Living next to RAF Coningsby and seeing Typhoons taking off out of my window is utterly amazing! Especially in spring, summer and autumn months when the occasional Typhoon Display Pilot, James Sainty, does his beautiful displays in the BlackJack! Absolutely amazing to see these in DCS!
Hehe, utterly amazing, but I suspect a little noisy :-D I once slept in a tent in a field in the _middle_ of RAF Brize Norton (long story), and it _so happened_ that the Vulcan bombers (still operational then, just) were doing an op that night. That's four Rolls Royce Olympus engines at full power per aircraft. Quite literally, it made the earth shake beneath out beds. (Yes we had beds in our tents, long story).
@@therealdebater that couldn’t be more correct 😂 especially on nights when sleep becomes limited to around 5 hours instead of 9 😆 but amazing when you get the camera out and take some amazing single reheat/afterburner go around night shots. 🙄😵💫😄
To be fair, these guys can't and aren't using closing speeds three times faster than a 262... you just aren't going to be accurate enough with the cannons... firing windows open and close way too quickly. Also these Typhoons couldn't be lollygagging through the middle of the box formations if all the defensive guns were actually being realistically utilized. Assuming legit closing speeds for target runs and facing legitimately skilled gunners, the Typhoons likely have little advantages over a crusty old ME109 once they have to creep within 50 cal / 27mm gun ranges.
Has a jet than can easily break the speed of sound - proceeds to fly slow behind bombers and gets smacked by .50 cals 🙃side note: the weak spot would be the cockpit (also engines). Head on works best to accomplish this, if not come in at roughly a 45 degree angle off the formations nose and line up multiple bombers in your run.
This is a really interesting scenario, because like in these sort of, modern forces get sent back in time, there’s not normally a conflict of interest. Like “could a modern US carrier group have stopped Pearl harbour?” or “could the modern British airforce have stopped the Battle of Britain?” create pretty obvious scenarios where the modern counterparts would still see their old times counterparts as the good guys in those scenarios. But if a modern German squadron slipped through a time vortex and found themselves near Dresden a day before the bombing was suppose to happen, they’d have a huge moral dilemma on their hands. Even setting aside “can we mess with history” concerns. Would they pledge themselves to the defence of the people of Dresden and ally with the Nazi’s? Obviously you chose the bombing of Dresden because it’s arguably one of the least defensible attacks conducted by the allies but it still raises a very interesting moral quandary.
Reminds me of Zipang, with the crew of a modern JMSDF DDG deciding between interfering with history or not after finding themselves back in 1942. Part of the crew wanting to stand with their fellow country men of the IJN, the other part wanting to avoid combat as a substantially changed neutral allied to the US. How would a Modern British of South African contingent react to finding themselves near the Battle of Isandlwana, a RN task force off Canton in 1839, a German Panzer Brigade by the breakout by the 9th Army at Halbe, a US mechanized cavalry squadron at Wounded Knee or Little big horn, a JASDF wing during the fire bombings of 1945, or a large 1990s Russian Ground formation in the Civil War? Either case, I would not want to be in those COs boots in the slightest.
If a modern German Air Force squadron got transported back to 1943, I like to think their number one target would be one A. Hitler, and just end the war asap.
I think it might be right for them to spend half of their fuel and ammo on preventing the dresden attack as it was one of the worst operations of allies in terms of morality and the other half on taking out the critical nazi war machine components unavalible to allies with their technology at the time to compensate somewhat to the damage of the allied war effort.
@Jason no. Hitler and his cronies PROVED to be not only ruthless mass murderers, but also patently insane with no realistic view on the world. Wanna know what happens when the Typhoon squad goes to the axis? They will have a bit of a go, their planes will be reverse enginered as best as possible (ie not at all) and the USA will decided to nuke Berlin and Other cities instead.
There is a team working on a Typhoon mod (other than Heatblur, well have to wait till 2023 for that) It has an actual cockpit and will be available on New Year (1 Jan 2022)
For a more accurate sampling you can always use ratio squads. Since you guys can only represent 1/4 of the squad without needing AI use only 1/4 of the normal attacking squads
Cap: "I'm not going near that clutch of bombers - They're too stronk!" Cap a little later fearing a friendly missile launch: "Guys - Try and hide amongst the bombers."
@@grimreapers were the B17 gunners even shooting at your fighters? Like I understand they would be guessing the lead on you guys but still, there were some 2k .50s there and it doesn't seem like there was a single hit.
