#4024375 - 10/19/14 12:14 PM
No Bombers..yet
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,394
ArisFuser
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,394
|
I have been thinking about posting this ..or not for some days now. I have waited to check and test in campaign, fly with my squadron for some more hours before writing here. And here it goes,...
After 35 flying hours of Jasta 5 campaign I must say, Flanders is full of SPAD VIIs and Nieuports and 1 or 2 Strutters,...no bombers , recce craft,...almost all the ecnounters are with fighters on deep offensive patrols, odd, even after the last patch, this still seems wrong to me...my kill list is FULL of scouts, not a single RE8, Be 2c,...
What are your impresions?
|
|
|
#4024384 - 10/19/14 12:53 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 424
Rover_27
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 424
Russia
|
It may have something to do with 3rd party mission types. I remember after the frequency of 2-seater flights was recalculated in one of the patches a lot of people complained that nothing had changed for them. Then it came up that having 3rd party missions enabled overrides this setting somehow
Also try this experimental J view and you will see how many two-seaters there are in the area actually.
i5 2320, 3.3 GHz GTX 560Ti, 4 GB graphics memory 8 GB RAM Windows 7 64x
|
|
|
#4024396 - 10/19/14 02:04 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,707
Rick_Rawlings
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,707
|
It's not scientific, but my claims log is still 85%+ scouts, no unusual mission types here...
The older I get, the more I realize I don't need to be Han, Luke or Leia. I'm just happy to be rebel scum...
|
|
|
#4024489 - 10/19/14 05:49 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: gecko]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
Another factor is that the scouts are out there looking for you, while the bombers try to stay clear of you. If you don't see the scout, there's still a decent chance he'll come find you anyway. If you don't see the bomber, chances of an engagement are pretty much nil. I would say this is excellent logic especially if you are flying without any aids such as the TAC, labels, etc. Straight up the AI pilots are almost certainly seeing you before you see them. The fighters come for you and the two seaters continue on their merry way and depending on flight angles you probably never see them.
|
|
|
#4024526 - 10/19/14 06:44 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
Straight up the AI pilots are almost certainly seeing you before you see them. The fighters come for you and the two seaters continue on their merry way and depending on flight angles you probably never see them. If this is true, the AI logic completely breaks the realism in this sim, I don´t think bombers can avoid you as if they had radars...well, I hope,.. I wouldn't say that. I guess what I meant was that with everything equal that little dot at 2.5 miles could be anything assuming you see it on your monitor with all that's going on, resolution, anti aliasing, etc. At the same exact distance the AI has no distractions and knows it's you was all I meant. I didn't mean to infer that the AI had super duper vision.
|
|
|
#4024533 - 10/19/14 06:57 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: OldHat]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
This was tested a few months back I believe, but it's really easy to see what's going on during a mission. If you just start the mission and then exit before takeoff. Then go to the log file and open the "mission.log" file, you can count the number and types of aircraft that were generated and their mission objectives.
In 1916 there's not that many activated bases, but it gradually increases up to 1918 where you can get over 200 aircraft flying around. However, the ratio of fighters to bomber is still too high IMHO even after the last patch... sorry, I don't mean to be negative, but just stating the facts. Guess I really don't know historically what a good ratio of "in the air" fighters to bombers should be however 2.0 is supposed to include campaign fixes. What those fixes are has not been detailed. Maybe this if it is, in fact, a historical issue.
|
|
|
#4024547 - 10/19/14 07:14 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
Well, now that I think of it, the occasions in which I have been able to surprise an AI enemy flight must be,...umm, never? In the simulation.xml file, there are values for vision distance and how often the AI scans the skies. It's set to 3 seconds. To prove this, try to adjust only the offensiveSearchCycle_secs= and defensiveSearchCycle_secs= to say 20 seconds. Save the file and fire up a quick mission. The enemy won't even notice that you flew just under or above them and everyone will fly past each other. Also, I've mentioned that the vision distance is too accurate (at 6km) and unfair because I can't even see the dots past 3km on my good monitor. The enemy will not scan so often if it's either heading home or landing, otherwise, if it's patrolling or fighting, then there is no way you'll be able to surprise them no matter how sneaky. Except, of course, if you manage to ambush them flying through a cloud and jump directly behind them. Once the enemy heads for home or starts to land, it is deaf dumb and blind until you shoot at them or they see tracers fly by.
