xvii-Dietrich

Update: There have been some major changes made to the statistics system for the Storm of War server. We now have more achievements, better format layout, improved graphics and sub-totals on the squadron pages (EXAMPLE).

Thanks!

I am a big proponent for getting aircraft that were used in large numbers in a given area. That way we get representative aircraft, and not extreme "corner cases". So, with that aim, assuming our late war maps (we only have late-war flyables at the moment), and ignoring aircraft types that we have or have already been announced (e.g. FW-190 F8 ), then the most common types deployed* are (in order): Allied TAF 2 B-26 Typhoon IB Mk.IV Stirling Luftflotte 3 Ju 188 ( note 188, not 88 ) He 177 ( note: 177, not 111 ) Of all these, if there was only one AI... then the MkIV Stirling. Reasons: it could be used for multiple roles: transport, bombing or glider-tug it is an RAF bomber (something we don't have) there is not a lot of difference between the MkI, MkIII and MkIV, so it could be used as a stand in for an early war Allied bomber. it was used in reasonably large numbers, but is so under-represented in sims/games. PS: During my research, I noted that the LW had a reasonable number of transport aircraft, but they were of a mix of types, so there was no single representative variant. Examples included: FW 200, FW 290, LeO 451 and SM.82. Normally, one thinks of the Ju52/3m, but these others were all being used in greater numbers in 1944 France. However, I still think the Stirling Mk.IV is the best choice at an operational level for Normandy or Channel Map late war. PPS: A Fi-156 Storch would be cool, but flyable... not AI ;) *Ref: Ehrendardt, C-J, "Operation Overlord", pages 20, 21, 24 and 25

Very nice. Thanks! What do the terms "fence in" / "fence out" mean? I did a search on the internet, but didn't find anything that looked relevant.

I stumbled across this video. It's more a podcast/interview than a video... so, it's just as good to listen to (the visuals are just so photos and occasional references). Still I found it very interesting and learned a lot of things about the Zero that I did not know.

I've not done this for the MG131 or MK108, but I have done it for the MG151/20 on a different aircraft. You can use a similar technique to do your own measurements. This is what I did: Use the Mission Editor to build a test range Put the aircraft on a large open runway; you can save time by making it start with engines on. Place some tall objects at known distances and separations. The TV comms towers are good for this. These comms towers can be used to calibrate your gun-sight reticle angles Place some tall objects alongside the line between the aircraft and a point down range. Set the mission time to dusk (light enough to see the aircraft and towers, but dark enough to clearly see the tracers. Run the mission, fire some test shots and record a track. For the FW190, I needed to stand on the brakes and rev the engine up to give enough RPMs for the guns to fire. I am guessing the Bf109 will be the same. Replay the track in slow motion. Use an external view point (ideally, high zoom, long distance) to measure the trajectory. I did it by taking screen captures and them laying them on top of one another in the GIMP image editor. Use the known scale/placement of the comms towers (or whatever you used) to get the actual measurements.

Not all "non-label" WW2 servers are like that. For example, the Storm of War server in the first two and half weeks of July 2020 alone, has already had 700 unique clients, many of whom have accrued a lot of flight hours. Ref: https://stormofwar.info/pilots.php . In fact, rather than being "usually empty", the server admin has trouble finding a quiet moment to take the server down to do maintenance and updates.

The FW 190 F-8 and FW 190 G-8 have been announced. Example (REF): I am not sure what sub-variant of the F-8 we are getting, but I really hope it is the FW 190 F-8/U4 (i.e. with the PKS12 autopilot and the TSA2 bombsight). Otherwise, in pure dreaming-mode, I'd be wishing for any multi-engined LW aircraft.

