JFM

I took these at Vimy Ridge when I was there in 2011: Although grass covered and eroded, the shell holes are still well evident.

Lots of fantastic things ahead for us from Bruno! One of the most important is his fact-based revelation about the fallicy of gray-shade interpretation, coming to Over the Front. Going to open many eyes... Wha-wha-what? You say you don't get the Over the Front journal? If you waste--I mean spend money on cable TV and have a real interest in WW1 aviation, then there's no excuse. Click here: http://www.overthefront.com/

Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in...

Nice, but noticed some significant gaps that need filling. I always recommend these to people because IMO they are that important to the serious and casual student of WW1 aviation history: http://www.schifferbooks.com/search/results.html?search_in_description=1&search-option=&keyword=imperial+german+eagles&x=0&y=0 The Imperial German Eagles in World War I: Their Postcards and Pictures. That links you to Vols 1, 2, and 3. These three books cast shadows over most if not all other German aviation books as Mt Everest casts a shadow on an anthill. http://www.amazon.com/Tumult-Clouds-British-Experience-1914-18/dp/034063846X/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398112540&sr=1-11&keywords=Tumult+in+the+clouds There was SO much more to the air war than scout vs scout dogfighting. This book details it from the British perspective. :)

Hi, 33L, From my research and studies for my MvR book, I believe Thoughts in a Dugout was written by MvR after the autobiography, but not in 1918. All evidence I've found indicates that in April 1918, MvR was 1. not morose, 2. not withdrawn, 3. no longer had headaches, 4. the Germans had been on a strong advance (Kaiserschlacht). This is based on personal recollections of those flying with MvR, numerous photographs, interviews with MvR, and his combat performance Thoughts in a Dugout was more likely written ca. mid/late August 1917, shortly after his headwound, when he had begun flying again but before he had been ordered away on recuperative leave. In March 1918, his head wound was 8 months old. He no longer even wore a bandage on it. He had been away from the front on leave most of September and October 1917, most of December, and all of January 1918--i.e., he was well rested, with little flying in the winter after his return. He shot down 11 planes that month (two Big Acks, an RE8, a Biff, four Camels, two SE5as, and a Dolphin), 6 in April (one RE8 and five Camels), with long periods of bad weather preventing even more victories. This was his best performance since Bloody April a year before. He was fit, active, friendly, jovial, accessible (ie., not "behind four walls"), at the top of his fighting form. Thoughts in a Dugout matches nothing in that period. However, it does match everything with mid/late August 1917. His wound was slow to heal. He was bandaged. He had to get bone splinters removed from it. A letter home indicates he was unwell after flying. Other letters indicate his displeasure/frustration/disagreeent with the tactical doctrin being forced upon the Staffeln. A conversation in early July, recalled by Bodenschatz, revealed MvR's grim assessment of the current state of the war. He was frustrated with the Albatros company after being shot down in a new Albatros DV, the performance of which mirrored the DIII and did not offer the expected performance increase sought by German pilots. The Third Battle of Ypres had begun. All of these things better match the tone of TIADO. IMO, people look for "a reason why" MvR was shot down, as if he were some invincible god. I.e., he must have been unwell, must have had PTSD, on 21 April had "violated his personal combat tactics" (he had not), etc. Baloney. He had flown a short distance over enemy lines at low altitude, chasing a lone plane by himself--these are things he had done many times before. The last time he did so, he caught a bullet. C'est la guerre.

Artistic license is what it's going to take, I agree, because MvR's autobiography has nothing to do with either Fokker Dr.Is or 1918. But, why not late 1916? MvR was at the sharp end of the brand new Albs while flying with Boelcke in Jasta 2, and he's written about flying them in his autobiography. The arrival of the Albatros in 1916 was a pivotal event of WW1 aerial warfare. Sure, WOFF doesn't have the Albatros D.I, but it has the Albatros D.II and there is the very famous fight with MvR and Hawker that is in MvR's autobiography. How about Udet's Ace of the Iron Cross for a Fokker Dr.I in 1918? He writes a pretty cool account of flying one with MvR, shooting down an RE8, watching MvR shoot down a Camel, and then the both of them (and others) strafing ground troops afterwards. MvR/Udet flying Fokker Dr.Is in 1918, based on Udet's book, equals two birds with one stone! I know, I know, "Yankee go Home"! (Hasse, where's the sign? ) Despite my pedanthood, I think you have a fun idea and look forward to the results.

Sounds cool! But, FYI, Richthofen's autobiography was written in May 1917 and published later that year, before he began flying the Fokker Dr.I. Thus, his book contains no accounts of flying that make/model of airplane.

Hauksbee, I never had anything like you describe with the Walfisch. Most odd! Perhaps, as mentioned earlier, you were over gross weight. Regarding the altimeter. Airplane altimeters read the altitude above mean sea level, which is known as true altitude. We don't set altimeters in WOFF, but you adjust them to the known air pressure and the resultant display is the altitude above sea level. Thus, with an altimeter set to the known air pressure, it would read approx 195 meters/640 feet while the airplane was sitting on the ground at an airfield in Verdun. If you don't know the air pressure, you just adjust the altimeter to read the known elevation above sea level. Thus, in this Verdun example, if you want to fly 1000 feet above the ground (AGL, or above ground level, also known as absolute altitude) you would climb until the altimeter read 1640 feet. You'd be at 1640 feet above sea level, but the land itself rises 640 feet above sea level, and thus you'd be 1000 feet above the land. Clear as mud? Mind you, this is based on personal flying. I am not an expert on WW1 altimeters and they may not have been adjustable; I just don't know right now unless I delve into it. Still, although I don't know where you landed, since you were near Verdun, 700 feet sounds about right. BTW, didn't the airplanes in OFF used to change locations on the airfield, based on the direction of the wind? For instance, one mission you may go to start the mission and find the planes linedup on the west side fo the field to takeoff to the east, and on another mission find them lined up on the east side of the field to takeoff to the west. I haven't seen that yet in WOFF. In any event, if there is a big wind I'll taxi to takeoff into it, and I always come back and land into it, regardless of takeoff direction.

