Folks,

Dux:

I doubt that the unpopular recipients of frags in Vietnam (and as 'frag' is now a generic term, in other wars as well), expected nothing untoward either. Gird up yer loins my friend. At least gird up something. I'm simply saying that considering your unsurpassable ability in the Hurri and Spit I cannot understand why your nom de guerres of 1916 are dropping like flies all over no man's land. It is getting to be a rather disturbing hygienic problem not to mention the high cost of replacing planes and training pilots.

We will not even mention the negative impact upon morale caused by our fledgling pilots watching one of the best come a cropper, falling, tail on fire, leaving behind nothing but black smoke, a torrent of imaginative curse words and several empty wine bottles floating over France. This must stop.

As the colonel said to the willing beermaid after removing her chemise...."Now let's get to the bottom of this".

Gents,

JRT,

Actually getting shot down is an uncommon occurrence. Most of my 'volunteers' either collide with friendly or enemy crates or get written off with 'archie' like the one before the last casualty was. Today, however, I'm sure I was a victim of friendly fire while well under control of the situation. A pair of Albs were in front, with me knocking bits off them as they circled. Two Camels were also involved in the fun - and that's where you have to watch out for collisions. They don't give a damn about finishing off your target. But to return to what you were hinting at earlier. Maybe one of them had already decided I was too much competition...

My experience of this sim so far has led me to believe that the AA is too accurate for 1917.

Folks,

Dux:

I've been accused of telling people how to make a watch when all they really wanted was the time of day. Risking further blame in that direction we will discuss the topic of AA, AAA, Archie or just plain Flack.

You will know all this but some readers who actually get out of the house due to other interests now and then may not. The earliest known use of weapons specifically for the anti-aircraft role appears to have occurred during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. After the disaster at Sedan, Paris was besieged and French troops outside the city started an attempt at resupply via balloon. Krupps quickly modified a 1-pounder (20mm) gun to be mounted on top of a horse-drawn carriage for the purposes of shooting down these impudent French balloons.

Given this early history, it is perhaps not surprising that it was only in Germany that development of anti-aircraft guns continued. In 1909 a number of Krupp's designs were adopted in the role, including adaptations of their 65mm 9-pounder, a 75mm 12-pounder, and even a 105mm gun. By the start of World War I the 75mm had become the standard German weapon, and came mounted on a large traverse that could be easily picked up on a wagon for movement.

During the First World War all armies deployed AA guns often based on their smaller field pieces, notably the French 75 mm and Russian 76.2 mm. Typically they were simply propped up on some sort of embankment to get the business end pointed skyward. Ahhh but they found that AA gunnery was a difficult business. The problem was of successfully aiming a shell to burst close to its target's future position, with various factors affecting the shells' predicted trajectory. This was called deflection gun-laying. We've all heard of deflection shooting haven't we?

With little experience in the role, no means of measuring target, range, height or speed the difficulty of observing their shell bursts relative to the target disappointed gunners proved unable to get their fuse setting correct and most rounds burst well below their targets. Discovering this, rude British fliers gave German anti-aircraft fire the mocking nickname, "Archie"). The exception to this rule many pilots found to their ultimate dismay were the guns protecting spotting balloons. In that case the altitude could be accurately measured from the length of the cable holding the balloon.

As aircraft started to be used against ground targets on the battlefield, the AA guns could not be traversed quickly enough at close targets and, being relatively few were less affective than wished for. Because the enemy was hesitant to announce their plans in advance guns were not always in the right place at the right time. For some reason they were often unpopular with other troops on the same side as well. Especially true when projectiles fired into the air at planes that uncharitably moved out of the way fell amongst said troops. So the guns changed positions frequently.

Soon the forces on both sides were adding various machine-gun based weapons mounted on poles. These short-range weapons proved more deadly and, as evidence of their accuracy, the "Red Baron" is believed to have been shot down by an anti-aircraft Vickers machine gun.

The moral of this story: Keep well away from them balloons kiddo.