Having a single-point lamp would be a very useful addition to DCS, especially if triggers could be used to create/destroy them. These are really small, so there would be no need to switch them on/off (although that would be nice), merely creating/deleting them would be sufficient to mark out the runway/taxi way. They would also be very useful for non-WW2 too. They could be used to mark test target areas, cargo drop points for helicopters, or even linked to a ship to give them lighting, even if they don't have any. In any case, this is a great idea, it would add a lot to the DCS environment, and it does not seem like a complicated model to make.

Internal bombloads might be a bit of effort, as ED would need to model the bomb doors, etc., which might take some time. But maybe adding bombs on the external pylons would be easier? I've been trying to find references for this. One that I came across was for Ju88 A-4s from II./KG54 on D-Day itself (see ref, attached). What is not clear is whether these are SD500A or AB-500-SD2 bombs. Also, I'm not convinced that II./KG54 was in the area... this might actually be a mistake and it should be I./KG54. In any case, I'll leave it here in case anyone has some better information. There are certainly some webpages which mention I./KG54 dropping SD2 (butterfly bombs), but I can't find anything authoritative.

The Me410 would suit both Normandy (and maybe late-war Channel map?). But I'd be happy with any German twin. Me410, Ju88, He177, perhaps an He115! Yes, I'd even settle for that Me210... esp. if it gets a six-pack of rockets and a nose cannon. Haha! Nice. Must start using this. #RealHornet

There are already delayed fuzes in DCS WW2, and for as long as I've been flying DCS (since 2016). The Bf-109 K-4, the FW 190 D-9, and now the FW 190 A-8 too, all have them, and for multiple bomb types as well (SC50, SC250, SC500J, SD500A, etc.). At this stage, ED has not added them on the Allied aircraft, but those LW machines are all superb aircraft, and are highly recommended if you are so insistent on doing extremely low-level fighter-bomber attacks. That said, we routinely see Allied pilots on the servers doing just fine with instantaneously fuzes and historical tactics.

This is a product of me drawing from multiple sources, which refer to the systems slightly differently. I've been spending some more time looking into this, but it is difficult to find information. However, I am getting more and more excited by the prospect of the radar units in DCS. The recently published screenshots are superb. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/screenshots/ In particular, I wonder if there will be any ability to control this unit via Combined Arms? Just looking at the control room on the back of the WR... it has a lot of potential. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/23d/dcs-world-Wu%CC%88rzburg-Riese.jpg

