PDA

View Full Version : V1 bombs - Bet you didn't know this... I didn't



K_Freddie
03-20-2009, 01:08 AM
Interesting technical info, for the modders maybe.

http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Pics/v1_1.jpg
http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Pics/v1_2.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

K_Freddie
03-20-2009, 01:08 AM
Interesting technical info, for the modders maybe.

http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Pics/v1_1.jpg
http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Pics/v1_2.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

general_kalle
03-20-2009, 01:15 AM
knew what? that they tipped the V1's of course with their wings...aktually, i did know.

theres a mission in the stock game where you have to do just exaktly that with a P51.

K_Freddie
03-20-2009, 01:25 AM
No mannn, the technical info!!

The gyro stabilisation made it far more difficult to destabilise, than it is portrayed in the game.
Also it looks as if your a/c wings shouldn't come off that easily either.

I know the tipping wings bit .
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Romanator21
03-20-2009, 01:37 AM
It would be nice, but the engine in IL-2 is rather dated. Wings rip apart after gentle touches because (I think) the program only senses "collisions" or intersection of 3-D objects and not magnitudes of "forces" associated with the touching and intersection of 3-D objects. I guess in a concept where you want only 1 flyable plane, namely the IL-2 in Russia, you are not going to consider gentle touches with a v-1 in Great Britain. But, I expect SOW to address this issue.

stalkervision
03-20-2009, 05:12 AM
very interesting post K_Freddie. I never knew the v1 gyro system was so robust! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Damn ww 2 english propaganda always shows a slight tip makes it go out of wack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Feathered_IV
03-20-2009, 05:34 AM
I read about that when I was in primary school. About the same time Novo re-released the Frog kit of a 1/72 Spit and V1 in the same box.

Ooh! Here's one...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Frog-1:72-...itfire-Mk-14-and-V1- (http://cgi.ebay.com/Frog-1:72-Scale-Spitfire-Mk-14-and-V1-)'Flying-bomb'_W0QQitemZ330315301763QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20 090318?IMSfp=TL090318126005r11222

Skoshi Tiger
03-20-2009, 05:39 AM
What is interesting (that I haven't thought about it before) is that our own artificial horizons don't tumble during extreme manuvers. Most older designs had to be caged to avoid damage. Does anyone know the specifics of the the types fitted to the main types in Il-2????

Choctaw111
03-20-2009, 05:52 AM
I had no idea that they were so difficult to tip over. I imagine it makes sense to show the films of them going down easy, especially for propaganda purposes during the war. You don't need the people even more terrified. Morale was a precious commodity back then.

Tab_Flettner
03-20-2009, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What is interesting (that I haven't thought about it before) is that our own artificial horizons don't tumble during extreme manuvers. Most older designs had to be caged to avoid damage. Does anyone know the specifics of the the types fitted to the main types in Il-2???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very, very true. I have an FL22411, and I can tell you the ingame versions operation is wildly inaccurate. I think it would be extremely difficult to model, but more realistic instruments would certainly be something to hope for in SOW.

LovroSL
03-20-2009, 09:22 AM
Anybody else thinks that today, building a home made cruise missile is becomming rather easy?

All you need is a large model airframe (lets say a kit 747) with servos and some sort of engine, a gps and gyro and an on board computer + some basic programming skills

software would be pretty simple, control surfaces and propulsion ready avalible from the model kit, and it would go slow (so it doesnt violate the gps max speed settings)
Just slam in some batteries, fuel and program in some limitation based on gyro positons and gps readout, and the thing would fly itself to your target.

R_Target
03-20-2009, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LovroSL:
Anybody else thinks that today, building a home made cruise missile is becomming rather easy?

All you need is a large model airframe (lets say a kit 747) with servos and some sort of engine, a gps and gyro and an on board computer + some basic programming skills

software would be pretty simple, control surfaces and propulsion ready avalible from the model kit, and it would go slow (so it doesnt violate the gps max speed settings)
Just slam in some batteries, fuel and program in some limitation based on gyro positons and gps readout, and the thing would fly itself to your target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could certainly revolutionize the pizza-delivery industry.

