Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Roland CIIa


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#121 CAFulcrum

CAFulcrum
  • Posts: 926

Posted 02 October 2012 - 05:30

At least he wasn't rooting for a fokker DII
  • 0

#122 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 02 October 2012 - 05:53

he is obviously beeing left speechless by the 1/2 STRUTTER
rrrrrrrrr !!!!

At least he wasn't rooting for a fokker DII
_ega_ding this ai_c_aft, I would _athe_ be inte_ested by an Halbe_stadt DII
  • 0

#123 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:53

Are there any infos about possible German aces while flying a Roland C. II, or of any Roland C. II "kills" (by the machine gunner of course, but perhaps alos by the pilot?). I've difficulties in finding anything about that.
  • 0

#124 JFM

JFM
  • Posts: 153
  • LocationNaples, FL, USA

Posted 03 October 2012 - 17:57

Although not an ace in the machine, it is believed Manfred von Richthofen shot down a Nieuport while flying an LFG Roland C.II with Kasta 8. "Believed" because 1. although noted in official dispatches he did not receive credit for the victory and 2. although MvR described attaching a machine gun to his airplane and attacking the Nieuport, he did not specifically identify the make and model of airplane flown. At that time (spring 1916) K8 flew LVG C.IIs and LFG Roland C.IIs; later they went to Russia and flew Albatros C.IIIs. But when attacking the Nieuport it was either an LVG or Walfisch, and based on MvR's description of his attack (overtook the airplane via a stern chase) an LVG was not going to catch a Nieuport in that manner.
  • 0

#125 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 03 October 2012 - 19:52

Very interesting. Would that have been a Nieuport 10 two-seater? Or a scout?
  • 0

#126 Pigmachine

Pigmachine
  • Posts: 559

Posted 03 October 2012 - 23:36

Roland C.IIa
Manufacturer:LFG Roland/ Germany / 1917? (store info)

It were withdrawn at mid 1917 what will the timespan be for it's usage?

Really sorry if it's been brought up before.. just noticed it now..
  • 0

#127 4./JG53_Wotan

4./JG53_Wotan
  • Posts: 44

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:11

There really is "no use" for it in terms of filling a gap or whole in the plane set - especially for career mode. By Dec 1916 their were only around 64 in front line service. That number declined moving into 1917 and as previously stated by mid-1917 most were pulled from front line duties.

its a niche aircraft that would probably get little notice but for von Richthofen.

Even so its cool looking plane and will be fun to fly…

Wotan
  • 0

#128 Pigmachine

Pigmachine
  • Posts: 559

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:20

Thanks! :S!:

I know I didn't waste my money on the preorder in that case!
  • 0

#129 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 04 October 2012 - 06:48

There really is "no use" for it in terms of filling a gap or whole in the plane set - especially for career mode. By Dec 1916 their were only around 64 in front line service. That number declined moving into 1917 and as previously stated by mid-1917 most were pulled from front line duties.

its a niche aircraft that would probably get little notice but for von Richthofen.

Even so its cool looking plane and will be fun to fly…

Wotan
That's what I saw too.
777 Studio policy seems to focus on "interesting planes" rather than "important planes"
  • 0

#130 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1501

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:03

Well look at the production numbers generally - a series of 60 planes was already quite a big one, in 1917.
Also, Germany changed its strategy of bigger planes fighting in "Kampf-Staffeln" to smaller single seater scouts, in 1917.

Yesterday for example we had Nieuport 11s, DH.IIs, Fokker E.IIIs, Albatros D.IIs and then DFWs and RE8s flying together. The latter 2 are only used because we have no two-seaters for the time - you cannot catch a DFW or RE8 with those scouts, unless you take a Nieuport - but it already seems Entente planes are generally too fast.

Compared to the Fokker E.III, the Pfalz E types and the Fokker D.IIs etc., the Roland 'Walfisch' was a fast and modern plane.
  • 0

#131 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:33

Compared to the Fokker E.III, the Pfalz E types and the Fokker D.IIs etc., the Roland 'Walfisch' was a fast and modern plane.
Indeed, you point out the true problem of the Roland, it is not representative of the 2 seaters of that time.
Take a Voisin or a Caudron G4 : the Fokker EIII would have no problem in catching them and shooting them down (as was historically the case) !

As to the RE8, I see lot of people on this forum claiming their love for this aircraft despite (or because) its weaknesses.
  • 0

#132 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:13

777 Studio policy seems to focus on "interesting planes" rather than "important planes"

Such as…?

(Not counting the Roland C.II in this topic).

