Bozon

Thanks for looking into this. As I said, I doubt their ever took off in a fresh plane with 50% or less of the total capacity, so this is mostly a “game” issue. So far I also load the plane with at least 50% fuel and thus there is still a reasonable amount in the main tank. I can live with this

Hopefully this will be a loadout option sometime in the future

@DD_Fenrir thank. In the meanwhile after posting this thread ED implemented the new fusing menus in the loadout screen, so now the fusing issue is much clearer.

The radar changes elevations between sweeps. If the target is not in an elevation overlap region between the scan strips it will appear only on sweeps in one direction but not the other.

It’s odd but that is the ground steering method of the mossie. Because the rudder pedals are coupled to the differential breaking it is quite intuitive in practice: during takeoff run you try to veer by applying rudder - if that does not respond (speed too low) while still holding the rudder pedal you tap the brake lever a little to get a response. Within a few seconds of accelerating you start to get a response from the rudder and you can stop adding the brake lever.

It’s “F1”. Beware the Hyphengestapo!

The biggest error for human gunnery is most likely the range. The error on your estimation of range increase with the range - this quadratically affects the lead error against targets that do not fly directly towards you. Humans are also particularly weak at adjusting to a non constant range when the target has a velocity component towards/away from you. There are other errors than increase with range such as bullet drop estimation and errors stemming from general angular accuracy, so the end result is that manually aimed AAA become statistical weapons pretty quickly with range - it is actually worse than a pure statistical errors because range estimation errors lead to bias not to scatter. This is unlike the WWII AAA in DCS that are able to snipe me out of the sky no matter the aspect and a weak function of range. Radar guided weapons on the other hand solve the range pretty accurately and with an error that is largely independent of the distance, but generally have poor angular accuracy (vs optic aiming for example) - these are just the properties of radars. Angular aiming error create a miss distance that increase just linearly with distance. This is closer to a pure random aiming error around the true perfect solution. Games usually calculate a perfect solution and then add a random angular error to simulate the inaccuracy - this is much more similar to the errors of radar guided AAA than to human gunners as I explained above and why in most games AI gunners are super humans. To simulate a human, a range-dependent error that is re-sampled at a low rate needs to be included in addition to angular errors.

I find the Mosquito is not easy to fly on one engine. If the dead engine is the #1 (port) and you cannot feather it, then forget about it, go dead stick and look for a field to ditch in or bail. I find that the 1st priority is to get the speed up so your rudder will be able to counter the yaw - so point your nose down and slowly add power on the live engine, only then get the dead one feathered ASAP (but it takes a while). The above is from DCS experience, I have zero experience with real life twins. In DCS I get to practice this a lot since every AAA within 5 miles homes in straight into my engines. Always. By all accounts the Mosquito was considered a very good 1-engine flier for its time - if it is modeled correctly I fear to imagine what a bad 1-engine twin is like…

I am not sure what you mean about the DF. It works on MP servers just fine and I make extensive use of it when doing dead reconning navigation.

A minor request: If it is possible, please add the remaining mission time to the F10 menu. I hate planning a long NOE navigation to target and after takeoff get a message that the server will rest before I will reach the target.

