Storm of War

Recently we posted an article about the F4U-1D Corsair, and its possible inclusion on the Storm of War server (link). But what about the Messerschmitt Me 262?

The short answer: Yes, as Kommando Schenck, KG51

The long answer:

Deciding whether or not a module makes sense on the Storm of War Normandy missions is mostly driven by historical concerns. However, in the absence of a matching historical plane-set, some compromises have already been made so there are at least SOME aircraft for players to fly, and to vary the missions to keep things interesting.

The Me 262 has been oft requested for Digital Combat Simulator (DCS). It was included in the original Kickstarter project, and has since been formally adopted by Eagle Dynamics (ED). However, in December 2020, it was announced that it would not be the next module after the DH.98 Mosquito. At the time of writing this, it is not clear if it would be produced in the future. Plans and priorities can change, of course.

Its inclusion in online combat flight simulators is a complex and highly emotive topic. The aircraft has near mythical status as a result of limited original historical sources (due to the rapidly-evolving war situation), misleading propaganda, over-simplistic interpretation and ill-informed commentators. But if it is brought to DCS, the question has been raised regarding whether or not it would make sense to add this module in to the SoW missions as a flyable aircraft.

To answer this question, we have turned to historically-based sources. There are two areas of interests from where we might be able to shed light on whether or not the Me 262 was in any way involved in the Normandy campaign, or, if they were present in the air space of the DCS Normandy map during the relevant time period.

The answer is, yes, although it was only at the very end of the campaign, after the collapse of the Falais pocket and as the Allies reached the Seine river.

During the initial deployment of the Me 262, there were three combat-trial units, as bomber (Schenck), fighter (Nowotny) and reconnaissance (Braunegg). The first Me 262s of Kommando Schenck reached Châteaudun on 20 July 1944. They were there for a few weeks, preparing for operations before the decision was made to pull back from an encroaching front line. They then moved to Étampes on 12 August, and were there for 3 days before moving again to Creil and, then Juvincourt. From Juvincourt, the first sorties were carried out.

Two Me 262s taking off from Juvincourt in August 1944.

Between 09.34 and 09.42 hrs. on the 26 August 1944, three of the Einsatzkommando’s aircraft, each carrying a single AB500 canister of SD10 fragmentation bombs, took off from Juvincourt to attack troop concentrations on the left bank of the Seine in the loop northeast of Bonnières.

During the next 3-4 days, the unit carried out 4-5 sorties per day against Allied ground targets, using AB500 and SC500 ordnance. On the 29 August, the unit finally abandoned the front line and moved to Belgium.

However, the Storm of War campaign has ended by this stage (we can probably extend to somewhere between 10-17 August).

Context

To put this into context, we show the positions of the DCS airfields (blue dots) and the historical airfields used by the Me 262 (yellow dots). Of the latter, only Étampes is on the DCS map area (and, even then, it is in the low-resolution terrain area; this is similar to the situation we have with the Corsair).

The attack operations were flown on 26 August against Bonnières (the red dot) from Juvincourt, about 1-2 weeks after the Storm of War campaign ends. Also in the image is the historical US Twelfth Army Group map, showing the position of the front line approx. 2 hours after the attack. By this stage, the SoW campaign is over, as the last blue airfield has been overrun.

However, for the very last day or so of our campaign, the Me 262s were at Étampes, which is on-map (just!), and thus meet the same criteria we used for the Corsair.

How would the Me 262 be included?

The inclusion of the Me 262 if and when it is released will likely take the form of a single section of 1-3 spawn-able player aircraft only. If possible, these aircraft will adopt I./KG51 squadron markings and the most applicable livery. They will be based at the closest airfield to Étampes, which is Évreux on the DCS Normandy map.

As the aircraft was historically used for ground attack, it would be deployed in a similar manner on the server. AB500 and SC500 munitions would be fitted. And, if possible, the cannons (or at least cannon ammunition) would be removed.

It would be a feature point of a single mission, and would probably be limited to only part of the mission (late or conditional spawn).

If the Normandy map is upgraded again (like the massive upgrade it got in December 2019), it may warrant revisiting this assessment. If the map expanded to the east, that would change things a lot.

But, for now, we recognise that this is a somewhat academic exercise. We have no indication what the next DCS WW2 aircraft (if any) would be and, even if it is the Me 262, whether we’ll still be around to implement it. Still, like all the things for the server, we consider them very carefully and the research involved is interesting in its own right.

For those interested, our full report (including all the references that were used) can be found here: http://stormofwar.info/documents/SoW-078-Me262inNormandy_v01.pdf

PILOT AWARDS

The following pilots have received the below awards for their performance in SEPTEMBER 2021.

Up to 30 Ribbons of each type were awarded (the total number that can be awarded is based on the number of players who managed 10+ hours flying on the server). See HERE for a more detailed explanation. The ribbons will automatically show on your pilot profile on the SoW stats pages as soon as you start accumulating stats for the following month.

Pilots who are receiving a second award of this ribbon (i.e. they also won this ribbon last year) will receive a “pip” to their existing ribbon.

=== Anti Shipping ===

1. VF17- Gabby Gabreski
2. VF17-Stu Fly
3. Soda
4. VF17-Ketchup
5. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
6. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
7. Shafs64
8. 362nd Shooter
9. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
10. JG 53 Paddy [Milan 19]
11. 1.JaVA_ICE
12. 1.JaVA_Biggles
13. Ryballz
14. 71st_AH_RebelSqurl
15. 362nd Andre
16. 71st_AH_Gamecock (XR-G)
17. 71st_AH Rob
18. Chops
19. VF17- 42 sqd walshtimothy
20. 122sqn Bruv
21. [vPoAF] Shrimp
22. Parrothead
23. Piper
24. VF17- 42sqd Slapbladder
25. Goodyear
26. Spit55
27. No.401 BigglesCDN
28. [WP] TeufelHunden
29. AKor