@DSiren Sirenite The defensive guns certainly didn't seem realistically modeled, which isn't a surprise, 200ish bombers each with 8 gunners.. and well.. that's going to melt most CPUs. But yea, the way Cap was just casually strolling through the middle of the formation like he was passing an old lady on the freeway... likely should have been taking insane 50 cal crossfire.
I'm not a WWII veteran, only watched bomber intercepting videos made in IL-2 1946, and I read a few reports from actual veteran pilots. German fighters rarely attacked bombers from the back (except when the bomber was alone and already damaged) because that was their most heavily defended spot. Fighters usually attacked from an angle, because that way their constantly changing position made them more difficult to be hit by gunners. Attacking bombers head-on was dangerous and risky but in that case gunners almost couldn't hit the fighters at all. If you flew through a bomber formation from the back, with only a little faster than them, you would have been slaughtered by the gunners. An effective method against bombers was actually bombing the formations from above. Fighters were armed with bombs, set the fuse for the altitude of the formation, flew over it and released the bombs. The shrapnel and the shockwaves were deavastating. But they could use this method only up to 1943, when allied escort fighters were equipped with drop tanks, and began escorting bombers all the way into Germany. German fighters loaded with bombs would have been too easy target for the escorts, so they gave up with that method. Instead, they used unguided missiles with time fuses, besides guns. There's a short documentary on YT about german anti-bomber attacks, using footage made in IL-2 1946: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nuWoh67V-C4.html&ab_channel=TinusleRoux
There are quite a few LW training clips out there, taken during actual attacks on B-17 and B-24 combat formations. I must've seen dozens of them and there was maybe one or two that showed head-on attacks. Most were clips taken from dead 6, with the fighter more or less parked behind the bombers (you can often see other bombers in the clips). From what i understand those defensive guns weren't a joke in RL but they probably weren't nearly as deadly as they are in most sims that rely on auto-gunners.
IIRC, one of the factors that caused the Germans problems during the Battle of Britain is that BOTH sides assumed the enemy's squadrons were the same size as their own. This was a problem for the Luftwaffe because their squadrons were smaller than the RAF's. This meant the RAF OVER estimated the Luftwaffe strength, and the Germans UNDER estimated the RAF strength.
From an engineering standpoint the stressed skin versus non-stressed skin is an excellent reason for why the older WWII aircraft can take missile hits a little easier. Excellently done and reasonable modeling, plus a great explanation, Cap.
Would that really be the case though? My understanding is that most of these missile warheads use continuous-rod warheads with the goal of severing critical flight systems. If they work on stressed skin aircraft, they should be even more brutal on non-stressed, yes?
@@SFish-wr4kh Keep in mind that these decades upon decades older aircraft just aren't as densely packed with critical systems as more modern aircraft either, they're more likely able to limp home with holes punched through them. Modern aircraft are designed to maximize the function of every part of them without wasting any extra 'meat'(computer aided design, stress analysis, etc. goes a long way here), they're just optimized to the extreme. In contrast, older pre-computer era aircraft were far less optimized in design and were overbuilt to account for the margin of error in their design. I honestly don't have much doubt about their ability to be much more durable than modern aircraft. Besides, we have some aircraft that kind of ride the fence on this and arguably illustrate this point, like the A-10 Warthog. A more simple and overbuilt aircraft in design than today's typical military aircraft, and it's an outlier in its durability because of it. Just wild ass guesses in the end though
My personal highlight of the whole video: those Typhoons have the markings of the military from my country! Yes, here in Austria we have Typhoon. Not a big number, not all of them are able to fly, BUT we got them and the Grim Reapers use them with the markings of the Austrian Airforce!!
This video and the previous with the Battle of Britain makes it really really obvious why the F-106 was designed to yeet the AIR-2 genie into bomber formations. It’s just that bomber formations kinda stopped being a thing.
Always wondering with these scenarios, what the ‘chicken out’ point would be - the bomber crews seeing the utter carnage of their force, at what point would they say “F this” and turn round and run away.
I would say for tactics that what you need to do is divide up the squadron between the different divisions. You have 12 eurofighters, setup 4 per division. Setup in pairs as well, one lead, one wingman. If you divide up this way and come from the side of the divisions you should reduce friendly fire and also be able to cause as much damage as possible to each division of bombers coming in.