Replacing the heavy bombers with fast bombers is the wrong way to look at it - you have to completely reimagine the airwar. Forget bomber streams, forget escort fighters as we know them, forget carpet bombing to destroy 1 building. So lets try. Fast light bombers "Mosquito style" that relay on avoiding interception do not fly in large formations - heavy bombers do because they rely on mutual gunners protection and it is easier for the escort fighters to protect the sheep when they are clustered together. Fast bombers that want to avoid interception come either very high, or very low. Lets start with high. High penetration: Mosquitoes could fly at 30k and were about as fast as the fighters. This limits interception to front sector and forces the defenders to climb to altitude well in advance of the bombers - they have to climb higher (30k vs. ~20k of heavy bombers) and have half the time to do it. This means that any change of flight path by the bombers will render interception very difficult to impossible. The defenders have to compensate by launching from multiple airfields at different regions to vector in to this one formation. The interception requires close control by the GCI. Therefore multiple penetration routes will put a huge strain both on the number of interceptors required and the ability of GCI to handle multiple interceptions simultaneously. The interceptors will have difficulty to attack from above with energy advantage because everyone are flying close to their ceiling - so interceptions are largely flat. If interceptors fall behind they will not be able to catch up with the bombers, or do so very slowly and be vulnerable to escort fighters. Relatively minor course corrections can foil a head on attack and individual planes are more free to manauver out of the way of front sector attackers since a tight formation is not required. In case of attcks from the rear sector, the escort fighters only need to make the interceptors break once to make them fall out of the race. Escorts will enjoy a much larger effective range since they can fly faster close to their optimal speed and do not need to zig zag in order to stay with the bombers - with the mosquitoes, their cruise speeds were higher than the escorts (with drop tanks) so they needed to slow down for their escorts not to waste to much fuel. The speed also means much less time in crossing flak zones. The final attack would be done from much lower altitude in order to ensure accuracy. This means that starting from quite a large distance from target the bombers can enter a shallow dive and perform the last legs at a VERY high speed rendering interception at this stage almost impossible. Low penetration: Intecepting a NOE small formation was increadibly difficult during WWII, unless by chance. Radar is of little help and information from ground spotters was too slow to reach the interceptors. Interception involved a lot of guess work to anticipate the future position of the targets to intecept and required a relatively large number of interceptors to covers a large area of search. Again this puts a huge straign on interceptors force and the GCIs relative to the number of bombers, especially if multiple interception attampts are happening at the same time over a large area. Multiple formation penetrating at different paths confuse the GCI since it is difficult to build a coherent picture from the multiple spotters reports that spot different formations. Mosquitoes proved to be difficult to shoot down in a maneuvering combat, thus if intercepted escort fighters have the ability and time to engage and clear bombers that are in combat with enemy fighters, at least enough to allow them to run away from the interceptors - even if it means that the mission is foiled, only few bombers will be lost. THESE bombers might not get through, but it means that others will, and these will return another day (or even on the same day given half the mission time of heavy bombers). General strategy: As I explain above, fast bombers require a large interception effort per bomber formation - much more than heavy bombers that are detected at a large distance, are completely predictable, and there is a large number of them at the same location. Therefore instead of streams, fast bombers would have been used with small escorted formations penetrating at different paths and split between high and low penetrations to put maximum strain on the interceptors. Since light bombers are cheaper and reuire less crew, you can have many more of them than heavy bombers and strain the defenders even more. Instead of one big attack per day, the attacks can be staggered so intetrceptors that launched to the first bombers will be returning to base to refuel while new formations are penetrating - this means that the defenders have to maintain a still even larger interceptors force to keep up the rotation. Interceptors have to be spread all over the territories in many airfields in order to have some in the interception cone of a bomber formation - this is a nightmare to manage. Deception tactics - bombers that fly as fast and as high as fighters and in small formations look the same on radar. When the GCI vectors interceptors he cannot tell if he is intercepting bombers or fighters, so formations of fighters that perform sweeps also act as bait, that draw away interceptors and engage them in combat. This both wastes interceptors resources and makes them engage dangerous fighters that are free from escort duties and are eager to engage. Attacking targets from low altitudes allow precision bombing. To destory a factory you do not need 50 heavy bombers to lay waste to everything within 5 miles radius, and more often than not still miss the target - you only need 1 or 2 small bombers to reach and lob their bombs through the front door. Many such targets that require a little less precision can even be attacked at night when the moon is full, or using illuminations flares. Mosquitoes demonstrated both day and night low altitude precision attacks were possible. Night attacks are even more difficult to intercept than day attacks and the same bomber force would be able to do both, while night and day interceptors are normally NOT the same force - thus defense requires to produce also a sizeable night fighters force. Did we mention straign on the defenders resources? My conclusion is that a large force of small fast bombers would have been singincantly more effective than the heavy bombers force. These would not be only moquitoes as other types would have been developed has this been the strategy. The interceptors force would also be different and optimized to hunt smaller pray, though I doubt the difference in types would have been as dramatic. The claim that the purpose of the heavy bomber force was to draw out the lufwaffe to get shot down does not hold water. Small bombers would have drawn out the interceptors as well and the escorts/sweepers could have engaged in an even more favoarable conditions. The losses that the heavy bomber force sustaned were HUGE both in manpower and in material, and did not justify the losses inflicted upon the lufwaffe. The bombing effectivness on strategic ground targets would have increased significantly when using small bombers, minus the war crimes of the heavy bombers in bombing cities into firestorms. I don't blame the decision makers of the time. They were not stupid. It was just completely radical change from everything that came before it and at the start of the war just as unproven as the heavy bombers raids. They went with what they knew and prepare for before the war.

Maybe a mustache is a loadout option

Wow incredible! Very atmospheric. I love how the navigator is calling out points along the route to orientate you, and the accent is a nice touch In combination with the previous videos about the night mission, I can’t wait for this to be released.

