Such a thing was once supposed about Nazi defense systems (WWII rocket tech) against Allied bombing raids... so I don't think it'd be a problem. The only thing about modern SAMs is they would need reliance upon some method of targeting, such a video camera ("Walleye") heat-seeking, radar or laser guidance. But why stop there? We've already developed a flying laser platform, so let's just send that up to pick the Nazi bombers off one-by-one from an "unreachable" altitude... and do the same to the IJN carriers headed for Pearl Harbor! ;D
@@pancudowny ok so… if we say rockets (unguided) sure no problems you just fire them en-mass at an area). Modern battery implies guided missiles and the effectiveness would vary depending on the type of aircraft. Heat seeking you have the issue that piston engines don’t generate near the heat of a jet. RADAR guided are really only effective against aircraft made predominantly of metal. That leaves video and laser guided which would be reasonably effective. Next we have to factor in that modern AA is highly automated so an operator would have to manually confirm a valid target. Finally, modern SAM’s would run into the same issue modern interceptor aircraft do. They are too fast so there is a chance the missile might overshoot as it is expecting the target to be further ahead.
@@Joe_duffy It's not always about speed. The A-10 is incredibly hard to shoot down, and has the ability to fly (and remain maneuverable) at speed where other jets can't. you can't get missile lock on a target from in front of it, and closing in at high speeds leaves the pilot with almost no time to take a shot. In an open-air dog fight, it's at a significant disadvantage, but when it's the one being hunted and can do what it does best, it's a formidable foe.
Why? Because the A-10 is the closest thing currently in the Western arsenal to that of the prop-jobs that littered the skies in WWII, for one. And the bombers of the day may be "flying fortresses"... but the A-10 is a tank with wings, and tanks can knock holes in any fortress wall with ease. Plus: How many Axis fighters had missile capability, let alone long-range/BVR targeting capability... huh? And let's face it: The cannon in a BF-109 has nothing over the A-10's GAU-8! ;D
If this were completely realistic, imagine being one of those machinegunners panicking because your bullets are doing absolutely nothing against a literal flying tank.
Exactly. All the German bombers were armed with 7.62mm machine guns (or equivalent). The A-10 was specifically designed to survive direct hits from 23mm and 37mm AA shells (ie things than explode). Plus, at over 400 kts the A-10 would be really hard to hit, especially in a head-on merge. Beyond that, the A-10s gun should not be thought of like a machine gun, it’s a Gatling cannon that can sprew out up to 5900 red-bull can sized freedoms per minute. Even a short burst would buzzsaw right through something as lightly built as aircraft (they were designed to chew through tank armor after all). The few times where A-10s have had air-to-air kills (usually against helicopters), they’ve literally cut most of the opposing aircraft in two. The only drawbacks to using an A-10 for this kind of thing would be: - A-10 pilots are typically not trained for aerial gunnery - they can only carry 1300-1500 rounds for the gun - the A-10 was designed for low altitude operations, as such its wings and control surfaces are optimized for the thicker air found down near the ground All that said. You’re talking about a 30 year gap in technology, with the massive leaps of turbofan engines, radar aided gun targeting, hydraulic flight controls, and titanium armor, so of course the A-10 is going to eat Nazi bombers for lunch . . . . not saying that’s a bad thing though, the only good nazi is a dead one.
@@jonathanmcfadden7316 Not to mention being armed with Sidewinders, which actually should be able to lock on to those aircraft. They aren't as hot as a jet engine, but at a few hundred degrees, it shouldn't be as difficult to lock on as what we saw in here. If they had a full force of 6-12 Warthogs up there at the same time, rather than just the 3 (and had someone, not naming names, not flown themselves into a bomber...) that whole squadron would have been scrap inside of a few minutes once they engaged.
@@jonathanmcfadden7316 You are over-estimating the effects the cannon would have on a plane that is 90% empty space wrapped in the thinnest skin possible. In all likelihood, the shells would just over-penetrate and the A10 would run out of ammunition after downing a surprisingly small number of bombers.
honestly, get something that slow but with extra gun pods with extended ammo is your best bet with doing this. Or get practice shooting at a plane from another moving plane and try using the c 130 gunship
When I saw the title, I immediately knew it was going to be a slaughter. A much deeper gun ammo reserve and much larger rounds meant you could down more bombers before having to call Winchester. A slower aircraft meaning a much longer engagement window to get that gun on target. A bird that's much better protected against 8mm defensive machine gun fire and probably doesn't have to worry that much about taking hits during its gun runs. yes, climbing was painful to watch, but the impact you have when you got there was worth the long, long, long climb.