I was really curious to see how this worked out Nice idea Cap, well executed as usual! The answer of course is quite straightforward: No. Without regard to the video, here is why: Unit cost of a Meteor missile: $2.3M (what they would probably use, AMRAAM is about the same, though the -D model is over $4M unit cost). inflation-adjusted cost of a B-17 from 1944: $1.5M. Strategic warfare is ultimately an economic problem, not a technical one. On the other hand, you would not have to kill all the bombers: generally losses of >10% were, at the time, considered uneconomical. Since raids could consist of up to 1000 aircraft, your best kill rate would result in halting the bombing campaign completely. Now do Gripens versus WWII Luftwaffe :)
You analysis points to the more effective strategy that if you had access to modern aircraft and weapons, you wouldn't focus on using them to shoot down enemy bombers but instead you'd leverage their vastly superior strike capabilities to hit factories, transport infrastructure, and command and control to remove the enemy's ability to fight. With modern hardware at your disposal it would be trivial to destroy the entire Chain Home system, take out key road and rail bridges in the UK, bomb aircraft and munitions factories out of action, remove the ability to store and process oil and fuels, cripple the lock gates on critical docks and mine harbours to prevent the supply of food and war materiel, etc, etc...
German Tactic: Head on on Bombers! 20s right into the cockpit. Get the Pilot and make use of increased bullet speed of added speeds of the planes. If not possible, go for the engines. Damaging is enough, they dont make it without them for long.
If missiles blow up when near an aircraft then the older planes could take more damage. Now if it hit then exploded they'd be ended. WWII planes did return looking like Swiss cheese at times.
Modern missiles tend to use continuous-rod warheads rather than regular shrapnel, and those would cut through the stringers and control cables/hydraulics to cause the loss of the bomber rather than just pepper it with holes.
The B-17's were renowned for being able to absorb a comparatively large amount of battle damage and keep flying. The B 24 Liberators were kind of the opposite.
Cap: First all metal Stressed Skin Aircraft was the Dornier-zeppelin D. I, in 1918. In WWII, quite a few aircraft were already of the stressed-skin type, including the F4U Corsair, Spitfires, Thunderbolts, The Avro Lancaseter, BF-190G, JU-88, Even the A6M. In fact, it's a rare plane in WWII that was NOT a stress skinned bird. I think the major difference is that the older planes had more internal structure, not knowing yet that they didn't need all that extra weight. That the skin was swiss cheese matters a whole lot less when it's being held in place by a whole lot more internal structure. "You boys are something!" Not sure what, but you're something... :)
I think the biggest problem is that the missile warheads aren't modelled accurately. Most AAMs don't use shrapnel warheads that would pepper a target with holes, they have continuous-rod warheads that would slice through the critical structure and control lines of those bombers with ease.
Which OS is running on the server? What's the resources dedicated to? Is the server spooling up its vram or just utilising hard memory? Is there any leaks?. What's the disk space? Disk type and is it raid setup? Is the disk set to lvm or is it a secondary drive?
36:36 "Only Tuxor could be chased by a B17" Belly laugh! :-D As for the server problems, it will be mainly a software problem. Possibly ED could help you? On the other hand, when their server (software) gets overloaded it apparently just dies; that's not at all impressive. A more powerful server (hardware) might not help you: there may be a limit to how many cores (/CPUs) the software can use, and you can even get the effect of more cores actually slowing the software down (I'll explain if you fancy ;-) Possibly some configuration tweaking might help a lot. Best of luck.
The first and second waves happened at night by the RAF with Lancasters not the USAF with much greater numbers too. The daylight raid by the USAF was much smaller
This is an example of good strategy, bad tactics. Youre all friggin great pilots (ive binged so much of your channel over the past few weeks), but i keep seeing you guys come up with half a plan. Id love to see you guys do a nice reaction vid where you interview retired squadron commander and CAGs and grill them for relevant tactical advice. Im an old Marine, so none of my skills are relevent to y'all, but trust me when i say veterans, officer or enlisted LOVE our friggin wargames. This would be good fun and help steer you excellent pilots into sound tacticians. And loads of fun for us vet viewers for sure! YUT!
There was no cohesion of attack in your operation. It was noticeable that many Fox 3s were taking out stragglers or targets that were already hit. You need to split the bomber force into small slices that each individual typhoon targets as there's no doubt you were targeting the same bombers at times. Having AI didn't help as you could have split 12 human assailants into three groups of four that would target a division of bombers each, but not possible with the AI. Interesting experiment though, but I do believe it would be possible to stop that operation with what you had.
