Flying low for helos in Nam was the key to survival even against small arms & SAMs or AA guns. The trees block small arms line of sight for helos and you're faster than the hueys or cobras so your chances of survival are higher. P.S. The hillside did not enough attention. It's the high ground relative to the battlefield. If the friendlies don't have it the enemy does. It's a natural location for FO's, mortars, MG.s, etc., so give tnem some Love...ICM or Napalm prefered. P.S.S. The FO''s in planes suck.
I have to think that the only thing more scary than an A-10 to an enemy ground-pounder... is a *squadron* of A-10s, willing to go Danger Close. Very much enjoying watching you and the boyz getting used to flying the hog and running all these historical scenarios. Massive kudos!
Buddy, the amount of air support 1st cav had in this battle was not only some aircraft, it was ALL OF THE AIRCRAFT. Thats all the ac both from yankee station and the various bases in svn. They had so much flare support they were using daylight fire adjustment techniques
@@victoriaregina8344 In terms of sheer Bomb load, a B-52 would carry a lot more… but the A-10 is designed for CAS, so it’s ordinance would be much much more efficient than a Vietnam era B-52 without access to JDAMs and other guided weaponry.
I'm guessing most of the people watching this video have seen We Were Soldiers (I have also read the book, highly recommend it.) Damp Sock stood in for the guy who dropped the napalm on Jimmy Nakayama and those poor soldiers. Not Damp's best day. Interesting that there was a drop on friendlies during the actual event as well as this simulation. It happens.
@@Decrepit_biker I'm sure Cap was quite inspirational when Damp Sock was brought in for debriefing with tea and crumpets. "Please feel free to remain at attention Damp Sock...."
One infantry casualty means two more men need to carry him and his stuff off of the front line, so x3. Also, it's nice seeing everyone on your team stick around and participate without quitting. Thanks for these videos,
Right it's not just kills its laying fire so they cant move forward giving the guys on the ground the ability to maneuver and get direct fire on the enemy as well.
As it happens, the A-10 was in part developed out of American combat experience in Vietnam. It was determined that the Air Force lacked a dedicated attack aircraft, forcing ground troops to rely on Huey and Cobra gunships or F-4 Phantom IIs for close air support or Navy and Marine air assets, some of which were dedicated attack planes. Between that, the experience of tank-busting aircraft in World War II, and the need for a well armed and durable attack aircraft in Europe should the Cold War go hot, the A-10 was born. EDIT: Ia Drang is famous as it is the first battle where the NVA and U.S. troops met in battle in force; previously, American troops had only engaged Viet Cong guerilla units.
It was the replacement for the A-1 Skyraider and was designed to shoot up trucks on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. WW2 planes like the IL-2 and advice from people like Hans-Ulrich Rudel who used his 37mm-armed Stuka to great effect against Soviet armour (and everything else he could find) strongly influenced its design and it was meant to address the deficiencies of existing aircraft in a Vietnam-type setting but the war was over before it entered service and it was something of a plane without a mission until it was handed the anti-armour role despite being far from ideal. The vast majority of A-10 kills are with Mavericks and guided bombs but it was seriously deficient as a CAS platform and would have been better without the gun and using the weight saved to make it a 2-seater (with a weapons systems officer), give it a proper targeting pod, and possibly even have weight to spare for more fuel or PGMs.
Some AC-47 units would receive night vision and thermal equipment later in the war, they were used extensively to hunt troops and transport vehicles along the Ho Chi Minh Trail at night.
Keep in mind that the battle stretched out over 3 days. A single mission by A-10s is just the beginning of what they would have done. On the other hand, the strengths of the A-10 were its survivability and ability to attack point targets (such as armor), neither of which were important in this scenario. Compared to the A1 Skyraider, the A-10 could carry twice the ordnance, and about 30% more cannon ammunition, so over multiple missions the A-10 could do about twice the damage of an A-1. An F-4 does even better for bombs than an A-10 (18,000 lb vs 16,000), with about 50% the cannon ammo. In this scenario, I don't think the A-10 would be significantly better, except in terms of ability to provide CLOSE support.
Keep in mind an A-10 can loiter FAR longer than an F-4 and if it has Targeting Pod has a much better likelihood of seeing the targets even under the trees (FLIR be that way) and let's not forget the intimidation factor of the 30mm Brrrrt.
@@cnlbenmc , the brrrt would have been a shock to the NVA not having any knowledge before hand. Can’t underestimate the psychological impact of that surprise.
