DII Autocannon with WW2 HE ammo - a meme

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Wrong answer Luke. Times have changed since Jason left the building. Please try again.

 

Sorry, I don't what else to say other than that I inquired about this recently, and the decision-makers aren't changing their minds. I wish I could give you all a different answer, but I cannot.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Guys, are you aware that the Becker in D.II lacks proper iron sights field mod (unlike RoF counterpart, which had sights aligned with the gun) and is very difficult to aim with? This entire discussion is moot, and fine example of agenda building based on problem that is occasional (and based on pilots individual skill with the gun) at best.

 

Unlike some very real game affecting simplifications, like Vickers rounds being able to damage balloons at all (they could not be loaded with Buckinghams, so Entente pilots had to use balloon guns, or Lewis.) These somehow we don't hear discussed about, or hear as calls to make 11mm guns more powerful (they are ok, it is Vickers that is wrong).

 

As of historical efficiency of the Becker loadout, it is simply unknown. Becker development was halted due to competence conflict between Air Service and Artillery over who should be working on it, and shelved in late 1916. The Becker armed Albatros represents the latest application (on what was a cutting edge fighter) before development was forcibly aborted. 

[No.23_Starling]

4 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Guys, are you aware that the Becker in D.II lacks proper iron sights field mod (unlike RoF counterpart, which had sights aligned with the gun) and is very difficult to aim with? This entire discussion is moot, and fine example of agenda building based on problem that is occasional (and based on pilots individual skill with the gun) at best.

 

Unlike some very real game affecting simplifications, like Vickers rounds being able to damage balloons at all (they could not be loaded with Buckinghams, so Entente pilots had to use balloon guns, or Lewis.) These somehow we don't hear discussed about, or hear as calls to make 11mm guns more powerful (they are ok, it is Vickers that is wrong).

 

As of historical efficiency of the Becker loadout, it is simply unknown. Becker development was halted due to competence conflict between Air Service and Artillery over who should be working on it, and shelved in late 1916. The Becker armed Albatros represents the latest application (on what was a cutting edge fighter) before development was forcibly aborted. 

I have flagged the issue with the 11mm rounds which @LukeFF has taken to the developers. As for standard rounds there’s no custom ammo config like in Cliffs of Dover. They’d need to model new ammo load outs.

 

The DII Becker is an issue for map creators now. All the evidence is on the table about it never seeing combat.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

 

Tests including combat evaluation doesn't mean it was never used...It didn't see wide spread service but it was experimented in combat to evaluate. But nothing came out of it. That is different to it was NEVER used in combat...

Edited November 20, 2023 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Starling]

2 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

 

Tests including combat evaluation doesn't mean it was never used...It didn't see wide spread service but it was experimented in combat to evaluate. But nothing came out of it. That is different to it was NEVER used in combat...

Combat evaluation can mean a multitude of things including test firing vs static targets. There’s little to no more detail offered to prove it definitely was used in frontline action.

 

The only reason I included this quote is there’s 2x mentions of this ever existing that any of us can find across a wealth of literature making it rarer than a FC flight model revision.

 

 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

But there is no proof that it did not ever see combat or am I missing something?

[No.23_Starling]

3 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

But there is no proof that it did not ever see combat or am I missing something?

There’s no proof it did either, just one vague line in a secondary source, I think that’s what you’re missing.

 

It’s down to the map designer to make judgment calls; if I were edging on historical accuracy I’d properly think twice against including something that might have been used on one plane for a short period then abandoned as a failure, particularly when it’s got WW2 HE ammo.
 

What is the chance of that one plane appearing at every possible point along the front over an extended period, let alone on multiple airframes which contradicts the suggestion that only one had the mod?

 

I know you’re never going to agree with anything I write anymore and instead look to pick holes, but I’ll happily admit when I’m wrong. In this instance I’m pretty sure I’m not on my assessment of this mod being a bit silly and almost as historically accurate as Fly Boys.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

I never said there is proof it got used. But you wrote earlier
 

10 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

[...]

