Flyby PC

It depends is the quick answer. Many missions feature visiting all the way points as being part of that mission. If you don't visit them all, you may never complete the mission successfully. You can know if this is the case by reading the mission brief. It will read as a mission goal. If it's not there, you are free to fly the mission as you like. Be aware however that many mission variables, such as enemy interceptions and contacts can be prompted to spawn relative to your position. This may or may not be important, but if it's a CAP or combat air patrol, it could be extremely important for the mission to work. If you don't fly the prescribed route, this could result in more, or fewer contacts than predicted. Depending on the mission, this may or may not be important. If I remember correctly, in CFS3, you could even raise the probability of a spawned interception by flying above a certain altitude. Be aware these spawn 'points' won't appear on your mission map. You'd need to open the mission with the Mission Builder to see them. There are some people like to fly 'off piste' so to speak, so I'd listen to their experience. I don't know how most of the OFF missions have been constructed, and how your interaction with the enemy has been constructed. To give you some illustration, I once tried to write a CF3 mission for Operation Jericho, which followed a flight path written in the actual mission de-brief. This was just for authenticity. But because the mission was flown at low level, I'm sure I was able to script an increase in enemy interceptions if you flew above a certain altitiude for any length of time, and as such became visible to radar. There were interceptions on the real mission however, with one of the Mosquitos shot down by a FW190, and to be as accurate as possible, these FW190's were prompted to appear by spawn points located on the flight path which were consistent with the real contact points on the genuine mission. So you see it really depends on the individual mission to say whether it's a good or bad idea to abandon the prescribed flight path.

US President Truman's Distinguished Unit Citation for the Gloucestershire Regiment at Imjin :- HEADQUARTERSEIGHTH UNITED STATES ARMY KOREA (EUSAK)Office of the Commanding GeneralKPO 301GENERAL ORDERSNUMBER 2868 May 1951BATTLE HONOURS – CITATION OF UNITSBATTLE HONOURS – By direction of the President, under the provisions of Executive Order 9396(Sec 1, WD Bul. 22.1943), superseding Executive Order 9075 (Sec.III, WD Bul.II, 1942) and pursuant in authority in AR 260-15, the following units are cited as public evidence of deserved honor and distinction. The citation reads as follows:-The 1ST BATTALION GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT, BRITISH ARMY and TROOP C, 170TH INDEPENDENT MORTAR BATTERY, ROYAL ARTILLERY, attached, are cited for exceptionally outstanding performance of duty and extraordinary heroism in action against the armed enemy near Solma-ri, Korea on the 23rd, 24th and 25th of April, 1951. The 1st BATTALION and TROOP C were defending a very critical sector of the battle front during a determined attack by the enemy. The defending units were overwhelmingly outnumbered. The 83rd Chinese Communist Army drove the full force of its savage assault at the positions held by the 1st BATTALION, GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT and attached unit. The route of supply ran Southeast from the battalion between two hills. The hills dominated the surrounding terrain northwest to the Imjin River. Enemy pressure built up on the battalion front during the day 23 April. On 24 April the weight of the attack had driven the right flank of the battalion back. The pressure grew heavier and heavier and the battalion and attached unit were forced into a perimeter defence on Hill 235. During the night, heavy enemy forces had by-passed the staunch defenders and closed all avenues of escape. The courageous soldiers of the battalion and attached unit were holding the critical route selected by the enemy for one column of the general offensive designed to encircle and destroy 1st Corps. These gallant soldiers would not retreat. As they were compressed tighter and tighter in their perimeter defence, they called for close-in air strikes to assist in holding firm. Completely surrounded by tremendous numbers, these indomitable, resolute, and tenacious soldiers fought back with unsurpassed fortitude and courage. As ammunition ran low and the advancing hordes moved closer and closer, these splendid soldiers fought back viciously to prevent the enemy from overrunning the position and moving rapidly to the south. Their heroic stand provided the critically needed time to regroup other 1st Corps units and block the southern advance of the enemy. Time and again efforts were made to reach the battalion, but the enemy strength blocked each effort. Without thought of defeat or surrender, this heroic force demonstrated superb battlefield courage and discipline. Every yard of ground they surrendered was covered with enemy dead until the last gallant soldier of the fighting battalion was over-powered by the final surge of the enemy masses. The 1st BATTALION, GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT and TROOP C, 170th INDEPENDENT MORTAR BATTERY displayed such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing their mission under extremely difficult and hazardous conditions as to set them apart and above other units participating in the same battle. Their sustained brilliance in battle, their resoluteness, and extraordinary heroism are in keeping with the finest traditions of the renowned military forces of the British Commonwealth, and reflect unsurpassed credit on these courageous soldiers and their homeland.BY COMMAND OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL VAN FLEET.OFFICIALLEVEN C ALLENMajor General US Army.Chief of Staff.L. W. STANLEY.Colonel AGC.Adjutant General.