Gents,

JRT,

But 'orders is orders'! If HQ says 'bust that balloon', it is your duty, sir! Trouble is, I tend to hang around too long and bust any others in sight. By that time the gunners could have my range. Unlikely that range-finding is modelled into the AA though. Just random?

Folks,

Dux:

Ha! Me thinks it matters very little to the unlucky pilot if his tail be shot off at 'random' or otherwise.

Check the setup and you may be able to adjust the strength or accuracy of Archie all the way from 'legally blind' to 'you'll be sorry'. I do that with IL2 using MM6 by setting it to high. This fills the sky with loud Karumps! and angry, black flowers floating about. Yet I have only been shot down by it once. I have not seen any enemy plane shot down by AA in IL2-46 at all.

Smitten by your screenshots; I watched another RoF video on YouTube yesterday. A Dr1 was right on the tattered tail of a Camel. It seemed to take an inordinate number of hits to down the Camel even at close range when many hits were clearly being made. I'd say the damage model in RoF is excellent from what I've seen previously but that seemed to take a long time.

Folks,

A fellow called Jens198 just posted an interesting item on the General Aviation forum. He states:

"Just read a interesting article about the use of drones in the US military (e.g. last year the US trained more personal on the use of UAVs than "real" pilots)."

UAV driver. Now my dear friends that is a job many of us have been unknowingly training for for years. Sign me up.

I wonder why no one has published a UAV sim? That seems the perfect flight sim as, unlike present sims that cannot model Gs for instance, it would be completely realistic from nearly every perspective. You could make all kinds of things go boom.

One day there will be fighter drones. I understand they already have prototypes flying. And surely as UAVs show up in the arsenal of our enemies there will be developed something like "killer " drones; don't you think? Maybe we already have those. I bet we do, on the drawing board anyway.

Folks,

Here is a link to an in-depth article on UAVs posted on the same thread after I posted there. As the person posting seems to be from Vegas and is listed as 'HotShot' where I am listed a s senior member and because certain operations are known to be run from that area he may well be as informed on UAVs as it is possible to be.

The poster states that much of the flying is on auto pilot and there is another crew member that operates the camera. Who knew?

http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2008/02/creech-afb-uav-operations/

Folks,

Dux:

Back to our previous topic of surviving AA. Using Mission Mate 6 one can set the number and strength of the aa fire for either side in defense of their airfield, anchored shipping or carrier. I dunno what is possible with RoF or even if there is a mission editor in or for the game. If I know you then you will not be satisfied until you have bested those irritating gunners at their worst. Get out there then and shoot down a few "sausages" every morning before breakfast just like Luke.

Survival is problematic for a man anyway be it in war or peace. The scientist and philosopher David Deutsch argues, among other things, that nature is, in fact, highly adverse to human life and only our ability to acquire and pass along knowledge has allowed us to survive and prosper.

Could be. We have long ago argued on this thread that it seems Mother Nature is beginning to treat the human race as if it were a cancer; trying her best to get rid of us. Perhaps man's thoughtless self-serving rule upon the earth was always ordained to end unless we learned to live in harmony with ourselves and nature? Maybe this deadly battle between man and the earth we all live on is nothing new? I guess it has been a struggle all along. Man alone among the earth's creatures has the ability to change nature rather than have to adapt and we are growing more of us every day.

Or perhaps I have been influenced far too much by our recent weather and re-reading two "Death World" books written by Harry Harrison?

Gents,

Signing off now for week.

JRT,

I haven't looked too hard yet but I haven't come across any AA edit files in RoF.

An email is winging its way to your sun-bleached mail-box.

Folks,
Dux:

There is a return e-mail bouncing about in your rust encrusted mail receptacle. Bony Voyagey to you and the good Lady "J". If you are lucky beyond all reason and somehow manage to behave yourself she may even return with you at the end of the week. Mind that you have the windows shut when you allow that over stuffed suitcase to spring open. Otherwise your brightly colored unmentionables may be once again on display in the trees for all to see.

Stay safe. Have fun. We eagerly await your return and in the meantime we will follow online and in various newspapers the ribald stories of your many remarkable holiday escapades.