All the evidence is on the table about it never seeing combat.

I just want to see the evidence you mentioned about it never seeing combat.

[No.23_Starling]

26 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I never said there is proof it got used. But you wrote earlier
 

I just want to see the evidence you mentioned about it never seeing combat.

No, you want the last word on a message board squabble which makes 0 difference to the point of the thread which is that the DII Becker is a meme with a WW2 HE round (proven correct).

 

‘Combat trials’ to me means testing in mock dogfights and firing on static targets / test firing whilst airborne. The books tells us these were a failure so it was abandoned, further evidence that it was never allowed to go to the front on operations. The burden of proof is on the map designer to decide if that one airframe was sent to the lines and for how long - I don’t see any, only a secondary source mentioning failed trials. Even if it had gone to the front it’s literally one airframe. The SPAD XII saw at least 120 ordered and many we can identify from primary sources / serial numbers (see the scan in my thread with the original French archive documentation) and that’s considered by many to be too rare for sim inclusion.
 

You’re nitpicking on semantics to score points (to achieve what?) which doesn’t change the fact that this mod should be a curiosity for memey map creation.

Edited November 20, 2023 by US103_Rummell

[=IRFC=Gascan]

It's kinda hard to prove a negative considering the very small amount of evidence at all. In this case, "reportedly included combat evaluation" could, as Rummell points out, mean firing tests or mock dogfights. It could also mean a patrol over the front line, possibly including attacking an enemy aircraft. Without more evidence, it seems to me that the latter is less likely, and would require more firm proof than a "reportedly".

On the other hand, if you want to include it on the server so that players can use it for the sake of using a plane that the game devs made available, that is entirely different. There was a push to get the heavies added without having to complete recons, thus enabling fans of the big bombers to fly from the start of the mission. Historically, Handley Pages and Gothas didn't make regular daytime raids on the Western Front, but these are an exciting part of the FlugPark missions and add to the fun. I'm a bit doubtful of the fun added by the Albatros/Becker combo.

[ZachariasX]

I think it's moot discussing the Becker anyway, as it can only be used when tilted up all the way, otherwise you cannot aim as the sights are not aligned, as @J2_Trupobaw says. And I doubt that tilting it upwards imposes additional damage (as it should).

 

It's shocking how half hearted things come out now. It would be nice if the planes did have plausible performance figures. But it seems to me that also that is not a priority.

 

Also, the 11 mm phosphorus rounds ignite the balloon once it is perforated (often with a burst of ball rounds). They ignite the hydrogen leaving the balloon and that is mixing with air...

[J99_Sizzlorr]

11 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

No, you want the last word on a message board squabble which makes 0 difference to the point of the thread which is that the DII Becker is a meme with a WW2 HE round (proven correct).

 

‘Combat trials’ to me means testing in mock dogfights and firing on static targets / test firing whilst airborne. The books tells us these were a failure so it was abandoned, further evidence that it was never allowed to go to the front on operations. The burden of proof is on the map designer to decide if that one airframe was sent to the lines and for how long - I don’t see any, only a secondary source mentioning failed trials. Even if it had gone to the front it’s literally one airframe. The SPAD XII saw at least 120 ordered and many we can identify from primary sources / serial numbers (see the scan in my thread with the original French archive documentation) and that’s considered by many to be too rare for sim inclusion.
 

You’re nitpicking on semantics to score points (to achieve what?) which doesn’t change the fact that this mod should be a curiosity for memey map creation.

