GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
However, unlike the Eastern Front, the Western Front and Southern Campaign was multi-layered as the Luftwaffe was still contesting the Allied bomber offensive.
P-39 n-0 vs yak 9 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter pops-paolo
- Start date
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Not to mention that the Western Allies had already made an enormous investment in heavy-bomber production with a couple of thousand on hand. May as well use 'em tactically -- which is what they did, a couple of times, though with mixed results.
MIflyer
Major
Both the Ju86 and Wellington VI proved that when you get up really high it is harder to be intercepted but the bomb load has to be trivial and the chance of actually hitting a target minuscule. And there are these things called "clouds" that tend to screw up taking pictures from up there, too.
But the Ju86P proved to be a very important aircraft in the long view. Because the requirement to intercept that aircraft that inspired Stanly Hooker to cobble together a two stage Merlin and when mounted on the P-51 the result was, as Goring said, "We have lost the war."
By the way, the RAF also did "daylight heavy bomber CAS" in Normandy. In some cases, escorted by Mosquitoes, oddly enough.
But the Ju86P proved to be a very important aircraft in the long view. Because the requirement to intercept that aircraft that inspired Stanly Hooker to cobble together a two stage Merlin and when mounted on the P-51 the result was, as Goring said, "We have lost the war."
By the way, the RAF also did "daylight heavy bomber CAS" in Normandy. In some cases, escorted by Mosquitoes, oddly enough.
Great post but what are these things called clouds, I live in North England we dont know all this techy meteorological stuff, is it to do with the weather? I know about that we can talk weather all day.
MIflyer
Major
Clouds are what you see when the sky is not obscured by that blue stuff.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Has been covered by others.
I do have Mr. Williams' books which go into a bit more detail, not a lot.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
ARTESH
1st Sergeant
The problem with War Thunder / World of Warcraft and other games like them, is that they are not simulators, nor planned to be! they are simple MMORPG's! Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games! but instead of happening in a Fantasy world, it is based and inspired by Historical events! Yes, you are not a hero with superpowers to save world from Annihilation or to defeat an undead army! but you are "Role-Playing" as a Vehicle Commander! in worst way!!!
MIflyer
Major
Yes, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe is a great game and I got very good at flying the P-80, but it has about the same relationship to actual flying as does Pong.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
The British did a study in synchronization that said rate of fire was reduced from 12% to 25%. Have always heard about the increased rate of fire of Russian guns, anybody know if that is actually true in actual combat?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Nobody seems to contradict the Russian figures.
The Russians "paid" for their gun performance in a much higher wear rate or shorter "gun" life, however you wish to phrase it but since they figured the whole plane wasn't going to last long in combat they didn't really care. Their airfields were also a lot closer to the factories.
The Americans did get the .50 cal Browning up to 1100-1200rpm by the end of the war unsynchronized.
They could have reached that figure much sooner had they been willing to accept a higher parts breakage rate, or shorter "gun" life and/or higher jam rates.
Gun life is not barrel life, barrels could be shot out quickly and were replaceable for that reason. Gun life is when the receiver and/or bolt are no longer in factory tolerance and the fitting of new minor parts and springs will not return the gun to proper functioning. The US originally wanted the higher rate of fire to be obtained by fitting a parts kit to the existing guns but that proved impossible. A new receiver was needed.
It could take the US weeks or months to get guns from the factory to troops in the field (or airfield) so durability/reliability had a higher priority.
The Russians "paid" for their gun performance in a much higher wear rate or shorter "gun" life, however you wish to phrase it but since they figured the whole plane wasn't going to last long in combat they didn't really care. Their airfields were also a lot closer to the factories.
The Americans did get the .50 cal Browning up to 1100-1200rpm by the end of the war unsynchronized.
They could have reached that figure much sooner had they been willing to accept a higher parts breakage rate, or shorter "gun" life and/or higher jam rates.