TheFamilyMan
03-20-2009, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LovroSL:
...
software would be pretty simple, control surfaces and propulsion ready avalible from the model kit, and it would go slow (so it doesnt violate the gps max speed settings)
Just slam in some batteries, fuel and program in some limitation based on gyro positons and gps readout, and the thing would fly itself to your target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure, it'd be "pretty simple software" only if you've a PhD in Areonautic Engineering. Realtime closed loop G&C (guidance and control) for any flight control system is never trivial, and I'm speaking from professional experience (though I don't work to make model kit "cruise missiles").

Viper2005_
03-20-2009, 10:50 AM
The "silly little propeller" actually isn't simply the arming system. It measures the flight distance.

When the target range is reached, the autopilot altitude set point is set negative (AFAIK this is done simply by inverting it), and so the the autopilot commands the terminal dive.

Contrary to popular belief, the system doesn't command the engine to stop; it often did so as a result of the dive, but this wasn't a design feature, just a fuel starvation problem akin to the negative g cuts suffered by some piston engines with carburettors. Of course, the V-1 also suffered from very poor quality construction because it was built with slave labour.

Another interesting feature of the V1 is that the approximate centre of the impact distribution was controlled from London by the security services, who, having captured all the German agents early in the war, were able to send spurious range information back to the Germans via radio.

This undoubtedly greatly reduced the overall casualties, but it must have still been somewhat morally difficult for the people forced to do the "aiming".

See R.V. Jones' excellent book "Most Secret War".

stalkervision
03-20-2009, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LovroSL:
Anybody else thinks that today, building a home made cruise missile is becomming rather easy?

All you need is a large model airframe (lets say a kit 747) with servos and some sort of engine, a gps and gyro and an on board computer + some basic programming skills

software would be pretty simple, control surfaces and propulsion ready avalible from the model kit, and it would go slow (so it doesnt violate the gps max speed settings)
Just slam in some batteries, fuel and program in some limitation based on gyro positons and gps readout, and the thing would fly itself to your target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could certainly revolutionize the pizza-delivery industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I prefer not to have my pizza's delivered by a flying buzz bomb thank you very much. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

of course I wouldn't have to tip it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Urufu_Shinjiro
03-20-2009, 12:25 PM
Lol, tip it, I see what you did there! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

LovroSL
03-20-2009, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheFamilyMan:
Sure, it'd be "pretty simple software" only if you've a PhD in Areonautic Engineering. Realtime closed loop G&C (guidance and control) for any flight control system is never trivial, and I'm speaking from professional experience (though I don't work to make model kit "cruise missiles"). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know programing simple ideas often has a lot of unexpected little things attached to it, that are harder to fix than they look. And with "closed loop" you have to take into account a lot possible scenarios and bugs messing stuff up. But with the advent of modern gizmos it is more doable than lets say 20 years ago. Mech. eng. graduate with some talent shuld crack it IMO

Vanderstok
03-20-2009, 12:40 PM
Well, something I recently learned was that later in the war, V-1's would be launched from the air. A he-111 would fly low over the sea, then pop up to get some altitude and launch the V-1 in midair. These were more difficult to intercept and standing patrols were called for a.f.i.k

DKoor
03-20-2009, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
No mannn, the technical info!!

The gyro stabilisation made it far more difficult to destabilise, than it is portrayed in the game.
Also it looks as if your a/c wings shouldn't come off that easily either.

I know the tipping wings bit .
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, you are right.
The paper wings in IL-2 are quite ridiculous... it is utter nonsense to try to tip the V-1 over on regular basis, 9/10 times or more you will crack your wing.

I'd rather have situation from R/L where you have better gyro equipment on V-1 and a lot tougher wings, than to have "paper" gyro & wings... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW that book... has to be about Polish aces of WW2 (Osprey), isn't it?
Very interesting read http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.

joeap
03-20-2009, 02:12 PM
Well was tipping the normal procedure? I thought the idea came about when a pilot trying to shoot one down had his guns jam on him or something.