=== Ground Attack ===

1. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
2. 122sqn Bruv
3. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
4. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
5. JaBoG32_Crusader
6. [WP] TeufelHunden
7. Shafs64
8. SRF_Gadreel
9. Soda
10. JaBoG32_Cyking
11. No.54 Mr Red
12. No.54 Kennedyoz (KL-K)
13. 122sqn Nematome
14. YUGO
15. [SSET] Westen
16. SRF_Wilhelm Jäger
17. JG 53 Paddy [Milan 19]
18. Pierre Closterman
19. 71st_AH_Gamecock (XR-G)
20. 71st_AH Rob
21. Avanti1
22. VF17- 42 sqd walshtimothy
23. VF17- 42sqd Slapbladder
24. canary
25. Parrothead
26. VF17-Stu Fly
27. -RCAF 402- Nat
28. Lukasto90PL
29. 71st_AH_RebelSqurl
30. Chops

=== Air to Air ===

1. kablamoman
2. 362nd Iceland
3. SRF_Wilhelm Jäger
4. 362nd Andre
5. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
6. 362nd Shooter
7. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
8. 122sqn Bruv
9. SRF_Knauf
10. FF*Stid*15
11. Rufus
12. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
13. WinterWerewolf
14. offelkart_ob
15. Kaneka
16. 122sqn Nematome
17. -RCAF 402- Cub
18. 2./JG54 Teckel
19. SPARE 78 | =STP= Schnarre
20. Hellhorse
21. SRF_Biggs
22. No.54 Philstyle
23. EAF331_Stuntman
24. SRF_phizix
25. 2./JG54 barry c
26. SRF_Robert
27. SRF_Emperor
28. -RCAF 402- Nat
29. [SSET] Westen
30. FF*Mamba*13

The short answer: Yes, as RNAS 759 Squadron

The long answer:
Deciding whether or not a module makes sense on the Storm of War Normandy missions is mostly driven by historical concerns. However, in the absence of a matching historical plane-set, some compromises have already been made so there are at least SOME aircraft for players to fly.

The with proposed released of the Corsair at an unknown date sometime in the future by Leatherneck/ Magnitude 3, the question has been raised regarding whether or not it would make sense to add this module in to the SoW missions as a flyable aircraft.

To answer this question, we have turned to historically-based sources. There are two areas of interests from where we might be able to shed light on whether or not corsairs were in any way involved in the Normandy campaign, or, if they were present in the air space of the DCS Normandy map.

The first issue is relatively easy to answer. The Corsair did NOT play a role in the Normandy landings or the Normandy campaign to any significant degree. It is almost certain that no corsairs were present over the invasion forces on D-day itself, and it is similarly almost certain that not Corsairs flew over France in support of the allied forces on the ground in the weeks post invasion.

In the lead up to, and the execution of the invasion itself, the Royal Navy’s air fleet arm was largely concerned with Operation Neptune. The Royal Navy resources were split up into various task forces. The carrier-related support for this operation was assigned to “anti-Submarine Escort Groups (under Western Approaches Command)”. This group consisted of 3 Escort carriers (HMS Tracker, Pursuer and Emperor, equipped with 62 aircraft including Corsairs), 14 Escort destroyers, 3 Sloops and 38 Frigates. These forces were positioned approximately 150 miles west of Land’s End, and did not play a role over the channel.

In the Royal Navy’s own publication “Operation Neptune: the Normandy invasion
D-day 6 June 1944
“, a short section is dedicated to answering the question “What was the contribution of naval aviation?”. This section specifies all of the Naval types and roles that were directly involved in the invasion itself. No Corsairs are listed.

Furthermore, soon after the invasion, the escort carriers were re-tasked to other theaters, taking their Corsairs with them. The deployment diary for HMS pursuer documents the roles of the escort carriers to the west of the invasion and the release of those forces on or about June 19th, 1944.

The second issue, whether the DCS Normandy map airspace played host to the Corsair during June-August 1944 can also be answered. This time, in the affirmative. Whilst individual squadron records for the Fleet Air Arm F4-U squadrons are not easily accessible, RAF documentation has shed light on this issue.

An RAF record of Corsairs which were lost to accidents indicates that at least four Corsairs were involved in accidents in the area around Yeovilton and Zeals in July to august 1944. Both of these locations are within the map limits of the DCS Normandy map. Furthermore, the RAF losses document indicates that these aircraft were all being flown by 759 Squadron.

759 squadron is elsewhere noted to have been equipped with the Corsair in 1944 and was based at RNAS Yeovilton (HMS Heron).

From this, we can confidently say that at least one squadron of Corsairs was operating in some capacity from Yeovilton, within the limits of the DCS Normandy map in July and August 1944. This information justifies the inclusion of the Corsair at least in a limited capacity on the SoW Normandy missions.

How would the F4-U be included?
The inclusion of the Corsair if and when it is released will likely take the form of a single section of two spawn-able player aircraft only. These two aircraft will adopt 759 squadron markings and the most applicable livery. They will be based at the closest airfield to Yeovilton, which is Needs Oar Point on the DCS Normandy map.

Thanks to Burrito for linking some of the source material used in this post.

References:
RN Operation Neptune PDF book – https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/documents/events/d-day-70/13_472-nhb-operation-neptune-d_day-book.pdf

HMS Pursuer diary – https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-05CVE-Pursuer.htm

RAF list of Corsair losses – http://www.rafcommands.com/database/losses/listing.php?cur=0&qacid=479&qt=TY&crdb=Henk

759 Squadron information – https://www.asisbiz.com/RAF/RN-759NAS.html

PILOT AWARDS

The following pilots have received the below awards for their performance in AUGUST 2021.

After the busiest ever month on the server, 35 Ribbons of each type were awarded (the total number that can be awarded is based on the number of players who managed 10+ hours flying on the server). See HERE for a more detailed explanation. The ribbons will automatically show on your pilot profile on the SoW stats pages as soon as you start accumulating stats for the following month.

Pilots who are receiving a second award of this ribbon (i.e. they also won this ribbon last year) will receive a “pip” to their existing ribbon.