That incident in Korea is reportedly true, but there's something odd about it. To me it seems odd that such a fundamental misunderstanding at such a critical time and in such difficult circumstances would hinge on one expression in one single and such very brief communication. In the face of such a massive Chinese onslaught, there would have been contact reports, situation reports, intelligence, calls for air support, artillery support, ammunition, reinforcements and the usual plethora of frantic military communications. To me this one incident has all the hallmarks of someone being made the scapegoat for wider failures. You don't base your defence strategy on one-off casual remarks. The press might think you do, but in my experience it just doesn't work like that. 'Command' would want to know numbers, strengths, composition of opposing forces, etc, - all the information HQ would need to assess the strategic significance of the attack - Is it a feint or diversionary attack or the real thing? Being 'a bit sticky' means absolutely nothing, there is no objective information on which to base any decision. It may well have been said, and drawn publicity like the "Nuts" remarks at Bastogne, but I just cannot see it being so pivotal to the outcome of the battle. If it was, then it speaks volumes about a dangerously weak command structure, and I just don't think that is credible. The Battle of Imjin is actually a prime example of British nerve and backbone holding the line against truly extraordinary odds while covering an orderly retreat of UN forces back to a prepared line of defence which successfully held the Chinese. If the British had crumbled, the UN forces were in deep, deep trouble, with two US divisions likely to be outflanked and the South Korean capital of Soeul almost certainly falling to the Chinese. But even if it is true, it is only once incident, in fact THE only incident I can recall where British reserve has served to their disadvantage. This British unflappability and reserve typically manifests itself as extraordinary stoicism and resilience. It is often ridiculed as eccentricity, but that is missing the point. I've thougt of another example too - In the film A Bridge too far, when the Germans approach the beleaugered Paratroops holding the bride to discuss terms of surrender.Major Harry Carlyle: We'd like to, but we can't accept your surrender! Was there anything else? ... I think the quote might not be true, but one officer did take an umbrella into battle because he could never remember passwords and reckoned the umbrella would identify him as British. And before you laugh, this was Major Allison Digby Tatham-Warter DSO. He was captured at the Bridge at Arnhem, but subsequently escaped from the Germans and contacted the resistence, and organised the escape of dozens of other Paratroops caught behind the lines. He also didn't have much faith in the British radios, so did in fact introduce bugles to his troops for communication, and this featured briefly in the film too. Mad? Maybe a little. But to lift a Wiki quote - "Whilst searching for spare ammunition for his squad, signalman George Lawson saw Tatham-Warter, "the coolest chap I ever saw, walking about with his red beret, with one arm in a sling, with his umbrella hooked over it and his right hand holding a revolver, directing operations." When Lawson explained what he was doing, Tatham-Warter said "Hurry up and get back to your post, soldier; there are snipers about".

