Developer Diary 308 - Discussion

[danielprates]

35 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

Gues it's still worth a try, huh?

 

80 years later with an entirely different optics tech it sure is!

[Asgar]

22 minutes ago, CountZero said:

10xsc50 on ju88c6 as only load it have, 110 can take 12, and have more other options, so 110g2 is better option if hes after pure performance value

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

sorry, wrong post

Edited February 20, 2022 by III/JG53Frankyboy

[Diggun]

17 hours ago, Cybermat47 said:

All the sources I can find state that it was intended to fool enemy fighters into making head-on attacks.

 

It honestly makes sense

 

17 hours ago, Asgar said:

You’re wrong

 

Lets apply a realism filter here for a second, shall we?

 

What sources? Are they command level, airborne tactical doctrine, saying 'paint the noses with blue bits *so the foolish enemy thinks it's glass and therefore attacks this asset only from the head on position*'? I suspect not. If the sources are pilots claiming that that is why they did that, well, let me introduce you to some of the the things that RAF Battle of Britain pilots claimed. Also, I have a very fetching bridge I would like to sell you.

 

The high command may well say 'paint the noses with blue bits, with this special paint that will make IR and other photo recon cameras think that they are looking at glass areas' - If this seems far fetched, the Russians were considering this factor in their paints before 1941.

 

However, if the paint job were for airborne deception purposes, then please answer the following.

 

How close would you have to be to spot this deception? You can try it in game. Approach a ju88 and tell me how far out you are when you can spot the fact that it has a glass nose.  Now tell me what angle you approached it from. Now tell me how long it would take you to change your attack into a head on pass on one of the fastest medium bombers of the war. 

 

Can you actually picture yourself, behind the controls of a ju88*, thinking 'aha, the enemy fighter is making a head on pass. Exactly where I want him'?

 

Way more likely is the order to paint the noses like that so that, when the Russians notice that there are long range heavy fighters really messing up their trains, and they are trying to figure out what that is , making out your long range strike fighter ju88s to appear as regular ju88's on their recon photos seems like the kind of move that would offer a tactical advantage, no?

 

*Or any twin engined ww2 aircraft** - if this was the case then Mosquito crews would have been doing it too.

 

** Or any ww2 aircraft

Edited February 21, 2022 by Diggun

[Avimimus]

14 hours ago, LLv24_SukkaVR said:

Beautiful plane, but why i would choose it over 110? 110 is better in every way i can think of.

 

The handling might be better (in addition to the range). Also, the 13mm rear turret may be better than the MG-81Z.

 

 

  

5 hours ago, CountZero said:

10xsc50 on ju88c6 as only load it have, 110 can take 12, and have more other options, so 110g2 is better option if hes after pure performance value

 

It retains two of the external drop-tanks/bomb-racks. So it can carry 10xSC50 and 2xSC500... which is an improvement over 12xSC50. It can also do that while carrying a third 20mm cannon.

 

You can see this in the pictures for crying out loud!

Edited February 21, 2022 by Avimimus

[Cybermat47]

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

What sources?

 

Donald, David. Warplanes of the Luftwaffe. London: Aerospace Publishing, 1994.

 

Filley, Brian. Junkers Ju 88 in action Part 2. Carrollton: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1991.

 

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

The high command may well say 'paint the noses with blue bits, with this special paint that will make IR and other photo recon cameras think that they are looking at glass areas' - If this seems far fetched, the Russians were considering this factor in their paints before 1941.

 

What sources do you have that state that this was what the Germans did?

 

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

How close would you have to be to spot this deception? You can try it in game. Approach a ju88 and tell me how far out you are when you can spot the fact that it has a glass nose.  Now tell me what angle you approached it from. Now tell me how long it would take you to change your attack into a head on pass on one of the fastest medium bombers of the war. 

 

As I said, I doubt it worked all the time, if it even worked most times. It seems likely that it was a measure that had no negatives (at least that I can see) and could provide a slight tactical advantage.