M_Gunz
03-20-2009, 04:39 PM
Funny, I watched video of a British pilot who did tip V-1's without actually touching the things just using sir flow
over his wing tip. Perhaps you have to be abrupt about it, IRL there is inertia and weight distribution that we do
not completely have in IL2 simply because of the computers that can run IL2. Anyone know what SOW will take to run?
Oh yeah, actual air flow around wings is not modeled in IL2, I don't expect it in SOW either.

Some day there will be computers able to do every little detail with all the physical implications, and still the complaints
will not cease. Compared to what we had before, this series and the hardware it runs on are extremely advanced yet compared
to reality we have not come very far. Question is, what standard do you think to hold as acceptable? If you want to sob
and whine then what you believe was real will always be the high ground. If you want to play a sim with any immersion then
you get realistic from a what is available POV. If you give a dump for others who might take the second route then STFU.

DKoor
03-20-2009, 05:00 PM
Geez... who triggered you?
Relax man... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
On top of the fact that we need physical contact in game, wings in IL2 are without doubt weaker (when they make physical contact with objects in game) than what was the case IRL...
I merely pointed out that it takes much more than IRL to kill the buzz bombs by tipping. Nothing more nothing less... all your grumbling about other issues is self-made.

M_Gunz
03-20-2009, 10:50 PM
Triggered? Hooo boy! And your perception is NOT part of your view....

That is just collision modeling. The same wings pull how many G's even after taking how many hits?
So what is the meaning weak and strong?
It's code, not physical reality. Yet people expect an object to have the properties of real things.

It is possible in IL2 to tip a V1 through wing contact without breaking a wing. IIRC there's a track.
Must be something in the code that lets that happen, hmmmm? And some limit that does not.

stalkervision
03-20-2009, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Lol, tip it, I see what you did there! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Smart... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

jamesblonde1979
03-21-2009, 01:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Triggered? Hooo boy! And your perception is NOT part of your view....

That is just collision modeling. The same wings pull how many G's even after taking how many hits?
So what is the meaning weak and strong?
It's code, not physical reality. Yet people expect an object to have the properties of real things.

It is possible in IL2 to tip a V1 through wing contact without breaking a wing. IIRC there's a track.
Must be something in the code that lets that happen, hmmmm? And some limit that does not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

NITRO-GLYCERINE physics in this game.

Certainly you are correct in all you say Gunz but the fact remains that upon collision with the ground or another object damage is far too extreme.

I/ve seen a Spit prang into a wodden shack at 20mph andf explode on impact, it's ridiculous!

Tully__
03-21-2009, 02:39 AM
Please play nice... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

M_Gunz
03-21-2009, 05:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Triggered? Hooo boy! And your perception is NOT part of your view....

That is just collision modeling. The same wings pull how many G's even after taking how many hits?
So what is the meaning weak and strong?
It's code, not physical reality. Yet people expect an object to have the properties of real things.

It is possible in IL2 to tip a V1 through wing contact without breaking a wing. IIRC there's a track.
Must be something in the code that lets that happen, hmmmm? And some limit that does not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

NITRO-GLYCERINE physics in this game.

Certainly you are correct in all you say Gunz but the fact remains that upon collision with the ground or another object damage is far too extreme.

I/ve seen a Spit prang into a wodden shack at 20mph andf explode on impact, it's ridiculous! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly.

The thing is that the game wasn't designed to do everything, it simply cannot!

It is one thing to notice the places where it comes short,
it is another to complain or hoot and parade them about as if a wave of the hand would have given that too.

The truth that we had been shown more than once is that what was included and what was left were decisions of balance
made under long periods of stress and over-work by the dev team. Been there, done it myself more than once so I know
what Oleg was saying in the posts where he made it known. We only have a working product because they held together
and did not fall while giving us what is better than anything we had.
And what comes of it? A lot of praise, some money and.. the never-ending complaints, second-guessing and outright
whining from a crowd who never did anything so good in their lives.