It isn't really a joke as in something funny Olham, it's not even intended to be particularly funny. It's all about the British being unflappable in the face of adversity. A little bit of humour lets you smile at your difficulties rather than weep. One of the most famous examples of it happened at Waterloo in 1815. Lord Uxbridge was sitting on his horse beside Wellington when a cannon ball shattered his leg. Despite what must have been complete agony and shock, the exchange between himself and Wellington was "By God, Sir, I've lost my leg", to which Wellington replied, "By God, Sir, So you have!". There are lots of examples of it, as often as not sending it up. The funniest perhaps being Monty Pythons Black Knight getting his arms and legs hacked off, but holding his ground while insisting "Tis but a scratch". Then there's Hugh Laurie in Blackadder asking permission for his top lip to wobble. Carry on Up the Khyber - when they contitue to eat dinner while the residence is being shelled. In fact, if I remember right, they even go out after dinner to bag some of the enemy, just the same as that para bagging a tank. Many Brits, especially those in authority and positions of leadership, openly aspire to be calm and collected in the most extreme crisis. It's called the stiff upper lip, and the irony is, is that having such an attitude, the attitude itself has often been the only reason why people have held their nerve when their every instinct was screaming at them to run away. It's more a statement of defiance tinged with humour rather than humour by itself, but reveals a disciplined state of mind. If one can hold his nerve, it inspires others to do the same. It's a state of mind which doesn't only hide someones fear, it goes further, and actually helps to calm it. Another more subtle example of the similar attitude is seen in MGM's Battle of Britain film when Ralph Richardson, playing the Britih Embassador in Switzerland is threatened by Curd Jürgens. When the German embassador leaves, he says "It's unforgiveable. I lost my temper". He is in fact deeply worried, but professes to be more concerned by his manners, and the undignified loss of his unflappable and calm exterior. That Para is just popping out to 'bag' a tank, as if it's the easiest thing in the world, just like some Toff might bag a couple of pheasants before breakfast. Can I recommend some reading Olham? Read the poem "If" by Rudyard Kipling. 'If' by Rudyard Kipling If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or being hated, don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise: If you can dream - and not make dreams your master, If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools: If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!" If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son! Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

I believe that's why the British tanks were so slow. They weren't designed to be slow, but just not designed to be fast. They were only envisaged as support for entrenched infantry, and as such, they didn't anticipate needing speeds much above that of infantry units on foot, just like your MkIV and Whippet tanks in WW1. The Churchill Tank had a top speed of 16mph early in the war, which reduced to 12mph once extra armour was added. It's armour was thicker than a Tigers, it just wasn't sloped, and it's gun of course was much lighter. The British tanks are often slated for being poor, but at El Alamein, one Churchill survived 80 hits from German shells. I suppose they weren't bad, just obsolete too quickly perhaps, and too often under powered and under-gunned. Hobarts funnies were also Churchills. All this refence to the PIAT has encouraged me to read up a bit more about it. I've seen PIATs in museums and like British Tanks, I had always been given to believe the PIAT was a crude and rubbish piece of kit which bounced off tanks and wasn't up to the job of destroying them. I think this is perhaps a bit harsh. It's range was not very far, and the projectile could be unreliable, but used correctly, (and avoiding frontal armour) it was capable of penetrating 75mm armour and destroying any tank in the theatre, including Tigers. The shaped charge was relatively new technology, but on impact, the cone shape fired a plug of molten metal at high pressure to penetrate the armour, with the larger pressure wave following behind and entering the vehicle. - Much the same technology as a Panzerfaust. Despite what I've heard otherwise, the PIAT was also every bit as effective as the American Bazooka, but it took 90kg of pressure to draw back and cock the weapon. I can only wonder if that's a misprint. That's 14 stone!!! You'd have to put your full body weight into cocking it! It also took 2 fingers just to pull the trigger. Effective or not, I can see why it wouldn't be popular.