And in an even more realistic scenario, the A-10's would have gone aloft well in advance of the Stukas arriving due to the British radar giving advance warning of the Stukas taking off. So rather than climbing agonizingly slowly to reach them, the A-10's would already be at altitude ready to attack.
@@Wearyman I don't think "realistic" is the word you are looking for. More like "Even more fixed to produce the outcome I want" Not to mention that you clearly have little concept of early radar.
The a10 would decimate those planes just due to its accuracy and firepower at long range. I think its only real limitation in this test is the fact that it has a limited supply of ammo.
Not really that limited. It carries nearly 1200 rounds. The P-51 carried about 1800. True, the P-47 carried around 3000, but both WWII era planes were .50 cal, while the A-10 has 30 mm. Very short bursts of API would devastate a bomber formation and shred a Panzer column. It’s not even a contest.
@@ericcrabtree6245 "The P-51 carried about 1800" If memory serves right, the P-51 D, with its nominal six .50 calibre MGs, carried a total of 1880 rounds.
You only need one A10 ... it is a badass aircraft; I saw one in Long Beach California hovering vertically using only the thrust of the engines to keep it stationary, unbelievable! Oh! the GAU-8 gun is not the only weapon. The A10 carries a lot of weaponry.
@@ericcrabtree6245 Mind you, that A-10 fires at around 4000 rounds a minute. It can empty its entire supply in around 18 seconds if fired on continuous. In other words, it only has 17 to 18 one-second bursts.
The main point of the "ask" was to try out modern jets that **aren't** optimized for aerial combat and see if they're effective. Which, it turns out, they are -- within certain parameters.
If this was an actual squadron of 8 (humans) in the Warthogs, then I think that this would have been a solid win for the Warthogs.! . #GrimReapers, please do the same scenario but with Mosquito fighters.! That would be wonderful to see :D :D :D
If you really want a challenge, try it with the A-4E Skyhawks. Can carry a pair of AIM-9B Sidewinders, and 100 rnds of 20mm per gun. But I think you would need a whole squadron, like see what you can do with 12 players. And, launch them all from Clemenceau.
Although Stukas are a tempting target, you should never make a run at one with an A-10. You might hit a young Hans Rudel, and trigger a temporal paradox that erases your 'Hog right out from under you.
@@CrotalusKid You could ask for an explanation rather than make a snide comment. Just a suggestion. Pierre Sprey was the chief designer of the A-10. One of his inspirations for building a powerful ground attack aircraft was Hans Rudel, a WWII Stuka pilot. Sprey made every member of his development team read Rudel's autobiography. If an A-10 shot down Rudel's Stuka, Sprey wouldn't have his inspiration in later years, and the A-10 may never have been developed. That's a paradox.
The A-10 has the maneuverability, the gun the only limiting thing's is ammo, speed and altitude. If they could get above them and do a broadside attack they could take out most if not all of them.
@@clarencesmith9580 indeed. Further, the A-10 is built to a higher standard of resilience than say a dedicated interceptor. Having followed the combat history of the A-10 as it's been unfolding since the early 1980s, it occurs to me that colliding with a JU-88 should not have been the end of the A-10s airworthiness. In Afghanistan for example Warthogs have been able to RTB with all sorts of fairly extreme damage, yet land safely enough that the pilots could walk away under their own power. I also note that it was not the entire squadron that made the intercept, but three at a time. If a full half dozen A-10s had been involved from the very beginning, I am inclined to assign a high 90% probability that very few if any of the JU-88s would have made it back to their airbase.
Not from above it's not. The A-10 would be extremely vulnerable to ME109s from above. They are faster in a dive and more maneuverable. Fanboys never seem to realize just how much of a fighter the A-10 IS NOT.
@@dat581 It isn't a fighter. It is however extremely heavily armored. And if the ME109s were above, that just means the missiles would get them from below.
At what altitude? I had an A-10 flat out over water at 15ft on autopilot with no weapons and empty gun magazine, and that just managed 348 kn (400mph) max.
The one thing you can’t simulate is the “oh, sh*t!” factor of the bomber’s gunners when they see their rounds bouncing off the fuselage of the A10, while 60 30mm rounds are coming at them every second. That would certainly be demoralizing.