=== Anti Shipping ===

1. VF17- Gabby Gabreski
2. Soda
3. VF17-Stu Fly
4. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
5. JG 53 Paddy [Milan 19]
6. SRF_Wilhelm Jäger
7. =SFG=Cactus | Brusier 1-1
8. MIDWAY
9. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
10. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
11. 1.JaVA_ICE
12. SRF_phizix
13. 215 | Torri
14. No.119_Viper (VK-S)
15. Shafs64
16. -RCAF 402- Nat
17. 362nd Shooter
18. xvii-Dietrich
19. IAF.Yuval
20. sparkylist
21. QB.Shallot
22. IAF.DMK
23. Yob
24. Parrothead
25. -RCAF 402- Cub
26. mac23
27. 122sqn Cowboy
28. DocInAB1RD
29. Hellhorse
30. Blomburglar
31. Phill
32. Spanky
33. MurderFalcon
34. Whiskey
35. pdub85

=== Ground Attack ===

1. MIDWAY
2. [ugly]Nirvi
3. 362nd Andre
4. [ugly]Derbysieger
5. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
6. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
7. QB.Shallot
8. 122sqn JMB
9. No.54 Philstyle
10. 122sqn Bruv
11. Shafs64
12. =SFG=Cactus | Brusier 1-1
13. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
14. No.54 Kennedyoz (KL-K)
15. SRF_Wilhelm Jäger
16. xvii-Dietrich
17. kyoku
18. Cool Hand
19. ACG_Stu
20. YUGO
21. SRF_Gadreel
22. JG 53 Paddy [Milan 19]
23. Soda
24. kablamoman
25. 56th FG – Brigg
26. ironbutterfly
27. JaBoG32_Crusader
28. Buck_Rogers
29. canary
30. Parrothead
31. Popsablinkin
32. QB.Rails
33. VF17-Captain Balou
34. JaBoG32_Cyking
35. SRF_Emperor

=== Air to Air ===

1. 362nd Andre
2. Cool Hand
3. 362nd Iceland
4. FF*Stid*15
5. ZAVAR
6. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
7. No.54 Kennedyoz (KL-K)
8. 362nd Brannan
9. No.54 Philstyle
10. SPARE 78 | =STP= Schnarre
11. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
12. Retro
13. SRF_Emperor
14. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
15. [ugly]Nirvi
16. 122sqn JMB
17. PeeGoose
18. JG 53 Paddy [Milan 19]
19. SRF_Biggs
20. SRF_Wilhelm Jäger
21. 122sqn Bruv
22. 362nd Kortana
23. Tavel
24. CDS_Narigón
25. amazing
26. SRF_Wayne
27. SRF_Erlkönig
28. rei
29. 2./JG54 GRÜBER
30. YUGO
31. Harold
32. SRF_Robert
33. offelkart_ob
34. kablamoman
35. QB.Shallot

SPECIAL MENTIONS IN DISPATCHES

During July, the server put a focus on Air to Ground attack. As a result of this focus, some specific actions have been singled out for special recognition.

The following Virtual Squadrons achieved the highest totals of ground units destroyed:

Jagdgeschwader 53 – 316 units destroyed
Ugly – 281 units destroyed
VF17 – 267 units destroyed

In addition the player MIDWAY single handedly destroyed the equivalent number of units as maintained by the following:

6 Infanterie-Regimente (431 trucks other vehicles)
6 Flakbatterien (71 flak)
2.5 Panzergrenadierabteilungen (195 halftracks)
2 Aufklärungsabteilungen (112 armoured cars)
0.5 Schützkompanie (74 infantry)
5 Festungen (5 fortified positions)

plus

1 Small town (107 buildings)
1 Jadgstaffel (18 fighters)
0.5 Bomberstaffel (7 bombers)
2 Ships (6572t)

PILOT AWARDS

The following pilots have received the below awards for their performance in JULY 2021.

26 Ribbons of each type were awarded for the month (based on the number of players who managed 10+ hours flying on the server). See HERE for a more detailed explanation. The ribbons will automatically show on your pilot profile on the SoW stats pages as soon as you start accumulating stats for AUGUST.

Pilots who are receiving a second award of this ribbon (i.e. they also won this ribbon last year) will receive a “pip” to their existing ribbon.

=== Anti Shipping ===

1. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
2. 122sqn JMB
3. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
4. MIDWAY
5. JG 53 Tracer [Millan 15]
1. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
2. MIDWAY
3. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
4. No.54 Philstyle
5. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
6. 362nd Money
7. Buckshot
8. 122sqn JMB
9. Saylors
10. Goodyear
11. Parrothead
12. italy80
13. JG 53 Trueno [Milan 11]
14. 362nd Shooter
15. JG 53 Tracer [Milan 15]
16. No.401 BigglesCDN
17. VF17- 42 sqd walshtimothy
18. IAF.Yuval
19. 362nd Andre
20. IAF.DMK
21. VF17-Ketchup
22. 246th-Duchess
23. Evil 1-1
24. 246th-Murdock
25. 246th-Hollywood
26. Popsablinkin

=== Ground Attack ===

1. 122sqn Bruv
2. MIDWAY
3. No.54 Philstyle
4. Soda
5. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
6. [ugly]Derbysieger
1. MIDWAY
2. Soda
3. Cool Hand
4. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
5. [ugly]Derbysieger
6. No.54 Thurmann
7. No.54 Philstyle
8. [ugly]Nirvi
9. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
10. 122sqn JMB
11. Boze
12. Shafs64
13. NO.20_Fuzzy_Man_Peach
14. kablamoman
15. VF17- 42 sqd walshtimothy
16. Cliffhanger31
17. invis
18. JG 53 Paddy [Milan 19]
19. Parrothead
20. 56th FG – Brigg
21. NastyNate
22. SRF_Gadreel
23. River
24. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
25. YUGO
26. JG 53 Trueno [Milan 11]

=== Air to Air ===

1. River
2. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
3. IKEA 24-7 | Bilishe
4. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
5. PeeGoose
6. 122sqn Bruv
7. FF*Stid*15
8. ssun_g0d
9. Ben Dover
10. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
1. River
2. SNAFU
3. SRF_Wilhelm Jäger
4. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
5. 362nd Wallace
6. 362nd Iceland
7. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
8. JG 53 Paddy [Milan 19]
9. No.54 Philstyle
10. kablamoman
11. BRUTUS 1-1 | GRÜBER
12. amazing
13. PeeGoose
14. 362nd Brannan
15. Cliffhanger31
16. Cool Hand
17. =475FG= Shifty |HADES|
18. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
19. RTyfgv
20. VF17-Ketchup
21. No.54 Thurmann
22. CDS_Narigón
23. 362nd Shooter
24. 362nd Kortana
25. 362nd Andre
26. SRF_phizix

The poll asking the community for their wish-list of DCS Normandy map updates is now closed. The results are in. There were 157 unique user replies. Each unique voter cast 5 votes (max one vote per item).
More detail/ context regarding the nature of many requests was posted in the previous magazine article. This content is repeated below the chart and table.