Like I posted above, what is acceptable? It is one thing to notice, another to focus on and b!tch.

DKoor
03-21-2009, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Triggered? Hooo boy! And your perception is NOT part of your view.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You twisted my words on larger scale... and by now you should realize that you need to tune down hostile tone in your posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is just collision modeling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's all I'm saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So what is the meaning weak and strong?
It's code, not physical reality. Yet people expect an object to have the properties of real things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You assume that we can't have objects that are not instantly heavily damaged or destroyed when they make light contact with other objects - in game?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is possible in IL2 to tip a V1 through wing contact without breaking a wing. IIRC there's a track.
Must be something in the code that lets that happen, hmmmm? And some limit that does not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It is an extreme limit... fire up the IL-2 and try to tip V-1 over with some aircraft, it is really hard.
Here is a track of tipping the V-1 with Tempest;
http://www.esnips.com/doc/f39a.../DKoorTemp-2xV1-409b (http://www.esnips.com/doc/f39a4b6c-46d4-45a7-8022-79d4090f684b/DKoorTemp-2xV1-409b)

ElAurens
03-21-2009, 10:21 AM
Computational fluid dynamics are a long way off for a single desktop PC I'm afraid.

DKoor
03-21-2009, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Computational fluid dynamics are a long way off for a single desktop PC I'm afraid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you please elaborate that? How does that compute in our situation?
I say that because in game for example we have situation where your wing can be torn off and also not take damage at all when it gets in contact with other objects.

ElAurens
03-21-2009, 07:04 PM
It has to do with modeling airflow.

Properly modeling wingtip vorticies would crash a single home PC. Way too many numbers to crunch.

Damage modeling on the other hand is far less difficult, if your game engine is sufficiently complex, which the IL2/1946 engine is not. Hence the poor (nitro glycerin) collision model we have lived with for almost 8 years.

SOW will fix this.

Waldo.Pepper
03-21-2009, 08:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LovroSL:
Anybody else thinks that today, building a home made cruise missile is becomming rather easy?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was done already by an Ozzie I remember. Here is the link.

http://www.theage.com.au/artic...4/1054406219113.html (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/04/1054406219113.html)

My memory was poor. He was from New Zealand. Apologies to those on the other side of the World.

Also...

About the British effort of intercepting the V1 laden He-111's - I think the most interesting thing about that endeavor was that the British actually built and used what I am virtually certain was the first AWAC's aircraft. They built their rotating radome (an aerial array rather than a radome per se) on a Wimpy to direct their night fighters to the Heinkels.

M_Gunz
03-21-2009, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Triggered? Hooo boy! And your perception is NOT part of your view.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You twisted my words on larger scale... and by now you should realize that you need to tune down hostile tone in your posts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One good twist deserves another. Ditto with the hostile. Your perception is not my responsibility and vice versa.

M_Gunz
03-21-2009, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
It has to do with modeling airflow.

Properly modeling wingtip vorticies would crash a single home PC. Way too many numbers to crunch.

Damage modeling on the other hand is far less difficult, if your game engine is sufficiently complex, which the IL2/1946 engine is not. Hence the poor (nitro glycerin) collision model we have lived with for almost 8 years.

SOW will fix this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's possible they'll come up with something. Right now point (very small like bullets) to mass (large object) is
not so hard, IL2 even gets angle of impact and relative speed but when it comes to shapes interacting with shapes,
the number of computations, of possibilities becomes incredible.

From frame to frame these planes are jumping along by meters, not handwidths. How they determine what is a good tip
and what is not then not have other times wings pass through wings to no effect, again it is a balancing act in code
that if you don't know the code then how to say it should be easy, hard or impossible? It is not like these things
are not tested and debugged as best able.

There are three things to do if something is "not right".
One: fix it or make something better.
Two: accept what is and deal with it.
Three: pick, nag and b!tch.