The only plane currently in the planeset I could see people claiming as not being "important" is the D.VIII. Other than that, all the planes we currently have saw a lot of usage.
  • 0

#133 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:28

Seaplanes …
Their importance was very low, whatever people say during wwI, compared to some other planes such as the Albatroc CIII / CVII, the Sopwith Stutter …

Those seaplanes were important in history of aviation, but not in terms of naval warfare of WWI

Note that I do not criticize them : for the seaplanes, they open a new gameplay which is good.
Same for the Roland, it is a fun aircraft but not a "very important one".

Edit : and we can also talk about Fokker DVII or Spad 13 engine versions …
  • 0

#134 thenorm

thenorm
  • Posts: 1460

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:57

You have to remember, there were TONS of people asking for the Rolland. And Asking for the channel as well, more on the Russian side if I remember right.
  • 0

#135 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:10

Seaplanes …
Their importance was very low, whatever people say during wwI, compared to some other planes such as the Albatroc CIII / CVII, the Sopwith Stutter …

Those seaplanes were important in history of aviation, but not in terms of naval warfare of WWI

Oh, please. :roll: I can tell you've not read a lot about what these planes did over the Channel during the war. The Channel map, after all, is the whole reason they're being made.
  • 0

#136 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:10

You have to remember, there were TONS of people asking for the Rolland. And Asking for the channel as well, more on the Russian side if I remember right.
Yes, right, that's why I am ok with this aircraft as well as "777" policy.
  • 0

#137 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:17

[
Oh, please. :roll: I can tell you've not read a lot about what these planes did over the Channel during the war. The Channel map, after all, is the whole reason they're being made.
Of course, they did a lot, of course their pilots were very courageous, but the consequences of their action over the course of wwI was small.
I know very well this war, I have read a lot of books from the aviation and from the naval side, and honestly I think that the air people overemphasized their importance on the course of the war.

Aircaft played a very symbolic and propaganda role, but they were not decisive in naval operations (edit).
  • 0

#138 Lord_Flash

Lord_Flash
  • Posts: 66

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:46

Jeanba, I'm going to have to disagree with you there - it was RFC and French two-seaters which allowed for the Battle of the Marne/the halting of the German advance in '14, thanks to spotting the separation.

Contact patrols flown over the Somme battlefield (as mentioned by Cecil Lewis), were equally important in providing accurate and up to date reconnaissance information for Brigade, Divisional and Army HQs, and furthermore, in 1918 especially, allowed troops to be harried behind the lines, to have transport cut and similar.

Not to mention balloon attack sorties on both sides damaging the opposition's ability to lay down accurate artillery barrages on enemy strongpoints.

Air superiority, whilst not a war-winner alone (which is the same for WW2), contributed highly to the Allied victory from the first days of the war to the last. Information, the key part of the air services' work, is vital in wartime, especially before satelleite imagery or portable radios to allow for instant communication with troops.
  • 0

#139 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:12

Lord-flash, I was talking in the context of naval operation, for ground war, I quite agree with you.
  • 0

#140 Lord_Flash

Lord_Flash
  • Posts: 66

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:15

Ah, I see.

I don't know as much as I'd like to about WWI air-naval operations, but I imagine that their information gathering work with primitive one-way wireless sets might've been quite useful in locating enemy shipping/submarines?
  • 0

#141 redcoat22

redcoat22
  • Posts: 840

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:25

[

I know very well this war, I have read a lot of books from the aviation and from the naval side, and honestly I think that the air people overemphasized their importance on the course of the war.

Aircaft played a very symbolic and propaganda role, but they were not decisive in naval operations (edit).

The same could be argued in regards to the air war over the trenches.
  • 0

#142 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:30

Ah, I see.

I don't know as much as I'd like to about WWI air-naval operations, but I imagine that their information gathering work with primitive one-way wireless sets might've been quite useful in locating enemy shipping/submarines?
That is very complex.

Aside from naval officers who did not believe in aviation and systematically disregarded information from aircraft, the reliability of information and information transmission was very low.
Retrospectively, they were not as suefull as said by aviation defenders.
They were "part of the information gathering process", but not as critical as they would become during wwII
People were learning.
  • 0

#143 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:36

[

I know very well this war, I have read a lot of books from the aviation and from the naval side, and honestly I think that the air people overemphasized their importance on the course of the war.

Aircaft played a very symbolic and propaganda role, but they were not decisive in naval operations (edit).

The same could be argued in regards to the air war over the trenches.
The difference in the ground war is that starting in 1916, there was a real process involving aviation :
HQ wanted a full picture of the front every morning.
Aviation was also a good scapegoat for all kind of intelligence failures.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users