Gun life is not barrel life, barrels could be shot out quickly and were replaceable for that reason. Gun life is when the receiver and/or bolt are no longer in factory tolerance and the fitting of new minor parts and springs will not return the gun to proper functioning. The US originally wanted the higher rate of fire to be obtained by fitting a parts kit to the existing guns but that proved impossible. A new receiver was needed.
It could take the US weeks or months to get guns from the factory to troops in the field (or airfield) so durability/reliability had a higher priority.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
You first big boy...
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 914
- Feb 16, 2013
To be honest, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe has about the same relationship with modern PC flight sims as does Space Invaders. The 30 years since SWOTL has seen some pretty remarkable advancements. I am certainly not claiming that playing a PC game is the same as flying a real aircraft, but it sure looks good!
*Edit* I should add, that my dad gave me "Their Finest Hour" (A PC game in the same series as SWOTL) for Christmas sometime around 1990. I fondly remember that to this day, as my all time favorite Christmas present. Video games of that era came with elaborate manuals, and 10 year old me poured through the history of the Battle of Britain as a result. I had lost track of flight sim games the last 15 years or so, and was quite astounded to see DCS in 4K resolution and in virtual reality.
Maybe in a generation or two, we wont be able to tell the difference, if there even ARE piloted combat aircraft anymore at that point.
Last edited:
Basically the fighters are going to go where the bombers are. It was similar in China and to some extent in North Africa and the Pacific as well, if not quite to the same extent.
IIRC 2-stage Merlin with intercooler was developed for Wellington VI or for high altitude bomber generally, that was Merlin 60 and it was developed to the fighter engine Merlin 61. And Spit F. IX was a "shotgun marriage" between Spit V airframe with some local strengthening and Merlin 61 mostly because of the difficulties Spit V had with Bf 109 F and Fw 190 A. British decided that they did not have time to wait the definite Spit VII and VIII. VII being a pressurized high altitude fighter and VIII an unpressurized version of it. But I might well be wrong.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 914
- Feb 16, 2013
Off topic for sure, so my apologies. I assume the high altitude Wellington VI would have been pressurized? and if so, how in the world would you pressurize a fabric skinned fuselage?
I keep picturing a pressurized Wellington with little triangular balloons pushing out the side of the fuselage!
I keep picturing a pressurized Wellington with little triangular balloons pushing out the side of the fuselage!
Lol, that was also my first reaction when I came across Wimpy Mk VI decades ago. Seriously, it had a pressured capsule inside/attached to the front fuselage for 3 crew members. Its front fuselage had a rather strange look. I cannot remember was the rear gunner inside the capsule and remote-control the rear turret, probably not, or how the four gun rear turret was modified to allow the gunner remain effective during a long flight.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Not sure on the rear turret, some photos show planes with a rear turret and some show planes with a somewhat pointed fairing where the turret used to be. I don't know which are prototypes and which are "production" aircraft.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 914
- Feb 16, 2013
That does look like a classic "British" solution for the pressurization issue. Complete with an asymmetric (probably?) bubble for the pilot to peer through, ah la the Canberra and Sea Vixen.
Hello Clayton Magnet,
Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe reminds me very much of Duke Nukem!
It seems to be almost as bad as Sublogic Jet and I played that game for quite a while before I figured out how to win without any effort.
I also remember in the 1980's when I got my first computers, I bought a couple flight simulators and all they had were monochrome line graphics. One of them was so bad that would not even allow you to fly a loop; going vertical was not allowed!
Glad we are past those days when "suspension of disbelief" was a big issue.
- Ivan.
Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe reminds me very much of Duke Nukem!
It seems to be almost as bad as Sublogic Jet and I played that game for quite a while before I figured out how to win without any effort.
I also remember in the 1980's when I got my first computers, I bought a couple flight simulators and all they had were monochrome line graphics. One of them was so bad that would not even allow you to fly a loop; going vertical was not allowed!
Glad we are past those days when "suspension of disbelief" was a big issue.
- Ivan.