I am just trying to fight your missinformation you keep spreading. There is no evidence of it never being used in combat as well as there is no evidence of it being used on the frontline, I doubt it was just fired at static targets, the effect of the gun on airplanes was known already. The Becker was used as an AA gun and as a defensive weapon in 2 seaters. Why would combat evaluation mean that you install it on a plane and then shoot at static targets with it? That just doesn't make any sense. I believe the combination  was experimented with on the frontlines and it failed the expetations and then was abandoned until later. The biggest problem was that it could not get synchronized with the prop and therfore had to be installed on the top wing. But the Germans must have seen something in that combination given the fact that a wolrd war later, auto cannons were standard equipment in their fighter planes. But then again it is just a secondary source, show me the original German report that source is based on and I am sure I can clarify it. But those are hard to come by because a lot of german books touching on ww1 airplanes got banned by the allies after World War II (Here is a link to some of the banned books if you are interested: https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/07/22/alliierte-zensur-im-nachkriegsdeutschlandoffoi/alliierte-zensur-im-nachkriegsdeutschlandoffoi.pdf). 

Also as I said earlier in this thread and elswhere already it is not up to the missions designers and the burden of proof is not up to them as you like to put it. It is up to the server operators if they want it in their missions or not.

 

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I am just trying to fight your missinformation you keep spreading. There is no evidence of it never being used in combat as well as there is no evidence of it being used on the frontline, I doubt it was just fired at static targets, the effect of the gun on airplanes was known already. The Becker was used as an AA gun and as a defensive weapon in 2 seaters. Why would combat evaluation mean that you install it on a plane and then shoot at static targets with it? That just doesn't make any sense. I believe the combination  was experimented with on the frontlines and it failed the expetations and then was abandoned until later. The biggest problem was that it could not get synchronized with the prop and therfore had to be installed on the top wing. But the Germans must have seen something in that combination given the fact that a wolrd war later, auto cannons were standard equipment in their fighter planes. But then again it is just a secondary source, show me the original German report that source is based on and I am sure I can clarify it. But those are hard to come by because a lot of german books touching on ww1 airplanes got banned by the allies after World War II (Here is a link to some of the banned books if you are interested: https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/07/22/alliierte-zensur-im-nachkriegsdeutschlandoffoi/alliierte-zensur-im-nachkriegsdeutschlandoffoi.pdf). 

Also as I said earlier in this thread and elswhere already it is not up to the missions designers and the burden of proof is not up to them as you like to put it. It is up to the server operators if they want it in their missions or not.

 

You can believe whatever you want about combat trials and blame lost texts; I’ll stick to good history. Find direct firsthand evidence and I’ll admit I’m wrong. No misinformation at all here and you’re completely missing the point of the thread. I’ll rephrase my earlier statement: “there is no direct firsthand reliable evidence that it was ever used in operational combat, even if there was it’s a single airframe and was deemed a failure.” Happy?
 

I’m 100% right about the WW2 HE ammo (thanks @LukeFF), and that this mod was insanely rare (also thanks @LukeFF for the lone surviving photo). You have a personal vendetta against me which is petty and bad for the community, grasping at straws to ‘win’. Speak to Echo and IRFC if you want to look at a passion project for accuracy.
 

Feel free to have the last word and spread misinformation based on giant leaps of faith to fill holes in the evidence - your argument with @Holtzauge, an actual aerospace engineer and published author on the altitude throttle on the BMW is a good example. I’m sure you’ll have the last word but I’m done here so post whatever you like; the community can make their own mind up on the available evidence (or lack of it). S.

Edited November 21, 2023 by US103_Rummell

[J99_Sizzlorr]

It just escapes me how you can conclude it was never used at the frontline from a picture of it and a secondary source that states it was reportetly combat evaluated. And then write that the evidence is on the table. All the other stuff has nothing to do with it. I think with my believes I don't lean much further out of the window than you with your believes...

Edited November 21, 2023 by J99_Sizzlorr
Spelling

[No.23_Starling]

Because there’s no reliable evidence.

[LukeFF]

Guys, please. ? Let's dial down the heat a bit. It's fine to disagree on the relevance of a 20mm cannon strapped to a wooden machine, but let's keep it at that. 

 

 

Now, where did I put that picture that shows a Davis Gun attached to a Sopwith Camel...

[J99_Sizzlorr]

4 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Because there’s no reliable evidence.

