Jump to content

DukeIronHand

SENIOR MEMBER
  • Content count

    730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DukeIronHand

  1. CaptSopwith's thread about "How you found OFF" got me remembering. In thinking about it I had a flashback to the one defining moment that began my WW1 aerial passion - or maybe obsession is a better word. I was a young lad of, I'm guessing about 10 years old, and had done some WW1 reading, was interested, but thats as far as it went. Then, I remember it well, on late night television (or "telly" for our UK friends), I saw it...the Holy Grail so to speak...the movie "The Dawn Patrol" with Errol Flynn, David Niven, Basil Rathbone, etc. Made quite an impression on my young mind and started me digging, more books, magazines, board games - Richthofen's War by Avalon Hill, Fight in the Skies by Mike Carr - and then the progression into the computer world starting with a C64 in the early 80's. The rest is history as they say. Do you have one defining moment or was it a gradual progression?
  2. Scramble!?

    Isn't there a line in some .xml file somewhere that could be tweaked to massively reduce or even eliminate these "scramble" missions? EDIT: Another double post...stupid Firefox
  3. Nothing heroic about it

    Capitaine Vengeur, Just to back-up British_eh, so to speak, and without getting all long winded (as I have a tendency to do) I would guess that, understanding the air war as I do, that the Allied aces high preponderance of single-seater claims has to do with the dynamics of the air war and how it played out for the Germans. I can think of about 6 reasons off the top but I promised not to be all wordy! S!
  4. Nothing heroic about it

    Necessity indeed. Grand? The German infantry probably thought so! I have read several older books (prior WW2) by English and Canadian authors that attempt to belittle MvR's victory score because of the number of two-seaters he shot down citing them, essentially, as helpless victims. A real gentleman would only go after fellow fighters they say. Time has mellowed this quite a bit. I am no MvR "fanboi" (but there are plenty of them) but he understood, as most fliers did I am sure, that the whole reason for the air war was the two-seaters. They were the ones doing the arty adjusting, photo recon, etc, etc. They are the ones that made the difference in the ground war. The single-seaters only purpose was to shoot them down or protect them from enemy single-seaters. Nothing else. It was a bloody "kill or be killed" war - like they all are. And for the airmen, certainly the Germans, two-seaters had to be the priority target. And, though I do not have the numbers, in generalized reading of how certain airmen met their fate, the two-seaters appear to almost have given as good as they got. Plenty of airmen fell victims to a two-seater crew. Interestingly AA was a big killer too but not as much as air to air of course. EDIT: I see Wayfarer was typing the same time I was - gotta stop being so long-winded!
  5. When it Rains Old WWI Books, it Pours

    Yes, the e-books you posted are priceless. Thanks again for those. In fact, because of them, I am buying an electronic reader...the $139.00 from Amazon whose name (Kindle?) escapes me now. It reads .pdf files. The only thing I need to confirm is that you can hook it up to your computer and transfer .pdf files to it. I am almost certain you can but want to triple-check! I have come to discover that I really don't like "reading books" on my computer...one of my several odd quirks I guess.
  6. When it Rains Old WWI Books, it Pours

    Hehe...many thanks!!
  7. Historical precedent for reduced fuel load?

    And as a Part 2 I guess the order from the Kogenluft of January, 1918 cutting fuel load to double ammo speaks volumes about how they perceived the air war to be going.
  8. Historical precedent for reduced fuel load?

    You learn something new everyday. I have always thought that 500 rounds/gun (in the double Spandau fighters)was pretty much the case throughout the war.
  9. Historical precedent for reduced fuel load?

    You are correct Olham that some sorties could be short but the key phrase here I think is "when they made contact." According to the same book, which I am currently reading again, MvR and his group would engage in a combat, and when the enemy was dispersed, attempt to reform over a landmark (with pilots guiding on MvR's highly recognizable paint job) and continue the patrol sometimes engaging in multiple group/squadron size fights per sortie. Kilduff mentions this in some detail in the first chapter. And Hasse Wind is, of course, correct. Multiple sorties during high offensive times were typical. I read somewhere (I think Kilduff again) that MvR, with JG1 in the summer of 1917, and on a typical good weather day, had the squadrons fly Jasta strength patrols, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. This was the regular routine. In times of high offensive action we would presume there may be more. In one his letters to HQ MvR states that "4 hours" in the air (two patrols) was best as far as pilot effectiveness goes. And yes carrick58 the exact definition of "endurance", as used here, would be interesting. Again I read somewhere that endurance was defined as a typical war load with normal flight parameters and 30 minutes of combat thrown in. If that is how it is meant here though I do not know. Boy, WW1 aerial stuff is interesting!
  10. Other posts and topics here got me thinking again. In OFF (and even back in the RB3d days) I always have a stable of pilots I start with and they are always the same. My usual roster always consists of: 1) 56 Squadron. Usually spring or summer of 1917. 2) 60 Squadron. February/March, 1917. 3) Jasta 11. March, 1917. 4) Naval 10. Spring, 1917. 5) 94th Squadron/USAS. April, 1918. My only "new frontier" that I will be trying soon, and adding to the stable, will be a BrF2b Squadron...probably Summer, 1917. I am curious where people like to start their careers in OFF and with what units and time period.
  11. Your stable of starting pilots?

    I had heard that most of them went to Bavarian Jastas because Pfalz was a Bavarian company...or so I read somewhere.
  12. Historical precedent for reduced fuel load?