Excellent news that we are getting some period radar. These will be superb for a whole variety of mission scenarios. When used for pre-invasion scenarios, there are a number of coastal sites which can be used, and would serve well for DH-98 or P-47D missions. Sites such as Distelfink, Tausendfüssler, etc.. There is a lot of information on these already available. However, I have been slowly collecting notes on sites further inland, as I think these will be good for post-invasion missions (esp. the multiplayer missions such as those used on the Storm of War server). These sites are difficult to get good details on, as records were either not kept or didn't survive. Additionally, the frontline was changing rapidly, so establishing dates, and relevant dates, is tricky. Nevertheless, I've identified a number of possible sites. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brutus-Y Jägermeßstellung 49.08896, 0.53004 Stand 20.6.1944: 2 Freya-Egon 5 Y-Linien OKL Generalnachrichtenführer, Jägermeßstellungen, Stand 20.6.1944 Luftnachrichten-Regiment 53 (disband.Sep'44) II.Abt/Ln-Rgt 53, disb. Sep'44 Baumläufer S.E. Bernay, 40.00N 00.44W, Reference 403/44, Date 28/7/44 7. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie II./Ln-Rgt 53 II.Abt/Ln-Rgt 53, disb. Sep'44 7. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie in Bernay (Stellung "Baumläufer") Equipment uncertain Gepard südlich Gaillon 6. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie II./Ln-Rgt 53 49.10862, 1.34276 II.Abt/Ln-Rgt 53, disb. Sep'44 Equipment uncertain Gepard-Evreux (separate station from Gepard?) Gepard, Evreux, 49.01N 01.10E (Unbestätigt) No record of any units Equipment uncertain Biene (interesting station, probably operation, but off map!) Hoffmann II/1 S. 65: Außerdem waren im Bereich Belgien-Nordfrankreich noch drei weitere Funkmeßstellungen (je ein Freya- und Würzburg-Gerät) etwa bei Renaix, 50 km WSW Brüssel (10/BN), bei Bapaume, 27 km WSW Cambrai (9/BN) und bei Bezancourt, 50 km NW Paris (12/BN) bei den in Klammern angegebenen Flugmeldekompanien des Luftgau-Nachrichten-Regiments Belgien-Nordfrankfreich zugeteilt. E. Serqueux, 49.33 N 01.46 E Ausrüstung Stand 20.6.1944 1 Freya AN und Gemse 2 Würzburg-Riese Location "off map"!! Vampir evtl. 11. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie III./Ln-Rgt 53 Unit disbanded Sep.1944 14500 Vire. Coords: 48.8397 -0.8905 NE. Laigle Also: 48.49N 00.45W (?) Equipment uncertain Känguruh Funkmeßstellung Various units mentioned, all from II.Abt/Ln-Rgt 53, disb. Sep'44 4. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie in Coutances (Stellung "Kängeruh") [designation uncertain] Possibly, later: 10.Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie ?? 9. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie II./Ln-Rgt 53 Abandonned: 26.06.1944 II.Abteilung disbanded in Sep 1944. 49.04279, -1.5766 Equipment uncertain Wurm 16. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie in Verneuil (Stellung "Wurm")/Ln-Rgt 53 32. Funk-Leit-Kompanie was formed in 3.44 from 16./Luftnachrichten-Regiment 53. 48.70917, 0.82674 Würzburg-Riese Operations dates unknown Site was bombed/shelled, but date not known 16.Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie (qui devient la 32. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie en mars 1944) du IV.Abteilung (formé à Saint-Lô en avril 1943) du Luftnachrichten-Regiment 53 (formé à Compiègne en avril 1942, PC à Bernay à partir de décembre 1943, dissolu en décembre 1944) However, a second ref suggests it was disbanded in Sept.1944 The company withdrew from Wurm in July 1944. It is therefore likely this site was destroyed in July 1944. Noted that In 3.44 16. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie became 32./Luftnachrichten-Regiment 54 (Abt.I), possibly reformed. Assel 17. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie in Argentan (Stellung "Assel") /Ln-Rgt 53 nr Argentan 48.8195, -0.1523 approx. Status unknown Operations dates unknown - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Of the above, I think that the Brutus-Y site is particularly interesting. According the OKL report, the site was still operating 2x Freya radars on the 20-Jun-1944. That surprises me, and I wonder if it is a mistake? Another interesting site is Wurm, which is further inland, and thus more feasible to be operational post-invasion. The units there departed in July 1944, so perhaps this site was still operating its Würzburg-Riese? Information of the other sites is even more uncertain, and I doubt they were operation (I've listed them any way in case someone else has more details). I do not have the Channel Map, so I've limited my search to Normandy map regions only. I include my references below. If anyone has more information for those of us interested in historical missions, please let us know! It would be good to resolve some of the uncertainty of the above list. Certainly if anyone knows of raids against radar stations (i.e. from the USAAF-squadron perspective), that sort of information would be really useful. Thanks. References http://www.gyges.dk/luftwaffe_radar_stations%20in%20France.htm http://www.ww2.dk/Airfields%20-%20France.pdf https://www.relikte.info/more-flum.html https://www.cdvandt.org/type-number_wizard.htm https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=83363 http://www.ww2.dk/ground/ln/lgbn.html https://www.geschichtsspuren.de/ http://eure18701945.canalblog.com/ http://www.ww2.dk/ground/ln/lgwf.html http://www.gyges.dk/Luftnachrichten%20Rgt%2040%20-%20130.pdf http://www.ww2.dk/ground/ln/ln53.html

