https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/1784...6ab3e_XXXL.jpg

not full but in that dirrection ...

Don't mention it, mate.

My personal wish would be a map from Benghazi to Ploesti for to play the operation Tidal Wave...:grin:

A big WOW, Sita!!

By the position of the vertical scroll bar in the picture, I could figured out your map reaches the Turkey border: the same scenary than Flaming Cliffs...:cool:

The Atlantic maps I proposed were just examples. The idea is that if you want a large map, it loads quicker and is easier on framerates if it's mostly filled with empty water.

Equally legitimate map choices might maps that includes a bit of Queensland, AUS and parts of the southern coast of New Guinea, Okinawa to the southern tip of Kyushu, or Tunisian coast from Tunis to Sfax then east to Malta and the southern coast of Sicily.

As for anti U-boat operations, the B-24s (and other long-range patrol craft - like the Sunderland and Wellington) were equipped with a combination of depth charges (and/or bombs, sometimes rockets), plus surface radar and occasionally weapons systems light Leigh lights.

The problem is that, by official IL2 standard, that's "half a map." You can't just create city plates and forest textures and then not include cities and forests. I think that's an artifact of IL2's heritage as a low-altitude "mud moving" flight simulator.

It would require an executive decision on TD's part to allow maps that favor high altitude long-range bomber ops, but at the expense of having "empty" cities and no forests when you go down low.

Personally, I think that such maps would be a good idea, now that we've got planes like the Pe-8 and B-24D to play with.

If we ever get proper night fighter ops in the game, TD is going to have to think pretty hard about this issue, because for night fighter operations the important things are effects (lights, flames, flares, radar ops), loiter time (often over a large area) and traditional "eye candy" scenery just isn't as important.

The only other way around the map size issue would be for the game to somehow recognize when aircraft are moving off one map and automatically load up the map of the adjacent territory. But, that would require huge amounts of development work, plus all new maps of consistent shape and size.

+1

Of course, the map would have to be scaled way down.

That's the inherent problem with the game - it's at base a simulator best designed to model low altitude, short range, tactical missions on the Eastern Front. High altitude operations are tacked on, and strategic bombing is an afterthought at best.

I'd love to have a 21st century update to the old Microprose game "B-17 Flying Fortress" that accurately models all the complexities of flying strategic, high altitude, heavy bomber missions in the ETO, including things like human factors (frostbite, hypoxia, frosted up windows, guns jammed due to cold, panic, getting lost, crew experience).

I'd happily alternate between running a bomber crew, flying escort fighters, and lining up my staffel to try to knock down a few "dicke auto."

Sadly, nobody seems to want to make that sim.

A trick question: Which US service lost more men in WW2, USAAF or USMC? (Mostly) guaranteed to win bar bets with Marines.

Is this a project for the DT?

yep

Are there other projects like this one?

Asking your question, I've found these statistics:

From the USMC website:

KIA: 19,733 (22.7%)
WIA: 67,207 (77.3%)
Total casualties: 86,940 (100%)

.......................

From a .pdf document [USAAF Casualties In European, North African, and Mediterranean Theaters of Operation, 1942-1946: Final Report 1953]:

KIA: 33,802 (71.1%)
WIA: 13,727 (28.9%)
Total casualties: 47,529 (100%)

For all Theaters:

KIA: 44,785 (70.9%)
WIA: 18,364 (29.1%)
Total casualties: 63,149 (100%)

...............................


Well... these numbers are showing the USMC had more total casualties than the USAAF. But they also seem the air warfare was a more deadly job than the fighting in the jungle.