I think the A-10 would work very well in the Vietnam war. Maybe a early stage Varient wouldn't be effective, but if the war continued. A modernized titanium flying tank would have rekt the battlefield. While the F-4, A-4, and Etc would have been better in Thier roles as well.
I was wondering if you be willing to explore theories regarding the battle off Samar, it was when the US Destroyers charged at the Yamamoto battleship and fleet and the Admiral turned round because he was concerned there was more heavier ships waiting. I was wondering if there was any way possible the WWII US fleet could have won, and then if the Aegis destroyers would make any difference. the Us had 6 Escort carriers, 3 destroyers and 4 destroyer escorts and 400 planes, the Japanese 4 Battleships, 6 heavy cruisers 2 light cruisers 11 Kamikaze aircraft. it seems something right up your ally to test.
I did a LOT of Tac Air back in the day, (ALO/FAC) and the mission of CAS (Close Air Support) wasn't to destroy the enemy, it was to degrade their ability to fight so the ground units could close with and destroy them. One thing you may want to try in setting up your runs, one or two plane(s) at a time, the other planes would be parked in a race track near the battle with a 1000 foot separation. 10,000, 11,000, 12,000 etc. This worked really well when you had different type of Aircraft, as well as different types of loads. Then you call the air craft in one at a time, give them a Way Point, (where they would start their run, an azimuth for the run, NEVER over flying friendly troops, an off-set from the smoke, (North 200meters, West 300 meters), and an egress after their run, and call it Danger Close or not. After each bird finishes they get a BDA and then the ground commander decides if he needs more runs. Sadly DCS doesn't allow combined arms, so you can't provide anti-air suppression for the missions. Cap could provide these as part of the mission briefing. Dealing anything over 30% damage to a BLT is normally considered that they are no longer combat effective. For every wounded trooper it takes between 3 to 4 people to deal with the. Sorry for all the edits.
I was actually thinking along the same lines, maybe if some of the A-10s were flying in a line abreast formation so they would cover a much broader area when bombing with the GBU-97s. Then repeat at another area and so on... But in any circumstances, we need FACs! And more videos like this, they're fun to watch! Thanks a lot for them.
@@fridofridolin Random nonsense below. Normally each run is done single file, allows for unrestricted reaction to ground fire; you can take evasive action with out taking out other aircraft. DCS needs man pacs as well as suppressing fire from mortars or artty for this to really matter. The need for true FAC's will only exist if ground troops gain the ability to move out of their assigned areas, rather then cluster around some random set point. I currently don't think the game can handle this, or maybe the hardware is the limiting factor; Cap will have to look into this, and the mission briefing at the start of the game will suffice for the ALO/FAC's job. During the mission briefing the pilots can be given all the information the need to set up their runs, IP's, headings, danger close, location of the Red troops, egress, etc. It will require the players to actually work a bit more; take notes and read their notes, while trying to setup the aircraft for their runs. There's a LOT of work that pilots need to do during the set up, and this is part of the reason there's very little chatter between the FAC/ALO's once they have been given their instructions. This is part of the reason the Marines assign real pilots as FAC/ALO's; if they have them - they understand the limitations of the aircraft as well as the pilots. FAC's are down at the Company Level and ALO's are at the battalion level. ALO's are the first person on the ground that a pilot checks in with, they are asked their fuel status and load out, then given an area and alt to "park" their aircraft, normally a racetrack pattern. ALO's also take air support requests from the Companies and prioritize them, by loads and urgency of the request. The ALO will then pass the aircraft off to a FAC and assign them a Freq to talk on. After the aircraft can no longer maintain station they will check back into the ALO and let them know they are leaving; or if there is some issue they need the ALO to deal with. Best one I've ever heard was one pilot asking that the Marines on the ground stop shooting at them. The FAC once they are assigned an aircraft, will once again ask the load out, fuel status, and then the FAC will pass their local mission briefing to them, IP, and all the other information needed. The FAC will also work with the fire support group to coordinate anti-air suppression if needed. A lot of talk goes on during this time, however, it's mostly limited to the local team and the pilot. Shot out, Splash, and BDA's, and target adjustments come to mind here. Then again, it is just a game, and making it more "life like" will make it boring. Most of the time in the military 90/95% of your time is spent waiting for something to happen, even the aircraft will wait around for a while before they are able to go in and do their work.