@@Subtlenimbus Ye, only issue is the AT can tank modern AA fire, lose an engine and half of one of its wings, and make it back to base without an issue. Some 7.62 would do nothing to this thing
@@oienu - I think 6 could have taken them all quite easily, if they weren't wasting too many shots, especially using HE ammo. The A-10 carries 1200 rounds for the GAU-8. That's enough for about 20 quick bursts (Like the kind that Cap used to kill so many in this simulation). With 6 A-10s, that's about 120 bursts, each burst capable of downing a plane. There were 64 JU-88s in the simulation, so even assuming some bad shooting, there would be enough firepower to take out the entire division. That's in addition to the 24 sidewinders that would have been deployed as well. With great accuracy and HE ammo, it would be possible for just those 3 A-10s to have actually finished the bombers off as well. None of the human pilots appeared to have much, if any, experience in the A-10 for the simulation, and they didn't have a good plan either. Only one of them appeared to have any plan to use the GAU-8 before contact with the bomber formation, based on their comments. I would highly doubt that any of them had ever practiced air-to-air combat with the GAU-8. Additionally, Cap had most of his loadout still available when he died at first, because he clipped another plane (Which I don't think would have realistically downed an A-10, since it can supposed still make it home with half a wing missing.) Doubling the number of A-10s would have meant the slaughter would have been complete, potentially before they ever even got to the point where they turned back in this simulation.
you might not know this little A-10 fact. the a ir-to-air effective range of the early A-10's was 3000 yards. i don't think any of the Blitz Luftwaffe aerial guns had that reach.
Using indirect fire, you can fire rifle slugs up to that distance, and maybe even beyond. But it most-likely won't have any accuracy at all, even moreso in WW2 dogfights.
Can you imagine the horror stories the last survivors would tell if/when the last handful of planes makes it back? This new plane which howls like a banshee when it flies, roars like a lion when it shoots and rattles like a rattlesnake when it gets hit with 7.92mm MG shot but it does not go down. They'd probably call the squadron the Grim Reapers because its 100% pure death coming for you.
@@fanta4897 The first encounter with a jet if I remember correctly, was a 262 bouncing a Mozzie and it got away by the skin of its teeth , but the Mozzie was a write-off due to it being over stressed in every way possible!
The OV-10 Bronco for some reason seems like it would be an entertaining aircraft to try intercepting warbirds with. If you could give that a go, I think it’d at least be entertaining to watch!
@@MandolinMagi There isn’t a particular reason, only that in terms of capability & mission type the Bronco seems just as out of place in an interceptor role as the Warthog. In terms of weapons though?… valid point. The gun on the A-10 has very few peers. But you can hang all manner of things under OV-10 wings. God knows they did in Vietnam and for a bit in Afghanistan and Iraq. From what I understand, JSOC still has a few Broncos in the operational inventory. Or recently did. Maybe the Reapers could put something fun together.
@@OldStreetDoc The Bronco is still 130 knots slower, has half the rate of climb, and was generally underpowered. And OV-10 still has less payload than the A-10.
I flew tours in both the Bronco and the Warthog. The Bronco is no match against anything in WW2. It's really more of a Stuka than anything else. As to this scenario, the pilots had little idea how to 'fight' the Hog, in other words, how to best fight the Hog against the formation.
Maybe not better than the F14. The AIM-54 Pheonix warhead is significantly larger than an AIM-120C AMRAAM warhead, 135lbs vs 22lbs. So I think the Phoenix's would provide enough of a bang to bring down the WWII steel bombers. Edit: Also, try the F-104 Starfighter. It's an interceptor with a large number of bullets and 4 Sidewinders
That was unexpected :) So basically a typical Squadron of 12 would take what 4-8 sidewinders and a full load of HE ammo and can take down the enemy and attack them on the ground. You also proved it is all about the angle for the slower moving planes if the attack vector is right. Also then the SU 37 with the large missile load could work as well
I kind of thought they would clean house. I remember reading an ME-262 pilot's account of the effect of cannons vs guns and the ability to attack from well outside the B-17's protective box. I'm no aeronautical engineer, but the A-10 always reminded me of an angry 262.
You should see how hard it is to shoot down in a gunfight. I want to see an A10 v F22 gun only dogfight. It sound really bad but the a10 is so slow and has really low wing loading it turns really hard.
