Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2694 Excellent

1 Follower

About unreasonable

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2427 profile views
  1. Main supply constraint for Germany throughout the war - oil. Biggest and best area for oil extraction in Eurasia - Abadan. It is in Iran, but right on the Iraq border near Basra. If the Axis could have cut the Suez canal and turned the Eastern Med into an Axis lake, they might have been able to undermine the whole British position in the Middle East, perhaps bring Turkey into the war and causing revolts in India and Iraq, grabbing a secure oil supply and forcing Britain out of the war. You might think this is far-fetched, but the British did not. Arguably it was a more realistic strategic goal for Hitler then taking the oilfields around Baku on the Caspian where the entire distance had to be covered overland through the SU. Once Hitler decided that he would rather attack the Soviet Union, the theatre became peripheral, but it still produced some important tactical lessons for the Allies that were very important in the NW Europe campaign. The coordination of air and ground efforts using forward air controllers was pioneered by the Desert Airforce and Eighth Army, which the US later built on. This is also where the Allies learned to handle armour/artillery/infantry/air to beat the Germans by attrition. If D Day had been launched without this build up of operational experience the results might not have been so good.
  2. Might be worth reading this as well - defense of RAF stations was the responsibility of the RAF Regiment from 1942. Pages 127-146 deal with the Normandy campaign through to the end of the war. In short - for forwards airfields in Europe under 2nd TAF there would be an LAA flight (or more) of 40mm Bofors each with an establishment of 12 guns. No other gun types used. UK airfields would have had a mix of 40mm and 20mm. The higher calibre AA weapons were run by the Army and reservists and not generally assigned to airfield defense but in AA zones protecting cities, ports and on the approaches to London. RAF Rgt through_adversity.zip
  3. I want to read the discussion about the update, but currently to do that I have to sort through dozens of posts complaining about technical issues with VR before I can find anything else. It is as though every discussion thread was largely taken over by people discussing the technical details of skin making, for instance. It is a valid subject, but here it is crowding out everything else. This could be solved by having separate VR discussion threads, or my preferred option, adding a function to the posting software that makes posts about VR only readable by people wearing a VR helmet.
  4. We seem to be stuck with the "one input curve to rule them all" design decision, unfortunately. On some sticks you can adjust the strength of the centering spring which makes the stick forwards less uncomfortable. I suppose you could use a bungee cord to hold it forward of centre. You can also bind elevator up/down to a pair of buttons in addition to the stick and use them for cruising along, almost like a pseudo-trim. Messing about with that just now seems to work OK. Actually, how much the Dr.1 wants to nose up is a function of both how fast you are flying and your altitude. That probably does not help very much when you are spending most of your time at or below 3,000m, but reducing rpms by 200 or so until you actually get in a fight helps a great deal.
  5. The best I can get with SP is the attached mission, which seems pretty clear to me that 50 cal hits cause speed loss - if you get enough of them. I used the tech spec page maximum TAS for the He111-6 at 2000m and created a high priority waypoint with that speed converted to IAS (362kph). Player is in P-51 (adjust fuel load manually as desired, ammo set to unlimited). He111 is at 10 o'clock. The idea is that the He111 will try to fly level at that speed. If it is suffering lift/drag penalties it will not be able to. It will neither evade nor shoot back. Take care not to hit the engines. Matching speeds initially I was recording about 220mph IAS - 354 kph. I then shot at the outer wing until I got clear level 2 damage graphics. (One good on target burst is all it takes). Then matched speed again. Fired again until the damage looked like level 3, matched speed again. By the time I had clear level 3 damage over much of the wing I was matching speed at below 180 mph (300 kph) I was making a track of this and then, just about to finish: power cut! (Happens in the rainy season quite often, unfortunately). So track was corrupted. But seeing for yourself is always better so try the mission. Also that was the first time I had tried the game's P-51 so I am sure many of you can do this much more elegantly. 50 cal vs He111 mission.zip
  6. "...when anecdotal data consistently point to the same conclusion there is something to it." I agree with that, but the "something" is not necessarily what you first think of. Hence the value of tests that isolate variables, at least as well as we can in the game. Do your MP test but use an A-20 top gun to put enough rounds into a single wing hit box of the target plane to trigger levels 2 and 3 of the damage graphic. See if there is no speed penalty. On the area effect of MG131 vs 20 mm - that can be tested off line since all you need to see is the hits needed to trigger the visible graphic, (edit if you do it online you can count hits reasonably accurately on the target plane using the mission log =1 in startup.cfg). I agree the MG131 should have a much more local effect, but it can only be as local as the size of one hit box. You will get selected damage graphics at random over the whole hit box: the game does not distinguish to a lower level. If the hit box is large - as for instance in the case of the He111 wing - then you will get damage graphics in areas that look well away from the actual hit location. Something that is very clear in the case of firing at your own wing in the He111. So I do not think that the area of the visible damage is a reliable guide, unless it is extending to hit boxes that clearly were not hit by the impact. What I would expect in that case is that MG131 is much less likely to do splash damage to other areas - eg hits on the wing will do damage to fuel tanks, pilot, engine etc far less often than would 20mm. Again, testable, but requiring a number of trials to get a clear result.