I remember asking a question on the old CFS3 sim about RAF gunners putting on 1 or 1.5 rings of deflection on, and what the 'ring' part referred to. Someone called Grandguy replied. I forget his exact words, but in essence he said if his memory served correctly, it was a way to adjust the gunsight for a deflection shot. I was intrigued, and quizzed him about his memory, and where and how he was using this gunsight, and it turns out the man was an actual tail gunner in a Lancaster with his all Canadian crew in 1944/45. He'd flown a few operational sorties, and passed on a few of his tales which were absolutely brilliant. Sadly, I heard Grandguy passed away a short time ago, but it was a priviledge to have spoken to him. He had a high regard and gratitude to the P-51 escorts. He recounted how on one mission he noticed activity in the air behind him, and flashing planes approaching. One of the neighbouring Lancasters to his took damage, and the penny dropped he was under attack. The planes were Me262s, and as they approached he tried to open fire but his guns jammed. The mid turret behind opened up, but by the time he managed to re-cock his own guns, he only had time to fire a very short burst. That was his contribution to the war effort. He was nevertheless very glad to see three Mustangs barreling past after the Me262's. He told another tale about a take off one time, when he was stuck in the rear turret watching the take off, but suddenly aware everything, as in control towers etc, was much closer than it usually was. He put it out of his mind and forgot about it until after the mission. It turned out the Pilot had been told he could keep his aircraft straight on the runway using his rudder and ailerons instead of the brakes, and his first attempt to try out the theory had come perilously close to disaster when his take off had gone significantly off course. I've done that loads of times in a sim, but it must have been 'exciting' to say the least to do it in a real Lancaster. His final tale was my favourite, because he was trained as an air gunner in Canada, and got live practice in a Fairey Battle. There were three trainees at a time taken up for a go on the machine gun. The Battle however had a big hole in the floor, where you could poke your head out and get a great view of the scenery. Not wishing to fall out while having a look, he held on for dear life to these metal bars beside the gap he was looking through. Suddenly the flight became more turbulent, and the angry pilot started swearing and gesticulating. That is how Grandguy came to learn where the control rods for the aircraft were situated, and what happened if gripped them very tightly. Rest in peace Grandguy, but it was a massive pleasure to make your acquaintance. I was so very glad I'd asked my question about the deflection rings. You just never know who is out there.

The airborne stuff is amazing! I've never seen such closely related 'then and now' pictures. I think it's too easy to forget this is still living memory, and I cannot imagine how important such images are for the troops who were there. Then there are people like Harry Patch, the last fighting Tommie of WW1, who didn't even talk about his war until he was 100 years old. The other thing which impresses me is how easy it is for the importance of a picture to be lost. I find myself looking at lots of war time pictures, but you get a kind of snow blindness, and stop really looking. It's great to learn so much more about these pictures. In years to come, I think we may regret keeping all our images digital. It's just not the same as a pile of black and white photos. There are lots of pictures my dad took which I have no idea where they are nor why he took the picture. It's funny about UKW's father not liking the Japs and Italians, and Mikes Grandpa wanting only to visit Norway. My father spent time in Egypt and Iraq, and without being rude about it, he wasn't very impressed with the locals. The 'Arabs' for want of a better word were always trying to con or pickpocket everybody and couldn't really be trusted. The only people he had any time for were the Kurds, whom he liked a lot, but I have no more background into his reasoning. He didn't like the Nips either. And just to harken back to the Skua again, it seems pretty obvious (but might not be correct), that the line up of Swordfish, Skua and Seafire, is not unlike the American compostion of carrier based aircraft typified by Midway, you had Avenger torpedo bombers, Dauntless dive bombers, and Wildcat fighter cover. Whether that's true, I don't know, but there are some obvious parallels. And finally, your google browser has a translation capacity. Right click on the foreign language page, and menu pops up, look down the list and "Translate with Bing". And if it's just a short expression you want to translate, try Yahoo's Babelfish page. Type in the text you want translated and tell it which language you want.

Wouldn't it be good if you could knit something like this with OFF and have a full on multiplayer world, with an OFF multiplayer campaign in the skies above a full on Battlefield 1918 (or similar) campaign being fought on the ground. Have a big rolling battlefield where you can join and leave where you like and fly or drive what you want, and how ever many players you wanted too. Imagine the options there would be if there were actual people driving army units on the ground. You could support or attack them, influence battles, actually spot for artillery in real time. Imagine the options you'd give them too. Ah, one day ...... so long as it isn't me paying the phone bill.

That's excellent news UKW, I'm really chuffed for you. I hope it all works out.