There is also no reliable evidence on that it never saw combat yet this is what you conclude out of the little we have on it. Don't get me wrong I am all for not having the Albatros D.II with the Becker gun on the FC servers but for diffrent reasons than you. It is just wrong to prepetuate the myth that the combination never saw combat or that it was only one airframe when you have nothing to back up these claims.  That is where I start having problems with what you wrote here, because it simply is not proofable with what we have here now. Still you insit on it. Then you go on and try to pass the buck to me as a mission creator even though you perfectly know that the sever operators are the ones with the last word on that. That is misleading or missinformation in my book. 

[ZachariasX]

51 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Now, where did I put that picture that shows a Davis Gun attached to a Sopwith Camel...

I want that!

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

There is also no reliable evidence on that it never saw combat yet this is what you conclude out of the little we have on it. Don't get me wrong I am all for not having the Albatros D.II with the Becker gun on the FC servers but for diffrent reasons than you. It is just wrong to prepetuate the myth that the combination never saw combat or that it was only one airframe when you have nothing to back up these claims.  That is where I start having problems with what you wrote here, because it simply is not proofable with what we have here now. Still you insit on it. Then you go on and try to pass the buck to me as a mission creator even though you perfectly know that the sever operators are the ones with the last word on that. That is misleading or missinformation in my book. 

It sounds like your book already has enough misinformation in it without me helping. The single airframe is all that’s mentioned in the book I provided, plus we have one photo. One. I suppose it’s possible every pilot in every Jasta had one but we’ve lost the photos, just like every German flew a Red Triplane (thanks Flyboys).

 

Alright I’ll take your bait. If you read my statement above you’ll see I’ve amended the point.“there is no direct firsthand reliable evidence that it was ever used in operational combat, even if there was it’s a single airframe and was deemed a failure.”

Just having to write this seems so obvious it hurts. There’s photos and references to a SPAD fitted with a supercharger that saw trials in 1918. I suspect most people would feel comfortable asserting that in the absence of evidence it was never used operationally.
 

Using your logic my historiography should be open to any possibility, like the altitude throttle being for any altitude. I take your point that saying “never” might be interpreted as ruling out any possibility otherwise, but a defendant in a courtroom is either guilty or not guilty, just as a server admin can turn a mod on or off.

 

I think we both need to get out more.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

It is just one photo of it doesn't make it one airframe only and ten photos of it doesn't make it at least ten. We can not conclude something based on how many pictures of it survived or we can get our hands on these days. We both know it did not play any role in the air war but the possibility that it was tested in combat can not be ruled out with certainty. You made it sound like as it was of the table somehow. Also now you use the correct terms that the server admin can turn them on or off. I have no further problems and I think some fresh air can do wonders for both of us.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, US103_Rummell said:

SPAD fitted with a supercharger

[No.23_Starling]

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Rateau supercharged XIII C.1 S706 which supposedly made 140mph. I’ll see if I can pull more of the history from the Davilla book later. It was seen as a failure but a crazy concept for 1918 and adopted in other types in the 1920s.

Edited November 22, 2023 by US103_Rummell

[No.23_Starling]

12 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

It is just one photo of it doesn't make it one airframe only and ten photos of it doesn't make it at least ten. We can not conclude something based on how many pictures of it survived or we can get our hands on these days. We both know it did not play any role in the air war but the possibility that it was tested in combat can not be ruled out with certainty. You made it sound like as it was of the table somehow. Also now you use the correct terms that the server admin can turn them on or off. I have no further problems and I think some fresh air can do wonders for both of us.

Agreed. In the tradition of Douglas Adams and the second edition of the Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy I will amend my original statement to say that lacking evidence to the contrary the DII Canon “most likely” never saw combat, but currently do not know for certain. Id say the same of the Spad XIII Supercharged. S old pal. Time to go outside and get myself a life

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 11/20/2023 at 1:23 PM, US103_Rummell said:

I have flagged the issue with the 11mm rounds which @LukeFF has taken to the developers. As for standard rounds there’s no custom ammo config like in Cliffs of Dover. They’d need to model new ammo load outs.