Suggestion to solve the AI, ammo, friendly fire and few human issues: Have 2 waves of player planes. If you have 6 players and 12 planes, then just give each player the chance to "respawn" as a "new pilot." In game, you would just be holding half of your fighters in reserve on the ground. It is less initial firepower from the AI, but that will then be there for players to use in the second wave... meaning those planes will be better used by players once their initial ammo is spent. In "game terms" all those initial planes abandoned would just be 'returning to base empty" (or shot down.) It also solves the "rearming" issue. It is realistic too since you always try to keep some of your force in reserve during a battle just in case. Only at the end do you commit reserves if the situation allows. (Who knows, the USAF might try to hit the airfield while the fighters are up fighting bombers, and then there'd be no place to land your fighters!) After the main force is committed and the Luftwaffe can be sure there is no second assault on the airfield, then they could release those fighters to hit the rear of the bomber force, or take out the rest of the bombers on their way home from the main target. Finally, I'd suggest using proper wingmen tactics. That reduces the speed of kills, but it reduces friendly fire. Using 6 live players, that's 2 pax per group. Much easier to deconflict the airspace.
@@barrisonplayz4937 You would be surprised those things can turn pretty well and all they need is for you to be in their sight for less than a second for you to cease to exist. The first thing a-10 pilots are trained in is evasive manuvers.
I'd like to know what you can do to these things by just flying past them at Mach? This question is more about the stupas than the b-17s but I would imagine the white turbulence might be a nightmare for an old propeller plane. No?
Hey , Cap . what you can try for performance. is messing around with the affinity. The idea being that you change the affinity of the program so that the game never runs on the same cores as the server, or OBS. (Normally windows will handle that, but ,,,,,) in the task manager you can enable advanced view, and that should let you change the affinity of the programs to only use the cores you want. Process lasso is another util which can do the same, and remember it. (and also do load balancing and stuff, useful util that.) you can easily mess around a bit with the above tips, and see if it helps. ♥
@@TeenTeenFpv 47? wow It sounds like you might want to try to identify which of those cores are Hyperthreads or, , , uh forgot what AMD calls it. anyway, point being, if a real core is running and load is put on the "second" core (the hyperthread one) , then both cores will suffer a performance hit. (even though both together will perform better than just the 1 core) I am no expert in these matters, so I would suggest that you read up on the topic, and use the official information. (instead of trusting some guy on youtube comments. ;) ) Sadly, the case is, with many games, that they can only use "that" many threads (cores) effectively. And throwing more cores at the problem isn't really going to help. Because when you have a 64 core cpu, it will typically run at a lower clockspeed than an 8 core. (it just get thats much warmer) So when limited by that, clock speed is what makes the difference. Also making sure the server runs on cores not used by anything else will help. The ability to hyperthread helps when the program can use more cores, but if that the problem , it's just going to make 2 threads run slower. I suggest, stick to 8 or 16 cores. and try and see if the game will use them. Make sure the cores run only the server/game. and no hyperthreading. If it will max out say, 8 cores at 100% load, then go to 12 cores, see if that helps. It's probably better to keep the core count low, rather than give it too many cores to handle. and finally, like I said, i'm no expert on these matters. So it possible i'm full of poo here, but in general, I've found this does help. (well up to a point anyway) I hope this does help. ♥
There's obliviously a lot of struggles doing these jets intercept WW2 era bombers. What about 4 squadrons of Spitfires and Mosquitos vs 300 Ju-88s? Ace vs Ace
Should these be more about reducing combat effectiveness? If they shoot down more than 30 to 50% of the bombers I doubt the US would continue the campaign. That amount of loss might end the aerial bombardment campaign all together. Every bomber is 10 men...
Those B-17's really didn't look like they were putting up much in the way of defensive fire. It almost seemed like the bombers could only fire one set of guns at a time, and even then it seemed if only 1 bomber out of the formation would fire even though multiple bombers could shoot at you. That might be something to look into doing more testing on.
Exactly. Each B-17 carried upwards of 12 50 cals. The 50 cal has a very good range. Greater than a lot of cannons. The box formations were meant to provide a lot of mutual protection. Getting in close with guns would be problematic. Less Typhoons would be flying near the end. I suspect all those tracers flying around would crash the server. So...no can do. Of course, that makes this less than ideal, but as always...it was hoot.
