Jump to content

=27=Davesteu

Testers
  • Content count

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About =27=Davesteu

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

427 profile views
  1. =27=Davesteu

    Pacific?

    Yep, the Japanese conducted three operations involving paratroopers in the NEI. The Army one and the Navy two. A KNIL Do 24 even sunk a Japanese Destroyer, but there is a general problem with flying boats: If maps could be produced much larger they would likely still be too small. Map size is a general problem of nearly all scenarios based in the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre. Hopefully they can be made larger as much of the areas are either covered by water or forest. My money is still on New Guinea. It offers a unique(!) combination of naval and ground targets, RAAF, USAAF and major involvement of both(!), Japanese Navy & Army Air Services.
  2. =27=Davesteu

    Does gunner position is corect in KV-1 tank?

    Earlier, basic "heavy" KV-1 had two PT sights. The tank commander, situated right of the gun, had one as a pure observation device. Changing position to the left side of the turret, the commander's cupola introduced with the KV-1s superseded his PT sight. Therefore the PT-4-7 sight is placed correctly in front of the gunner. It should be animated nonetheless. Adding a second pair of properly observing eyes (actually one eye) can be quite an advantage over the T-34 or even Tiger.
  3. =27=Davesteu

    Feature Requests for Tank Crew

    Realistic ammunition loadouts Rule of thumb for historical loadouts: >50% are HE, Shrapnel, etc.; <50% are anti-tank of which <10% could be APCR. APCR rounds were extremely valuable and no one would have taken the risk of losing many in case the tank itself is lost. Moreover, fielded units of both sides didn't have huge stocks of those rounds. Only if they were quite sure about encountering enemy heavy armor few rounds would have been handed out. HEAT wasn't common either. Capture areas "Take/defend road junction/village XY" - Self-explanatory I guess. "Intelligent" AI driver Order your driver to go straight ahead or plan a route on the map. Crew equipment Binoculars and flare gun Manual gear-shifting Self-explanatory I guess. Things I'd like to see but aren't necessary: Working smoke dischargers and replaceable tank periscopes on certain tanks Not a feature but utmost important: Including the PT-4-7 All announced tanks of Soviet origin had two sights available to the gunner, the primary TMFD-7 telescopic sight and a PT-4-7 panorama sight. Currently the PT-4-7 is not accessible. It's very important being for example the main observation device available to the TC of a T-34-76 (without cupola). ============================================= None of the tanks had those except for the M4A2 Already implemented. Had a Sd.Kfz. 251 firing a salvo of 28 cm Wk.Spr. at me, throwing off both tracks. I sincerely hope this won't be included. As you figured yourself it's unrealistic. The Red Army didn't utilize the stabilizer, even US crews very rarely did. It should not be usable ingame. While being a fine piece of engineering at the time, it worked and was intended for use far off anything seen today. More of a "stop, take a quick shot and go again"-thing rather than firing on the move.
  4. =27=Davesteu

    Pacific?

    I don't want to spoil your fun, but there were no Fokker D.XXI with the KNIL. Buffalo and Hawk 75 make up for it, I think. We shall not forget about the true star of the show though, the most sophisticated CW-21: ...loved it in stock first Gen. IL2 It's cool to know some of you guys would be interested in such commonly little acknowledged scenarios. Unfortunately I can't see anything like this ever happening. Even Burma would surprise me (very positively) which is quite unfortunate given the many highly interesting aircraft and scenarios besides the omnipresent Navy aircraft and scenarios of the POA.
  5. =27=Davesteu

    Pacific?

    I don't know how to share a topic the fancy way with thumbnail, but there is already a thread on the Aleutians.
  6. =27=Davesteu

    Pacific?

    Just Guadalcanal would be of little use unfortunately. If you want to do the Solomon Campaign right, especially the early Guadalcanal part, you have to include everything up to and including Rabaul. Do I personally need carrier battles at all? No, I'd prefer taking a look at the many other scenarios. Most of those, especially New Guinea, Burma and China, aren't that far off the tactical air war IL2 excels at. If it has to serve stereotypes: Solomon Islands.
  7. =27=Davesteu

    Pacific?