@@TheDgdimick hello, if THAT is nonsense, then I'd love hearing something you deem sensical 👌 Thanks so much for the plethora of useful information/explanations, most of it, if not all, is new to me. Keep commenting like that please. About my own comment, I know this is a game, and as you stated, there should be room to maneuver but as this is a game, why not try that line abreast formation just to see what effect it has 🤣 isn't that the point with Cap's videos, to see what happens if we do this and that and of course have great videos to boast after 😍
@@fridofridolin I don't take myself too seriously, thus the nonsense comment. Formation bombing would be pretty cool if they could do it with B52's, we could see some Arc Light bombing missions - totally worthless, and silly, but I'm sure it would be a lot of fun to try in DCS. I think the closet we'd see is is cluster bombs and the aircraft flying in a diamond formation. I'm really new to DCS, still learning the basics, however, from what I'm seeing there are a few errors in the profiles for some of the bombs. Angle of deployment and drop time come to mind; I could be wrong since the last time I "used" them was a very long time ago. I also see that the stealth models are wrong. China's latest fighter is much less stealthy due to it's canards. Most air experts feel it's not 5th gen but rather a 4.5 gen. Same goes for any aircraft with a canard, they are very large reflectors due to the shape. Cap's videos are pretty much sandbox videos which I really enjoy. The "what ifs" are always going to be interesting. Just as interesting is that this is Caps "full time job", who would have thought there are so many people that enjoy them enough to step up and get him to make it his full time job. To be honest, the only reason I even decided to try DCS was to fly the A-10, A-6, and F-4. Now I find that the GR videos seem to suck up way too much time. :) Cap should do Dien Bien Phu next, all the aircraft should be available.
I think this mission would've gone a lot better with some more knowledge of the plane and mission planning. You could have created mark points and shared them with the other a-10c's to make sure there wasn't friendly fire. You also could have used this to better plan where you were to strike so that you could keep some reference of what had been hit already. Since you're firing indiscriminately into the trees, you probably would've had a better result with a higher HOF and then further from the front lines. You'd also want to disable the gun-pac since you're trying to spread it out. Maybe some formation flights of CBU bombing runs would've given you the coverage without the overlap, that way you could keep the a10a's in the mix since you can't really share data through the TAC with them.
Have to agree. Proper scouting and knowing the current high contact/engagement points via radio contact would have helped to have the attacks be more accurate. Yes, it would still have target saturation and mis-timed attack areas, (or friendly fire incidents), but I think your team did quite well, even with the lag spikes. Even in Desert Storm with the overwhelming tech superiority and much better planning & communications/gps positioning, similar events happened.
This is the battle the book "We were soldiers once and young" is based on By Lt. Col Hal Moore and Joe Galloway. Hal Moore was CO of 1st Bat. 7th Air Cav. He fought along side his men during the battle.
I got to meet Joe Galloway when I was in high school in the late 80s. He was one of half a dozen prominent locals invited to speak. His hometown is about 4o miles north of mine, and he retired to a little town about halfway between. Never got to meet Lt. Gen. Moore, or CSM Plumley, but as a grunt, they were demigods to us.
I think if they had A-10's in Vietnam, the plane would have been a game-changer. You say you didn't have anything to aim at, but I think in a real-life situation, the American soldiers would have been lighting the NVA up for you. You didn't really have that in this simulation. I see you've already made that observation at the end of the video.
If you're allowed to use all the facilities of the A-10C II, you could use HMCS mark points to mark out the corners of the friendly base. Then when you look outside the HUD, you'll see the mark points. You could even change the HMCS profile so that the mark points are always on, even when looking through the HUD. Also, I think the datalink could be used by others to place the marks and share them if you don't know how. The "GUN/PAC ARM" switch position turns on the Precision Attitude Correction system which "stabilises" your aircraft to hit a point target on the ground as you fire. For blind strafing, the "GUN ARM" position might be better as it disables the PAC.
I have seen just one really bad mistake: the CBUs should have been used as long as you had smoke on the targets after that it was just calling for mistakes or for bombing so far of the own forces the ammunition was reduced very much in effect. Rockets are a fairly precise compared to clusters and thus should have been used only after the target markers disapeared.
@@lohrtom I'm guessing you've never heard of Verdun... Read about the Voie Sacree. The French Army acquited itself very well, when and IF the politicians let them.
Here's another question: what would have happened if the US had AH-64 Longbow attack helicopters during the Vietnam War? I'd think that all of those explosions would have resulted in burning trees and deforestation. Any landscape/woods taking hits would be obvious. The Vietnamese would have no place to hide and what trees remaining would be their hiding places and those hiding places would be blatant targets. (Me, with all my commentary regarding the software's limitations.)