@@Spaatz77 While having all those guns firing could cause the server to crash, considering the simulated Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor was putting up enough flack to crash the server, I don't think DCS cares. I suspect the issue is with the AI programing. My Guess is if you dug into it, you would find the AI can only use one weapon at a time, since especially when it comes to modern aircraft, since that is primarily what DCS is designed around, realistically a pilot/gunner is only going to be using 1 weapon at a time. As a result the AI doesn't know how to use what it sees as multiple different weapon systems. To test this theory, I'd suggest going in close while the bombers are dropping bombs. I suspect the gunners will pause shooting at you once it starts dropping bombs. I suspect a similar AI issue is the cause for only one bomber shooting at enemy aircraft at a time as well. I bet in it's coding it only allows one aircraft to actively fire on an enemy aircraft at a time, since again realistically that's how pilots would behave. while one is targeting an enemy aircraft the others aren't also going to be actively shooting at that aircraft, as besides stealing a kill, it potentially wastes munitions and endangers the other friendly aircraft. So my guess is once a bomber targets an enemy aircraft no one else can target it. So to test this get into a position where a bomber starts firing at you and then see if an enemy fighter will attack you while it's firing. My guess is it will either not fire at you or the bomber will hand the target over to the fighter and the fighter will start attacking and the bomber stops firing.
One of the classic issues when pitching modern aircraft against WW2 aircraft is the fact WW2 aircraft were generally super-mass produced. All countries involved were going all-out producing aircraft. These days, air forces are way smaller (without a global war to fight)and unit costs of modern aircraft are astronomic. Add into that that modern aircraft carry limited missiles and limited ammo in comparison....so the performance advantage of modern aircraft is eroded once the modern aircraft have nothing else left to fight with..... Plus WW2 aircraft can soak up a LOT of damage airframe-wise.....modern aircraft pack a lot more sensitive/expensive gear in their airframes and are more vulnerable to .50 cal or 20mm rounds.....
High altitude, diving gun attacks is where I would start; buzz in the front and through the formation, come about, target lock the bombers in front, and Guns Guns Guns on the rear group, as you sweep forward.
There is something about these simulations (not just this one) that really gets you where you live. Seeing it in documentaries, or movie and TV fiction doesn't do it justice.
One vote for night stuff - I think it's great! It is impressive how far desktop computers have come - just being able to do this is amazing! This made me quite excited for when we actually get the Typhoon in DCS! In terms of shrapnel - there was the famous observation by a mathematician that the areas of the bomber that needed armouring were those where bombers that returned did not have holes in their skins - mainly over engines and other fundamentally important structures. This supports Cap in that it suggests that damage to a worldwar 2 bombers skin itself was not likely to bring the plane down however shrapnel could damage the engines and other underlying structures, still a modern airliner is supposed to take more than one AAM to shoot down (as demonstrated by the Korean Airlines 747) so I'd imagine a world war 2 bomber would too. In terms of weak spots on the B17 - early on luftwaffe pilots attacked them head on, The chin turret (I think) was introduced to counter this to an extent but I think it was still a thing.
I don't think missile warheads are modelled very well in DCS. Modern AAMs don't typically use shrapnel to destroy their targets, instead they have a continuous-rod warhead which produces a single expanding ring of solid metal that would slice through the structural supports of the B-17 as well as cut hydraulics and control cables. It would be far more effective at destroying them than period-accurate Flak.
With the divisions thing, I know that consolidating decimated bomber units wasn't uncommon throughout the war, so it's possible that was listing 1 (possibly temporary) division made up of 4 below-strength divisions.
Out of interest, I just checked the actual sizes of a squadron at the Bundes-Luftwaffe. A wing has a nominal size of about 40-50 planes in two squadrons, thus a size of 20-25 eurofighters per squadron seems legit (but in fact, not all of them are airworthy at a time, being in repair, uprades, or grounded for other reasons).
Just a thought. I can't help but notice a lot of the missles explode but don't noticeably damage the aircraft. I wonder, how would exploding missles effect the bomber crews?
I'm sure someone has said it but aim for the higher flying bombers. They fly in formation as to not impact each other in the event they go down but going down is unpredictable and they often take out their own countrymen or allies. Thee of my great grandfathers were pilots in the European and Japanese theater. They mentioned that a few times watching movies with me as a kid. I was extremely lucky to know them. Very lucky. One, my grandpa Young suffered seizures his whole life after the war. He was the navigator on a bomber and my great grandfather Cook was the pilot. When they got shot down my grandpa Cook pulled everyone from the wreck with a broken back and femur, including my grandpa Young who got smashed into the navigation station. When my grandpa Cook got everyone clear and leaned back against a tree he took a bayonet and 8mm Mauser to the stomach but pulled his 1911 .45 colt and ended more than a few soldiers careers that day as he held the bayonet in his stomach. My Grandma always told me about how when you touched his side his arm would shoot up. I only figured out he was messing with everyone when I was in college, it was a serious war injury from a bayonet and bullet but he was like me I guess and screwing with the kiddos. My great grandpa Young died of a seizure due to his war injury in his late 60's but I'll never forget playing catch with him in my grandparents front yard for hours a few weeks before. They were both like me in so many ways. My grandpa Buckner was a Frogman and just passed this year. Great sense of humor and super excentric and 6'6" 220lbs. Grandpa Johnson was a P38 pilot and was paralyzed in the 70's after breaks failed and him and my great uncle went off a cliff. He passed about 5 years ago.