  7. You can clearly see that with the other guns, the wing hit boxes show damage graphics at higher levels than from the 50 cal. That, I think, is what causes the speed loss. Explosive rounds in BoX have always had an area effect: even if they were mostly hitting flap and aileron they would still create damage on other hit boxes. In the case of the P-51 that does not look as though it is happening with the 50 cals. Those are just the facts of what happens in the tests. I am not arguing that the relationship between explosive HMG rounds and ball HMG rounds is correct, or that the absolute damage from either is correct. I would have thought ball rounds would tend to penetrate more than they appear to in the P-51, and I would not be surprised if they penetrate more on other planes, since the P-51 was very damage resistant in my own tests in previous DM versions. I am simply arguing that we have not yet seen a case that 50 cal hits to the wing never cause speed loss, because so few of the hits in the test actually damaged the wing. What we see is that the first level graphic damage on the wing is insufficient to cause speed loss, and that flap and aileron loss also appear not to influence speed. That may be true for all munitions and all aircraft - nothing to do with the 50 cal. If you do my suggested He111 test you can see that rifle caliber rounds create a speed loss when they trigger the higher level damage graphics. Get enough 50 cal hits and I expect to see a similar result - if not, there is a bug. My observation about concentrated vs spread hits is nothing specific to do with the OP's test. It is just how I think the DM works. I know it works that way for damage to the spars, because AnP told us so. It does have implications for fighting or testing - a concentrated burst will be far more effective in reaching the graphic threshold than a random spray of the same number of hits, which seems reasonable to me.
  8. It could be validated using the OP's MP method, if you can get enough hits onto one area of the wing surface. One way to do this would be to test a target plane's speed at a set boost/rpm, altitude, etc configuration. Then have you MP buddy fire at your wing on the ground with the A-20 top gun until you get a level of graphics on one wing hit box. Then take off and check the speed at the test configuration. If I am right about the drag/lift penalty applying at the hit box level, generated according to the level of the graphic, then it makes a difference whether your hits are spread over a number of hit boxes or concentrated on one. So 20 hits on one hit box might generate a high level graphic and some drag/lift effects, but 4 hits on 5 different hit boxes would not, or to a lesser degree. (We get something similar in FC with wing breaks, where the probability that a hit on a box breaks the "spar" increases with successive hits).
  9. That is what I found, so it makes it very difficult to do a comparative SP test. The "holes" that you are counting are not "bullet holes" created by specific bullets - they are a graphic applied after some level of aggregate assessed damage. I saw exactly the same "bullet holes" while running my airfield attack DM tests where the only thing firing was 20mm LAA. (The P-51 then, BTW, was unusually damage resistant. Not sure why you would use it as a target since neither 50 cals nor Soviets would ever have been used against them, the odd blue-on-blue excepted, but never mind that). If you fire the He111s MG at it's own wing, you will first see "bullet holes", then a great tear in the wing, then another tear nowhere near the impact point of the bullets. The visual graphic for damage is entirely generic - it just records a cumulative level of damage for each hit box, irrespective of what caused it What I think the code is saying is that: If level x generic damage reached on wing (not aileron or flap) hit box is reached, then apply damage graphic y and penalty z to lift/drag. On the first level the penalty of lift/drag may well be very small or zero. I have no problem with that. This method is fairly simple and economical, it does not have to count individual hits for MG bullets more than once, and is consistent with the observations of the He111 wing test. Actually MP tests are hard to do - you need a friend, and after many years on this forum I do not have any. I have no problem with your tests - they are the best MP tests I have seen, so much better than the usual crap. What I am challenging is your interpretation. If you think that the 50 call ball is under-powered vs explosive/incendiary shells: well I might even agree with you. I am on record as maintaining that the GAF lobby has an absurdly inflated idea of the typical effectiveness of their mineshells. But your tests (even after I have watched the right one ) do not show that 50 cal do not cause any damage to aerodynamics on wing hits. (Your thread title) Mainly because it looks as though, as far as the game is concerned, flap and aileron =/= wing. You hardly hit the wing at all until the cannon was fired. Hence if you could do your excellent MP tests firing from a higher angle so that a significant number of hits were on the wing hit boxes and not on the flap and aileron, you might have a better case. Or as I suspect, if you can create level 2-3 damage graphics to the wing hit boxes with 50 cal you will observe a speed penalty, just as in the He111 case. A simple, testable hypothesis.