 

Eeeexactly. There is no issue with 11mm rounds - the issue is with Vickers firing same .303 balloon damaging round mix as Lewis. The solution would be to create two versions of .303 round, identical in all respects except damaging the balloons, and make Lewis fire old .303 and Vickers fire new .303. Or otherwise make balloons ignore rounds fired by Vickers (and bombs, while we are at it). We can accept that Lewis is magically firing mix of regular rounds and Buckinghams when attacking the balloon and regular rounds when attacking aeroplanes (maybe the pilot has a balloon busting ammo drum he switches to). But Vickers is not supposed to fire Buckinghams at all. 

 

OR, we can just accept that it is a game with simplifications, and 11mm being no better than .303 is price we pay for Vickers .303 being effective at all. Mind you, I have zero problem with Camel pilots busting balloons in historically implausible way - it is a game, let them have their fun, and don't think a fix to Vickers would make game better for anyone.

 

But instead, the nonexistent  "issue" has been forwarded to developers via @LukeFF, with goal of making a historically performing 11mm gun overperform to give it an edge over already overperforming .303 gun. This is exactly agenda building I am talking about, talk about eating cake and still having it.

 

P.S. - speaking of Albatros D.II, there is a very genuine bug in this one - if flown at spring / summer temperatures, the engine overheats under 1500m unless the throttle is set below 80%. Perhaps it is just case of radiator being always pre-set to winter (which is weird, as historical plane was developed in summer and debuted mid-September). On oil cooling issue, as in Albatros D.Va when it was first released? Either way, it was not present in RoF.  @LukeFF ?

Edited November 22, 2023 by J2_Trupobaw

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

P.S. - speaking of Albatros D.II, there is a very genuine bug in this one - if flown at spring / summer temperatures, the engine overheats under 1500m unless the throttle is set below 80%. Perhaps it is just case of radiator being always pre-set to winter (which is weird, as historical plane was developed in summer and debuted mid-September). On oil cooling issue, as in Albatros D.Va when it was first released? Either way, it was not present in RoF.  @LukeFF ?

 

I'll ask and see.

[Gunfreak]

I don't really understand, a company that is making a flight sim, and takes 60-80 dollars for a map and a handfull of planes won't improve the realism of the flight model. And other improvements because some guy said they wouldn't years ago.

As a producer of a product. Shouldn't the goal be to make the best product. 

Not just sell a product for least amount of work? Wouldn't it be awsome to claim IL2 flying circus is the best and most realistic ww1 flight sim there is?

[Trooper117]

As far as I can see, FC is just a sideshow... it will generate them a bit of income. Once they have fulfilled FC4 it will probably go into file 13 as they will possibly be going into early access with the new project, and that will start the income stream once more.

Sad to say I think FC is done... we aren't getting any positive feedback about improvements or continuation after FC4. 

[No.23_Starling]

5 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Eeeexactly. There is no issue with 11mm rounds - the issue is with Vickers firing same .303 balloon damaging round mix as Lewis. The solution would be to create two versions of .303 round, identical in all respects except damaging the balloons, and make Lewis fire old .303 and Vickers fire new .303. Or otherwise make balloons ignore rounds fired by Vickers (and bombs, while we are at it). We can accept that Lewis is magically firing mix of regular rounds and Buckinghams when attacking the balloon and regular rounds when attacking aeroplanes (maybe the pilot has a balloon busting ammo drum he switches to). But Vickers is not supposed to fire Buckinghams at all. 

 

OR, we can just accept that it is a game with simplifications, and 11mm being no better than .303 is price we pay for Vickers .303 being effective at all. Mind you, I have zero problem with Camel pilots busting balloons in historically implausible way - it is a game, let them have their fun, and don't think a fix to Vickers would make game better for anyone.

 

But instead, the nonexistent  "issue" has been forwarded to developers via @LukeFF, with goal of making a historically performing 11mm gun overperform to give it an edge over already overperforming .303 gun. This is exactly agenda building I am talking about, talk about eating cake and still having it.

