Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > Vehicle and Terrain threads

Vehicle and Terrain threads Discussions about environment and vehicles in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-29-2011, 02:35 PM
VO101_Tom's Avatar
VO101_Tom VO101_Tom is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 799
Default

According to the screenshots, slow bombers were flying in daytime, on a straight line, not too high (3000m?). What you said here is not one of the example which can be compared with this.
__________________
| AFBs of CloD 2[/URL] |www.pumaszallas.hu

i7 7700K 4.8GHz, 32GB Ram 3GHz, MSI GTX 1070 8GB, 27' 1920x1080, W10/64, TrackIR 4Pro, G940
Cliffs of Dover Bugtracker site: share and vote issues here
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-01-2011, 04:42 AM
Cap'n Crunch Cap'n Crunch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 27
Default

Milch differed radically from Hitler in his proposals for combating the
troublesome British bombing attacks by night. Hitler still believed in a strong
defence by flak and searchlights. The state secretary, although a former artillery
officer himself, was not enamoured of anti-aircraft artillery: he once calculated
that besides the huge and costly ground organization it had taken on average
2,313 rounds of heavy flak and 4,258 rounds of light flak to bring down each
aircraft they had claimed up to the end of November 1940


From The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe, the biography of Milch. You can grab a free copy here, plenty of good stuff.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Milch/

He wasn't a big fan of flak or impressed with its results to cost ratio. Too much manpower and resources wasted, and they never at any time reduced enemy effectiveness below 90% efficiency in hitting their targets.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-01-2011, 05:08 AM
Theshark888 Theshark888 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 102
Default

You have to remember the propaganda factor to the German public. For many of them this was the only thing seen that was fighting back against the devastating air raids. It also kept the heavy bombers above 25,000 feet which affected accuracy.

I remember seeing the stats for the amount of heavy flak rounds to bring down an aircraft, but they were much higher than what was stated---more like 10,000.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-02-2011, 03:18 PM
Orpheus Orpheus is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch View Post
Milch differed radically from Hitler in his proposals for combating the
troublesome British bombing attacks by night. Hitler still believed in a strong
defence by flak and searchlights. The state secretary, although a former artillery
officer himself, was not enamoured of anti-aircraft artillery: he once calculated
that besides the huge and costly ground organization it had taken on average
2,313 rounds of heavy flak and 4,258 rounds of light flak to bring down each
aircraft they had claimed up to the end of November 1940


From The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe, the biography of Milch. You can grab a free copy here, plenty of good stuff.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Milch/

He wasn't a big fan of flak or impressed with its results to cost ratio. Too much manpower and resources wasted, and they never at any time reduced enemy effectiveness below 90% efficiency in hitting their targets.
Can't contribute to the discussion here as when I put flak down in the mission editor it doesn't shoot, but just wanted to say thanks to Cap'n Crunch for linking that book - I'm reading it now and it's quite good. Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-22-2011, 09:27 AM
Allons! Allons! is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orpheus View Post
but just wanted to say thanks to Cap'n Crunch for linking that book - I'm reading it now and it's quite good. Cheers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Quote:
The court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism,"[4] and that he had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."[
I wouldnt dl nor read anything from him. Greetz, Allons!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.