@@blahblah14u it might be interesting , given the trench warfare the troops had would have a good degree of protection given the zig zag design used then.if you could Target bunkers or masses of troops in the open then the damage should be higher. Perhaps targeting just the artillery the large heavy rounds might destroy them , not to mention the thin skinned tanks of the day.
As a kid, I went to Myrtle Beach and A10s would bank past our hotel on the end, go out to sea and circle back. Maybe 60 yards from the hotel. Never forget that engine whine
Was kinda disappointed with him when he did that and face palmed when he said "I didn't even see him" I was like "tf you mean you didn't see him? Did you think he'd just disappear out of existence because you shot him a little?"
This showed up in my feed tonight, no doubt the Google forces caught me looking up WWII history, flight simulation, and A10s over the last few days. Had to double take on the title of the video...what a ridiculous idea, I thought (though secretly I've always wondered, "what if?"). Loved it! Now subscribed. Bonkers, and absolutely brilliant. Looking forward to watching through the rest, and learning more about the simulator you guys are using.
Could you imagine the consternation when after the raid only 25% of the junkers managed to get back after one raid? 'Where is the rest of the Wing? How many enemy were there?...erm 3'.
I think the makers of this video should consider the performance of aircraft in context. The A-10 is something of a pig in performance among modern combat aircraft, but has higher top speed, higher ceiling, higher rate of climb, etc., than a WW2 Spitfire ever dreamed of having.
you'd need avgas and far longer runways than were in use in the UK, otherwise whats the use of puting them up agauinst each other? remember aa FIAT CR42downed a Lockheed Lightening and the FIAT was a biplane!
@@peterforden5917 I was responding to comments by the producers of the video in the video. They described A-10 performance in derogatory terms several times. The Spitfire and Hurricane were the primary fighters that were used in the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire in particular was considered an excellent, high-performance fighter within a few modifications of the adopted design, and for its time the Hurricane was no slouch. Pitted against an at least similar bomber formation (sans fighter support) that the Spitfire and Hurricane faced, the A-10 actually has several advantages over both. Yes, the A-10 is something of a pig in terms of performance when compared to modern aircraft. It is not such a pig when compared to the aircraft this video pits it against. The results of the video are telling. A far smaller number of A-10s than the number of Spitfires and Hurricanes that would have been given the task are sent up against the modelled bomber formation, and that formation is devastated. So, try to understand the context of the comment relative to the video and the comments by the producers in the video, rather than running your mouth off with an irrelevant observation. Consider the question of how many Spitfires it would have taken, in this simulation environment, to achieve the same result as that achieved by the small number of A-10s used in the video.
But that wouldn't be the case against the most advanced WW2 fighters such as the Mustang, later model Spitfire, Tempest, or Typhoon. In actual combat, even early model Spits and Hurricanes did similar damage against German bomber formations.
@@wanyelewis9667 The start of large-scale raids on the U.K. was in 1940. We aren't talking about late war but the period when Goring was promising to bring the U.K. to its knees in preparation for Operation Seelowe. While a fully loaded A-10 is something of a pig, an air-to-air load doesn't include 500-pound Mark 82 bombs. It is 188 point AIM-9 rockets. Air-to-air is against Luftwaffe bombers and Bf-109s of 1940 vintage at the start of the Battle of Britain. That means the question is whether A-10s can impose sufficiently heavy losses in 1940 to the Luftwaffe to end the Battle of Britain in 1940.
funny how Ju pilots start evasive maneuvers when missile comes at them. I believe tail gunner screaming at the moment: "missile incoming! Chaff! Flare!" XD
Honestly, this kinda makes sense. What were the issues previously? I'd say it was: -WW2 bombers are pretty tough all things considered, so the modern fighters had trouble actually shooting them down -There are *way* more bombers than fighters, so ammunition count is a big concern -The difference in flight speed under most circumstances is pretty large; which means short attack runs. To get something decent lined up, the fighters would approach stall speeds, making them (relatively) easy targets for the tail gunners, while at the same time making the fighter far less maneuverable Now, look at the A-10. -REALLY big gun doesn't care how tough that bomber is, getting hit means pain -Ammo count is pretty decent; it's not meant to shoot down one or two enemy planes, it's meant to engage a series of ground targets -While the low speed makes it difficult to catch the formation, once you're in there, it's basically ideal for lining up your shots and keeping up time on targets, as opposed to passing through the formation and having to set up for a new attack run. Also, since the plane is made for this speed, you don't have to fight to keep it in the air. -It's probably tougher than the bombers, so those tail gunners are not too big of a concern.