The tally of results is shown in the chart below with the MOST voted for at the top.

A Tabular display of the results is shown below.

ITEMVOTES
Implement the same coastline tech as used on Syria / Marianas maps.96
Expand the map limits to the south to include Rennes and the airfield there.77
Fix reported Terrain Deformities (see text below the table)64
Airfield Dinan-Trélivan added in west of map as requested on forums (see text below the table)62
Anything that can be done to extend the detailed areas of the map, in any direction61
Add the Great Harbour walls of Cherbourg, which are missing60
Fix waterways which flow up hill as reported on forums (see text below the table)56
Change the hard-coded minimum temperature down from 10 degrees to around 5 degrees43
Add the St. Lo to Periers to Lessay road, which is missing from the map.41
Remove the permanent hangars and brick structures from Allied Landing Grounds30
Guard towers and chain link fencing should be removed from the allied ALGs29
Add in names to moderate sized urban areas in XV71, XV70, XU78 and XU3821
Correct the orientation of St Croix ALG as per report on ED forums (see text below the table) 20
Fix the railways around Rouen and the Seine so that they show in the mission editor when zoomed out.20
Fix Church near Argentan which cuts through trees as reported on the ED forums (see text below the table)14
Remove trees/obstacles from middle of airfields2
Pre D-Day map version (may44) without allied airfields in France2
Official implementation of Barthek’s ground textures1
The ground handling should be adjusted to allow for take-off and landing on flat ground with all WW2 fighters1
Add the iconic St Mere Eglise church1
Update runway “grid wire” mesh1
View of the rocks of the French coast as on the Channel map1
Add winter version with snow1
Add shrubs, like on the Channel map.1

CONTEXT / DETAIL of several of the highest-voted items:

Airfield Dinan-Trélivan added in west of map as requested on forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/266650-suggestion-for-new-airfield-on-normandy-map/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-4726707

Fix reported Terrain Deformities:
– near Bernay – https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/221130-reportedterrain-error-east-of-bernay/?tab=comments#comment-4107485
– near Carbourg – https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/269026-terrain-deformities/?tab=comments#comment-4683984

Fix waterways which flow up hill as reported on forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/233042-normandy-rivers-climb-hills/?tab=comments#comment-4376189

Remove large permanent hangars and brick structures from Allied Landing Grounds (St. Pierre du Mont, St Croix, Longues sur mer, Beuzeville). this is based on aerial photos which do the rounds on the SoW discord which show the absence of structures at least early on in the invasion. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Saint-Pierre-du-Mont_Airfield.jpg
Further reference within this thread – https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/160689-normandy-map-inaccuracies/?tab=comments#comment-3245043

Fix the church near Argentan which cuts through the trees as reported on the ED forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/231969-placement-of-church-near-argentan/?tab=comments#comment-232694

Correct orientation of St Croix ALG as per report on ED forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/227142-st-criox-sur-mer-incorrect-orientation/?tab=comments#comment-227797

Add the St. Lo to Periers to Lessay road, which is missing from the map. This key road was the “start line” for Operation Cobra. https://www.b24.net/StLoPeriers.htm

Fix the railways around Rouen and the Seine so that they show in the mission editor when zoomed out. No reference for this, but when you zoom out in the mission editor, the railway network in the west remains visible. However the railways along the Siene river disappear.

Change the hard-coded minimum temperature down from 10 degrees to around 5 degrees. This means that early morning missions can be made with more sensible temperatures. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/221009-hard-coded-minimum-tempreature-of-10c-and-no-snow/?tab=comments#comment-4106307

Add the Great Harbour walls of Cherbourg, which are missing. As reported on Forum: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/160923-dcs-wwii-object-wish-list/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-4128711
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherbourg_Harbour

Guard towers and chain link fencing should be removed from the allied ALGs (at least St. Pierre du Mont, St Croix, Longues sur mer, Beuzeville) . This was raised on the forums within this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/160689-normandy-map-inaccuracies/

Anything that can be done to extend the detailed areas of the map, in any direction. This is a less specific request to generally expand the map’s detailed areas. This is most obvious in the south-west, the east, and in England.

Implement the same coastline tech as used on Syria / Marianas maps. No reference.

Expend the map limits to the south to include Rennes and the airfield there. This would allow for the primary active LW airfield that was used during and after the invasion in this area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennes%E2%80%93Saint-Jacques_Airport

Add missing town names to moderate sized urban areas in XV71, XV70, XU78 and XU38. See the mission editor/ map. These towns are obvious, but not named.

SoW player preferences for Normandy map updates

We have prepared a poll, taking in many bug reports and wish-list items that relate to the Normandy map. The plan is to collect “votes” from the SoW player base regarding their priority changes. We will then send a list of the top 10 voted items to ED.
You can submit 5 items in your top 5. More detail about each item is provided below the poll.

Loading…

Airfield Dinan-Trélivan added in west of map as requested on forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/266650-suggestion-for-new-airfield-on-normandy-map/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-4726707

Fix reported Terrain Deformities:
- near Bernay - https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/221130-reportedterrain-error-east-of-bernay/?tab=comments#comment-4107485
- near Carbourg - https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/269026-terrain-deformities/?tab=comments#comment-4683984

Fix waterways which flow up hill as reported on forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/233042-normandy-rivers-climb-hills/?tab=comments#comment-4376189

Remove large permanent hangars and brick structures from Allied Landing Grounds (St. Pierre du Mont, St Croix, Longues sur mer, Beuzeville). this is based on aerial photos which do the rounds on the SoW discord which show the absence of structures at least early on in the invasion. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Saint-Pierre-du-Mont_Airfield.jpg
Further reference within this thread - https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/160689-normandy-map-inaccuracies/?tab=comments#comment-3245043

Fix the church near Argentan which cuts through the trees as reported on the ED forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/231969-placement-of-church-near-argentan/?tab=comments#comment-232694

Correct orientation of St Croix ALG as per report on ED forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/227142-st-criox-sur-mer-incorrect-orientation/?tab=comments#comment-227797

Add the St. Lo to Periers to Lessay road, which is missing from the map. This key road was the "start line" for Operation Cobra. https://www.b24.net/StLoPeriers.htm

Fix the railways around Rouen and the Seine so that they show in the mission editor when zoomed out. No reference for this, but when you zoom out in the mission editor, the railway network in the west remains visible. However the railways along the Siene river disappear.