I have a multiplayer server. It is running Lua scripts via triggers (using the "do script file" action). These work fine. What I want, though, is some functionality that will only run if it is called by the server version of the script. It is a logging script, but I don't want it to fill up the player harddrives). So, what I'd like is something like: if script.is.running.on.server() then -- write my log information endIt could either detect it directly, or maybe it could check the ucid (that massive long client-id number, like 01234567890f11bebafd93ab1f7aac436). I've trawled through the documentation and found: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_export , but I couldn't see anything in there that would help. I also have MIST running, so if there is a function in there I can use, that would also be fine (I didn't see anything, but maybe I'm looking for the wrong search terms). Any suggestions? Thanks!

I am trying to understand the above discussion (plus the other posts with it). Searching for terms like "individual aiming" or "formation firing" were not helpful. So, does this mean that a pair of Mi-24 helicopters fly in close formation and then, when the lead fires, the other just fires with him... and assumes that the second helicopter is pointing in more or less the right direction? Is that what the "not performed with individual aiming" means? (The analogy I'm thinking of is WW2 level bombing, where the formation leader would drop bombs and all the others in the formation would drop too... knowing they are dropping at the same height, altitude, heading, speed, etc..) Any clarification (or references I could go and read) would be appreciated.

It depends on the time of day, but so far this month on the Storm of War (SoW) server there has been 660 unique players. Sometimes there is a full server (40+) too. Ref: http://nordfront.org/sowdcsstats/overview.php SoW is historical missions, with added AI, to make the server busy, even if there are not too many human players online. But usually it is busy and sometimes there is human radar-control too. Certainly plenty to do, and loads of fun.

We did some research on the issue of sinking the Samuel Chase with bombs, based on the historical attacks on Bone Harbour (02-Jan-1942) using two entire squadrons of FW 190s (rather than the lone aircraft, that DCS players are typically using). Our conclusion was that the damage model of the DCS ships (LSTs and Samuel Chase) were consistent with the damage inflicted during that attack (see links below, and references therein). We have not yet investigated the torpedoes, but do bear in mind that airborne torpedoes are not the same as U-boat fired torpedoes. Additionally, the torpedoes from the Ju 88s are not being set to detonate under the keel, but are relying on impact detonations against the side of the ship. References http://stormofwar.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=53815#p53815 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3993334&postcount=13

Perhaps there might be more information when the FW190 F-8 is completed. However, in the meantime, there is some information links in the posts in this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=268994

You should not be targeting Tigers and Tiger IIs if you are in a Dora! ;) That said, yes, they can. But... There are two types of rockets, the R4M (26 carried, fired in pairs, thus 13 salvos of 2) and the BR21 (also known as the WfrGr.21; two carried, fired individually). At the moment, DCS has a simplified damage model for ground units. Regardless of which side you hit (front, back, sides), a single R4M will do about 11% damage to a Tiger I and 6% damage to a Tiger II. I have been running test missions again this morning and can confirm this is still the case as of 14-Jun-2020 (DCS OpenBeta 2.5.6.50793) There is a fair amount of "drop" in the rocket, so you need to aim long to hit. As a result, they are inaccurate and not particularly effective. The BR21 rockets are single-hit kills against either Tiger. Any side. Every time. Note that, again because of the simplified damage model), a near miss against a tank does absolutely nothing. You cannot blow of tracks or jam the turret or anything like that. However, the BR21 is effective against soft targets, due to the heavy warhead and large blast area. The R4Ms can take out soft targets too, but are not particularly good due to a very small blast. Another thing to note is that the Dora can use the "4xSC50 + rockets" combo, but it cannot use "SC500 + rockets". In the former case, the 4xSC50 must be used/jettisoned first. The Anton does not have any such limitation. I use both the Dora and Anton a lot, in both single and multiplayer, but only ever in the ground attack role. (So I have no comment on attacking fighters/bombers.) Against ground targets, I find the R4M is difficult to aim, because of guessing the drop of the rocket during its trajectory. The BR21s are easy to aim. Make sure you avoid any side slip to stop them skewing left/right and missing. Also of interest might be the Storm of War server, which tracks weapon effectiveness each month (REF). From that, we see the BR21 being moderately effective. The R4M very much less so. One last point, just bear in mind that the Dora is faster, but more fragile than the Anton. My personal preference (at least until the F-8 variant comes out!) is the Anton with BR21. Even though the Anton is slower than the Dora, it can take more punishment, has more 20mm rounds, and is easier to handle.