Group three was pointed out back in 1999 by gaming company reps posting on several forums as the reason why so many
companies dropped flight sims. Sierra, Microprose and others said they'd had enough, that NOTHING is good enough,
that the constant bad posting did hurt sales and demoralized development personnel and simply they were RIGHT.
Don't think that the whining is harmless because it is NOT.
We have a niche hobby and damnit but there's a bunch of idiots in the community trying to close it down.
If I appear hostile it is because of the actions of those very people that are doing the harm which is far worse.
You want nice then be nice. If the shoe doesn't fit then it's not for you, and if it does then eat it.

Outlaw---
03-21-2009, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LovroSL:
Anybody else thinks that today, building a home made cruise missile is becomming rather easy?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was done already by an Ozzie I remember. Here is the link.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Old hat and it's a piece of cake. There are pre-built libraries for communicating with various brands of GPS units. Gyro-stabilization for R/C models is off the shelf and can be used without modification. Calculating a heading to target is fairly simple based on its location and the location of the aircraft. With the stabilizer active turns are easy (albeit fairly slow) with rudder input alone letting the gyro keep it from rolling over. Controlling PCM servos is, once again, accomplished using pre-built libraries. A single board Linux based computer capable of all of the above is easily less than $500 and weighs no more than a couple of pounds. You can even blast Ride of the Valkyries during the final descent over the frequency of your choice if you can spare a few more pounds.

If there's wind involved simply calculating a bearing to target will, of course, mean you will approach from down wind (unless the wind is along your bearing) but is that really a big deal?

--Outlaw.

ElAurens
03-21-2009, 10:13 PM
Wow Max, get up on the wrong side of bed this AM?

Sheesh, take a pill or something, it's an internet web board, not the freaking United Nations General Assembly.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Feathered_IV
03-21-2009, 11:51 PM
Have to agree with El. Very poorly done, Gunz.

jamesblonde1979
03-22-2009, 12:04 AM
Well I am well aware that no sim will ever be perfect. 1946 is the closest to perfection I have ever seen. Despite it's flaws. If I write about these flaws it isn't to have a go at the developers but it is due to the folorn hope that theyb might monitor forums like this to see what really goes on in the communities that play their games.

That's why I write abput the AI or the DM or the collision model, not to criticize, but in the hope that future sims will address these issues.

Simulation developers have to understand that their sims will never be perfect and factor this in as a part of their business model. They should allow for the constant developement of their product in order to keep their product improving and alive in the marketplace.

Il2 1946 has obviously achieved this through it's many addons and patches. Areas that have not been addressed are now modded. SOW is rumoured to be set up for user based improvements and add ons. It is obvious that 1C understands what a lot of you seem not to, 'the customer is always right'.

So please don't get in a huff when somebody points out a flaw in the game, if we don't point out these flaws then they will never be fixed.

vpmedia
03-22-2009, 01:40 AM
Did anyone of you got the Royal Air Force Collection and watched the Tempest at War episode? ( http://www.iwmshop.org.uk/prod...llection_DVD_Box_Set (http://www.iwmshop.org.uk/product/15586/The_Royal_Air_Force_Collection_DVD_Box_Set) )

The only movie I remember where a Tempest pilots speaks about these manouvers (33:51) with the V-1 in detail...he says that he only knows about 1 other (polish) pilot besides him who managed it successfully.
Other pilot tells that later they've found a unexploded V-1 it was wired it so that if you tried to flip it it exploded so squandrons were notified not to try the flip move.

Waldo.Pepper
03-22-2009, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vpmedia:
Did anyone of you got the Royal Air Force Collection and watched the Tempest at War episode? ( http://www.iwmshop.org.uk/prod...llection_DVD_Box_Set (http://www.iwmshop.org.uk/product/15586/The_Royal_Air_Force_Collection_DVD_Box_Set) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a fine series, I have them all. The interview subjects are fine men, they are not infallible supermen, and they have some of their facts wrong.