That's well cool Kaa. I also had an uncle at Monte Cassino, but no idea of any details. To be honest, he was always referred to as Uncle Tommy, (his name, not just a British Tommy) but this might just be because he was a friend of the family, but I'm not sure he was a genuine uncle. I don't know much about my mothers side of the family, - never paid much attention really. You don't really care much when you're young. He was also a Canadian, and it might have been 'uncle' by marriage. I also had another uncle, Ian Shaw, who fought through North Africa and up into Italy, and I reckon he must have been at Monte Casino too. He was married to my grand mothers sister, and brother to Wilson Shaw. Wilson Shaw played international rugby for Scotland and captained the side that won the Triple Crown in 1938. http://en.wikipedia....ert_Wilson_Shaw He is a bona fida relation, but by marriage, so none of his blood in my veins. He died when I was a kid, and when his wife died in the 80's, I inherited his Rolex watch. I thought yahoo! Kerching! How cool is that! Unfortunately this is THE rolex watch he wore in the desert and throughout his war, and frankly, you've never in your life seen such a worn out watch. The metal parts of the bracelet around the face are actually worn right through. We had it valued at around £1000 if it was repaired, but the quote for repairing it was £1200. What a pain. One of these days, maybe, but I don't know. It's knackered, but the way in which it got knackered is just as cool as having it fixed. @ MikeDixon. That rocks too Mike. The chance is slim right enough, but it's possible I've perhaps seen your Grandpa - not that I'd know of course. At one time I was a mere TA Para, and there were a couple of parades on Airborne Forces day at Aldershot when we lined the route while the old and bold marched by, many of whom were WW2 Veterans. EDIT - Sorry Mike, I missed the bit below the pic about him passing on in the 70's. I should pay more attention before opening my big gob. I might have saluted his mates though...

No not quite Rugbyfan, for the full on Dh Mosquito experience, you need to start in 1939. You need that two years of 'campaign mode' anticipation, wondering "Why am I flying this piece of **!"* instead of a decent aircraft I want to fly?" You need to have that two year period of expectation when you know you're in a war and desperately crave something like a Mosquito. You need to spend two years examining your arsenal of war planes and realise that beyond the Hurricanes, Spitfighters, and Beaufighters etc, there is still something missing. You must realise deep down that what your country needs is an aircraft which is bigger, faster, drop dead gorgeous, kicks like a mule, can fight or flee with the very best the enemy has to offer, and carries a bomb load bigger than a B17, and is just downright brutal to things it doesn't like. But at the end of the day, this is about the OFF P4 screenshot and scenery, and while I fly both OFF and CFS3, with every OFF release, my CFS3 just looks worse and worse, and more and more crude. The best CFS3 scenery I have looks like you're flying without your glasses on, and IL2 looks like Pixar made it. I know, I probably could find the way to put some WW2 aircraft into the P4 scenery, but that feels wrong, like defiling a work of art. But I honestly do think that when P4 comes out, maybe then or later a tweaked landscape for CFS3 would also sell as payware, and you guys have already done the work to earn every penny.

Who needs Garmin or Tom Tom? I'm just going to use OFF P4. At the risk of saying the wrong thing and being burned outside the Mess for heresy, I find myself desperately wanting to buzz that villages high street with my Mossie. When it's ready, what say you fellas to a P4 scenery add-on you can slap straight into CFS3? Like Hellshade says, I'd pay for the scenery alone. I know you chaps are WW1 from boots to goggles, but I mean it. P4 and P4+21. That is outstanding chaps.

I've been aware of Tochi's stunning videos for ages now, but these clips are all new to me! Superb find. It's like Christmas!

And how lucky we are in the UK that the Luftwaffe never learned how ineffective a tactic surfing actually was. All the history books say the same, that in WW2 the Royal Observer Corps looked out over the Channel and saw "wave after wave" of German Bombers heading towards the coast, but unknown to theLuftwaffe, the RAF had chain radar stations all along the coast which would ultimately turn that tide. It's all there and written down!

I agree Olham, but Hitler is the pivotal point for everything else. Remove him from the picture, and and you change everything else. If Hitler had died of his battlefield wound, or even been permanently blinded by the gas, Anne Frank would never have written her diary. Hitler was a pivotal point in history which changed the course of that history.