@@lowtdave The available weaponry at the time wasn't all that different. AH-1 Cobras were the best available attack choppers; alright they might not have had the T-pods and RADAR of the Apache but for all intents and purposes you've still got an agile & versatile attack helicopter armed with M134s and 40mm grenade launchers plus unguided rockets. The advanced avionics of the Apache would be a significant advantage for looking through the foliage but I don't think the option of hellfires and its 30mm cannon would make much difference compared to the Cobra's armament. And they didn't have MOABs but they did have Daisy Cutters; huge airburst bombs designed to cut an LZ-sized hole in the forest without creating a crater. And yes, they were also used to destroy fortifications and kill infantry. Just like MOABs they were dropped out the back of C-130s
You gotta love those cluster bombs! So far, they're my favorite weapon. Certainly, a more than adequate analog for napalm. It sticks to kids, you know.
In 2013 when I retired from the Army. I was invited to a gala ball in las vegas. There were 10 Medal of Honor recipients there. All very cool guys. But I was lucky to meet and get teamed up with Bruce Crandall. He received his Medal of Honor from this battle. He was a huey pilot. great guy. Best 2 weeks ever. got drunk will all theres amazing people.
Read "A Lonely Kind of War" by Marshall Harrison a while ago. They used light aircraft (OV-10 Bronco) to loiter for long period, if I remember correctly they were in contact with ground forces and the fast movers - designating targets and guiding in air strikes. Very compellingly written.
A huge difference is you had no one calling you in and no tracer fire to provide a point of reference. Given real life battle conditions I suspect you would have had more targets to aim for. I wombat gun can put smoke on targets for you to aim for, jtacs can call in WP to mark targets as well
Something else to consider it the immortal trees the RedFor soldiers were hiding in during this simulation. I was doing SEAD practice on a server a few nights ago and the HARMs kept detonating above the radars due to hitting trees. It may be modelled differently for CAS munitions, or I may be just that bad at HARM-ing. Still something to consider.
It was a cool video, but not sure if the A-10 would have been significantly more effective than the planes they had back then. Better bomb truck than the A-1, and better anti-personnel munitions might have made a difference, but what you really need for a battle like that is the AC-130 with IR sights. Being able to see what you are shooting at, the incredible loiter times and the Vulcan cannon would be absolute murder on any ground troops.
I really woud love to participate here, but, after reading up on the work needed to become truly proficient in this simulator, I'll just sit here and watch the amazing stuff that you guys do.
There were good planes back then. We had very good planes in the 60s. If what we had didn't make a difference I don't think Warthogs would've been much help. What we REALLY could've used was FLIR and infrared. And a HUGE game changer would've been the AC-130. It was beginning development in 1968 and the war only lasted until 75. Those could've had an impact the outcome of war.
Good points. The A-10 didn't fundamentally have a game-changing advantage like stealth that would have made a massive difference in certain missions (not this one obviously) and in its original configurations it was very limited by its primitive avionics and lack of optics. There's a reason the F-111 outclassed it as the premier tank killer in Gulf War 1 and that was a combination of the Pave Tack targeting pod and the fact that it was a fundamentally very good bombing platform. Most A-10 kills have been with the same PGMs that other planes carry and in this scenario it would be those precision weapons in combination with night vision/thermal imaging that would transform the lethality of the air support and give the NVA nowhere to hide.
AWESOME video. Cap, a cool idea if you decide to redo this one, and if it's even possible for you to code (Never played DCS just love the GR vids) could be to have smokes go off intermittently exactly on enemy positions. This could simulate the guys on the ground calling target grid locations, which are relayed to the FAC and then relayed to the Hogs. Not *exactly* realistic, but could add a cool 'random' touch and could allow real pinpoint strikes on troop locations, or test your pilots' terrain recognition reference points if they come through after the smoke dissipates. Also, who tf loads Mavericks for attacking troops? lol. Those FFRs and CBUs are the ticket.
Commentary section all about A10.where the vn war history experts to remind them that 1st cav had ALL OF THE AIRCRAFT supoorting them in the battle? It was early on, and the intensity of the support was such that during the night, they were using daylight fire adjustment techniques. Thats a whole lot of flares.