Change the hard-coded minimum temperature down from 10 degrees to around 5 degrees. This means that early morning missions can be made with more sensible temperatures. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/221009-hard-coded-minimum-tempreature-of-10c-and-no-snow/?tab=comments#comment-4106307

Add the Great Harbour walls of Cherbourg, which are missing. As reported on Forum: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/160923-dcs-wwii-object-wish-list/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-4128711
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherbourg_Harbour

Guard towers and chain link fencing should be removed from the allied ALGs (at least St. Pierre du Mont, St Croix, Longues sur mer, Beuzeville) . This was raised on the forums within this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/160689-normandy-map-inaccuracies/

Anything that can be done to extend the detailed areas of the map, in any direction. This is a less specific request to generally expand the map's detailed areas. This is most obvious in the south-west, the east, and in England.

Implement the same coastline tech as used on Syria / Marianas maps. No reference.

Expend the map limits to the south to include Rennes and the airfield there. This would allow for the primary active LW airfield that was used during and after the invasion in this area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennes%E2%80%93Saint-Jacques_Airport

Add missing town names to moderate sized urban areas in XV71, XV70, XU78 and XU38. See the mission editor/ map. These towns are obvious, but not named.

Recently Storm of War did a detailed review of the Marianas Islands map, which has recently been released for DCS. While the Modern version is not relevant to Storm of War, we wanted to look into the feasibility of using the World War II version which Eagle Dynamics said that they were working on. Part of that assessment, meant looking at the scale of the map and how it relates to the size of the typical operating ranges of our aircraft and what our pilots typically expect to fly.

This is not the first time we’ve done this. A while ago we did a careful assessment of the Channel Map, looking at whether it would be suitable for World War II operations for our server. Like our study on the Marianas, scale, flight-times and combat vectors were considered. This then raised the question of the “other maps” in DCS.

Why maps?

Unlike the civilian flight simulators (X-Plane, Prepar-3D, MSFS-2020, etc.) DCS World does not include the “whole world”, but rather has terrain maps. These are limited regions, covering just a small part of the globe.

Now, this is completely understandable. You see, the difference is that unlike a civilian flight simulation, the scenery is a target. Bombs, gunfire, and rockets will (or at least should!) interact with the landscape to destroy buildings, crater runways, knock out bridges or char the vegetation. This is why combat flight simulators have limited areas or maps, in which the action takes place.

In total, DCS has seven maps. Two are free (the default Caucasus and the downloadable Marianas). The other five are additional modules which you need to buy. But this brings us back to our original consideration of the maps for DCS WW2. For Storm of War, the only map we use is the Normandy map. But we have thought about the other maps and part of that was wondering how they compare in scale with each other.

The project

So, what we’ve done is take every single DCS map. We measure the scale of the map in kilometres and take some screenshots of the map to show their full extent. Then, we calculate the relative scales of the maps and put them all on a single image, scaled to the same size.

The DCS maps are flat in the sense that there is no earth curvature and the east-west and north-south grids are linear and orthogonal. This means a direct comparison can be made. Additionally, it is possible to place nearby maps at the correct distances from each other.

So, in the composite image, we’ve grouped some maps together. Nevada and Marianas are completely separate from the others. The Channel and Normandy overlap each other. The Caucasus, Syria and Persian Gulf maps are near each other, but there is no overlap. We have spaced them the correct distance apart (and added a little bit of coastline of the Mediterranean and Caspian Sea to guide the eye).

A comparison of size

It is interesting to compare the sizes of the maps, but one needs to be careful! The “populated” (in a scenery sense) areas of each map are not the same. It is pretty obvious on the Caucasus where the fill-in area is. But, for example, the Romanian coast is totally empty. Likewise for the Persian Gulf, which has detail for the Strait of Hormuz, while Kuwait and Iraq are coastlines only. The Syria map actually has the most scenery-populated land area.

Of course, water is water… so the Marianas has a minuscule landmass, but is still the largest map… assuming you like flying over the open ocean.

Conclusion

Although Storm of War will not be using any of these maps except Normandy, it is nevertheless interesting to compare what we are using to the other maps and their scales. Of course, new maps will no doubt come out for the simulator.Eagle Dynamics have already mentioned the WW2-Pacific version of the Marianas, and Razbam are currently working on a Falklands Islands map. We will no doubt examine each as they are released (or upgraded).

Downloads

Link to the full-size montage image:

https://stormofwar.info/maps/SoW-036-MapComparison_v01.jpg

Links to screenshots of the component maps:

https://stormofwar.info/maps/dcs_caucasus_map.jpg
https://stormofwar.info/maps/dcs_channel_map.jpg
https://stormofwar.info/maps/dcs_marianas_map.jpg
https://stormofwar.info/maps/dcs_nevada_map.jpg
https://stormofwar.info/maps/dcs_normandy_map.jpg
https://stormofwar.info/maps/dcs_persiangulf_map.jpg
https://stormofwar.info/maps/dcs_syria_map.jpg

In multiplayer WW2 DCS trains do not work. They do not appear correctly for all clients. They do not run correctly. In some cases, they simply do not appear at all. This is a MAJOR deficiency of the simulator, which has existed for year, and had led to a lot of frustrated customers. In this article we look at why trains are so important and the impact of their absence on our Storm of War pilots.

History and importance

The German railway network (Deutsche Reichsbahn) was the national railway system created at the end of the First World War. During its expansion in the 20s and 30s, it was considered one of the biggest industrial expansion programmes in the world, and one of critical importance to the infrastructure of the Reich: from food distribution, to industrial interconnectivity, and supplying the front line. When war broke out, these railways were hard-pressed to supply Germany’s war needs and, in many ways, they never were able to.

In multiplayer WW2 DCS trains do not work. They do not appear correctly for all clients. They do not run correctly. In some cases, they simply do not appear at all. This is a MAJOR deficiency of the simulator, which has existed for year, and had led to a lot of frustrated customers.

After the defeat of the Jagdwaffe in early 1944, American fighters were allowed to attack targets of opportunity after completing their escort duties. With the ease of finding those long silver lines and smoke and steam giving away their presence, trains were a primary target. With over 40 trains per day being destroyed, the loss rate outstripped production of locomotives and rolling stock (an experienced train crews), which was already in decline. The occupied countries had it even worse. In France, the railways were severely damaged during the Allied air-offensives in the lead-up to the D-Day invasion, and the subsequent Normandy breakout.