    It depends. The Zero is quite well researched at least in terms of Japanese literature. Same is true for other popular, mainly Navy, fighter aircraft. Considerable amounts were destroyed by bombing and due to common Japanese mentality back then. They choose to destroy many files rather than surrender them. Nonetheless, modern Japanese archives are filled - just aren't those files easily legible for even most native speakers. Not a personal first choice but I would be ok with Midway. It's by far the best option for a carrier battle scenario. All others are either one-sided or don't feature any (important) involvement of land based aviation and/or targets. Just do I hope they skip on the 5-5 aircraft setup. Everything else than the A6M2-21, B5N2 & D3A1 overstretches the Japanese planeset while skimping on the US one. Okinawa simply would be a bad choice! If it had to be late-war they should rather take a look at the Philippines or even China.
  8. =27=Davesteu

    Pacific?

    The Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre is what I'm most interested in! I just don't hope it will be a rehearsal of "Pacific Fighters" scenario-wise. Unfortunately most people equate "Pacific War/Theatre" solely with the Pacific Ocean Areas, popularly called "PTO", and carrier warfare. Those scenarios are very limiting in terms of a PC Simulator Game! I'd prefer, in that order, Papua New Guinea, Burma, China, Solomon Islands, Philippines. Not primarily because I'm personally more interested in those but because they offer many more possibilities! Anyways, I'm looking forward to anything related to the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre. Just don't I expect any news soon...
  9. =27=Davesteu

    FW 190 A-5/U17 and F-3 bomb racks

    You have to choose as the rocket control panel and bomb control panel are installed in the same place. I'm also in favor of this being changed. Even most A-8 had the ETC 501 installed all the time. Having to attach it is the wrong way around. If at all, it should be removable.
  10. =27=Davesteu

    IL-2 Battle of Finland

    Are you aware those two citys are 1000 km apart? First generation IL2 "Gulf of Finland" map was my favorite stock one but it had its historical limits. By trying to cover Winter War, Continuation War, Siege of Leningrad and Volkhov Front with one map they especially limited possibilities for latter three scenarios. Important areas like Karelia or down to Lake Ilmen were missing and thereby omitting important parts of the overall picture. What I'm trying to say: A simple rehearsal of the first generation map wouldn't be favorable at all in my opinion. Either Karelia or Siege of Leningrad. The Myrsky would be a waste of development time. I love oddities, but this one simply isn't important enough to justify leaving out a Hawk 75, Blenheim or Do 17.
  11. =27=Davesteu

    Pe-8 anyone ???

    Very true. What I was getting at in my earlier reply to Fink is that the early Me 210s were truly horrid aircraft, and that calling it a good plane even with dangerous handling characteristics is...strange. My comment aimed at the overall conversation rather than specifically your comment. I share your opinion on the early 210. I would agree with you in most cases, but I don't feel talking about the Me 210/410 is too far off OP's "question"/"statement". Also there are already multiple threads discussing the topic of additional (heavy) bombers in detail.
  12. =27=Davesteu

    Pe-8 anyone ???

    Apart from its dangerous handling and somewhat underwhelming performance the Me 210 was not a bad aircraft. Lol what? The Luftwaffe would beg to differ. They revised the aircraft considerably later on. All Me 210 Ca were built accordingly, many early airframes modified. Except for maybe the Hungarian use I'm not particularly interested in this aircraft or the Me 410. Mostly because they served in areas I'm not focused on.
  13. =27=Davesteu

    Pe-8 anyone ???

    Remarkably descriptive thread title. Well, at least the Pe-8 is a bomber... You've answered your own question. The Me 262 is included for its activity in the ground attack role. Right, they failed the bomber pilots by not doing the model without bombsight... -------------------------------------------------------------- I'm a huge fan of the B-25, hopefully it will be flyable one day. Preferably a Mitchell II (B-25C/D), as it could be used in many more scenarios than a Mitchell III (B-25J) and was the main RAF version anyways. Time will tell. The B-26 is quite an overlooked aircraft and I would love to see some justice done to here. They were based in France thought, outside the upcoming map. My hopes for her are mainly related to a future "Battle of Papua New Guinea (early Phase)". I'd absolutely love that. Pointing to my signature, the "Droop Snoot" would be a worthwhile addition to the modifications of the upcoming P-38J. Something more unusual and definitely a massive enhancement not only to the Lightning itself, but to the BoBP planeset in general.
  14. =27=Davesteu

    Let's talk about our favorite warplanes

    Good to know my mindset changed little over the past five years. Just don't know whether I'd still include the Avenger. A very cool looking aircraft, but probably not Top 5. More likely something IJAAF or maybe VVS. Honestly, it's nearly impossible to name my top five. There are just too many rating scales... What scenario & aircraft are you least interested in?
  15. =27=Davesteu

    Developer Diary, Part 196 - Discussion

    Panzerblitz I was used by III./SG 4 on the Western Front from December 1944. That's why we get them.
×