Do you also try to load wing bombs? If you choose 4 rockets and then wing bombs or DT the rockets will be removed.

Lol Try to make the smoke spell “Greta” in the sky…

I also had difficulties, but this is how I do it now, easy and no differential throttles required: 1. Roll straight before you come to a complete stop to straighten the tail wheel. 2. Come to a full stop. 3. Make sure that rudder trim is at the ”T”, and pitch is 2 notches forward. Roll trim right 1 notch is recommended, but not mandatory. 10 degrees flaps also recommended for all conditions. 4. The key: while on breaks, push boost to +9 to +12 range, and wait for it to stabilize. 5. Release breaks and be ready to gently correct direction with the breaks - once the rudder responds, stop using the breaks and use only rudder. Ideally you’ll apply very little of either. 6. You can push to higher boost, but only after rudder becomes effective. 7. The tail should come up by itself around 100 (if you trimmed as above). Let it run for a sec on 2 wheels. Do not pull up before the tail lifts.

We haven’t heard much from the WWII dev team after the Mosquito has launched into EA, and no new WWII module was announced. Maybe they are working on the assets?

What is the difference between the GP mk.V mk. IV etc. bombs? MC mk.I and mk.II? I am talking about the mark designation, not the GP/MC classification. So far I have noticed that the GP mk.V do not explode - I assume they are the ones with very long delayed fuses? They do not explode even when I arm both front and rear fuses - I thought that the front fuse is supposed to be instanteneous and the rear one is delayed - not so? The GP short tail does explode on impact, so I assume they are similar to the mk.IV (except they fit in the bay)?

Bomb containers and wing drop tanks jettison button does not jettison the wing bombs (I did not try with drop tanks). I mean the covered button above the perpex bomb panel cover.

Yes! I’d certainly buy Mystere IVA. It saw more action than the super Mystere and will add a good counter part to the Mig-15 and F-86. Having said that, I will also buy Super Mystere B2 and Ouragan to complete the lineage. Beautiful planes. Thay is a “Sa’ar” - a super Mystere upgraded for A2G work by IAI. The most distinctive feature is the extended tail pipe that was added when the American J-52 engine (same engine as A-4 Skyhawks) was installed. They were excellent attack planes during 1973 Yom Kippur, then sold to Honduras, where they saw some more action. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-aircraft-industries-sa-ar I don’t see this one coming to DCS within the current or next centuries… well, maybe as a mod.

Do you mean you wish to control both rpm levers regardless of selected engine? Because currently if you select “both” it will control both rpm levers.

According to this list http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/victories-israel.html the total number of kills for Mirage IIIcj in the israeli air force is about 330 (I counted by hand so that is give or take a few). Given the numbers, the list probably includes ground kills and I also think that a few more for Yom Kipur may actually be Nesher kills - at the time the existence of the Nesher was a secret and often it is confused with the Mirage IIIcj. Given Israel bought only 72 Mirages, that is a seriously impressive average of over 4 per-airframe. I’ve never seen a detailed breakdown, but the absolute majority of the Mirage kills were with guns, especially before and during the 6-days war when their missiles were pretty bad, but even during Yom kippur war, guns ruled - even the F-4 phantoms got a large fraction of their kills with guns. So Mirage IIIcj, Nesher, and almost certainly Israeli Phantoms had more than 24.5 gun kills. Two Mirage IIIcj airframes are tied with 13 kills each, so these two alone may tie or break 24.5 gun kills…

With the US services perhaps, not in the rest of the world.

Thanks! That is a good selection of missions, both for the Mossie and A-4!

@Skewgear, the 4YA server is good and keeps improving. It is a very positive force in DCS WWII. Personally I don’t think that the historical accurate (within the limits) label is the thing that makes it good - rather, it serves as a lure for the players that wish to claim they are the hardest hard core. The “most populated” title does not reflect correctly on the other servers - in a small player base there is an instability where the server with more players will draw the players away from the other servers, leaving them next to empty. When I log in and see 2 players on N.20 I will choose 4YA and fly a channel crossing mission even if it means I will have time for just 1 sortie. By the way, I usually fly solo - I need human opponents to fear, even if I manage to sneak in, strike, and egress without being engaged. Fear is excitement, and I don’t get that in an empty server, no matter how good the server is set up. btw, there is the “player deliverable” mosquito slots on the continent fields - is this 1 to 1? i.e., if I end my sortie there, 1 mosquito becomes available for the next sortie?