Jump to content

Finkeren

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    10700
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Finkeren

  1. They most definitely produce recoil. You will feel the yawing motion very distinctly, if one of your wing guns is out of action and you fire the other.
  2. Aside from fuses settings, it is important to keep in mind, that bombs and explosive munitions in general were (and are) made to not go off, unless triggered by the right type of fuse. A bomb accidentally falling to the ground might be scary as hell, but something has to go very very wrong in order for it to be set off. If this was not the case, and bombs could go off simply by being bumped or having their shells damaged, then big bomber formations with planes flying close to one another ladden with tons of explosives would have been completely inviable. All it would take is for one bomber to take a hit in the bomb bay to destroy half the formation.
  3. Generally speaking parts would be interchangeable (though often not identical), but in reality it was not always the case. Production quality was rough and tolerances loose. Focus was on producing things that worked right out of the factor, and less attention was given to making sure that each factory produced to the exact same standards. A famous example of this is the PPSh-41 sub-machinegun. It had a 71-round drum magazine that was more or less copied from the Finnish KP-31 and proved notoriously problematic. It could be very reliable and work flawlessly, if it was paired with a gun that fit just right, otherwise it was prone to all sorts of failures. Collectors to this day sometimes meet up in groups to exchange drums and find one that is just right for their PPSh. In the end the Soviets ended up phasing out production of the drums and shift to simpler 35-round stick mags - and eventually move on to the PPS-43, which was even simpler, with even looser tolerancens and ended up as probably the best sub-gun of WW2.
  4. @OP: To me the Yak-9 is worth it, simply because of how important and iconic it is. A plane that was produced in those insane numbers, and served for such a long time pretty much unchanged, is a must-have.
  5. Well... Outwardly and performance-wise the two are very similar (largely coincidental), but in construction they differ quite a bit. The main reason both lines were kept in production, even as they converged was because re-tooling and restructuring the factories that were already producing one line to produce the other would have slowed down production significantly, something the USSR couldn't afford at the time. This was true for almost every aspect of Soviet war time production: Things were only really stadardized within the factory - not between factories. This is why for instance the T-34 tank was at one point being produced with 3 different types of turret, depending on where it was manufactured. Later the two lines of Yaks diverged again and ended up with two quite distinct fighters.
  6. Totally self-contradicting. You claim to want "total simulation", then demand one arcadish thing after another. Please do not for a minute imagine, that you are speaking on behalf of anyone but yourself. This is the one good point you make here: Player communication can indeed be improved, and the devs are well aware of it. Are you really though? Seems an odd way of offering your "help". Barge in on your very first post, clearly having not searched the forum, to see if there are any discussions of the points you are about to bring forth. Insulting the devs at every turn. Pretending to speak for everyone, when you have only been part of the community for mere minutes. This is not "helping", this is trolling.
  7. Wrong, around 3/4 of players never play online.
  8. Turbulence yes, the wind is not.
  9. No, it won't work like you say, because for a plane in flight, wind speed only affects ground speed, not air speed. Once you get a little above treetop altitude, wind generally blows rather uniformly and steadily from one direction. This means that any aircraft flying through the air is carried away by the wind, without the wind being felt by the plane at all. Effectively there is no wind blowing around an aircraft in flight - only as relates to ground speed. The same will go for any projectile fired from said aircraft. It is a bit easier to understand, if you have ever flown in a hot air ballon (an un-tethered one) . Once it takes off it is carried off by the wind, quickly matching the speed and direction of the wind, and suddenly the air around the balloon seems to become extremely calm, as if no wind is blowing at all, and often you can hear noises from the ground with almost unnatural clarity. If you were to fire a gun from a hot air balloon, the bullet would move as if there was no wind as viewed from the balloon. Since there is effectively no wind blowing, it can't affect the bullet and the balloon differently. The exact thing happens to an airplane, but since the plane is not just drifting with the wind but moving under its own power at several hundred mph through the air, the lack of wind is not really felt.
  10. For aerial gunnery (an aircraft shooting at another aircraft) wind has zero influence, because both aircraft are moving with the wind, essentially they are both inside a "block" of air that's moving pretty much uniformly relative to the ground. Therefore there is largely no wind around an aircraft in flight, and the only airflow is created by the aircraft movement through the "block" of air. Wind has a huge impact on air-to-ground gunnery though.
  11. Pretty much all aviators at the time carried a knife. Not as a weapon, but to cut themselves free, in case they became trapped in a wrecked aircraft. The knife he used looked like a standard issue German bayonet, which was a pretty versatile instrument that was easy to get hold of and came with a sheath (great for not accidentally cutting yourself during flight) To me it makes a lot of sense, that a WW1 pilot would carry such a knife.
  12. The British army was not racially segregated (at least not by the time of WW1, but I don't think it ever officially was). Though "colonial" regiments of purely African volunteers were a thing - and these were kept sharply segregated and were often treated with suspicion and disrespect - there was also the occasional Brit of African or Indian descent mixed in with the regular units. The black community in the UK in the 19th and early 20th century was a good deal larger than most people are aware of today. Almost all of them were of course descended from slaves, but by WW1 they were all British citizens and served in the army same as everyone else and were generally not subject to any special regulations. For the same reason, these POC soldiers are largely invisible in the historic scources, because the army did not register people by race, but they do show up in photographs from time to time. Btw: This is not to say that society back then wasn't grossly racist, and that race relations in Britain were rosy red - not at all. But it wasn't like the US and you would meet the occasional POC serving alongside his white comrades.