I'm pretty sure 7.92mm mauser is literally going to scratch the paint on an A-10's skin. Basically the only hope the gunners have is shooting into the engines or maybe the cockpit glass (although that shit is probably too strong anyway).
Hey Cap n Guys. Haven't been able to post in a while. Found out couple months ago, I have stage 4 lung, kidney & stomach Cancer Guys. Been in hospital and had one kidney removed. Going to Cancer center tomorrow to find out how far along it is and what treatment options are available for me if any. Miss watching your videos, Been tiring to catch up a few today while I felt pretty good. Haven't been up to flying DCS in a few months myself. sure do miss it.. Love you guys. Keep the skies hot for me Bros..
I think the Avenger cannon would have actually ripped those planes to pieces. Remember, they're anti-tank weapons and have a 40ft spread at a mile range. That means if the A-10s nearly line up two bombers, they should have easily been able to shoot down both with one squeeze of the trigger.
Could you imagine sitting in a German bomber believing your the most technically advanced air force and four A-10's show up and start blowing everyone out of the sky!
yeah and then the me109 escort runs rings round the a10s and the 109 had cannons....of course most will disagree as well its american and must be better than everything ! lol !!!
@@andrewnicholson4811 The ME109's in this scenario had already been waylaid by the British Spitfires. That's why the A10's didn't get pouned on. No ME109's available. This is actually quite realistic as a common complaint among bomber pilots on both sides during that phase of WWII is that their escort would get caught up in dogfights and they would lose them, leaving the bombers exposed to the next wave of fighters. The British solved this problem by only bombing at night, when they could mostly do without an escort. The Americans solved it with the Flying Fortress. Big plane, LOTS of defensive guns, less escort needed. (theoretically) It was an issue the Germans never actually solved, and is one small part of why they lost.
@@Wearyman Actually Doolittle's solution was to use the bombers as bait to force the Luftwaffe up and let the 'escorting' fighters jump them while forming up. The real problem was not using the bombers as bait to whittle down the fighters over several missions; a doctrinal failure on both sides.
Kinda shows that the concept of a heavily armed bomber killer can work when there is no fighter escort - Defiant, Beaufighter, Mosquito night fighters all took a heavy toll on German night attacks. Maybe the RAF should have converted all their obsolete but relatively fast, light/medium bombers into such weapons. Imagine Mitchells, Blenheims, etc with decent armour and several 40mm cannon as fitted to the Hurricane IID.
Hi i don't know if i am right but a jet engine is much more hot temperature than the piston engines the heat seeker missile lot harder to lock-on Piston engines , so i maybe wrong or not
You can get in for free in the SU-25 for air to ground. If you then fancy trying something greater or you are unsure, getting the Flaming Cliffs DLC will give you more roles to fly for the least money unless you are really drooling for a particular airframe. But your main limiting factor will be time you can put into the sim, as for needing a joystick? Not really... I guess Cap have sort of proven that already, but that takes time.
How about simply staying off to the side and flying a combat-capable version of the Boeing YAL-1? Just make sure to shoot the dark parts, not the shiny parts
I guess going with the closest thing to a WWII plane is an A10, using guns on a plane that is venerable to guns works better than chucking in missiles. Now try the Hind with gun pods!
That was fun and unexpected! Thanks to all for all the hard work. Keep it up and maybe try something like Harriers vs Luftwaffe during the FW-190 low level raids on southern England of 1942. Little or no radar warning, fast aircraft, low level, yeah, that might be fun. A little bit like the Falklands but with FW-190's.
You can actually fly and fight effectively at slow speed once you actually get into the bomber formation - unlike the fast jets that have to make multiple high-speed passes. And the mighty GAU rips them to shreds. And, unlike the fast jets, it's designed to take a beating, so the gun turrets on those bombers don't scare you. Fast jets are designed to not get hit; the A-10 is designed to survive getting hit. Not surprised it worked well. I suspect fighter escort would have created some problems for you, though.
"I suspect fighter escort would have created some problems for you, though." Especially since said fighters would be much more nimble and could sport 20 mm or 30 mm guns.
you can just fly in formation with them then chew all of them up in an A-10. its got over 1000 30mm bullets and has the armor to keep taking bullets from tail gunners at the same time.