 

P.S. - speaking of Albatros D.II, there is a very genuine bug in this one - if flown at spring / summer temperatures, the engine overheats under 1500m unless the throttle is set below 80%. Perhaps it is just case of radiator being always pre-set to winter (which is weird, as historical plane was developed in summer and debuted mid-September). On oil cooling issue, as in Albatros D.Va when it was first released? Either way, it was not present in RoF.  @LukeFF ?

Have you tried destroying a balloon with the 11mm? It takes a lot of ammo to the point you can run out with a single gun or the N28 ammo load out. Are you saying you think it’s too effective against balloons? The bug seems to be that the devs haven’t imported the RoF ammo so it behaves more like a bigger traditional MG. Were you unhappy with the RoF modelling? Are the German rounds behaving as you expect? The 500 rounds per gun helps.
 

The normal Vickers do fire tracers though you’d imagine the Buckingham rounds in the Lewis being more effective. I’ve never seen test data or pilot testimony on the number of rounds and type of bullets used. Maybe Willy Coppens in his book? @=IRFC=Hellbender might know.

 

There is a passage in Biddle’s book where he talks about having a single 11mm so clearly he considered that enough to start a fire. He also complains about having it when facing enemy a/c suggesting it wouldn’t be as effective as the normal ball rounds.
 

Either way we won’t get custom ammo load outs.

Edited November 22, 2023 by US103_Rummell

[Red_Von_Hammer]

On 11/18/2023 at 9:56 AM, No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork said:

That increase in speed will hurt its (much vaunted by central) turn rate and radius.

 

It like most planes from ROF is doing too well in turns especially at high alt.

 

Please take another look at this link comparing FC to Anders data and you'll be finding planes a lot more broken than the Dr1.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iRflE2AN5lLdSMJlD4x2W2EWPaZ56HzI/htmlview

 

As a new player (Only started WW1 in late March of 23), I'd say yes I disagree with you. These FMs seem to be in need of an overhaul mostly. It's the only way to keep match ups within punching range but fix glaring issues with them since the tech and info is now available to fix them

 

Not sure how RB3D fits in here, I looked it up and this seems like it belongs in a museum. It seems like very entitled and narcissistic to blame the death of another title on the supposedly worse product of another dev.

 

A little bit of critical thinking kind of kills that theory and anyway if you get tired of one sim, move to another?

 

I got bored of F-16s and Su-27s in Falcon and DCS so I came here for Spitfires Mustangs Yaks and SPADs.

 

And when I get bored of this I'll go to another Sim for Corsairs Wildcats Sabres and MiGs.

 

If you want to remain in the Era though there's also WoFF. It's not like you can't vote with your feet and remind them of their competition a bit

 

 

 

I actually didn't make the case that any one plane should only receive changes to top speed, I said "would be more something like" i.e "for example", and further encapsulated said example with quotation marks.
You want an overhaul for FM's, welcome to the club, but who told you I didn't? It's not me you have to convince.

RB3D was the de-facto WW1 online king, was fully moddable, and when RoF came out people bought it based on not just the graphics you seem to subscribe to, but also on the understanding planes would perform reasonably close to real life counterparts, and certainly not falling apart from looking at the wings.
Fast forward 14 years + another title from the same devs, and only the wings were fixed.
Of course RB3D being from the 1990's looks dated, didn't I point out at least that much right from the get-go? In a few years FC will look dated too, hardly an argument against relevancy at any rate.

As for me I already own WoFF, and contrary to what you allege I never said I'm tired of any one sim.
Fair enough you like switching it up between various sims, but for the reason stated above I don't see how it pertains to me.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Red_Von_Hammer

[No.23_Starling]

All, on the topic of including planes which saw combat trials, the late SPAD cannon was fitted with an autocannon weapon. See photo and a bit of history from Harry Woodman and Tom Laemlein. There’s about as much evidence for the inclusion of both as far as I can see.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2024 by US103_Rummell