 

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

Can you actually picture yourself, behind the controls of a ju88*, thinking 'aha, the enemy fighter is making a head on pass. Exactly where I want him'?

 

*Or any twin engined ww2 aircraft** - if this was the case then Mosquito crews would have been doing it too.

 

** Or any ww2 aircraft

 

Given the choice between an enemy aircraft coming from a direction where I can shoot at them with 3x 7.92mm machine guns and 3x 20mm cannons, and an enemy aircraft coming from a direction where I can shoot at them with one 7.92mm machine gun, I'd go with the former. 

 

It's also important to note that Ju 88 Cs with the 20mms in the gondola had no ventral gunner, so they were helpless against any enemy fighters that got on their low six. Dealing with a head-on attack I can fight back against sounds a lot better than being helpless.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Cybermat47

[Bremspropeller]

It's not Ju - it's Me...

[JG7_X-Man]

Where setting mission to a specific time sounds awesome - I would rather have the ability to randomly generate weather between two parameters in a mission.

Example: 

Cloud Type: Min - Max

Cloud Height: Min - Max

Cloud Level: Min - Max

 

Precipitation: Min - Max

Level: Min - Max

 

etc...

 

Being able to set a mission start time to the second is great but not a functionality that provides a lot of value IMHO.

Edited February 21, 2022 by JG7_X-Man

[Beebop]

@Bremspropeller  "Location:Holy Ramen Empire"   ?  Just what's going on in that noodle of yours?

[Rjel]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

It's not Ju - it's Me...

It took someone 20 years to nail what should’ve been an obvious IL-2 one-liner.  
 

Well done Bremspropeller! 

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

On 2/20/2022 at 7:32 AM, Cybermat47 said:

 

All the sources I can find state that it was intended to fool enemy fighters into making head-on attacks.

 

It honestly makes sense. Being able to trick your enemy into choosing to attack your strongest point is a great tactic.

 

I doubt it paid off every time - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it rarely paid off - but as far as I can see, it was an idea that had more positives than negatives. 

I can see this being a long running, ...is...isn't,,,,is! lol, My point is that you would have to get close to notice the difference. I was one a flight in the RAF,  where where we were asked to spot other aircraft and comment on their visibility,  as we went our merry way. (There were a lot of 'test flights on this' but I was just on one, to do with the colours used by training aircraft. I could spot the aircraft, but detail was very difficult, it was a either a grey/white one, I didnt see the red paint on those very well, THe black one's stood out,  the Yellow black looked black first at distance and closer in you could see the yellow. So the trainers became black. IMHO to see detail on the aircraft you had to get alongside and the glass framework on the Ju-88 would be a very close in thing. So would they attack because it looked like a glass nose? or did they attack because it was an 88. I suspect the latter.

[Lusekofte]

That look gorgious?

[CountZero]

On 2/20/2022 at 9:12 PM, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

we got Dev pictures where the ingame 88C carries heavier bombs on wingbombracks. So it will be propably more than the internal 10x50kg bombs (instead of a fuel tank) possible in game.

 

See Dev Diary 293

ok, didnt know they had thous options on ju88c, all i could fined is they had internal 50kg option only. 

[migmadmarine]

5 hours ago, scotsmanFlyingscotsman said:

I can see this being a long running, ...is...isn't,,,,is! lol, My point is that you would have to get close to notice the difference. I was one a flight in the RAF,  where where we were asked to spot other aircraft and comment on their visibility,  as we went our merry way. (There were a lot of 'test flights on this' but I was just on one, to do with the colours used by training aircraft. I could spot the aircraft, but detail was very difficult, it was a either a grey/white one, I didnt see the red paint on those very well, THe black one's stood out,  the Yellow black looked black first at distance and closer in you could see the yellow. So the trainers became black. IMHO to see detail on the aircraft you had to get alongside and the glass framework on the Ju-88 would be a very close in thing. So would they attack because it looked like a glass nose? or did they attack because it was an 88. I suspect the latter.