Haha this is so much better with the new server. I forgot who it belongs to but thank you very much. Edit, I thought you were using a server in the states, anyway... great show. lol on the respawn takeoff :D
F-4 Phantom VS A-4 Skyhawk F-15 STOL/MTD VS F-16I Sufa Extreme AOA VS Extreme Missile Rating👍 F-4U Corsair VS MIG-15 MB-339 Aerimacchi VS Viggen T-45 Goshawk VS F-14 Tomcat AV-8 Harrier VS MIG-23 Flogger Please fly the Planes on the left😁✌
Interesting question: As the Eurofighter approaches the B-17, and the tail gunner peppers it with bullets, wouldn't the engine suck in a few of them? It easily sucks up birds...
Running a very similar bomber interception mission test in singleplayer some weeks ago I found that it is not the F14 15 16 18 with fancy missiles being most effective but the F190 D9. You might think the A8 butcher or Jug is superior? No it is not, also not the 109K or Mig15 or anything else. It's the Dora. ;) Why, there is no need to destroy the B17. Just light up one engine and be patient. That's it.
Do you have to model the Sim for the bombs inside of the bombers catastrophically, chain reaction explode if hit with a missile? It seems that the detonating bombs would obliterate the nearby bombers, possibly with just the Shockwave! I don't know, but if you'd be a mate and find out and let me/ us know, that'd be great!
carrier squadrons would be different to ground squadrons, so F-35 B squadrons would depend logistically on what ships they are embarking on and I think it can be that the actual complete squadron does not always deploy, because the expeditionary unit commander, US Marine Corps, might have latitude with his specific compliment of vehicles and aircraft dependent on his mission parameters and what he expects to actually encounter and require to deal with it
They should make a mod for the XB70 and see if the MiG 25 could intercept it as that was its original purpose in case of an escalation from the cold war
Flying at One Thousand feet-- 50 UH-1H's VS 50 Mi-8's! Flying at Two Thousand feet and few miles behind-- 50 AH-64 Apaches VS 50 Mi-24 Hind's! Flying at Three Thousand feet and few miles behind-- 25 A-10 Thunderbolt II's VS 25 SU-25's! Flying at Four Thousand feet and few miles behind-- 50 F-15E's VS 50 SU-34's! Flying at Five Thousand feet and few miles behind-- 25 F-35's VS 25 SU-35's! 👍👍
Well, nice video and I enjoyed it alot. But the reason why Dresden was such a ... lets call it "success" was because there was basically no AAA at all around it. There were basically no fighters ready to scramble :D
it was a city full of refugees (from other bombed citties) and civilians. With no military value at all. The thing with (war) crimes is: they are not only one, when the bad guys commit them.
I'm curious if any of the Grim Reaper have a pilots license/certification? 🤔 It seems that, in a pinch/crisis, that y'all would be able to make stuff happen in the real world. Regardless, I am binge watching the crap out of your videos, you're welcome and thank you!
Because of how close the B-17s are in formation they would collide any way. This actually happened during the war.So the colliding with each other is accurate. I would also like to make a formal request. Four MIG- 29s trying to stop a twenty He111s and ten Ju-87Rs with ten BF-109Es
Please make these fights Two Squadrons👍 Lol last couple times you've done this kinda scenario there's about half or so enemy's left alive. Lol like I said before the time machine can Always fit more! Two Squadron's should do it
@@grimreapers That's a heck of a chip. That just goes to show how involved this game is, or how unoptimized it is, although probably a bit of both. Simulator's are tough.
Even with the Hugh tech advantage, mass numbers are hard to beat. Great advancement in tech came out of ww2, but in the end, it really was a war of industrial might. The Germans could have had f-22s and it wouldn’t have mattered because the allies could produce 1000s of b-17s, lancasters and b-24s.
