Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

92 Excellent

About Stig

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

658 profile views
  1. What the pilot reports is what he saw as he experienced it, he doesn't have to be lying, but he can have been mistaken. I don't mean the specific report you posted, I have no way of knowing if what he reported is what actually happened. Generally, with the number of claims in the air war exceeding the actual losses, at times by a wide margin, and presuming that reports had to be submitted for each claim(s) it stands to reason that there are going to be many combat reports that describe something that didn't actually happen, or didn't happen the way it was described. That makes such reports an
  2. Are you calling combat reports primary sources? I myself would be really interested reading the reports from both sides of those encounters where both sides returned, reporting victories and sustaining no losses.
  3. So I recently updated to the latest version of Simshaker, i.e v2.4. Flying around the other night my Jetseat stopped working after sometime. Turned out that I needed to activate Simshaker again, I guess because I updated (?). After activating, I no longer have any in game sounds, when Simshaker is running.
  4. Fair enough, but then maybe we should keep the refences to what the real pilots did in their aircraft back in the real war out of the discussion.
  5. That experience has been gained with infinite virtual lives; comparing to real life aces that gained experience and g-resistance without havimg the option to 'refly' over and over doesn't make much sense to me.
  6. Did you tally up those losses from Table A? Does losses are against both the 8th and 15th USAAF, not just the 8th. Also, they are 'combat losses and those losses sustained on combat missions but not in combat'; i.e. they include operational losses without enemy action.
  7. The bolded may be the salient point, otoh 2 or more extra cannons wouldn't necessarily have helped the average pilot if he couldn't hit his target. From the Mediterranean Air War series by Shores et al, there are these two accounts that would indicate that 109F4's armament was quite effective in the right hands. Jan 14 1942 a pair of II/ Jg27 pilots bounce 94 Sqd; Hptm. Gerlitz shoots down one Hurricane but then announces that he is RTB due to his engine running rough. His rottenflieger Horst Reuter decides to stay and claims 4 Hurri's. Shores attributes 6 actual victories to him,
  8. See also Prien's response on the same blog: http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2018/08/notes-on-cult-of-fighter-ace-example-of.html
  9. Good to know, my own 'tests' have been of a less scientific standard However, did your test start with cold engine, thus include warming up and taxiing? I ask because there is a P-39 debate raging in another forum and here it is mentioned that the P-39 with 87 gallons internal used about 1/3 of it's fuel warming up, taxiing, takeoff and climb to 25,000 ft (from memory)! I haven't tried with the P-39, but my initial impression when trying with the say the Fw 190 cold start, that the fuel consumption during warmup- takeoff is not that great. Different engines, so that may pla
  10. However, this does not take into account other factors that also separate a 'simgame' from RL, such as: Fuel consumption goes up dramatically with the use of higher engine settings; probably modeled, though I've no idea how correctly. RL WWII pilots didn't fly missions where the enemy was met after 5 mins, as a norm; often missions were required flying a longer distance to possibly engage the enemy, and if that went well, they then had to fly home. Using combat or emergency power uncritically, might put you in a precarious position; particularly if there is a considerable stretch of oce
  11. I haven't read that book, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if your opinion of the book is spot on. That doesn't detract from the Luftwaffe's own classification of Schlacht pilots as bomber pilots. In general, whether the Airacobra met Fw 190 fighters or Fw 190 Jabos, I doubt that they shot down any where near as many as they claimed.
  12. Fw 190 pilots of the Schlacht- and Schnellkampf Geshwader were considered bomber pilots by the Luftwaffe; some were certainly experienced fighter pilots, while others probably had flown 2-engine bombers or Stukas earlier. Either way, once with a ground attack unit, they were bomber pilots, even if their mount was a Fw 190 or Bf 109. My source on this is Arthy and Jessen's books on the Focke Wulf in North Africa and Sicily.
  13. Wasn't it specifically the Emil that had this problem, and it was fixed with the Friedrich? Or am I remembering it wrong? That has happened before, so entirely possible,
  14. Tthe devs have already said that they will look at this and fix it when time allows, iirc.
  • Create New...