The railways operated right to the collapse of the Third Reich. Yet by the end, they were barely functioning, despite the heroic efforts of the railway repair teams, maintenance staff and train crews. The inability to have adequate supply exacerbated the chaos of the relentless and overwhelming Allied advances. With the flow of spare parts, replacement troops, fuel, munitions and rations slowed to a trickle by the collapse of the railways the effectiveness of German forces decreased dramatically.

For Germany, trains are a vital part of the logistics. While the Allied logistics was dominated by ships and trucks, the Germans had trains and horses. With Axis oil being in such short supply (and desperately needed for other areas), the coal and steel railways provided the only viable solution for mass-mechanised transport logistics. Without an adequate supply chain, no nation can wage war.

Trains in DCS

Within the DCS WW2 assets pack, there are some very special units. The DRG Class 86 locomotive, plus the G10 covered wagon,the DR 50-tonne flat type transport and others. These have been created in stunning detail. They are truly beautiful models.

In the Mission Editor, there are two types of trains.

  1. “Civilian traffic” trains. These are arbitrary and do not function well. If you are simply going to ignore trains, use them as environment-only, and fly single-player, then these are fine.
  2. “Placeable unit” trains. These “snap” to the rail lines and should spawn-in and move about on waypoints just like road vehicle units. For targets and a controlled multiplayer environment, this second type is essential.

And this is where it starts to hurt the players.

Currently, trains a dysfunctional. The railway key in the Mission Editor does not work. The levels-of-detail on the map are flawed. The logic by which they follow railways is indecipherable. The trains can only be placed in certain positions. They do not always render or appear correctly. They are often merely shadows on the ground.

But it gets worse…

Multi-player Frustration

Storm of War has always strived to create an immersive environment for World War 2 air combat operations. As far as possible within the limitations of the DCS simulator, we use extensive research and historical sources to create a set of historically minded and compelling scenarios. Part of that is the logistics. It is critically important to us to convey this aspect of the war to our vitual pilots. Not only does it provide vital context, but it also makes the ecosystem richer and our virtual battlefield less sterile.

Trains are also a critical target for the P-47D and the DH.98 Mosquito. It is difficult to justify the inclusion of these aircraft (particularly the Mosquito) in the absence of the provision of valid targets.

However, there is a more fundamental problem. Trains do not work across multiplayer DCS. What we mean here is that any train placed in the mission editor only appears on the server-instance of DCS. It does not appear in the clients. This affects not just persistent, multiplayer servers like Storm of War, but even just a couple of players wanting to carry out their own co-op mission.

Trains do not work across multiplayer DCS.

The fact that trains do not render in different clients, much less are actually synchronised between them, is not new.

This bug was reported back in 2017. Yes, twenty-seventeen. It comes up repeatedly on the forums. Numerous threads have pointed this out.

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/165760-reportedinvisible-trains-in-multiplayer/
https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/189818-train-not-visible-in-multiplayer/
https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/193651-trains/
https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/204201-trains/
https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/272871-players-placed-trains-synced-in-multiplayer/

So this is not just Storm of War, but a much larger swathe of the community.

Yet for us, trying to run the Normandy Campaign without trains, is like trying have the Battle of the Atlantic without convoys. Logistics is a vital part of warfare. And working locomotives and their rolling stock are a critical part of the defending logistics, an important target and essential to the historical landscape.

*gasp* Multiplayer…

*gasp* trains…


Ref: https://uncpress.org/book/9781469613963/the-most-valuable-asset-of-the-reich/

When the Channel Map was released for DCS, the team at Storm of War did a detailed assessment of the map for possible use on a 24/7 multiplayer server. In the last week, Eagle Dynamics (ED) have released the Marianas Map. The map is FREE as a downloadable module/DLC. It is set in a modern era, with modern assets, airbases and urban areas. However, ED have stated that they plan to develop an historical version of map and assets. In a statement made by NineLine on the ED forums on 06-Jul-2021, he wrote:

“ WWII PTO assets will be worked on later, the map will be released in a WWII version down the road as well, thanks. ”

NineLine, 06-Jul-2021, ED Forums

This then begs an analysis of the map, the current aircraft and assets, and is it feasible as a potential scenario for Storm of War?

The missions

Storm of War has always been about historical scenarios. In order to assess whether there are any suitable options, research was done on the following historical events.

There was a 1st Battle of Guam: 8-10 December 1941, but that’s not suitable for a PvP server, given the unpreparedness of the USA, and the fact it is so early in the war (which means a lack of any flyable aircraft).

The significant action on this map begins in the far west. This is the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which was on the 19-20 June 1944. It was a single battle which was very much one-sided and is also not suitable for a PvP server. It is exacerbated by the requirement for carrier operations (which we’ll discuss later). This was the precursor to the Marianas campaign which ran from June to August 1944. It seems like the Marianas campaign would be a good set of missions for DCS.

The problem is that by the time the main action on the islands had commenced, the raids against the Japanese airfields had annihilated any aircraft or infrastructure. The only major attempt by the Japanese to fend off the Americans was during this carrier offensive, in February 1944, as they raided the islands and neutralised the Japanese air power in the area.

American aircraft raid Rota, Tinian and Saipan. The US forces are from Task Group 58.3 (Sherman) and Task Group 58.2 (Montgomery). The attack sinks 20,000 tons of Japanese shipping, destroys the airfields and damages the harbour infrastructure. These few days in February 1944 is when the air war occurred over the Marianas. Unlike Operation Hailstone, it was not well contested. And it limits the US aircraft strictly to carrier-based aircraft.

The Aircraft

Currently, we have the P-47, which took part in the invasion of Saipan as part of the 7th Air Force, flying onto the island in June 1944. It saw action in the ground attack role. However, its arrival was after the Japanese air force was decimated.

Magnitude 3 (a 3rd party developer) is producing the F4U1-D Corsair. It earned itself the nickname: “Sweetheart of the Marianas”. But, like the P-47, arrived after the Japanese airforce was gone.

We all know that Nick Grey (Co-founder of ED) Really Loves The Hellcat, and that this aircraft is on the way to DCS. The Grumman F6F Hellcat, was deployed in mid-1943, with first actions in Sep 1943. It is faster than the Zero at all altitudes and would make for a powerful carrier aircraft, appropriate to this area.