That's true UKW and Lima, I don't expect I'd enjoy listening to the Japanese telling jokes about the British military capitulation and humiliation in Singapore. Knowledge is so much more important than propaganda. If I was to describe a WW1 veteran infantry NCO, decorated for courage, who survived the horror of the trenches, but saw action at Ypres, Messines, The Somme and Passchendaele, was wounded in the leg but went back to front to be with his men, and suffered from the effects of a mustard gas attack, including temporary blindness, I'm guessing you, like me, feel a sense of admiration welling up inside. That is rightful admiration you are feeling, but you feel different and a little guilty when you realise I'm talking about Adolph Hitler of course. My point is if you'd met Hitler in 1919, you'd have saluted him too, so don't be too quick to judge those German people who actually did. History allows us to ridicule and revile Hitler and his dillusions, but there are no lessons to be learned from that. We need to get to grips with Hitler, and I mean really understand the process of his rise to power. Set aside all the myths, rumours and hype, and pick out the danger signs and warnings so that any future like minded dictatorship can be identified and addressed before it escalates to involve the deaths of millions and millions of people. I have never seen any study or documentary about Hitler which documnets the change from Hitler the war time hero, and the emergence of the monster within. At what stage could the danger which Hitler posed have first been identified, and when was the final realistic opportunity to have stopped him. That's the important lesson, because when you look at modern tin pot dictators the likes of Saddam Hussain, and the list of others, becoming untouchable is one of their earliest steps, and once untouchable, it becomes that much more difficult to remove them. I'd be willing to bet that with Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Mugabe, etc, they were aleady untouchable, and embedded in their positions of strength long before the danger signs emerged.

I think it's dangerous for us to forget how unpredictable war can actually be. I feel sorry for little German school boys who want to do what British kids do, and play at being soldiers or fighter pilots because that's what all little boys want to do. They're just kids, and left alone to be kids, they will grow up to adulthood proud to be a German, a Brit, an Italian or whatever. Sooner or later however, our poor little German kid's innocent world full of hope and idealism is forever bound to collide with the dark history of Hitler and his Nazi's, and that's going to shatter everything and mark him forever. Why do I feel sorry for him? Because it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with him. I don't think what happened in Germany was uniquely German. Any people led in similar ways can be manipulated and driven to hate and despise others. Hate is a base instinct which is easy to provoke and bring to the surface. It could happen anywhere, to any Nation or people, irrespective of their nationality. We are all the same, all of us. Just after WW2, Einstein said, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones". When I was younger, I thought this was a great quote, but now, well, it's still a great quote, but I believe it's dated,and cannot see beyond the use of nuclear weapons. The absolute waste which a nuclear war would make of our planet I think renders nuclear weapons obsolete. WW3 won't be our complete annhilation, it will be a dirty, grubby, long and drawn out unwinnable hate-filled battle fought in ways and places we didn't predict. It will be nasty, hateful, deceiptful and spiteful, and only considered a 'world' war because it might erupt anywhere there's a soft target or atrocity waiting to happen, then disappear as quickly as it broke out, only to happen somewhere else. Think about it. If our enemies cannot combat our weapons, bombs or aircraft, we can be sure that isn't where they will seek to fight us. When I see our Western troops deployed in the Middle East, I get more than a little uncomfortable. I think of all the wars and foreign invasions which countries like Afghanistan has been put through, and add to this, all the hate, mistrust and frustration there is out there, and this extended period of 'tension' between the West and Islam. I don't want to open a can of worms by saying anything beyond the fact I get more than a little bit uncomfortable and frequently remember a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte. "You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war". These Middle East trouble spots are festering sores on our planet and we should be working tirelessly to properly resolve them. Stalemate is not an option.

I know, I know, much too easy for our Lou. I thought about being mean and asking him to name the airstrip, but he'd know it was Catterick in 1933. Spot on Lou, well done sir! ..... Looks like one of my landings too. @ Olham - The word Skua is a type of bird which is a bit of a bully. It's not a hawk or a bird of prey, but kills a lot of seagull chicks, and harries gulls and other birds to drop their catches. People in the Hebridies call it a Bronx.