|
|
|
#4024549 - 10/19/14 07:17 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
This was tested a few months back I believe, but it's really easy to see what's going on during a mission. If you just start the mission and then exit before takeoff. Then go to the log file and open the "mission.log" file, you can count the number and types of aircraft that were generated and their mission objectives.
In 1916 there's not that many activated bases, but it gradually increases up to 1918 where you can get over 200 aircraft flying around. However, the ratio of fighters to bomber is still too high IMHO even after the last patch... sorry, I don't mean to be negative, but just stating the facts. Guess I really don't know historically what a good ration of "in the air" fighters to bombers should be however 2.0 is supposed to include campaign fixes. What those fixes are has not been detailed. Maybe this if it is, in fact, a historical issue. I'm not sure either, but I'd like to see more bombers in the sky just to add more variety during encounters.
|
|
|
#4024553 - 10/19/14 07:25 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
Well, now that I think of it, the occasions in which I have been able to surprise an AI enemy flight must be,...umm, never? Right. It would be cool if the AI wing or tail surfaces were able to block his vision but this is not modeled I am sure. The AI always pays attention and if you are visual range, though it may be the same as yours, you are spotted. Nor does he have his wife or girlfriend trying to talk to him while he flies or the dog barking, or that tiny dot being initially lost in the terrain background. Being equal in visibility always favors the computer IMHO.
|
|
|
#4024572 - 10/19/14 07:59 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: AceMedic88]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
So is there a way to adjust the distance they engage you at or no? Well, yes and no. You see, the AI is cleverly programmed to account for various circumstances (see WM's post on AI). However, you can adjust the distance it will "see" other EA as well as how often it will scan the skies. These are in the simulation.xml file. It was mentioned by me in another post that I adjusted the values for maxRange_met= and perfectRange_met= to less than half the distance. Be warned that I don't get any encounters for 4-6 missions and I just fly my waypoints and land back at base. It's very thrilling when do get surprised by an encounter of bombers or fighters....
|
|
|
#4024575 - 10/19/14 08:04 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,394
ArisFuser
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,394
|
There must be a way to reduce the engagement per sortie ratio. At the moment, April 1917, after 3 months of campaign, there hasn´t been a single sortie without fighting for Jasta 8 in Boistraincourt. I could fly for 2 hours and would met dozens of enemy aircraft,...attacking me with altitude advantage, of course,...By the way, I love this sim, all these points are risen to improve it even more if possible.
Last edited by ArisFuser; 10/19/14 08:05 PM.
|
|
|
#4024576 - 10/19/14 08:07 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,707
Rick_Rawlings
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,707
|
I have my dot distance set to about 3km, and my wingmen always start reacting way before I can see anything. In fact, watching them is a pretty good low-tech early warning radar system...
The older I get, the more I realize I don't need to be Han, Luke or Leia. I'm just happy to be rebel scum...
|
|
|
#4024580 - 10/19/14 08:13 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: OldHat]
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 586
AceMedic88
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 586
Niagara Falls, NY
|
So is there a way to adjust the distance they engage you at or no? Well, yes and no. You see, the AI is cleverly programmed to account for various circumstances (see WM's post on AI). However, you can adjust the distance it will "see" other EA as well as how often it will scan the skies. These are in the simulation.xml file. It was mentioned by me in another post that I adjusted the values for maxRange_met= and perfectRange_met= to less than half the distance. Be warned that I don't get any encounters for 4-6 missions and I just fly my waypoints and land back at base. It's very thrilling when do get surprised by an encounter of bombers or fighters.... So in your opinion would this be "realistic" at all?