The Veteran being interviewed is making a mistake when he talks about the anti-tipping device being installed in V-1's. I believe that it is analogous to the situation of other veterans who will swear that the Luftwaffe operated B-17's in daylight painted up in US colors. Didn't happen.

Here is what I think did happen that he is referring to.

Some V-1's were supposedly equipped with small sub munitions that were to be distributed during their flight. So I surmise that once this was discovered, perhaps even from a V-1 which was discovered intact on the ground, Some erk told him that ... "You know what those crafty Germans are up to now? They've gone and fitted small bombs to the wings." And so after this part of the story is told a number of times it gets a little mangled until you get the story he tells about some anti-tipping device.

As for tipping - to be specific for a moment. His exact words are that he was the "only pilot on the wing..." to have tipped over a V-1. There were others. (On other wings.)

A number of pilots downed V-1's by tipping. Here is a page from the Secret War by Brian Johnson. (This excellent book is based on the six part 1977 BBC series of the same name.)

"There was another method of attack, even more dangerous, pioneered by Wing Commander Beamont: 'I had used up my ammunition on one VI and saw another and decided to do something about it. The idea was to get my wingtip close under the wingtip of the VI but not touching it, then gradually raising my wing causing the airflow over it to make the VI bank. This affected the gyro-stabilisation of the missile, causing it to go out of control, toppling over and crashing.'

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/tipping.jpg

One of the only Allied jet fighters to see service during World War II, the Gloster Meteor, also tipped over a VI. On 4 August Flying Officer Dean of 616 Squadron had closed on a VI, but his guns had jammed, so he overtook the missile and tipped it over as described by Wing Commander Beamont. This was the first time an enemy aircraft had been destroyed by a jet and the first jet versus jet encounter: the Meteor was a Mk I, EE216. Later that same day another Meteor of 616 Squadron shot down a VI: altogether 616, the only jet squadron in the RAF, destroyed thirteen Vis.

This last paragraph from the book also would seem to refute the subject of the interview when he states that the Meteors "as far as i (he) know(s). The Meteor played no part in the defence against the V-1." It did albeit a marginal one.

M_Gunz
03-22-2009, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Wow Max, get up on the wrong side of bed this AM?

Sheesh, take a pill or something, it's an internet web board, not the freaking United Nations General Assembly.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't saying YOU. I figured that you know well enough that you aren't in group three there.
Like I said, it's a minority of the community. The great majority are group two, like you and me.

Consider why this board has been named The Zoo. It's been less of one for 2+ years now but we still get the
"Issue"-fixated "not good enough" B&M threads where no, what we have is plenty good enough. There are other
forums where it dies quickly when it starts up but here it's like a room full of babies, one starts to cry
and the next thing you know that's all you hear.

Not the UN, more like a day care center. Big difference is budget I suppose.

ElAurens
03-22-2009, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Not the UN, more like a day care center. Big difference is budget I suppose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well put sir.

No problem M.

Carry on.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

K_Freddie
03-22-2009, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Consider why this board has been named The Zoo. It's been less of one for 2+ years now but we still get the
"Issue"-fixated "not good enough" B&M threads where no, what we have is plenty good enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is why this forum is so great.. push one button and you get multiple explosions -- cool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
03-22-2009, 03:03 PM
I just want to see flight sims go as far as possible before I'm gone.
I worked in software for 19 years and simply I can say that a lot of negative criticism just works to kill innovation.
I've seen this from inside and out.
Most often it comes from people who know zip about writing software even though they may have read or watched or been told
enough that they think they do. Until you make your own algorithms and pull off 'miracles' you just don't know how fragile
a process it is. Once broken the only path left is brute force paint by numbers and the result is always less.

Be kind to your developers. Be good to them. It is the only way to get the best from them. No other.

So what kind of software do we want, being aware of this?

Saying "maybe some day we can have this" is far better than "look, they blew it here".

Yeah once or a few times isn't going to 'kill the goose' but some of us remember a time when Oleg communicated right here.
Think about why that stopped and please don't let things be like that again.
This is the Official Site that people who buy or are thinking of buying often come to first and what do they see?
We are a Community, right?