Sorry guys, there's VERY thick fog on the runway this morning, and the brain isn't working very well today. It wasn't Barracudas seen with Ark Royal's wreck, but Swordfish.

Sorry guys, I was confused. It was the Albacore that was meant to replace the Swordfish, not the Skua, and the Barracuda which was meant to replace the Albacore. The Swordfish outlived both.

Yes, carrier based. If I remember right the Skua was the intended replacement for the Swordfish, kind of, but the Swordfish actually outlived it. I think the Skua was more of an all-rounder than the Swordfish, and expected to contribute to the fleet fighter protection roll too, but not up to the job. I'm guessing the Skua was intended to be the obsolete Swordfish and Gladiator rolled into one plane, but fulfilling neither roll satisfactorily. It wasn't a hopeless aircraft, but totally outclassed as a fighter, so couldn't fill the fighter roll required of it. The Swordfish definitely outlived its successor, but there's a little more to it. Biplanes were considered obsolete just because they were biplanes, but by the 1940's they were very effective biplanes, critically because they were highly manouverable to land on deck on a carrier pitching about in heavy seas. Next after the Skua came the Fairey Fulmar, but the Swordfish outlived it too. The Fulmar was pretty decent, but seen off by Seafires. Both were shelved in 1945, but the Swordfish surved into 1946 as a trainer. The Strngbag Swordfish thus so off it's two successors. If I remember correctly, and it is a thin whispy memory, I think the wreck of Ark Royal still has evidence of fulmars on deck.

Yes it is fascinating Olham. I don't actually know anything much my father did, but I don't think we was ever in sheer terror or fear for his life. In fact his flying was all pre-war and must have awesome fun. I think he too missed the excitement afterwards, but I suspect that your father Olham would not feel the same. He does indeed sound extremely brave man. Just thinking about it Olham, sugar, fat and two cups of water sounds like the glucose drink given to the starving until they can handle solid food. Sounds like your old fella might have been in a bad way at the time, but that's just a guess.... Here's another pic, one for Lou perhaps. Anybody know what this is?

Wow UKW. Awesome. You must be immensely proud of him. I recently watched a series on Yesterday Channel about the SOE, and what a murkey world it was, and not just over the channel... I've just recently started to find out a lot more about my old man. He died when I was young, (He was 52 when I was born), and there's loads of things I love to have asked him. He signed up in 1932, but wasn't flight crew until 1938 as a wireless operator in Swordfish. He flew from Hal Far on Malta, but for a few months in 1938, he was flying in float Swordfish from Gibraltar. I've already shown folks the picture of the British Fleet at anchor on Gib with the neutrality turrets. But dig a little deeper, April to July in 1938 was a very bad time for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. The Nationalists had split the Republican Forces in two and were expanding along the Med coast. Obviously the show of strength by the Royal Navy wasn't a co-incidence, but I wonder whether my dads squadron moving to Gibraltar was also part of that same strategy. He went back to Malta and stayed there with the 3rd Anti Aircraft Co-Operation Unit until 1939. Most of his time was helping anti aircraft batteries practice firing, at one time towing a drogue for 802 squadron, the Gladiators from HMS Glorious. He also flew Queen Bee shoots, that is a remote control Tiger Moth used for targetting. I don't suppose he'd know then just how heavily Malta would rely on it's air defence, but I'm sure he'd be glad he did his bit. After 1939, it gets more sketchy. He was in Iraq, Egypt, India and Burma, but I don't even know what unit he was with. (The Swordfish left the Air Force and moved onto carriers as Naval personel. He stayed in the RAF as a W/T operator on the ground. I have a few photgraphs of places and people, but nothing as cohesive as his time on Malta. There was one grim picture in his collection, quite horrific really, actually as horrific as I've seen. There are 7 people in the photograph, and my father took the picture. We don't know anything more, but speculate these are Burmese who were mistreated by the Japanese, because we don't know of any wider famines occurring at the time. The Japs were hard enough on Western prisoners, but complete animals to coloured populations.