I got fired as the door man at a sperm bank. Apparently it's in poor taste to tell leaving customers "Thanks for coming."
Former U.S. Army Medic - SGT.
|
|
|
#4024587 - 10/19/14 08:41 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
There must be a way to reduce the engagement per sortie ratio. At the moment, April 1917, after 3 months of campaign, there hasn´t been a single sortie without fighting for Jasta 8 in Boistraincourt. I could fly for 2 hours and would met dozens of enemy aircraft,...attacking me with altitude advantage, of course,...By the way, I love this sim, all these points are risen to improve it even more if possible. Interesting. I have been flying with Jasta 11 in April 1917 and my encounter rate is 50% at best. Of course this is all pre-"the big offensive" scheduled to start in about 10 days.
|
|
|
#4024620 - 10/19/14 10:12 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: AceMedic88]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
So is there a way to adjust the distance they engage you at or no? Well, yes and no. You see, the AI is cleverly programmed to account for various circumstances (see WM's post on AI). However, you can adjust the distance it will "see" other EA as well as how often it will scan the skies. These are in the simulation.xml file. It was mentioned by me in another post that I adjusted the values for maxRange_met= and perfectRange_met= to less than half the distance. Be warned that I don't get any encounters for 4-6 missions and I just fly my waypoints and land back at base. It's very thrilling when do get surprised by an encounter of bombers or fighters.... So in your opinion would this be "realistic" at all? That is the million dollar question! Realistic? Without a heck of a lot more info I don't know. Have sorties per encounter ever been calculated historically? And during what season, weather, unit type, mission type, aircraft type, on which front or sector, with what quality of squadron leadership, during a big push or not? Morning or afternoon? Oldhat and I had a similar discussion a couple of days ago. Realism has to be balanced with playability unless you have all the time in the world on your hands. To paraphrase our earlier discussion lets say the figure of 1 encounter per 8 flights is derived. Are most gamers going to sit and fly 7 no-contact missions for every dogfight? Probably not except for the serious hardcore and there are not all that many of them when you are trying to make money selling a sim. Assuming 1 in 8 is "realistic" of course. The bottom line for me, in the absence of hard figures, realism for a WW1 flight sim is what I determine it should be. Its my sim, my reality, and I fly it to enjoy myself and not as a self flogging exercise. Is WOFF "real enough" in its current form for me to have a hell of a good time? Yep! Are there things that need tweaking? Sure! I am all about modifying any program to make it suit my idea of realism and you should do so too!
|
|
|
#4024631 - 10/19/14 10:47 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,707
Rick_Rawlings
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,707
|
That is the million dollar question! Realistic? Without a heck of a lot more info I don't know. Have sorties per encounter ever been calculated historically? And during what season, weather, unit type, mission type, aircraft type, on which front or sector, with what quality of squadron leadership, during a big push or not? Morning or afternoon?
Oldhat and I had a similar discussion a couple of days ago. Realism has to be balanced with playability unless you have all the time in the world on your hands. To paraphrase our earlier discussion lets say the figure of 1 encounter per 8 flights is derived. Are most gamers going to sit and fly 7 no-contact missions for every dogfight? Probably not except for the serious hardcore and there are not all that many of them when you are trying to make money selling a sim. Assuming 1 in 8 is "realistic" of course.
The bottom line for me, in the absence of hard figures, realism for a WW1 flight sim is what I determine it should be. Its my sim, my reality, and I fly it to enjoy myself and not as a self flogging exercise. Is WOFF "real enough" in its current form for me to have a hell of a good time? Yep! Are there things that need tweaking? Sure! I am all about modifying any program to make it suit my idea of realism and you should do so too!
To acknowledge that you are bound to have enemy contact every flight, I have started flying only two or three missions a week, assuming my "avatar" is flying a bunch more that are "milk runs". That way, my careers start to look slightly more plausible, while I don't have to sit through a bunch of boring missions. (corsair would wisely point out how they shouldn't be boring despite the lack of contact) That's a win-win for me! It's basically the way Red Baron handled it where you would fly a handful of missions a month and it worked out fine...