Other Allied aircraft are not so relevant for the Marianas, let alone the air war there. The P-51 was deployed late in the Pacific, for example, from Iwo Jima in 1945. It was assigned to B-29 escort duty and saw some large air battles, but these were over Japan itself (e.g. 29-May-1945). It is not so relevant for the Marianas, but could be squeezed in a a pinch. Other DCS WW2 aircraft, even less so.

But what about the Japanese?

A6M5 “Zero” was the naval fighter produced throughout the war. Magnitude 3 has hinted at producing an AI version of this aircraft, but nothing has been confirmed. That said, the A6M was already obsolete by this stage of the war, and will not fare well against the Hellcat or the Corsair.

If it is not flyable, then we’d need to use substitutes.

One option is the “Japanitfire” which uses the Spitfire Mk.IX also attired in Japanese colours representing any of the inline-engined Japanese aircraft (like the Ki-60).

The other option is the “Japanton”… this is the FW 190 A-8, re-skinned in IJN colours and used as a stand-in for the some generic radial-engined Japanese aircraft (say the A6M). This was even used by ED in their promotional video for the new map.

We already grieve needing to use the Bf 109 K-4 in Normandy as a substitute for the Bf 109 G-6. These substitutes are simply not acceptable.

The “other” aircraft

An ongoing problem with DCS WW2 is the obsessive focus on fighter aircraft. Any war is fought at multiple levels and, in order to support the PvP fighter-v-fighter combats, bombers, attack aircraft, transports, are also needed. This is what makes the air war ecosystem come alive and transforms it from a dogfight server to an historic server.

Thus, aircraft like Grumman TBF Avengers and Nakajima B5N2 “Kate” bombers are important. (As an example of a more contested air war, look at Operation Hailstone.)

Then there are the bomber raids against the Marianas (B-24 Liberators), the Japanese maritime aircraft stationed there (H8K2 Emily) and the long-range American aircraft that moved there post-invasion (B-29 Superfortress) to carry out the raids against the Japanese mainland.

Ground Units

From infantry, trucks and Sherman tanks, the Allies have enough ground units to supplement an amphibious landing. Additionally, there some anti-aircraft guns. The Bofors gun in DCS has a British crew, but could be pressed into service if needed. However, a better heavy US anti-aircraft gun is needed. There is a jeep too (albeit with a British driver).

On the Japanese side, there is nothing. Any WW2 scenario (whether PvP or PvE) in the Marianas is simply not feasible without infantry, mortar and crew, anti-aircraft guns and coastal defence artillery. (Japanese tanks are not relevant here.)

The Ships

There is a US Essex-class carrier being developed… we’ll get to that later, but it needs to be supplemented. Destroyers (e.g. Fletcher class or Benson class) are needed for this carrier escort work, but also for shore bombardment (an important part of the campaigns).

The Japanese carrier is sometimes mentioned. These operated on the far-western edge of the Marianas map (Philipines Sea). And the blue-water expanse of the map could be used for any carrier-v-carrier operations. However, for the plane-set that we anticipate F6F Hellcat, the carrier war was very lop-sided by this stage of the war and does not make for a compelling PvP scenario.

For the raids on the Japanese-held Marianas, destroyers and cargo ships will be needed.

The Map

The map has dimensions 1500\,km east-west, but 1300\,km north south. It is nearly all water. However, in the south east, there is Marianas Island chain. This comprises the islands of Guam, Rota, Aguijan, Tinian and Saipan. It also contains a number of very minor islands, such as Cocos Island and Farallon de Medinilla. We’ll assume that there are appropriate airfields added, and that it would be possible to fly from Guam, Rota, Tinian and Saipan. Historically, these islands also had significant seaplane bases.

Superficially, the Marianas looks comparable scale to Normandy. However, the Marianas island chain is linear. There is no “off-axis” fields, like we have Lessay or Evreux. This makes for linear gameplay as there is merely a stream of players taking off from nearest opposing fields.

The answer on the Marianas is the introduction of carriers to provide off-axis vectors. These can be randomised to add variety. But they have an additional set of complications.

The Carriers

It is known from the modern jet servers the challenges of carrier operations. WW2 aircraft will have serious problems here. Firstly, the launches are flown, not catapulted. The landings are precarious, at best… and the Corsair has a particularly nasty reputation in this regard (assuming it is used). Finally, the carriers themselves are small. This affects the amount of room for aircraft, but also the ship itself.

We already have manoeuvring problems on airfields due to the challenges of tail-dragger aircraft. The pitching decks of confined WW2 carriers will be particularly challenging, especially as they are straight-deck carriers, and not angled deck carriers like in modern times.

Naval operations also require working radio communications and equipment. At the moment, at least half of the WW2 aircraft in DCS have non-functioning radio navigation equipment. This would need to be fixed. Additionally, provision needs to be made for both sides to allow either Japanese or American aircraft to operate.

One of the biggest problems we see with the 24/7 server concept is the sustainability. Currently, SoW has 25 Normandy Campaign missions. These are massive missions with multiple objectives for both sides. The map spans a large area, but there are multiple deployment points and a large variety of mission-specific targets and static defences (e.g. ports and airfields).

This is not readily available in the Marianas scenario.

There is no real air war here. Like Unternehmen Bodenplatte in Europe, the defenders made some last assaults of significant numbers, but in total futility. The Allies flinch for a moment, and then continue their relentless advance with their assailants crippled and reeling from their last-gasp attack.

You can make a single mission of these such events, but it is not possible to make a 24/7 server from them.

Conclusion

We could continue to delve into the details. There are a lot of material here and we have written a detailed report on the topic.

However, our summary is that the Marianas will not be suitable for Storm of War. We anticipate that it will be good developed as a single-player environment, and that it would work nicely for a PvE co-op environment or one-off event. However, we do not anticipate being able to constructively utilise the map for an immersive, PvP 24/7 historical multiplayer environment.

SoW – Eagle Dynamics state of delivery and product maintenance communications

Many SoW users may have noticed that in recent weeks we have been more vocal about communicating issues and long standing bugs or deficiencies with the software that Eagle Dynamics has provided.