Ok this really IS my last comment. Olham if you flew as wingman to MVR and watched actively adopt evasion tactics having judged the odds were stacked against him then I admit defeat and recognise there are levels to OFF that I haven't experienced. In my experience, following an AI flight leader as No 2, all he did was fly the scripted mission. They react when attacked, but have no initiative outside the script of the mission. They won't for example deviate 1 degree off course specifically to identify whether nearby white contacts are friend or foe. (Actually, the AI already knows. Tell them to attack a white target. If it's enemy, they will, if it's friendly, they wont. You can thus identify a white target miles before it's critical). Nor will the flight leader dispatch 2 scouts to check it out and come back with the appropriate intelligence. You'd do that all the time flying escort in multiplayer. But look what your saying. The Spad XIII's stayed high. You are both making the same logical connection between the same two things you see in off, but your conception is a feature of the Sim, not reality. There is no evidence that SPAD XIIIs were recognised by reputation to adopt high altitude. Please don't paint me as the bad guy criticising OFF for a weakness, it's not an OFF weakness but a combat sim weakness. I agree the OFF battles are excellent and the best experience you can get currently, but can't you see what I do? I haven't seen an immelman manouver performed by an AI - never. Barrel rolls yes, but they were passive and sloppy, more like general flight than a specific crisp manourve. If AI bandits attack from the sun, it's pure chance which caused it to happen. I agree that OFF is getting there. I even believe you possibly could program an AI pilot to execute an Immelman manouvre to escape a pursuing fighter, but the CFS3 limitations would see that aircraft then adopt the Immelman manouvre by random selection from a very short list of possible manoures. What you'd very quickly see is that particular aircraft doing immelman manouvres at the drop of a hat, and with such regularity that you'd begin to identify that type of aircraft as an 'Immelman turner' when in actual fact it is no more like to perform an Immelman than any other aircraft. Just as you are identifying altitide as a characteristic of the Spad. The one exception to this is the DR1. I reckon, now don't call my bluff, but I reckon, if you flew a quick combat fighting a smiley, that is a blind trial fighting an unknown aircraft, I reckon the only aircraft you could identify simply by the way it flew would perhaps be the DR1 or Triplehound. That works because the identifying characteristics are flight model based, as in it turns and climbs better, just like the real thing. I'm not harping on about this any more. I genuinely don't want to burst anybody's immersion bubble. And I do look forward to P4 immensly. For the record, I think the OFF crew have an excellent grasp of the limitations I'm describing, and have done a trully marvelous and spectacular job to achieve what they already have.

My last comment on this fellas. Common to all your advice, you all describe you at the centre of the mission issuing commands to your flight. I know how to do all of that, but I also know that's all you can do. No AI aircraft can give you a command back. Nor will you see one AI aircraft give any command to another AI aircraft. I don't know of any sim where you can elect to fly as a No 2 in order to watch and learn how an experienced pilot goes about doing things. All I'm saying is that if you could do that, it would be pretty cool and a major step forward in combat flight simming. Why do I have a bee in my bonnet about this? Well, it started when I used to make videos, and it was acutely frustrating that I couldn't make anybody else do anything I wanted them to do. I had to do it myself. Have you ever seen any AI do an Immelman? A barrel roll? In CFS3, the fighters built for boom and zoom combat do not actually adopt boom and zoom tactics in a dogfight. Don't you think an air combat simulator which hasn't the capacity to address actual air combat is missing a trick? I repeat guys, I'm not having a dig at OFF, I'm talking in general. OFF is proof you can make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but there are still some CFS3 issues which cannot be improved. Here's a test for you to show you what I mean, - write a mission and have bandits attack you from the sun. I know you can build missions so you're not flight leader, but nobody else take any more intitative than they do as normal wingmen, all that happens is that AI aircraft higher up the chain of command than you ignore you. Last line in my last comment? OK, new direction, how cool would it be to get the built in video utilities which are in CFS3 somewhere up and working again? Is that do-able? Not for P4, but cracking that code would make a nice addition to P5....... (The cracking isn't literal, I mean figuring it out, cough, cough).