The older I get, the more I realize I don't need to be Han, Luke or Leia. I'm just happy to be rebel scum...
|
|
|
#4025178 - 10/21/14 11:52 AM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,394
ArisFuser
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,394
|
Red Baron Victory list, note bomber/scout ratio...specially in 1916-1917
1 Sept. 17, 1916 FE 2b near Cambrai 2 Sept. 23, 1916 Martinsyde G 100 Somme River 3 Sept. 30, 1916 FE 2b Fremicourt 4 Oct. 7, 1916 BE 12 Equancourt 5 Oct. 10, 1916 BE 12 Ypres 6 Oct. 16, 1916 BE 12 near Ypres 7 Nov. 3, 1916 FE 2b Loupart Wood 8 Nov. 9, 1916 Be 2c Beugny 9 Nov. 20, 1916 BE 12 Geudecourt 10 Nov. 20, 1916 FE 2b Geudecourt 11 Nov. 23, 1916 DH 2 Bapaume 12 Dec. 11, 1916 DH 2 Mercatel 13 Dec. 20, 1916 DH 2 Moncy-le-Preux 14 Dec. 20, 1916 FE 2b Moreuil 15 Dec. 27, 1916 FE 2b Ficheux 16 Jan. 4, 1917 Sopwith Pup Metz-en-Coutre 17 Jan. 23, 1917 FE 8 Lens 18 Jan. 24, 1917 FE 2b Vitry 19 Feb. 1, 1917 BE 2e Thelus 20 Feb. 14, 1917 BE 2d Loos 21 Feb. 14, 1917 BE 2d Mazingarbe 22 Mar. 4, 1917 Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter Acheville 23 Mar. 4, 1917 BE 2d Loos 24 Mar. 3, 1917 BE 2c Souchez 25 Mar. 9, 1917 DH 2 Bailleul 26 Mar. 11, 1917 BE 2d Vimy 27 Mar. 17, 1917 FE 2b Oppy 28 Mar. 17, 1917 BE 2c Vimy 29 Mar. 21, 1917 BE 2c La Neuville 30 Mar. 24, 1917 Spad VII Givenchy 31 Mar. 25, 1917 Nieuport 17 Tilloy 32 April 2, 1917 BE 2d Farbus 33 April 2, 1917 Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter Givenchy 34 April 3, 1917 FE 2d Lens 35 April 5, 1917 Bristol Fighter F 2a Lembras 36 April 5, 1917 Bristol Fighter F 2a Quincy 37 April 7, 1917 Nieuport 17 Mercatel 38 April 8, 1917 Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter Farbus 39 April 8, 1917 BE 2e Vimy 40 April 11, 1917 BE 2c Willerval 41 April 13, 1917 RE 8 Vitry 42 April 13, 1917 FE 2b Monchy 43 April 13, 1917 FE 2b Henin 44 April 14, 1917 Nieuport 17 Bois Bernard 45 April 16, 1917 BE 2c Bailleul 46 April 22, 1917 FE 2b Lagnicourt 47 April 23, 1917 BE 2e Mericourt 48 April 28, 1917 BE 2e Pelves 49 April 29, 1917 Spad VII Lecluse 50 April 29, 1917 FE 2b Inchy 51 April 29, 1917 BE 2d Roeux 52 April 29, 1917 Nieuport 17 Billy-Montigny 53 June 18, 1917 RE 8 Strugwe 54 June 23, 1917 Spad VII Ypres 55 June 26, 1917 RE 8 Keilbergmelen 56 June 25, 1917 RE 8 Le Bizet 57 July 2, 1917 RE 8 Deulemont 58 Aug. 16, 1917 Nieuport 17 Houthulster Wald 59 Aug. 26, 1917 Spad VII Poelcapelle 60 Sept. 2, 1917 RE 8 Zonebeke 61 Sept. 3, 1917 Sopwith Pup Bousbecque 62 Nov. 23, 1917 DH 5 Bourlon Wood 63 Nov. 30, 1917 SE 5a Moevres 64 Mar. 12, 1918 Bristol