1. Would it be awesome? Yes. 2.Is it practical? Yes. 3. Should it be made into a movie? Yes. 4. Is it funny? Yes. 5. Only limitation: A few stray bullets to the engines or a lucky shot to the GAU-8 would put the hog down, not to mention the swarms of 109s that would be trailing it like Herman Goering trailing a dessert cart.
If the Brits really had access to a few squadrons of A-10's during this time period...I was just thinking about how they could improve the intercept rate. My thought is with two to four rockets mounted on the A-10's pylons. I think they would have had the technology for this. The rockets would not need to be super powerful. You don't want to damage the wings or pylons or push the A-10 past a speed it can handle. You just need something that can help it make altitude faster. If you only have x4 AIM-9's and guns you have space for the rockets. Once you get the A-10 to an altitude where it really starts to slow down, you engage your first set of two rockets till they burn out, jettison, then two more, jettison. This is a random idea inspired by this video that I just had to express.
I generally don't watch video game simulations don't watch video games and I don't play video games, but I'm a big WWII buff and I thoroughly enjoy this so you get a like & subscribe!
Appreciate the hard work Cap. It would be beautiful to see a mix of a large formation of Ai warbirds with GR modern jets take on the luftwaffe/ vice versa... imagine a giant furball of spits and 109s with F15s and Harriers booming and zooming...
well war thunder kinda in its final protencal form can actually do that sooner or later and be far more accurate than dcs in the near future if the world doesn't end first that is! war thunder is actually getting very close to getting playable 1970's planes and other war vehicles pretty soon!
BRRRRRRRRRRRRT! The sound of freedom. I live by a squadron in South Georgia and listen to them hit the range weekly. Worked with them for 20 years in the USAF and nothing makes engaged ground forces happier than the sound of incoming A-10 support.
Fight to your platform's strength. In the case of the A-10, the ability to loiter is a defining one. To try to employ it like interceptors is pigeonholing this beauty of a machine. The best way to employ these would be to deploy them on patrol, have them loiter at elevation and face the incoming bombers before they even reach shore. Then, all the complaining about its rate of climb or speed would not even be a thing.
@@flyoverkid55 If it really came down to missiles, I wonder if a maverick using electro optical guidance would be able to pick out a bomber from the sky
Good stuff! When I first read the title though, I was hoping it was A-10s stopping tank Blitz into France or something. That would be cool to see too. :)
The British fitted a 57mm six pounder anti tank gun to the Mosquito (Tsetse version) complete with Mohlins auto loader. It was intended for taking out U boats and tanks. One was used against a JU-88 where a shell literally knocked an engine off the German plane. In practical terms it was found that unguided rockets on wing racks were just as effective and much easier to fit to aircraft including the Swordfish STOL biplane.
as I understand, that's pretty typical for ground attack aircraft like the A-10, "got another one, and another, and another, and another!" while killing only 1 or 2 targets, as are phrases such as "I didn't see him, he was in my way" though, usually that was in regards to friendly fire incidents...
I'd love to see this scenario with the A-7 Corsair II; another attack aircraft with very decent guns (2 x 20mm vulcans). You wouldn't have the problem of getting to altitude that you had with the A10. One thing is that this aircraft may not be available in DCS.
@@gosquidgo1 You're right. I guess I wasn't specific enough! What I was getting at is it would be another attack aircraft with armament similar to the A-10 that I think would decimate the enemy.
The interest, at least on my part, stems from the fact that A-10s are essentially polished and restomodded WWII tech, and against many planes of the time, they ought to be at least a match. Kinda like a… “if we had better more modern but still reasonably comparable tech to fight with, would these have stacked up well?” Also the hog is just plain badass.
Another thing I think worth doing would just to be seeing how A-10s fare against ME-262s. Since that’s a super primitive jet but already had the potential to turn the tide of the war, if hitler hadn’t bungled it and tried using them as bombers, it’d be mighty interesting to see them compared. Ya know?
Didn't think they'd make the intercept...I *did* know they'd chew the JU's up when they caught up... Not even considering HE rounds, a cannon like the GAU would just ruin everything in formation. It excels in ground attack for a reason, target rich environments. I enjoyed that =D
Saw an A-10 today flying in the lower level of the clouds. That's like the 3 rd one this year., Last 2 were when president and vp came to town. Looked bigger than I remember, also looked brand new.
