Tactical Air War

[SCG_Vieira]

The stats are not being updated immediately after the sortie. Was this changed from last TAW?

[1./JG42Nephris]

Sorry for a maybe alreay answered topic, but is SRS activated on the TAW Server?

[Cpt_Siddy]

SERBER DED

[SCG_Vieira]

8 minutes ago, 1./JG42Nephris said:

Sorry for a maybe alreay answered topic, but is SRS activated on the TAW Server?

 

Kathon confirmed that probably next week it will be activated

[=LG/F=Kathon]

Script error. Fixing.

[1./JG42Nephris]

Thx ! Much appreciated feature

 

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

3 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

Script error. Fixing.

Will the results of the first mission be counted?

[=LG/F=Kathon]

1 minute ago, mincer said:

Will the results of the first mission be counted?

About the first hour will be counted, but the mission will be reload.

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

10 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

About the first hour will be counted, but the mission will be reload.

 

 

[=LG/F=Kathon]

Fixed and running.

[SCG_Vieira]

8 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

Fixed and running.

 

Hi Kathon! The Air Kills, combat missions and other stats from the first iteration are not showing. Anything that can be done to recover them?

 

[72AG_SerWolf]

yes, 2 sorties, 13 ground targets (2 AAA and 11 trucks) - in stats zero...

Edited August 2, 2020 by 72AG_SerWolf

[=LG/F=Kathon]

The problem was bigger  It looks like stats are counted if pilot had ended his sortie before 10:58UTC. 

[JG7_X-Man]

6 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

There’s a lot here to disagree with.

The 9th Air Force (the US “tactical” Air Force in Western Europe) was the very first operator of Merlin engined Mustangs in the world.  They started receiving D models for their P-51 units in June/July of 1944.  One of their Mustang groups converted to a tactical recon org in sept but they along with the 9ths other tac recon units continued to operate P-51s (F-6Ds and Cs with the oblique camera mount) through the remainder of the war.  The other 9th AF P-51 group switched to P-47s in November 1944 and then back to P-51s in Feb 1945.  Another 9th AF P-38 group then converted to P-51s in March of 45.

 

The 2nd Tactical Air Force had Mustangs units (albeit Mustang IIIs) on the continent in Summer of 1944, and exchanged these for Tempests after Market-Garden at the end of September 1944.  After Market-Garden (which involved a large and intense tactical air battle) there was very little air activity due to bad weather until the Ardennes offensive in December.  I bring this up because by the start of December, the 2nd Tactical Air Force’s five Tempest squadrons had claimed all of 13 kills.  That number would grow to 48 by the end of December and 230 by the end of the war.

 

And that brings us to the 8th Air Force.  There was no magical force field that prevented “strategic” aircraft from interfering with “tactical” battles.  Not being based on the map wasn’t a big issue when your aircraft could easily fly from the UK to Berlin and back.  All the allied air forces were subordinate to Eisenhower’s Supreme Headquarters.  The 8th’s fighters and bombers were used extensively in the tactical role in the lead up to the invasion and throughout the Normandy campaign.  And again for Market-Garden.  And again for the battle of the Bulge.  Quoting myself here:

So we can see that in just one week of fighting over Market-Garden, 8th AF Mustangs were involved in more combat than all of the Tempests saw in their first 3 months based on the continent.  And in the roughly four weeks from the start of the Ardennes campaign, until the LW withdrew most of their fighter force and sent them East, 8th AF P-51s flying out of the UK out scored the Tempests entire war total.  And those numbers for the P-51 were just kills scored over our Rheinland map area (almost exclusively against the Luftwaffe’s “tactical” fighter units) and ignore any scored deeper in Germany etc.  And that’s just focusing on the two big “tactical” air battles of 1944 that the 8th was committed to, not to mention the encounters that sometimes occurred with returning escort formations dropping to low altitude and looking for trouble.
 

To argue that it’s “historical” to not include the Mustang is just nonsense.
 

 

 

Since the P-51 we have has a 1 g advantage of a "G-Suit" hard-coded which was not started issue until Nov of '44, whatever TAW map we are given it should only start mid to late '44 battle lines.

[JG4_Qetzalcoatl]

There are still some issues with the current TAW map. The altimeter shows wrong data, much to high at the start. Low altitude AAA at approx. 2120.4 was placed among the woods and not visible for attacks, but was shooting like hell at us without a clear line of view. It feels not right this way. Maybe you have time to look at this points.Thanks for your effort, @Kathon!

[FTC_DerSheriff]

19 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

Since the P-51 we have has a 1 g advantage of a "G-Suit" hard-coded which was not started issue until Nov of '44, whatever TAW map we are given it should only start mid to late '44 battle lines.

I am pretty sure you are wrong.

[JG7_X-Man]

19 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

I am pretty sure you are wrong.

@DerSheriff which part? I am about to drop some knowledge 

 

Research article published by NASA: Dressing for Altitude

pg. 106: 

Edited August 2, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[Real_NBD]

Bugs:

Sea level altitude is ~1000m.

Many targets (hit only reds so far) seem to be immune to damage. Can't really go and test each one individually but it do be like so. At least buildings and trucks are suspect. 
 

Other than that, 

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Yeah dude. Easy when you pick only quotes which fit your expectations and hopes:

Earlier mark was "standard" in June 1944.