Fighter F 2b Nauroy 65 Mar. 13, 1918 Sopwith Camel Gonnelieu 66 Mar. 18, 1918 Sopwith Camel Andigny 67 Mar. 24, 1918 SE 5a Combles 68 Mar. 25, 1918 Sopwith Camel Contalmaison 69 Mar. 26, 1918 Sopwith Camel Contalmaison 70 Mar. 26, 1918 RE 8 Albert 71 Mar. 27, 1918 Sopwith Camel Aveluy 72 Mar. 27, 1918 Bristol Fighter F 2b Foucacourt 73 Mar. 27, 1918 Bristol Fighter F 2b Chuignolles 74 Mar. 28, 1918 Armstrong Whitworth FK 8 Mericourt 75 April 2, 1918 FE 8 Moreuil 76 April 6, 1918 Sopwith Camel Villers-Bretonneux 77 April 7, 1918 SE 5a Hangard 78 April 7, 1918 Spad VII Villers-Bretonneux 79 April 20, 1918 Sopwith Camel Bois-de-Hamel 80 April 20, 1918 Sopwith Camel Villers-Bretonneux
Last edited by ArisFuser; 10/21/14 11:53 AM.
|
|
|
#4026453 - 10/24/14 04:24 AM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,474
JFM
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,474
Naples, FL
|
I know it's not the point of this thread but just as an FYI, that MvR victory list is a bit outdated. Of course, that's no fault of yours, AF. Looks to be the one from Nowarra and Brown's 1958 von Richthofen and the Flying Circus. 40 years of further research has refined the list and the one in Franks/Giblin/McCrery's 1998 Under the Guns of the Red Baron is much more accurate. Still a few hazy areas, but much closer.
As it stands now, MvR shot down 45 two-seaters and 35 single-seaters. That breaks down to 56% of his total victories were two-seaters, 44% were single-seaters. Interestingly, the majority of his two-seater victories were attained prior to his 6 July 1917 wounding. In that period he shot down 57 airplanes, of which 17 were single-seaters (30%) and 40 were two-seaters (70%). After being wounded he shot down 23 airplanes, of which 17 were single-seaters (74%) and 6 were two-seaters (26%). Note that these percentages are almost exactly opposite those of his pre-wound period.
Top-three plane types he downed: FE2 (17), BE2 (12), and Sopwith Camel (9).
BTW, MvR wasn't alone with the majority of his tally comprised of two-seaters. Here are some others:
Max Immelmann: 80% Oswald Boelcke: 70% LvRichthofen: 60% Karl Schaefer: 80% Werner Voss: 52% Kurt Wolff: 58% Karl Allmenroeder: 60% Albert Ball: 68% (includes a balloon) Raoul Lufbery: 94-100% Lanoe Hawker: 71-86% James McCudden: 75% George McElroy: 52% (includes three balloons)
Of course, there are pilots whose tallies reflect of a majority of single-seater victories. For instance, Loewenhardt has 54 credited victories, of which 65% were single-seaters.
Anyway, time to fire up my BE12 get back into this sim. Been away for a while.