To address this just for the sake of learning and not leaving it hanging, we discovered on another forum that the word "flak" was indeed used by the Germans in WW1. As JimAtrill stated, the term Archie was used by RFC pilots. Although, in RFC combat reports and squadron record books, at least, I more often see "A.A." or "A.A. fire." Here is a German report from July 1917 in which "Flak" appears in two other compound words:

Here are some photos I took when I was there last: Brickworks. KiA Field. Two more of the field. Holy cow, didn't realize the shots would come through so big! I'll leave them, unless there are complaints.

Congrats, Adger!

It's been over three weeks since this thread started... So, anybody? Anybody at all... Beuller?

Okay, I get it, there were three rewards offered but only one guess that fell within the format, thus one winner. Thanks for sorting that out for me, VB!

The rules state Grand prize, 2nd prize, 3rd prize. How is that one winner?

Well? Can't be hard to find the thread, there's a link to it in post #9. Have the three winners been determined?

Hell, my monthly cable bill is more than sixty bucks. And that's for the most moronic, intellect-stunting pabulum imagineable. So WOFF was a no-brainer. (Although, if that were true, it'd be on TV, wouldn't it? But, you get my point.)

Hey, I don't have any arguments and I'm not fighting. If it's too hard to click a mouse or you don't want to click a mouse, whatever. I don't "mind." People can either stay here and wait to be informed or be proactive and go to where the information is and inform themselves. Whatever you want to do. Regardless, I'm not arguing that anybody "do" anything. Von Baur, I can't speak regarding the OBD promise, because I was unaware of it until now or just forgot. Probably the former. As Lou said, it seems that in time CA would set up a WOFF forum, and then OBD can start posting stuff on CA. BTW, as of this post, 80 people at The Official WOFF site. New relationships to be had and fostered... To be extra clear, I'm not saying anybody is "wrong." Anyone wants to use The Official WOFF forum or not for whatever reasons on earth, then so be it! Meanwhile, I'm going to the official WOFF forum to look at more of Hellshade's new videos.

Hey, you guys can prefer what you like, I'm not trying to stop that at all! "You wanna go where everyone knows your name." I get it. But, as of now, there is only one WOFF forum, and it's not on CA. And, frankly, OFF=the past and WOFF=the present/the future. I am not implying OFF is going away, so put down the flame throwers. I assume many, many guys will fly it for a long time to come. But even though I've not even flown WOFF yet it seems safe to say OFF is not in the league of what WOFF is and what WOFF will become. Javito 1986, this is not the original home of OFF. It's at least the second. Years ago there was a huge, massive, forced move to here. But see? Time rolls on, locations change, but when the dust settles things are still good.

The herd isn't lost, it's at SimHQ. As of me typing these words right now, there are 9 viewers here. There are 12 viewers at the Sim HQ OFF forum and 65 viewers at the SimHQ WOFF forum. Clearly, it's a no-brainer where the devs need to focus. Not to mention there's not even a WOFF forum at Combat Ace.

"But the Spitfire is an icon" implies the 109 is not but--undebatably--it is. Not trying at all to dissuade anyone's preference, just saying.

Was that comedy? Seriously, i.e, supposed to induce laughter? Probably not, and it didn't, since it's such a tired, worn-out subject. I'm not offended in the slightest but, damn, just another UK guy blathering on for God knows what reason about why Americans call football soccer and football football. Since this topic has come up time and time again in the last 30 years I've been subjected to it, I'll help the UK guys learn US definitions: Football: The US game Clease accurately described. (I can't watch football anymore, unless I'm in a stadium, because the hype and schlock and fluff are too egregious.) Born from rugby, US football was initially a combo of rugby and soccer rules and the ball could not be picked up by the hands or carried. Thus, "football." The name has stuck despite the sport growing/morphing into what it is today. This can't be that hard to comprehend and remember. Soccer: What US kids play on saturday mornings. Alternate definitions: Football: Game in the UK and many countries that 99% of Americans neither follow nor care about. They use the word "football" for their football; we use the word "football" for our football. Kind of like how they use lift (US=elevator), torch (flashlight), bonnet (hood), bird (chick), windscreen (windshield), etc. Who cares why/that the UK and US use different words? Soccer: What the US calls the game in the UK and many countries that 99% of Americans neither follow nor care about. Soccer: A professional game in the US that 1% of Amercians follow or care about. There. Class dismissed.

You have to go back to page 33 and read the posts prior to the new screenshots.

Good luck and Godspeed! At this point the cause is irrelevant. What's done is done. The important part now is your recovery. (Have to add [parenthetically, because it is OT from your post], I admire your bold acceptance of responsibility. In my observations, such a positive quality is eroding, at least in the US.)

Let's not forget that we're talking about several airplanes carrying a few small bombs that had extremely poor accuracy. It's not as if the skies were blackened by B-24s or something. But regarding the original post, there are many, many German reports in which the call came in from spotters that planes were approaching, and off they went to intercept ASAP. No mention of "we waited until they dropped their bombs, then attacked."

I didn't think that was stated clearly enough, and I've seen groundspeed often confused with airspeed, so wanted to augment the point. BTW, sorry Hauksbee, I attributed a comment you made to Lou, the one about soldiers in airplanes. My mistake.