  13. In that case, it has to be a StuG. If it must be Allied I would say Churchill, just to mix thing up and have something that useful on both fronts.
  14. A StuG III would be the most obvious choice for the current setting. My personal favorite AFV the Su-76 also fits well, but would arguably be a whole lot less useful in our pure tank vs. tank environment than it was IRL. Moving into 1944, we'd obviously need the IS-2 and T-34/85 as well as a Panther A and maybe a Königstiger or Jagdpanther. As common as the Soviet light tanks were, I think they would be used so little, that they are a quite a bit further down my list. Light tanks would be whole lot more fun in a 1941 scenario, where we could have BTs and T-26s tangliing with Panzer IIs and 38(t)s.
  15. I would say go see it. It's no masterpiece, but it is solid throughout. Yeah, the plot is ultra-simple and a bit contrived but no more than, say, Saving Private Ryan. You need to watch it in a cinema though. Its main technically gimmick is quite impressive (if a bit exhausting to watch) on the big screen. Not sure it will translate as well to the small screen.
  16. I went and saw it last friday. A liked it a lot, and didn't mind the scene with the stabbing at all. I felt it was very clear, that the German acted in confused, agonized desperation - not really understanding, what was going on around him, so he just lashed out. This made the scene all the more tragic and poignant, because it was sooooooo unnecessary. In one second it transformed a moment of genuine humanity and kindness into even more tragedy and pain for no good reason at all. I thought it was quite powerful. What I did mind were the double chase scenes through the ruined town at night. Twice the protagonist is being chased down by a single German soldier, who repeatedly shoots at him from a distance of a few feet while running at full tilt, causing him to miss repeatedly. There is no indication, that these were meant as warning shots to get the protagonist to stop. If the German soldier had stopped for one second to aim properly, our hero would've been dead. The whole thing seemed rather contrived and felt like it was put there purely for dramatic purposes.
  17. I would not even call it a tactical succes, simply because it did not even achieve it's relatively unambitious goal of temporarilly disrupting Allied air supremacy. Even on the bare numbers it was a failure. Yes, the Luftwaffe might have destroyed double the number of Allied aircraft than they lost, but the German losses made up a far bigger percentage of the air force's total strength than the losses did for the Allies. Add to that the much higher number of largely irreplaceable pilots lost by the Luftwaffe, and this becomes a pretty substancial net loss for the Germans.
  18. There was nothing about this operation that says "masterstroke". It was ill conceived, poorly planned and ineptly executed - in that sense it was emblematic for the Luftwaffe's performance throughout most of WW2.
  19. Fictional: The Savoia S. 21 Real: The Tu-2s
  20. 109G6 late and 190A6 are gonna be first for sure. Both are very low hanging fruit, as they don't require much work beyond merging features from planes that are already modeled. Next I think will be the P-51B/C. Not that much work required either. Even the cockpit is largely the same as the D save for the canopy. P-47D razorback would also not require that much, but I have a feeling it will come a bit later, since it is possible, that they will take the time to alter some things on the bubble-top version as well to adress some of the issues some see with the FM. Then I think we'll see the Ju 88C6. Larger plane, multiple crew positions, but not too much work from the A4 either. Typhoon and Spit mk. XIV will come next, which one is first is anyone's guess. Both require sustancial research and modeling work. The Spit might be a bit closer to its Merlin powered cousins than the Typhoon is to the Tempest, but a Griffon-Spit is still a very different beast to a Merlin one. The rest of the twin engined planes will come last. I think we will see the Mossie first, as it is well documented and in practical terms a single-seater. Then possibly the Arado and last the Me 410, as it seems to me to be the most complex to model (two crew positions, remote controlled guns, bomb bay integrated with the cockpit, complex cockpit layout, aerodynamic quirks) Like with the B-25, I think the AI B-26 will be very last, as it is fairly low-priority compared to the flyables. That's my prediction.
  21. Just to put the whole issue into perspective, here's another of Mark Felton's excellent documentary short: Basically it was not until November 1944 that American forces met Tiger Is in actual combat. The British met them in Normandy, but it was rare with only 6 Tiger tanks in all of France on June 6th. Despite this there are literally hundreds of combat reports detailing encounters with Tiger tanks which either weren't Tigers or simply didn't happen.
  22. Regardless of the details of how exactly the M8 managed to destroy the King Tiger, my point was, that this was only possible due to the crew of the M8 spotting the Tiger first and managing to achieve complete surprise. The only reason I brought up that story was as an example of how important situational awareness is in combat.
  23. Indeed. Though in this case it was the M8's main gun that did the job.
  24. Still more than there were Tigers on the West Front.
  25. But let's, for the sake of argument, put your question in a somewhat realistic historical context: A single troop of Shermans with a single Firefly having to assault a position held by a single well-positioned Tiger, neither side being backed by infantry with any significant anti-tank capability and neither being able to call in artillery strikes or air support. In that case, the choice is not as obvious. I'm not liking the odds for the Tiger crew, being outnumbered 5-to-1 is never a good position to be in, but neither can any of the Allies crews feel particularly safe. In the end, I'd probably still take the Firefly, for the simple reason, that you have 4 other tanks at your disposal and 5 times the number of eyes scouting for targets, and that's just such a big advantage, that I really can't pass on it. Having seen your target without being spotted yourself is the biggest advantage you can have in an armored engagement. It is situations like that that lead to stuff like light armored scout cars defeating King Tigers.
×
×
  • Create New...