|
|
|
#4026505 - 10/24/14 08:28 AM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,394
ArisFuser
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,394
|
Accordin to the Aerodrome: 26 11 Mar 1917 1200 Jasta 11 Halberstadt D.II B.E.2d (6232) S of La Folie Wood 27 17 Mar 1917 1130 Jasta 11 Halberstadt D.II F.E.2b (A5439) Oppy 28 17 Mar 1917 1700 Jasta 11 Halberstadt D.II B.E.2g (2814) W of Vimy 29 21 Mar 1917 1730 Jasta 11 Halberstadt D.II B.E.2e (A3154) Hill 123, N of Neuville 30 24 Mar 1917 1155 Jasta 11 Halberstadt D.II SPAD VII (A6706) Givenchy 31 25 Mar 1917 0820 Jasta 11 Halberstadt D.II Nieuport 17 (A6689) Tilloy But the Wikipedia has a different idea of this,...¿?¿
|
|
|
#4026546 - 10/24/14 12:23 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,474
JFM
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,474
Naples, FL
|
Hello, MvR's Halberstadt victories. Like many of MvR's victories prior to June 1917, sometimes we just don't know what he flew and when. Most times! As least as regards serial numbers. He started flying Alb D.Is--not D.IIs, as many think--but it is unknown precisely when he switched to the D.II, and it is possible there wasn't a hard point switch but a period during which he flew both types during different sorties. It's not until 27 December's combat report that he specifically lists (or the translator first bothered to include) the plane he flew, which was Albatros D.II 481/16 (four eight one sixteen). Same with the Halberstadt. Under the Guns has him flying a Halberstadt D.II all of February and all of March, so that’d be victories 19-31. (Incidentally, Jasta 11 was primarily a Halberstadt D.V squadron.) I respectfully disagree with this. From what I’ve gleaned, victories 19, 20, 21 were in a Halberstadt D-type (exact model unknown). After that, the Albatros D.III grounding (to reinforce their lower wings) had been lifted, and the evidence suggests MvR was back in the Albatros. For instance, he specifically identifies his airplane as an Albatros when he was shot down 6 March; victories 22 and 27 were described as taking over 500 rounds to be shot down (the Halberstadts only carried 500 rounds, so he couldn’t have fired “800 shots” at #27); photos taken 9 March show Karl Schaefer was flying an Albatros D.III, not a Halberstadt, etc. It is known that when he was still with Jasta Boelcke MvR lobbied against the Halberstadt because it only had a single gun. He preferred the development of the higher powered, twin-gunned Albs, so it is unlikely he would continue to fly a Halberstadt six weeks longer than necessary. Even if his Alb D.III Le Petit Rouge required that long to repair, researcher Lance Bronnenkant uncovered evidence of MvR flying D.IIIs other than that machine. His pending book on Richthofen, the fifth of Aeronaut Books’ Blue Max Airmen Series, which will be available here http://www.aeronautbooks.com/, has photographs of this—and this really should be no surprise, seeing how often he switched between different Albatros D.Vs and Fokker triplanes. The only argument for MvR flying the Halb until April seems to be various RFC combat reports that mention a Halberstadt. However, we must remember that at that stage of the war RFC airmen often used the word “Halberstadt” to identify German fighters as freely as the Germans used the term “Vikkers” to identify the FE2 and DH2. But even beyond all that, there are lists of Jasta 11 complements that show their Halberstadt D.Vs were all exchanged for Albatros D.IIIs by 28 February, anyway.
|
|
|
#4026838 - 10/24/14 08:44 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,712
33lima
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,712
Belfast, NI
|
My tuppenceworth - there aren't enough two-seaters, compared to scouts.
Two-seaters who 'see you coming' and bug out, unseen, doesn't wash, TAC, labels or not.
There have been some good books published recently which cover the operations of the 'working planes' and from these and some older classics like 'Into the Blue', these planes were half blind when working, taking pics or observing for the gunners, flying straight lines or predictable patterns. Which was what they were doing, a lot of the time, often on their own. Especially on art obs, as photo recces were sometimes flown by a formation of 2-seaters like Strutters, especially beyond the trenches or to an especially dangerous or important objective. Sometimes they escaped unseen; sometimes, spotted, they dived away and/or escaped, especially the Germans who were fast compared to 1916-17 RFC scouts; but other times, they were caught, sometimes by surprise.
Ideally, if possible, there should be significantly more 2-seaters flying simulated art obs or trench photo missions near the Lines. Preferably without magical abilities to see you coming, when they sometimes shouldn't, never mind often seeing you before you see them.
|
|
|
#4026864 - 10/24/14 09:53 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: 33lima]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
My tuppenceworth - there aren't enough two-seaters, compared to scouts.
Two-seaters who 'see you coming' and bug out, unseen, doesn't wash, TAC, labels or not.