    For what its worth I just popped over to the Aerodrome to look at some stats. For the Alb DIII and DV "endurance" is listed at "2 hours". For the Se/5 and Sop/Camel it is listed at "2.5 hours." "Endurance" can mean a lot of things and, of course, there are a lot of variables that go into fuel usage but in reading wartime writings of pilots patrols, even the Germans, this is not a long time to patrol. I believe that they generally patrolled until their fuel was low barring, of course, combat, damage, weather, etc. The above numbers, to me, plus historical pilot and historical accounts of time spent on a typical patrol, would seem to argue for full loads at takeoff. EDIT: I keep getting weird double posts for the past couple of days.
  13. When it Rains Old WWI Books, it Pours

    Lucky man. Guess if I ever need to "winter over" I know whose house to do it in. I need to win the lottery! Interesting about 70 Squadron being the first to get the 1 1/2's. I believe they were also first to get the Camel in July,1917.
  14. Historical precedent for reduced fuel load?

    I believe the calculations you mention are common to every flight just to make sure the flight plan is even possible. And yes you are correct that there are numerous accounts (especially Allied) of a pilots concern of running out of fuel. But while the "reduced fuel load" theory could explain the above (though there are other viable reasons) I don't buy it. With A/C performance being such an issue, and the concept of weight effecting performance being clearly understood in WW1, we have not one written account that I am aware of a pilot (or group of pilots actually) cleverly trying to calculate fuel use for a mission to maximize maneuverability/performance for a dogfight.
  15. Historical precedent for reduced fuel load?

    Thank you both Gentleman for your answers and thoughts. I suspect uncleal is correct and its some kind a CFS3 MP hold-over. Looks like full tanks it is then...at least in campaigns!
  16. Your stable of starting pilots?

    45 and 46 are pretty well known Camel squads but 46 didn't get them till October 1917 and 45 a little before that if memory serves - or am I thinking of 3 Squadron. Sounds like a research project for me. As for the Pfalz I have never really understood its "2nd class" status among some historians and some German pilots reportedly. Allied fliers, test flying captured examples, thought highly of the aircraft IIRC.
  17. Your stable of starting pilots?

    I have always been curious about this. Jasta 10 is a unit famous for using the Pfalz - in a otherwise all (or mostly) Albatross JG1 in 1917. What is the story there if you know?
  18. Your stable of starting pilots?

    See? That's why I was curious - you really couldn't get a group of more different responses. Part of the items that help me select is the time period (early 1917- the start of the "serious" air war in my book), aircraft type (each of these units fly one of my favorite A/C at the start or shortly thereafter), and its a "top" squadron personnel wise (at least historically). My BrF2b Squadron for the stable will probably be 20 or 48. I need a good Camel squadron - beside some of the RNAS squads is their a "famous" Camel squadron in the RFC? Oddly none ever come to mind. Was thinking about 70 Squadron as, IIRC, they were the first to fly Camels on the Western front. Olham's favorite airfield category is neat - I'll have to pay more attention.
  19. Jasta 11 is the German squadron I always fly with. Their is so much history and documentation on this unit that I have read over the years that I feel like they are "old pals" when I fly with them. Really adds to the experience!
  20. "The Devons held this trench; the Devons hold it still" Thanks Olham.
  21. Thanks Olham. Despite my continued desire not to "cheat" and fly like a "real man" without the TAC screen I find that after a few moments I always bring it up anyway. Oh well. And, as long as I am making confessions I sometimes use brackets too! To keep my man-card intact I blame it on my monitor...
  22. OT; The 13 Best MST3K songs.

    Yes, I loved this show. Its the only show in my adult life I made a conscious effort to watch. And for a little controversy, though I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, the first host was much better than the second. When that occurred I knew the show had a limited lifespan...sigh.
  23. What started your WW1 aerial interest?

    . Oh, we were talking about the money you owe me. Now as I was saying mail the check to....
  24. Just got done doing some warm-up flights in a Alb/DIII is preparation of a new campaign. Went to the "Workshop" to double check my settings and began to ponder about the "Regional Air Activity" setting. Its currently at medium which I believe is default. 1) Does the OFF campaign engine take into account the periods of high offensive/aerial activity (such as the Arras Offensive in April, 1917) and massively increase aerial activity in the area if you are stationed there? 2) If it does not do you manually change it to "high" during periods of known offensives? 3) What is the quantitative difference between low, medium, and high? And for Bletchley - I believe it was you that had the handy chart (used for RB3d) that had the start and end dates of all major offensives on the Western Front. That would be most useful to manually increase aerial activity if the OFF campaign engine does not and even if it does it would still be good to know when the action is going to heat up. I went to your (old?) website and it appears to be down.
  25. How Did You Find OFF?

    I am probably quite the "Johny come lately" here having been a P3 guy from the start. Played all the usual PC WW1 flight sims from my C64 days onward (and I mean every one...at least bought and tried) before finally settling in with RB3D for what...15 years? Clearly RB3D was getting a little old and I watched everywhere for the next latest and greatest. Watched the development of RoF with much excitement before realizing it was, indeed, a flight sim but not a sim of the WW1 aerial combat experience similar RB3D. I expressed my concerns on a RoF board and some kind chap (whose name I forget) was talking up OFF. Like some, the "CFS3 mod" was a bit of a damning indictment but after much reading I decided to give it a shot. Clearly the best money I ever spent and I have never looked back. OFF, in my eyes, is a worthy (and only) successor to the RB3D crown because it is not just a flight sim but an experience.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..