I'd like to see the EB-52 Megafortress from "Flight of the Old Dog". (short version: they took the bomb capacity of a B-52, and redid it for anti-air capability)
The gunners on the bombers seemed a little unenthusiastic about preventing themselves from being killed. I know the A-10's are quite tough but I feel like if you chase a bomber with 0 deflection and a closing speed of like 10 knots you should get a bullet through the eyeballs pretty damn quickly
Not that I would expect you to know too much about my beautiful jet from a video game, but if you want to engage more successfully- when using the aim-9’s, give the TMS switch a quick rocker forward to actually lock up your targets rather than just hoping to pickle when you hear a little tone. Also, give it a bit of separation between targets before firing a salvo of missiles. They’re hear seakers, and it’s hard to lock on propeller driven aircraft already, but real easy to lock on to a big, firey explosion- so don’t waste your missles firing in rapid succession. Additionally, you can use the GBL as a rough estimate for where to find the bullets after you squeeze the trigger, but I’d recommend using the AML. Treat it like a saw when cutting through from tail aspect shots. Also, with your hud soi in AA mode, use your DMS switch left/right to cycle through enemy aircraft profiles. You were on man-fixed, but you could cycle through to A10 which has a similar wingspan to your targets, and would at least give you a funnel to track targets with. Finally, it’s a video game, so I’m not sure if it follows actual gun logic, but shooting bursts fewer than 14 rounds can damage the gun. So can shooting multiple short bursts in rapid succession. It won’t allow the gun to finish its clearing cycle, and it’s a sure fire way to a gun unsafe light. Otherwise, always love seeing my baby in action! I’m glad you’re having fun with her!
I already mentioned the AIM scan and gun funnel. Something for you to try: Laser guided rockets in Air-Air mode. ;) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6a05ivYPd1A.html
Those Ju's only have medium weight machine guns, 7.92mm iirc. The A10 has a massive 30mm autocannon, not only does it fire many times faster but a single HE round is enough to down most aircraft.
Now to see this same scenario, but with (2) F-14 Tomcats. "Jolly 11 - Jolly 12, you are weapons free Jolly 11 - FOX 3 Jolly 12 - FOX 3! "where'd they go?!" "where'd wwwhhoo go?"
I mean I'm sorry to disappoint the A-10 fans but the A-10's only armour is the bathtub around the pilot, it's unarmoured everywhere else. It's designed to keep the pilot alive, the plane won't survive a hit from 23mm or 30mm cannon fire any better than any other aircraft. But the pilot might survive long enough to bail out. In this context the MG's of the JU-88's have the potential to bring down an A-10 if enough rounds impact or they find something vital.
I like the AC-130 gunship intercept idea I saw mentioned somewhere. In a real world scenario stopping them from getting to london is good but not the only objective ANY plane you can shoot down is good because that is the loss of a plane and crew. I think having to reclimb to altitude was a bit too restrictive - I think you should have respawned at altitude and treated yourself as a 'wing man'. Also if they were using planes such as these it is possible that they would have patrols of them with large tanks so even the original climb could have been possibly avoided.
What happened to their escorts? The bombers only have machine guns for defence, but their escorts have Cannons! Granted that they are 20mm and the titanium bathtub is designed to stop Soviet 23mm AA shells, but 20mm cannons from the rear can still mess up the engines and empennage of the A-10. What I'd actually like to see is a night intercept from the A-10s since you mentioned that they moved exclusively to night-time raids, in which case the absence of the escorts can be explained.
@@rubiconnn Not too sure any other plane has the incredible armor the A-10 has... you could see tail gun rounds bouncing off the canopy its so thick and nothing from WWII planes gets through the bathtub.
@@grimreapers would a flight of F-117's be possible? I kno in real life they're a Fighter/Bomber however idk if they can attack air targets in DCS? Another idea-- Three YF-12A's(Human Pilot's) with a flight of Ai F-104 Starfighter's! Lol after you use your Two Missile's use your face then you can either get into a F-104 or a new YF-12A! ;)
You should have figured the Best rate of climb airspeed and used that, you seemed to be peaking at about 4000 FPM which is a 5 minutes to 20K. Also on first respawn climb away from the target for a short while then turn in, so you're not playing catch up when you get close.