There have been some good books published recently which cover the operations of the 'working planes' and from these and some older classics like 'Into the Blue', these planes were half blind when working, taking pics or observing for the gunners, flying straight lines or predictable patterns. Which was what they were doing, a lot of the time, often on their own. Especially on art obs, as photo recces were sometimes flown by a formation of 2-seaters like Strutters, especially beyond the trenches or to an especially dangerous or important objective. Sometimes they escaped unseen; sometimes, spotted, they dived away and/or escaped, especially the Germans who were fast compared to 1916-17 RFC scouts; but other times, they were caught, sometimes by surprise.
Ideally, if possible, there should be significantly more 2-seaters flying simulated art obs or trench photo missions near the Lines. Preferably without magical abilities to see you coming, when they sometimes shouldn't, never mind often seeing you before you see them. +1 I have tried suggestions on this forum to lighten the air activity, hell, I've even modified the visual range and scanning times in the simulation.xml file, but to no avail. It doesn't work right. It would be nice if the devs can "fix" some things: 1. Whether light, medium, or heavy air activity, there are still too many scouts compared to bombers flying in the sky at any given time. (check to mission log to see it!) 2. All aircraft scan the sky at the same 5 second interval. So, just like you mentioned, this needs to be different for bombers who are focused on their mission and not actively scanning the skies like scouts. 3. When the AI is dogfighting or patrolling the skies, it's awesome, but otherwise it's very predictable. It's a bit of a cheat, but you can keep turn fighting an EA until they give up and return home, then just sneak up on it and shoot it down before it has a chance to react. I've seen that they will never engage you when their activity label shows "going home" unless you shoot at them. 4. More lone wolf patrols so that you don't have AI squad mates who turn to fight enemies before you can see them. Or program them not to react unless you do. 5. Turn off the whistling of dropped bombs. Just know there are enemy bombers nearby when something goes BOOM! Also, give us a chance to start back up our engines and take off after landing and turning off the engine so that we can intercept those pesky bombers. 6. I didn't notice if the enemy bombers have other bombing targets besides airfields and factories. I apologize for going a bit off topic, but they're all related issues....somehow.
|
|
|
#4026898 - 10/24/14 11:11 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: JFM]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
After being wounded he shot down 23 airplanes, of which 17 were single-seaters (74%) and 6 were two-seaters (26%). Note that these percentages are almost exactly opposite those of his pre-wound period.
I have read everything I can get a hold of on MvR so it's a topic of personal interest to me. Also I like WW1 aviation in general and a lot of history seems to be written about him. Anyway reference your quote above what, in your opinion, is the reason for this? In perusing his victory lists I have noticed this before so I am curious to see if your opinion coincides with mine.
|
|
|
#4026977 - 10/25/14 03:05 AM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,707
Rick_Rawlings
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,707
|
Another option I have also done (with a freeware program that I forget the name of now)is to reduce the volume of the individual files.
Audacity? As to MvR's post wounding propensity for scouts, I would guess the suggestion is that he was leery of going after those two seaters...
The older I get, the more I realize I don't need to be Han, Luke or Leia. I'm just happy to be rebel scum...
|
|
|
#4027035 - 10/25/14 10:00 AM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: Rick_Rawlings]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
As to MvR's post wounding propensity for scouts, I would guess the suggestion is that he was leery of going after those two seaters...
I guess my thought was much more simple....that the RFC/RAF fighters by that stage of the war were so numerous and so aggressive they really couldn't be avoided. To fly was to fight them.
|
|
|
#4027067 - 10/25/14 12:54 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,474
JFM
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,474
Naples, FL
|
I'm inclined to agree with that, Duke. At times the Germans had tactical superiority but always the British had strategic and numerical superiority. By March/April 1918 there were more and more British fighters to deal with. Looking at Loewenhardt's score I mentioned earlier, you can see he started off in 1917 with a mix of balloons and two-seaters with the odd fighter here and there. Same as 1918 started. But then you see more and more fighters creeping into his tally and then from May through August they're almost all fighters--of those 36 victories in that period, 5 were two-seaters and one was a balloon. For MvR, he was gone most of the time he was alive in 1918, and the weather was often terrible when he was back. When he began scoring again (between 12 March -- 21 April) it was in support of Operation Michael, which the British were actively fighting against. In that period he only shot down four two-seaters (five if you include the Biff he shot down 12 March) but 12 single-seaters. However, I've not dealt deeply into the "why" of this subject so I hesitate to state concrete reasons without considering/researching many different factors.