In it’s current state there are a significant number of long standing bug reports fort many of the software modules that have been sold and purchased and are being deployed by SoW. A list of these bugs for the FW190-A8 simulation alone have been posted on the SoW .info website which you can read here: https://stormofwar.info/fw190a8bugs.php

Dietrich in particular has been writing detailed, careful bug reports for years now (example: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/181973-reported-incorrect-trajectory-of-the-br21-rockets/ ), with historical references, .trk files, instructions on how to repeat the tests, etc., etc.. The response has been underwhelming. Bugs have remained in the same state as far as the customer is concerned, for not months, but years. It is difficult to image how much clearer and detailed the identification of product issues needs to be articulated before it can be understood and resolved by the software developer.

There is now significant concern from much of the user-base that additional new modules being developed Eagle Dynamics (Such as the F6) are going to further limit the amount of effort to deliver on the incumbent projects. Among the apparently neglected deliverables are a significant number of aerial AI-only assets which includes (but is not limited to) the B-25, C-47 109G variant .

I often think of the 2018 “SoW Wishlist” video which set out a set of desired product improvements that were considered important (if not critical) for building a server-based simulation like we have with SoW. It is somewhat disheartening to see how many of those things remain incomplete. However, most of these items are wish-list requests. At the core of the current communications from SoW is the desire to see core “broken” elements of the existing software finally fixed.

To that end, regular communication of critical product bugs will be posted on the SoW .info website.

We also encourage the user community to continue engaging with the supplier, Eagle Dynamics vie any public or private channels you have access to. The hopeful result being that this long list of historically reported platform issues can be resolved as soon as possible.

SQUADRON AWARDS/ CITATIONS

Since January 2021, virtual squadrons are recognised as a “unit” for contributions over a longer period (each half year). This recognition comes in the form of “unit citations” which all pilots within that squadron will wear on their uniforms, as long as they remain a member of that squadron. New pilots who join a squadron will also be able to share in past glories by also wearing the unit citation on their pilot page.

The Unit Citation is a yellow ribbon, as shown below, “pips” are added for squadrons which receive the ribbon more than once, 1 pip for each subsequent award.

1st unit citation
2nd unit citation

The award process for unit citations is as follows:

  • Each year is divided into 12 monthly campaigns.
  • In any given campaign, a squad is regarded as having made a “significant contribution” if:
    1. Two ore more pilots with their unit tags flew
    2. pilots with unit tags collectively logged 10+ flight hours
  • Unit citations are awarded every half-year (Jan-Jun and Jul-Dec)
  • If a squad makes 5+ significant contributions in the given half-year, it gets a unit citation
  • A unit citation is displayed as an extra ribbon on member pilots’ records
  • The unit citation belongs to the squad, not the pilots. Thus:
    1. new pilots joining that squad, will receive its past citation ribbon
    2. pilots leaving the squad will lose the unit citation ribbon

These Squadrons/ Groups have been given Unit Citations for the period January to June 2021:

  1. VF17 – https://stormofwar.info/vf17.php
  2. 56th FG – https://stormofwar.info/56thfg.php
  3. vPoAF – https://stormofwar.info/vpoaf.php
  4. No.119 Squadron (The Few) – https://stormofwar.info/no119.php
  5. No.54 Squadron – https://stormofwar.info/no54.php
  6. 362nd Squadron – https://stormofwar.info/362nd.php
  7. IAF – https://stormofwar.info/iaf.php
  8. 122 Squadron – https://stormofwar.info/122sqn.php
  9. EAF – https://stormofwar.info/eaf.php
  10. UGLY – https://stormofwar.info/ugly.php
  11. Jagdgeschwader 53 – https://stormofwar.info/jg53.php
  12. [>GSJ<] – https://stormofwar.info/gsj.php

PILOT AWARDS

The following pilots have received the below awards for their performance in June 2021.

26 Ribbons of each type were awarded for the month (based on the number of players who managed 10+ hours flying on the server). See HERE for a more detailed explanation. The ribbons will automatically show on your pilot profile on the SoW stats pages as soon as you start accumulating stats for July.

Pilots who are receiving a second award of this ribbon (i.e. they also won this ribbon last year) will receive a “pip” to their existing ribbon.

=== Anti Shipping ===

1. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
2. 122sqn JMB
3. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
4. MIDWAY
5. JG 53 Tracer [Millan 15]
6. I./JG116 – Wilhelm Jäger
7. 362nd Money
8. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
9. Saylors
10. Normandy 1-1 | Roger
11. VF17- 42sqd Slapbladder
12. 362nd Shooter
13. 122sqn Cowboy
14. 362nd Brannan
15. Buckshot
16. Willzah
17. 362nd Andre
18. VF17- 42 sqd walshtimothy
19. 71st_AH_Splinter
20. PeeGoose
21. IAF.Yuval
22. 56th FG – Brigg
23. RAPTOR RUSSIA
24. Belgriffen1-1
25. Paranoid
26. GODJENT

=== Ground Attack ===

1. 122sqn Bruv
2. MIDWAY
3. No.54 Philstyle
4. Soda
5. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
6. [ugly]Derbysieger
7. Ben Dover
8. Cool Hand
9. LeLv8_Archi
10. [ugly]Nirvi
11. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
12. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
13. No.54 Thurmann
14. VF17-Ketchup
15. 122sqn JMB
16. VF17- 42 sqd walshtimothy
17. SRF_Gadreel
18. Spad
19. Shafs64
20. Willzah
21. No.119_Viper (VK-S)
22. Cliffhanger31
23. Saylors
24. TheFlyingDutchman
25. invis
26. 56th FG – Brigg

=== Air to Air ===

1. River
2. JG 53 Burrito [Milan 13]
3. IKEA 24-7 | Bilishe
4. JG 53 Dusty [Milan 14]
5. PeeGoose
6. 122sqn Bruv
7. FF*Stid*15
8. ssun_g0d
9. Ben Dover
10. JG 53 Plush [Milan 17]
11. No.54 Kennedyoz (KL-K)
12. Willzah
13. 362nd Thompson
14. VF_#6|Biggs
15. 362nd Andre
16. 362nd Brannan
17. 362nd Campbell
18. 362nd Wallace
19. LeLv8_Archi
20. JG 53 Paddy [Milan 19]
21. =475FG= Iceland
22. No.54 Philstyle
23. [ugly]Nirvi
24. Cool Hand
25. BRUTUS 1-1 | GR?BER
26. VF17-Ketchup