 

What you are doing is not research, its just finding quotes where you ignore context and then leave the work to others who have to fix your mess.

 

P. 95

Edited August 2, 2020 by DerSheriff

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

 

11th August 1944

Edited August 2, 2020 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[Cpt_Siddy]

Real men use G-strings 

[Talon_]

3 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

Since the P-51 we have has a 1 g advantage of a "G-Suit" hard-coded which was not started issue until Nov of '44, whatever TAW map we are given it should only start mid to late '44 battle lines.

 

Does that not apply to the Jug and Lightning as well?

[JG7_X-Man]

4 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Does that not apply to the Jug and Lightning as well?

 Oh it does!  so why not just have a map that started at Autumn of '44 - problem solved.

[Talon_]

Tempests used +11lbs on 100 octane fuel from Summer 1944. Strange to see it excluded.

[JG7_X-Man]

1 hour ago, DerSheriff said:

Yeah dude. Easy when you pick only quotes which fit your expectations and hopes:

Earlier mark was "standard" in June 1944.

 

What you are doing is not research, its just finding quotes where you ignore context and then leave the work to others who have to fix your mess.

 

P. 95

 

There is a difference b/w  G-2 "standard" (your post) and the G-3 "standard equipment" (my post). As a former USMC supply guy, there is a huge difference in the terminology.

 

Let me try and not make this boring. When a military contract reaches approval stage, there is a lag time of manufacturing, distribution and delivery (supply chain management). There is at best a 3 month lag in WWII (being conservative). Hence, when a fighter pilot saw a G-Suit on his bunk and an announcement in the mess hall of a 5:30 PM class on WTF that is and how how to use it, some time time has passed.

Edited August 2, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

10 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

There is a difference b/w  G-2 "standard" (your post) and the G-3 "standard equipment" (my post). As a former USMC supply guy, there is a huge difference in the terminology.

G-2 and G-3 had the same performance of about 1G, just that G-3 was about 2.5x lighter and more comfortable

[Talon_]

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

 

11th August 1944

 

Says here it's mandatory from August @JG7_X-Man

[JG7_X-Man]

3 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

G-2 and G-3 had the same performance of about 1G, just that G-3 was about 2.5x lighter and more comfortable

 

If you read past pg. 106, you will see they made it lighter because several pilots chose not to wear it because they considered it cumbersome.

2 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Says here it's mandatory from August @JG7_X-Man

Where? 

[Talon_]

17 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

There is at best a 3 month lag in WWII (being conservative).

 

But K4s are using DC engines and Tempests are dropping bombs?

 

Tempests didn't drop bombs until May. And when they flew they could use +11lbs boost.

[PainGod85]

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

 

11th August 1944

 

Good find!

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

2 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

If you read past pg. 106, you will see they made it lighter because several pilots chose not to wear it because they considered it cumbersome.

That's irrelevant. G-suits were available for use and pilots did wear it. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[JG7_X-Man]

4 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Says here it's mandatory from August @JG7_X-Man

 

Ahhh - Yeah that's not in the same font  like someone editing Wikipedia to prove a point. 

Anyway - happy flying and see you all in the virtual skies

[PainGod85]

1 minute ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

Ahhh - Yeah that's not in the same font  like someone editing Wikipedia to prove a point. 

Anyway - happy flying and see you all in the virtual skies

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955241.pdf 

 

Page 11 in the original document, item 45.

[JG7_X-Man]

9 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

That's irrelevant. G-suits were available for use and pilots did wear it. 

 I am not say they did not, just saying there was push back but don't get me started on the statistical inaccuracy of the "performance data"

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[Talon_]

6 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

Ahhh - Yeah that's not in the same font  like someone editing Wikipedia to prove a point. 

Anyway - happy flying and see you all in the virtual skies

 

Just found it myself.

[JG7_X-Man]

2 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Just found it myself.

OK we are in agreement that evaluation was done in Aug '44.

However, the we still have the supply chain lag - that doesn't put the suit on a pilot at the front until 3 mons later, which bring us to Nov '44

[FTC_DerSheriff]

8 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

OK we are in agreement that evaluation was done in Aug '44.

However, the we still have the supply chain lag - that doesn't put the suit on a pilot at the front until 3 mons later, which bring us to Nov '44

Your reasoning physically hurts. But I am out now since this thread is about TAW.

[Talon_]

8 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

OK we are in agreement that evaluation was done in Aug '44.

However, the we still have the supply chain lag - that doesn't put the suit on a pilot at the front until 3 mons later, which bring us to Nov '44

 

I disagree based on the fact Blue are flying DC engines in winter.

[JG7_X-Man]

26 minutes ago, ACG_DerSheriff said:

Your reasoning physically hurts. But I am out now since this thread is about TAW.

Fair enough! 

[I./ZG1_skygroupie]

2 hours ago, NoBigDreams said:

Bugs:

Sea level altitude is ~1000m.

Many targets (hit only reds so far) seem to be immune to damage. Can't really go and test each one individually but it do be like so. At least buildings and trucks are suspect. 
 

Other than that, 

unfortunately, i experienced the same problem, concerning the damage on buildings. attacked the northern complex of red depot at charleroi about 3hours ago, two direct hits with 1000kg, no result. Quiet disappointing after a 1:45h mission. I figured I just had to wait a little longer but now that I read this... please have a look at it!