I've not researched it personally but according to Franks/Guest/Bailey in Bloody April...Black September, in April 1917 the RFC had 25 squadrons supporting the Arras offensive, with about 365 airplanes of which one-third were fighters. In the 6. Armee, the Germans had about 200 airplanes, with about half being fighters.
|
|
|
#4027086 - 10/25/14 01:52 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: JFM]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
I've not researched it personally but according to Franks/Guest/Bailey in Bloody April...Black September, in April 1917 the RFC had 25 squadrons supporting the Arras offensive, with about 365 airplanes of which one-third were fighters. In the 6. Armee, the Germans had about 200 airplanes, with about half being fighters.
Interesting fact to know. Any idea why Germany kept half their airforce as fighters? Seems to me you'd need more two seaters to gather all the intelligence about the enemy's position during the war. Also, I've never read any books on WW1 observers or two-seater pilots to know what their experience was like during the war.
|
|
|
#4027791 - 10/27/14 06:46 AM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: JFM]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
Two excellent books that cover two-seater pilots and obs are Peter Hart's Somme Success and Bloody April. Fantastic reads, full of personal anecdotes from the two-seater men who flew during these battles. Frankly, it's impossible not to love these two books if one has any interest in WW1 aviation.
Thanks for the advice, JFM. I will look those books up.
|
|
|
#4027792 - 10/27/14 06:53 AM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
[/quote] Interesting fact to know. Any idea why Germany kept half their airforce as fighters? Seems to me you'd need more two seaters to gather all the intelligence about the enemy's position during the war.
I suspect this was not by choice since fighters are inherently defensive weapons generally speaking. The RFC/RAF, and other Allies, forced this upon the outnumbered Germans. [/quote] Ok. I didn't know that fighters were used mainly in defense roles.
|
|
|
#4027824 - 10/27/14 12:14 PM
Re: No Bombers..yet
[Re: ArisFuser]
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,474
JFM
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,474
Naples, FL
|
Another great book Oldhat is Tumult in the Clouds: The British Experience of the War in the Air, 1914-1918, by Nigel Steel and Peter Hart. This isn't a who-shot-who book but rather a very interesting explanation of the RFC/RNAS/RAF during each year of the war. This book clearly demonstrates how fighter vs fighter dogfighting was just a small, small part of the air war.
Duke, I think both MvR/fighter pilots and obs were equal in effectiveness--but as regards the ground war. One fighter plane shot down is like a grain of pollen on a drop of dew in a 1000 square mile field. But shoot down an obs plane bringing back photo recon information for army strategy and you've potentially saved hundreds if not thousands of lives over time. But on the other hand the same could be said for a fighter plane, too, because each one shot down was prevented from shooting down any more two-seaters.
I agree this was true in WW2. Every now and then it's popular for people to regard the story of Brown and Stigler, when Stigler wouldn't shoot down Brown's crippled B-17 and allowed them to fly back to England. The two later became friends and their story is a darling internet tree-hugging example of humanitarianism. Meanwhile, I always wonder how many people were bombed to smithereens afterwards as a result? Because, after all, since Brown was allowed to depart for England without being shot down he just continued his combat tour of bombing sorties. So, sure, Stigler spared ten lives, but we'll never know how many lives that cost--of the people below counting on Luftwaffe defense/protection.
I don't know. I guess in the end it's all part of the madness of warfare.
Last edited by JFM; 10/27/14 12:15 PM. Reason: changed "is" to "isn't"
|
|
|
|
|