What?! I think you mean "no delayed fuzing in the DCS P-47". There are delayed fuzes in DCS more generally. I was flying a FW 190 A8 about 10 minutes ago... and was using delayed fuzes. It worked perfectly fine. Same for the D9 and K4. If the fuzes are set by the ground crew (which is my understanding of Allied aircraft), then a possible implementation would be to have two types of bombs. E.g. AN-64 (instantaneous) AN-64 (delayed) They are fitted during rearm/refuel and you choose then. Same warhead; different fuze.

From the newsletter... Does that mean there are now Spanish / Italian paintschemes? I had to read that several times. Did you really mean "withholds"? Or was that supposed to be "has"? I'm also a little puzzled why the AV8B got such a feature in the Newsletter. Did I miss something?

Completely agree. I've been wishing for a flyable Ju 88 ever since I got into DCS. Would be perfect for the new Channel Map and Normandy. Seeing the newly introduced AI version has just made me want one even more. :)

Okay. We can always obstruct them with wire and obstacles from the WW2 assets pack. While I can perfectly understand ED's reluctance to disclose their plans, it means that we, the community, can only go off the information we have. There are three LW aircraft (A8, D9, K4) and my original post was pointing out that the announced airfields are not suitable for any of them. Likewise for the suggestions for alternatives (and even then, the problem is that the map area itself does not suit the D9 or K4). And the suggestions that I made were based on my best guess as to the timeline we'd have to work with. This was why I asked for more information about dates, aircraft, etc.. So, given the alreadty existing planeset, anticipating the P47D and DH98, assuming the FW190F8 is still being developed, looking for something suitable for both coalitions, and trying to guess a possible non-1944 era (Battle of France? Battle of Britain? Battle of Dieppe? Operation Steinbock?), and limited to "one" that I'd like to see, I'd recommend: Rosières-en-Santerre As a base: Oct-1939 - May-1940 : No.57 RAF (Blenheim Mk.I) Jun-1940 - Sep-1940 : Stab./KG1 (He111H), III./KG1 (He111H) Jun-1940 - Nov-1940 : II./KG1 (He111H) Mar-1941 - Jun-1941 : II./KG1 (Ju88A) May-1941 - Jul-1941 : II./KG4 (He111H) Nov-1942 - Feb-1943 : I./KG6 (Ju88A) Oct-1943 - Mar-1944 : I./SKG10 (FW190A) May-1944 - Jun-1944 : I./SKG10 (FW190A) 02? to 15-Aug-1944 : III./JG26 (Bf109G) Feb-1945 - Apr-1945 : No.21 RAF, No.464 RAAF, No.487 RNZAF (DH98 ) May-1945 - Nov-1945 : 387th AEG (B-26) As a target: 14-Jan-1944: low-level attack by VIII Fighter Command P-47 Thunderbolts –claimed 2 x Fw 190s shot up and damaged. 06-Feb-1944: bombed by 9th AAF B-26 Marauders. 28-Feb-1944: bombed by 9th AAF B-26 Marauders. 02-Mar-1944: bombed by 9th AAF B-26 Marauders. 03-Mar-1944: bombed by 9th AAF medium bombers (probably B-26s) 5 aircraft shelters destroyed/damaged but runways and landing area unaffected. 12-Jun-1944: LW reported 6 of I./SKG 10’s Fw 190s destroyed and 5 damaged during Allied air attack. 18-Aug-1944: low-level attack by VIII Fighter Command P-51s claimed 1 xFw 190 damaged. 25-Aug-1944: bombed and strafed by 9th AAF P-38 Lightnings runways, hangars, buildings and fuel dumps hit. References: http://www.ww2.dk/Airfields%20-%20France.pdf https://www.ww2.dk/air/attack/skg10.htm https://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg1.htm https://military.wikia.org/wiki/No._21_Squadron_RAF https://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg26.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._464_Squadron_RAAF https://www.ww2.dk/misc/ob13840.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosieres-en-Santerre_Airfield https://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg4.htm https://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg6.htm http://www.stormofwar.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=7048&p=54760 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._57_Squadron_RAF But, seriously, this is just a best guess at a suitable airfield, trying to be as flexible as possible, as adaptable as possible and in the absence of any ideas as to what ED plans and intentions are. No doubt others will have other suggestions too. What a few (possibly very few) of us are trying to achieve with DCS is WW2 history. This means historical missions, with historical aircraft, scenarios and locations. We appreciate that there are limited aircraft assets, as a result of the extreme detail and immense developmental effort required. Thus we are merely trying to help avoid misdirected valuable development effort by catching errors and anachronisms in advance.

