![]() |
|
|||||||
| Vehicle and Terrain threads Discussions about environment and vehicles in CoD |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
![]() 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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() |
|
|