  10. Yes you are right - originally watched from the pilots POV in which the only plane visible was the second P-51 as it zooms past the target. Whoops! I have also watched the P-39 vs P-51 track looking at the damage in slow time. This also slows down, but only from 3:01 when there is second level damage graphic.(In the Yak case the second level damage graphic is visible right from the first burst.) Most of the hits early on are on the flap or aileron, with only first level damage showing on the underside of the wing. There is no damage on the upperside of the wing showing at all until 2:34 From 3:01 there is 2nd level damage on the upper surface and the speed starts to drop after the cannon hit. It seems probable that the speed penalty relates to the level of the visible damage graphic to the wing surfaces alone. Nearly all the 50 cal hits from the P-39 were on the flap or aileron and had no apparent effect on the wing beyond. Even after the flap and aileron were lost there was no apparent speed penalty. How satisfactory any of that is, is an open question, but I am not sure that this is a 50 cal issue specifically. It is possible to get to the higher levels of wing damage graphic by firing a side MG on an He111 at your own wing. Set up He111-6 in QMB on autolevel at 3000m and let it find a steady rpm and ATI. Note speed - 290kph in my last check. Go to side gunner station and fire one box of ammo into the centre of the wing. You should see what looks like three levels of visible damage graphic appearing. Go back to pilot station and check - the speed will drop by about 50 kph as the AI attempts to stay at 3000m by increasing AoA. So there is a drag (edit: and/or lift) penalty. So that seems pretty good evidence that MG bullets affect speed - I suspect via the visible damage mechanism. If we had a side mounted 50 cal we could check that way too. Alternately, if you can get enough 50 cal hits into a wing some other way to trigger the higher visible damage, I expect you would also see a speed loss.
  11. OK - but on the track of P-51 vs P-51 that you originally posted and which I downloaded, the P-51 is hit by 50 cal and shows a clear, gradual speed loss of about 45mph between being hit the first and second times. Leaving aside the MG131 comparison, how can this be consistent with your thread title? Why delete that track instead of leaving it up with the correct label? Since you had deleted it I thought I had better repost it for anyone who wants proof that 50 cal hits do in fact cause speed loss. Naturally I claim no credit as the originator. It is a very good test as MP tests go and you should not be so shy about it. M2vsP51Wing.zip
  12. Do you mean downloading in Steam? FC has a map and planes etc that I think you have to download. If your accounts are linked, once you buy something from the website, activate it in the website, then open Steam, Steam will recognize that you have new content and download files if required. (Although perhaps you were just uploading a normal update?) Open Steam and start IL-2 normally, you should see Flying Circus in a red banner under the IL-2 logo once you get to the hanger screen. The map and planes will then be available. At least that is how it seems to works with my linked Steam account, although I admit it can be confusing.
  13. So finally had time to look at one of these -the first one. (Which is actually P-51 vs P-51). I am very puzzled by how anyone could claim that 50 cal wing damage has no speed penalty after seeing that, however "disturbed" they are. I looked at the IAS at various times: 0.03 at start - 255 mph 0.26 after first burst - 240 mph 1.12 - 220mph 2.08 before second bust - 210 mph The pilot does a good job of keeping approximately steady altitude and of course rpm and boost are constant throughout. A good test, that plausibly overcomes the usual objections to MP tests. Too much or too little vs MG131- I have no idea, but if I wanted to prove that 50 cal hits (and not very many at that) inflict an aerodynamic speed penalty I would use this track.
  14. Terrific history thread, thanks for shedding some light on this period.
  15. Not specific to P-38 elevator authority, but to greater or lesser extent planes in BoX stall at IAS greater than test or manual IAS figures. If they were modeled to stall at these numbers - as the Tempest was on initial release - they would have absurd CLmax figures. Reason - BoX has no instrument errors so IAS = CAS. Working out what the actual instrument error at the stall would have been is non-trivial but in many cases it was clearly quite high. See the UK tests with a trailing pitot on the Bf109 for an example, where the error was estimated at 20mph. (Pictures from RAE test on Kurfurst's site). The usual PEC tables in manuals never go down this far. So trying to match game stall IAS with manuals is futile, unless you also have this kind of additional information.
  • Create New...