Adding? It should be replacing! The four announced airfields are incorrect for the time period of the map (post April 1944). They simply were not in use. So, here's my analysis based on the new details that are starting to come to hand now. Analysing the screenshot we got, and overlaying it on an open-data map to get the coordinates, this gives a bounds limit of approximately: East 3.50 deg West 0.00 deg South 49.67 deg North 51.4 deg At the time the FW 190 D-9 was introduced (Sep 1944) there was not a single operational Luftwaffe Airfield in the area of the Channel Map. This situation is even worse by the time the K4 came into service. As @71st_AH Rob suggests, the map needs to be moved considerably further east. The problem is that with the features implemented on this map, and with the aircraft set that DCS has, this map area is simply well behind the front line by this stage of the conflict. The war had moved on... a lot. Now, if a pre-invasion datelineis considered (and we are talking April 1944 here, when the FW 190 A-8 was just introduced, the Manston runway was complete, but before the Allies pre-invasion bombing offensive in May), then there are 5-7 possible bases. 1. Lille-Vendeville (I./JG 26) 2. Chièvres, Belgium (II./LG1, II./KG76) 3. Vitry-en-Artois (II./KG51, I./JG26) 4. Cambrai-Niergnies (II./JG26), only until April 1944 5. Poix (Staging field for fighter-bombers) 6. Rosières-en-Santerre (I./SKG 10, III./JG 26), partly operational until August 7. Montdidier (I./KG66, I./JG5), until June Some of these are pretty much at the map edge though (esp. #2 and #7). It is really difficult to say which would be best. They were all battered, depleted and in the process of shutting down or withdrawing. Rosières-en-Santerre is okay, given that it a) held out until August 1944 and had a mix of units. But it was not operational right at the time of D-Day. Lille-Vendeville, however, was operational, but it only had 35 aircraft (FW 190 A-6 / A-7 / A-8, incl. at its satellite fields). Vitry-en-Artois was also operational at D-Day, but it was deploying Bf 109 G-6s and only 13 of them. None of the others were operational on D-Day itself either. To make a decision, it would be necessary to know... a) what is the longitude/latitude bounds of the map terrain area? b) is ED striving to make it historically appropriate for the D9 and K4, or just the A8? c) are other LW aircraft planned that we need to take into account? FW 190 F8? Me.262 A-1? He 115 B-2? d) what is the dateline of the map?! <-- this is important, due to the changing operational areas. Certainly with a bit more information/constraints, it would be possible to make better suggestions, but otherwise, this is the best information to hand at the moment. Reference and more information: http://www.stormofwar.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=54756#p54756