Why the crews did it and if it actually worked are entirely different matters. I'm sure the thought it might give them a chance of mauling them in a head-on would make them feel safer, similar to how it was determined in trials during the war that adding sandbags and other improvised applique armor to the Sherman did not in fact improve protection (and in some scenarios could actually improve the pentation of incoming rounds), but the boost in confidence and feeling of perceived safety it gave the crews outweighed the drawbacks. 

[Feathered_IV]

2 minutes ago, migmadmarine said:

Why the crews did it and if it actually worked are entirely different matters. I'm sure the thought it might give them a chance of mauling them in a head-on would make them feel safer, similar to how it was determined in trials during the war that adding sandbags and other improvised applique armor to the Sherman did not in fact improve protection (and in some scenarios could actually improve the pentation of incoming rounds), but the boost in confidence and feeling of perceived safety it gave the crews outweighed the drawbacks. 

Exactly.  I’ve seen a photo of a crashed Fairey Battle, where the gunner has very obviously had the fuselage roundel painted out from a position in-line with his goolies and crudely painted a much smaller national insignia further back right near the tailplane.  It surely didn’t save him, but it must have made him feel slightly better while it lasted. 

[BraveSirRobin]

8 hours ago, scotsmanFlyingscotsman said:

I can see this being a long running, ...is...isn't,,,,is! lol, My point is that you would have to get close to notice the difference. I was one a flight in the RAF,  where where we were asked to spot other aircraft and comment on their visibility,  as we went our merry way. (There were a lot of 'test flights on this' but I was just on one, to do with the colours used by training aircraft. I could spot the aircraft, but detail was very difficult, it was a either a grey/white one, I didnt see the red paint on those very well, THe black one's stood out,  the Yellow black looked black first at distance and closer in you could see the yellow. So the trainers became black. IMHO to see detail on the aircraft you had to get alongside and the glass framework on the Ju-88 would be a very close in thing. So would they attack because it looked like a glass nose? or did they attack because it was an 88. I suspect the latter.

 

I assume you're aware that many modern combat aircraft have fake canopies painted on them?  It's unlikely that it fools missiles, but they still do it.  Anything to gain even the slightest advantage, even if that advantage is imaginary.

[Cybermat47]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I assume you're aware that many modern combat aircraft have fake canopies painted on them?  It's unlikely that it fools missiles, but they still do it.  Anything to gain even the slightest advantage, even if that advantage is imaginary.

 

The RCAF is especially well known for this.

 

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

6 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I assume you're aware that many modern combat aircraft have fake canopies painted on them?  It's unlikely that it fools missiles, but they still do it.  Anything to gain even the slightest advantage, even if that advantage is imaginary.

HI BraveSirRobin, Aye I've seen them, but you'd have to be close in to get the effect, and YES anything that makes the pilot NOT fire for a second...well worth the paint

[Avimimus]

On 2/21/2022 at 8:46 AM, JG7_X-Man said:

Where setting mission to a specific time sounds awesome - I would rather have the ability to randomly generate weather between two parameters in a mission.

Example: 

Cloud Type: Min - Max

Cloud Height: Min - Max

Cloud Level: Min - Max

 

Precipitation: Min - Max

Level: Min - Max

 

etc...

 

Being able to set a mission start time to the second is great but not a functionality that provides a lot of value IMHO.

 

What would be nice (long-term) is having an ability to save and reload such presets in the QMB... that way we could easily switch between favourites without having to tune every dial or aircraft. Just a thought.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Doolittle's B-25's had the defensive guns removed and black painted broomsticks shoved in their place for maximum weight savings.

[Marcio]

Please, add StuVi on Ju 88 C6 and other Luftwaffe birds that used this device in dive bombing!!!

[Asgar]

2 hours ago, Marcio said:

Please, add StuVi on Ju 88 C6 and other Luftwaffe birds that used this device in dive bombing!!!

Like the Bf 109? Cause that used the Stuvi about as much as the Ju 88 C did