http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/drem.jpg http://www.eastlothianatwar.co.uk/ELAW/Airfields_files/Halls4332.jpg This next one is And the USAAF HILV lighting fitted in late summer 1944 http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k227/ramc181/DPAFL2grab.jpg But even assuming that all had gone well on the operation, that there were no losses or damaged aircraft, it still meant that as many as 30 aircraft manned by tired crews had to be brought down safely. The system developed to achieve this was called the Drem system. This comprised an ellipse of lights around the airfield and a series of lights along each of the (usually) three runways. When crews were returning home, the outer lights and the lights for the runway in use were switched on. Aircraft approached the airfield at 1500ft and at right angles to the runway (1) in use. The pilot called the Control Tower identifying the aircraft, the Tower would answer "Proceed upwind." At this position (2) at an altitude of 1000ft the pilot called "Upwind" and later "Crosswind" at (3). Other pilots would be calling in at their position in the circuit. At (4) downwind, the aircraft began a descent to 500ft, the pilot reporting "Funnel" as he turned towards the runway; he hoped to hear the reply "Pancake" meaning he was clear to land. If there was trouble the command was "Overshoot". On successfully landing, (6) the pilot reported "Clear of runway." Extract from this site... http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...Dyxl7x1ckP3SQA

It would appear that way. It seems that the red Verey light, which is a pistol flare shot up into the sky, was a signal for aircraft in the vicinity to clear the circuit and runway area to give priority to either an emergency landing or a priority scramble (at least 3 flares in a row it would seem). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_gun A red signal light/lamp, electrical, seems to have been used (pointed at the pilot) to hold an aircraft on the ground at or near the runway threshold until it was safe to take off. Once it was safe to take off then the controller would signal a green light/lamp, electrical. Like you, I am just trying to work it out by looking for evidence as I am not an expert in this.

I use the Saitek cyborg evo force feedback joystick and love flying the Mig-15 due to the feedback from the aircraft that makes it feel like a real live 'beast' to fly, rather than just a dead thing, LOL. I would also recommend the force feedback Gametrix Jetseat to add to this sense of immersion. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134704 Every now and then second hand, hardly used, Saitek cyborg evo ff sticks become available to add to my collection, but I wish a new ff stick could be produced by a developer somewhere for all of us to enjoy without resorting to the second hand market. Happy landings, Talisman

A few interesting snippets from Pierre Clostermann's book 'The Big Show'. Situation: RAF Aston Down airfield (South West England) for a quick conversion course on Typhoons and Tempests. Page 153: “Two Typhoons who were in the circuit landed clumsily, but the controller seemed disinclined to give me the green light. I stuck my head out of the cockpit to make a sign, even though I would probably get a dollop of boiling oil in my eye. Still a red light. Christ, I must have forgotten something – and my confounded engine was beginning to heat. My radiator had already got to 95 degrees. A glance round – my flaps were at 15 degrees all right, my radiator was open.... Hell, the radio! I quickly switched it on and called: 'Hello, Skydoor, Skydoor, Tiffie twenty-eight calling. May I scramble?' The controller replied by at last giving me a green light. Here goes! I tighten my straps, release the brakes, carefully aligned myself on the white line down the middle of the concrete runway and slowly opened the throttle, with my left foot hard down on the rudder bar.” Situation: Volkel. A tragic landing by Alex in a Tempest V. Page180-181. “Desmond called me on the phone and asked me to come at once to the control tower. Just as I jumped into the jeep the first Tempests landed in formation. A cluster of red Verey lights for the guidance of the third rose from the A.C.P trailer (A.C.P = Aerodrome Control Pilot). Desmond was on the balcony of the tower, microphone in hand. Without bothering about the stairs I joined him quickly by shinning up the outside ladder. 'It's Alex,' he said, handing me his field glasses, 'give him some advice'..... 'Hello Alex! Pierre here, try to get your port leg up!' Note: 3 red Verey lights was a signal to other aircraft to clear the circuit and give priority to the emergency landing aircraft. Situation: Rat (Me 262) catching in Tempest V. Page 190. As soon as the '262' crossed the Rhine towards our lines, Lapsley sent out a warning in clear from his control post straight to pilots as follows: 'Hello, Talbot Leader, scramble, rat, scramble, rat!' The engines were immediately started up, three red Verey lights went up to clear the circuit and give the rat catchers priority.

Hi Archer86, I also use the Saitek cyborg evo force feedback joystick and love flying the Mig-15 due to the feedback from the aircraft that makes it feel like a real live beast to fly, rather than just a dead thing, LOL. I would also recommend the force feedback Gametrix Jetseat to add to this sense of immersion. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134704 Every now and then second hand, hardly used, Saitek cyborg evo ff sticks become available to add to my collection, but I wish a new ff stick could be produced by a developer somewhere for all of us to enjoy without resorting to the second hand market. Happy landings, Talisman

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/512941-early-atc-wwii.html Some interesting information at the above link Racoon.

I don't know for sure, but I believe that this was all practised as part of a squadron scramble to get into the air at maximum speed and no more instructions were needed, as it was part of the drill for scramble. If not a squadron scramble, but one or a couple of aircraft taking off together less urgently, it is highly likely that more was said over the radio for taxi and take off clearance.

Yes regarding signal flares. For example, in the same book I mentioned above, again on page 222, Johnnie Johnson is sitting at readiness with a squadron of Spitfire Mk IX aircraft (Canadian Wing) on the airfield in Normandy prepared for a quick scramble. He writes the following: "After half an hour in the cockpit, gloved and masked ready for immediate take-off, I was rather drowsy as a result of lack of sleep, but my cramped uncomfortable position sufficed to keep me awake. Suddenly a red Very light (flare) soared into the air from the orchard. Switches on, my fingers pressed the starting button and my Merlin roared into life. Then I was travelling down the narrow taxi track and made the right angled turn on to the steel-planked runway at too high a speed, for the starboard wing tilted down at a dangerous angle. A few seconds later and twelve of us were airborne in a ragged, straggling gaggle, but the boys were already picking up their battle formation."