For me, I've been in the Flight Sim Community now over 10 years and still what happened in 98-99 is scary.
We were down to M$ and arcade-makers by 2000 before the cavalry showed up... from Moscow to save us.
OTOH we can get the next MSCFS kludge when there's nothing else to compete, maybe.

ElAurens
03-22-2009, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I just want to see flight sims go as far as possible before I'm gone.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With you 100% on that.

For all it's faults, this is by far the best prop combat sim ever. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Oleg and his team for making it in the first place, for continuing to service what they sold, for putting up with us, and for working on a sequel that IMHO will blow this series totally out of the water.

I've had way too much fun over the years with this title, and I look forward to the next 8+ years of fun.

jensenpark
03-22-2009, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vpmedia:
Did anyone of you got the Royal Air Force Collection and watched the Tempest at War episode? ( http://www.iwmshop.org.uk/prod...llection_DVD_Box_Set (http://www.iwmshop.org.uk/product/15586/The_Royal_Air_Force_Collection_DVD_Box_Set) )

The only movie I remember where a Tempest pilots speaks about these manouvers (33:51) with the V-1 in detail...he says that he only knows about 1 other (polish) pilot besides him who managed it successfully.
Other pilot tells that later they've found a unexploded V-1 it was wired it so that if you tried to flip it it exploded so squandrons were notified not to try the flip move. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was fortunate to meet and befriend George "Lefty" Whitman. Lefty knocked down 15 V-1's in his time - all in Tempests.

http://www.hawkertempest.se/whitman.htm

He told me the a bit of the same story over lunch (about the V1's set to go boom if tipped). He told me that it was word getting back to the Germans about the tipping procedure (from the UK press) that led the the Germans changing the V1 for this. Not sure if this was true or just old, unproven tales...

Waldo.Pepper
03-23-2009, 01:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was fortunate to meet and befriend George "Lefty" Whitman. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Kelly but there is no evidence, other that testimony of Veterans. There is no testimony of any German or documentary evidence to support their contention either. (None that I have ever seen. I would be delighted if someone could supply something!) Sadly this lack of evidence lumps their testimony into the category of rumour and other unsupported 'travelers tales.'

Like - captured B-17's in colors of the USA and meeting He-100's in the Battle of Britain

Here is a brief passage on alternative warhead/payloads available for the V-1.

Alternative warheads were war gases (not used) or Trialen explosive which gave twice the blast effect of the normal RDX explosive and made the V1 almost equivalent to the British 4,000 Ib Blockbuster bomb. Supplementation of the normal warhead was possible with addition of, for example, 23 x 2.2 Ib (1 kg) B IE incendiary bombs released from a metal grid. However, supply difficulties were such that a V1 warhead usually contained only a proportion of RDX explosive plus less expensive explosive.

I bolded the - less expensive explosives - to emphasis the fact that the V-1 was intended to be cheap and expendable. That tends to refute the premise of fitting anti-tipping bombs to the thing. Why would you bother to protect the cheap weapon? Send more and overwhelm the defences instead. That was the whole idea in the first place.

If none of that is convincing consider the following. When the British finally got their full anti-V-1 campaign into full efficiency, on 28 August, 97 V-1's were launched on that day. Fighters claimed 23, guns 65, the balloon barrage 2 more. Of the remaining 7 only 4 reached their target - London. If the Fighters claimed 23 of them, then supplying them with this rumored anti-tipping device would be a futile effort. As certainly only a small portion of these (1,2, at most 3 maybe!?) would be tipping victims. Something to reduce their vulnerability to the guns would have been the way to go.

M_Gunz
03-23-2009, 02:50 AM
Wouldn't a tilt switch that gets turned off before the bomb dives be pretty cheap and light? Mercury switch and a cutout?
I doubt they had one for the reasons given but economy doesn't seem to me one of them.
As for protection from gunfire, yeah a small thick cone on the back sounds good but how do you protect the ramjet and wings?
It's a good thing they were not able to launch the things in huge waves, 4 out of ~100 was still bad enough!
Perhaps more thanks to the bomber crews is due just for making such a thing less possible?