I wonder how effective you would have been in formation attacks? 3 flights of 3 A 10's echelon formation, 2 miles separation between flights, 800 to 1000 meters between wingtip, ripple drop, multiple bomblets, best pilot drops closest to friendlies. The 2nd and 3rd waves use the previous waves run to begin their drops/attacks. Follow up 1st strikes with high explosive, missiles and guns. Still in formation. RTB This allows you to concentrate your fire power to do the most damage. It increases the psychological effect, (I Know the game won't show it), but think about the boost to Blue side and the the fear to the Red side. It would also have the effect forcing the enemy to withdraw to reform their attack giving a respite to Blue force. The ironic thing about close air support is that the attacker will often either run away or run toward the defender to get close because you won't bomb there making them easier targets as they change position. One wave would drop napalm on the tree line; the second would strafe danger close the next pass then they would switch positions giving the enemy the choice of burning in place or risking being shot. Thanks again I really enjoy watching your videos.
You guys do realize that in the real battle sabre did accidentally dropped a napalm bomb on the LTC Moores position. His FAC did a remarkable job in calling in the airstrikes helping keeping in the fight. If you had an FAC you would have done better. The Oscar Duces(o2) would you White Phosphorus rockets to mark targets on the ground instead of smoke they may have used smoke but white Phosphorus was more prevalent.
I think the advantage of the A-10 being used in the Vietnam War wouldn't be for CAS missions like this, yes they can do that well, but the big advantage I think would be in recce and situational awareness. The A-10's would be devastating in attacks on the Ho Chi Minh trail, especially at night, using FLIR and with precision munitions attacking truck convoys and the like. The Vietnamese also used a lot of artillery and even armored vehicles and tanks in many of their attacks, more so late war. Again the A-10's could find and destroy those targets much more easily and with much greater precision than historical aircraft.
It was designed to shoot up trucks on the Trail and its lack of FLIR and no weapons systems officer in a second seat were massive deficiencies as the first Gulf War showed. In that war it was the F-111 that was by far the best tank-buster because it was better at identifying targets and they would have scored even more kills if they weren't limited to carrying 4 bombs at a time. If you could take modern optics and guided munitions back to 1965 it would make a far bigger difference than any particular plane.
I've noticed a problem with frame rate performance on lots of cluster bomb munition craters, I think that's one of the reasons you experienced a substantial frame rate drop when you looked at certain locations.
Would like to see this replayed with the hogs divided into 2 groups, with each group designated to a particular line. Maybe with 4 stations of cbu's ter's. Ripple 6 cbus on each attack run, each group running line abreast on the attack. It seemed that a lot of the ordnance was put in the same area.
Would’ve had a lot more casualties from fallen and exploding trees.. it would also help if dcs simulated terrain damage.. Realistically after calling the distance and direction from the smoke.. the oilers would’ve worked grids moving deeper and deeper into the woods.. not really any different then how you would spread out bombers and each take a different line.. What would’ve happened here is 3/4 of the jets would’ve taken long down drop runs on say .5 second splits with full load drop in a straddling type run targeting different grids.. the remaining jets would’ve waited for for follow up directions as per the grounds directions after analyzing the damage done on the ground. Then iff need be the 3-4 remaining jets would clean up or rtb fully loaded depending on how effective the initial drops were. This is where HE bombs are so effective cause they turn woodline into a clearing removing cover and giving some stand off distance on the ground
In addition to the friendly fire incident, as I recall from the book "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young" there was even a plane (an A1 Spad?) that took damage from its own ordnance. The plane dropped the bomb too low and the subsequent explosion damaged the plane and caused it to crash.
I remember that; Moore and his command were close enough and the Spad pilot was low enough that they could see the poor bastard looking at them as he rode it in...the extractor rod wouldn't fire, so he couldn't get out.
This is very like the actual A1 Skyraider strikes on the Ia Drang during the operation there, very well done. This got my subscription. I don't know if I'll ever have the patience or brains to play DCS myself but watching y'all do these historical and what-if missions are really entertaining.
Great mission. My understanding is that the A-10 was built in part to address combat lessons learned in Vietnam. Close air support is what the pros specifically train for to fly the A-10. You folks are great but I agree with Sock that A-10 pilots, specializing in close air support for their careers, would do the job better. The zones hit might be a little less random with assigned grid squares that sort of thing. There may be zones that you hit twice and other zones that escaped un-hit. Did I hear right that one of your guy's call sign is "Armchair Pilot"? It says a lot. That said you folks look like you did great with the training and experience that you do have.