K_Freddie
03-23-2009, 03:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
If none of that is convincing consider the following. When the British finally got their full anti-V-1 campaign into full efficiency, on 28 August, 97 V-1's were launched on that day. Fighters claimed 23, guns 65, the balloon barrage 2 more. Of the remaining 7 only 4 reached their target - London. If the Fighters claimed 23 of them, then supplying them with this rumored anti-tipping device would be a futile effort. As certainly only a small portion of these (1,2, at most 3 maybe!?) would be tipping victims. Something to reduce their vulnerability to the guns would have been the way to go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sure that, if it wasn't for MI5 controlling the German spy network, they would have switched to night launching... and possibly 50% would have got through quite easily.
Another What If thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Waldo.Pepper
03-23-2009, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
I'm sure that, if it wasn't for MI5 controlling the German spy network, they would have switched to night launching... and possibly 50% would have got through quite easily.
Another What If thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed! An excellent point. I think the really interesting thing about this aspect (getting false reports from their agent who were being controlled by the XX Comittee), is that the Germans DID suspect that they were being misled.

The XX Comittes controlled agent were sending false information back to Germany. False in that they were reporting that the V-1's were falling long of London. Thus when this information was acted upon, and the time of flight was reduced, the missiles would in fact fall short.

Quoting again from - The Secret War page 164 -

"So far as is known, all German agents in Britain were arrested and some were "turned : that is, they were given the simplealternative of either being shot or working to M15 instructions. Most, if not all, chose the latter course and continued to send information back to Germany, but now operating their clandestine radios from cells in Wandsworth jail - on instructions from their captors. They were ordered to signal that the Vis were landing to the north o( London and that many were overshooting: in fact, the tendency was to undershoot. The Germans at the firing points therefore reduced the range, causing the missiles to undershoot still further. The interesting thing is that, even though the radio-equipped Vis were being accurately tracked by direction finders and reported as undershoots, such was the faith of the Germans in their agents, who were allowed to send genuine information from time to time, that the D/F reports from the radio men were disregarded as mistakes."

Incredible!

Waldo.Pepper
03-23-2009, 08:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Wouldn't a tilt switch that gets turned off before the bomb dives be pretty cheap and light? Mercury switch and a cutout?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I think that this would be a simple and potentially doable modification.

However, this is not what the Veterans are claiming was done. They assert that the Germans began to fit small bombs on the wingtips to act as a dissuasive measure to try and instill fear in the Allied pilots.

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it was done. There is no evidence (other than sparse testimony). Doesn't seem likely that a failing German regime would take such a precaution on a disposable weapon. Especially when you consider how marginal the threat of tipping was to the V-1.

Furthermore, if the information in the topic originators post is correct. That on occasion pilots who made a failed attempt at tipping, noticed that a V-1 could right itself after a serious bank. Then doing what you suggest (mercury switch etc.) when weather or another influence (flak etc.) produced such a bank, then the V-1 would detonate prematurely.

They did want to saturate the defences with upwards of 2000 V-1's each day. That would have done some damage. If on the best day the Allied defence network managed to down 90%, when the level of activity was 200 of them, I would suggest that that success rate would have fallen to approx. 75%. That would mean that 500 of the things would get through. That was the plan in Hitler's mind. Not have to take elaborate steps to, in effect, shepherd, or escort, the things onto their target.

M_Gunz
03-24-2009, 02:05 AM
Such a switch would require the V1 tilts more than 90 degrees (because of turning G's in the process) if placed down
and angled back (to not explode on takeoff) but still when the whole bomb goes off the plane would be too close to
survive. I'm just glad that the Germans never thought of any need for it. Small bombs on the wingtips would still
end the flight of the V1 wouldn't they? If it's enough to take out a Spit wing, just the kick would destroy the
cheaper wing of the V1.