I'm a Retired US Army Field Artillery Officer and was certified in Joint Fires, which is not as trained as a JTAC, but allowed me to guide in airstrikes & helicopter attacks etc. 9 line is for medevac, call for fire is simpler. Line 1: "You this is me, FFE, over" Line 2: "Grid/Polar/Shift from known point XXX(X) XXX(X) (Either 6 or 8 digit grid) over, Line 3: "Target description (ie enemy platoon in the open), Rounds request (ie Battery 3 rounds, HE/WP) over. That is a fire mission from troops to an artillery unit. An airstrike would utilize a target talk on where the ground element gets the pilot to call tally on a mutually agreed feature, like a road, ridgeline, river etc and then uses that as a reference to orient the pilot using additional techniques, along with vectoring their azimuth of approach to ensure no friendly fire. When the target is agreed between the ground element and the pilot, there is verbiage along the lines of tally, that is your target etc. The pilot usually can weaponeer based on their loadout.
I think rule of thumb says 25% casualties make a unit combat ineffective in offensive operations and 50% makes them ineffective in defensive operations. So whatever else, that strike would have hurt the NVA badly.
Add some AC-130's. The latest AC-130' s carry a 25mm rotary canon, a 40mm Bofors, and a 105mm howitzer (which would allow the AC to provide rapid-fire artillery support from a safe distance). 3 or 4 AC-130's and a squadron of A-10's at Ia Drang would have routed the North Vietnamese. An AEW would be useful for identifying troop concentrations. When the NVA withdrew it could also find and provide targeting information so the NVA bases and headquarters in the nearby hills could be obliterated by B-52's loaded with modern munitions. 7th Cav would have retained operational capacity and could have been airlifted to interdict NVA lines of retreat. Another option would be a flight of bombers loaded with MOAB's. With a blast radius of 150m, a ring of them around the perimeter would destroy any advancing enemy, and devastate the trees and foliage hiding them from the US positions. A second pass would create an even wider killing field. Massive casualties would end the attack as the NVA lacked the numbers (approx 2,500 vs 1,900 US and ARVN at the start). It's generally estimated that 10% casualties is enough to ruin an enemy's morale and cohesion. The NVA suffered about 50% casualties (as did the US forces) - over 3 days of close fighting. What if they'd suffered 50% casualties just an hour or two after the first MOAB burst?
An excellent display of why the A-10 was created... as the F-100 F-105 and F-4's where too fast and unable to get bombs on target effectively. Using a FAC or a Fast FAC ie A-4E or as the US Marines would have used a TA-4J with smoke rockets calling out positions. Also the Cessna O-1A, O-2A and their replacement the Rockwell OV-10A for the normal FAC again with smoke rockets though the OV-10A could use it's own guns as well... as to ground JTAC's all down to calling in on positions from the front line into the enemy areas as per Simba's idea... Good video all round...
A lesser tool with skilled operation accomplished what the F-100 was able to back in the day. You all ARE getting better on the A-10 though, so do more missions and then return to these early ones, maybe? Seems like the A-10 should be able to dominate with correct FAC and piloting.
Of course they would be aided by FACS in any mission. One has to have eyes on the ground and then mark it with smoke or flares such as Willy Pete. Our Skyraiders or Cobras or support Huns or Phantoms did not just fly in willy nilly for close air to ground support during the Vietnam campaign.
When I was in Afghanistan we used laser designators to paint whatever we wanted hit . Can you guys somehow create forward observers which is actually what you need to direct those bombs in . Send in the Rangers boys !!! 2/75th Ranger Bn..
I think having a a fac with a jtac or two would increase the kills a lot especially if they know what everyone is loaded with and where the enemy is about
I only wish to say as a father of three girls, one bio, two adoptive who have survived chemo for various types of cancer... ...May Amaterasu shine her heavenly healing light upon you!
Can you do this again but RTB when winchester and rearm refuel and go back in to the fight 3 or 4 times and have someone entirely with rockets as a FAC so you can hit his smoke???? Please and thankyou
Napalm serves 2 functions on the battlefield. First function is to set enemy troops and vehicles on fire. Second function is area denial, because no one wants to march through a firestorm.
Next time arm up with napalm and cluster munitions. Drop the nape then the clusters. In "reality" the would have had a jtac cessna or at least the guy on the ground directing fire
Cap - As we all know the Admiral Kuznetsov isn't in the best of shape. It's only able to launch planes with a 200 mile radius and limited ordinance because of engine failures and failing equipment, etc. etc.. I would like to see a UK Carrier group take on the Russians in their current (limited) capability. This should give a more realistic view of what would really happen in today's world. My money is on the Brits.
Such a great book. The movie left out a lot and the final scene was all Hollywood. Still good movie. Do love it when Sgt. Major Plumley passed, Sam Elliot was there at the service front row.
