Which Era Of Aircraft Can Intercept A German WWII Bomber Raid Most Efficiently? | DCS 

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6ZRFK1Ekqz0.html

That would be interesting just to see what type of abuse the A10 can take😮 I mean they come back home with missing engine and wings😊

Seems like you had time to line up two airplanes but you hit one and zip off😮 can't blame you cuz if my life was on the line my butt will be puckered just like you😂

Can the A-10 carry AIM-7’s?

i don't think so, i might be wrong but i don't think the A-10 has it's own radar@@damienkramer

I was just about to suggest this tactic when I saw your comment😊😊😊

This isn't necessarily true, the P-51 was of Semi-monocoque construction, and the Bf 109 was full monocoque, which means that the skin carries a lot of or all the load of the frame, just like modern fighters. The main difference between fighters of the past and now isn't the strength of the skin, but the fact that there's just so much more stuff inside a modern fighter than a wwii one. For example, the tail of a Warbird is in most cases an empty tube, in order to maintain the center of mass at the front for stability as well as to keep it light, because the power-to-weight ratio of the engines were incomparable to modern jet engines. A modern jet has little to no empty space in the airframe, as every open area is stuffed full of hydraulics, electrical stuff, fuel, radios, or sensors, and of there's any space that isn't necessary, the airframe is instead reshaped to eliminate it and maintain a better shape for aerodynamic and RCS reasons, as well as to save mass. Also, everything in the engines are more complex and massive, as well as fragile, like comparing your old lawnmower to an F1 engine. The performance impact of adding enough material to guard against shrapnel or the gunfire of other fighters would just make the armored jet too slow and sluggish to fight effectively, which is why they just don't bother. It's more effective to be quick and agile enough to dodge, or stealthy enough to avoid danger altogether, than it is to be armored enough that it takes 2 missiles instead of 1 to take you down.

Disagree Ken. A modern fighter is built like a brick s***house. It has to be to sustain mach airspeeds and 9g manuevers. Metallurgy is FAR more advanced. Titanium anybody? I have no idea what model they are using for missiles, but they are very, very lethal. The warhead tosses out pyrophoric fragments that are designed to light fires on any bit of structure they hit. Even a tiny AIM-9 warhead just shreds an opponent.

You do know that an F-15 can fly with one wing completely missing, do you not? The structure on modern aircraft is heavier because it has to support the same g-loads but the mass is much much higher. And critical systems often have multiple redundancy. There's a reason that modern aircraft have 20mm gatlings, not the .30 cal or .50 cal machine guns that were common in WWII.

Remember, GR pilots' worst enemies are 1) each other, 2) the ground, and 3) enemy fighters, in that order. Since 1 and 2 are both there during takeoff, it's natural that shenanigans will occur.

Yeah, I'm really sorry, I forgot... ironic isn't it?😅

Added to audible library, up next

More apt title, actually.

Maybe Damp suffered a great loss....of words? He was on a mission after all, occupied with flying, navigating, and general call to arms...

A great story, one of the saddest SF stories I ever read - two others that were very good are "The Cold Equations" and the novella "A Rose For Ecclesiastes."

The movie's title is "Charly." Heartbreaking, both the written story and the movie.

The real lesson is that this stuff is adaptable to drones that are flying cheaply built airframes.

P-51 was designed to use the Alison V-1710 engine, which was terrible above 15000ft. It was only when it used the Rolls Royce Merlin engine that its performance at high altitude was acceptable. By that time, the British (for who it was designed) had lost interest in it.

The P51 was an escort fighter not an interceptor. In a pinch you could use it a fighter / interceptor.

It's the most fun to fly in.

So, in retrospect, they did at least kind of work. While we got very few immediate kills with any of the missiles, they did sufficient damage in a lot of the cases that the bomber opted to return home. We watched for some time after we stopped recording, and 3 bombers successfully ditched in France, and 1 successfully landed back at base. The remaining 44 were complete losses.

Fox 1 have a larger warhead and potential kill, I've often had to use 2-3 aim-9L to kill 1 Ju-88.

I thought that but then I saw the old 50's footage of a Nike Hercules missiles hitting a drone B-17, it was atomized.

@@grimreapers to be fair the Nike Hercules warhead has a much bigger warhead 1000lbs with 250lbs of explosive vs the 50lb total warhead weight of an amraam

@Grim Reapers a Nike Hercules is 2/3 the length of an F-14 with a 1,000lb warhead. The aim-9 has a 20lb warhead and the Aim-7 80 while the AIM-120 49 or 44lb. For reference, the 30mm cannon shell used by the mk108 has a pound of explosive. So small warhead + the fact that they usually kill using shrapnel, unless they get a direct hit they just damage the plane instead of outright blowing it up.

Also old warbirds were built with the expectation of being engaged by machine guns on fighters. Small cannon, and big flak rounds, and to reasonably survive that, most times. To deliver their payload. They were tough as hell, with redundancy in their flight controls, cables and control rods. Spread out as much as possible from each other…you got hit a lot things in them, to refer them useless, plus no composites, at a higher speed and g load, so they won’t disintegrate, from smaller weapons.

48:13 AWACS..?

That only YOU Guys seen to have access to The F-80! It most certainly deserves its Own Exclusive Vid! :(

Would also love to see the Australian CAC Sabre with 2x 30mm ADENs

Aussie version had better engine also

Not in game sadly.

From my experience with the F-86F in War Thunder is that those 20mm cannons can only hold 460 rounds of ammo. So even if you have a good aim you will only be able to take down 2-3 bombers.

thx

I put a HUGE magnet in the fuselage.

Some of us post our views on our own channels :)

Yup fair comment.

@@KortanaDCS awesome, thanks! I really wanted to see what the 37mm did. Thank you!

Fun facts: I know this was an air field target, but Britain and Churchill started the Terror Bombing campaign of civilian targets-not the Luftwaffe AND Germany nearly defeated the RAF and the invasion would have been on, had Hitler not ordered the bombing raids to cease at the critical juncture, right when he could have totally knocked them out. Why? To train for Barbarossa. David Irving also collected eye witness accounts from Air Marshals, US & South African Diplomats, etc who all said Churchill was desperate to begin terror bombing of German cities and used a single stray Heinkle 111’s mistakenly dropping it’s payload on the east of London as the excuse.

I'm naughty.

F-111 Avionics/Radar here... 😎✌ RAF Upper Heyford

No P-38 in DCS as of yet. We were in general agreement that it would be excellent for this mission though

Heck, even the A26 Invader with up to 22 .50 guns.... (nose, wings, fuselage). For many reasons it seems more the spiritual precursor to the A-10. There were apparently some prototypes and even a few production models with 75mm cannon in the nose. Other configurations known to exist: 75mm + 37mm, dual 37mm, and, get this, exactly one with a 105mm cannon for testing purposes.

@@dpwellman The aircraft designers back then seem to have had a "thing" for the 37mm. A lot of designs had that weapon specified, but only a few made it to production. The P-39 Airacobra for example. While it gave good performance in ground attack - the Soviet's loved their lend-lease P-39's, its low muzzle velocity and poor ballistics made it problematic for air to air. When the RAF ordered some, prior to US entry into the war, they specified replacing the 37mm with a 20mm. After Pearl Harbor the US kept the aircraft (needs must sort of situation) but due to the changes requested by the RAF the aircraft were designated as P-400's

@@KortanaDCS I suspected as much. It doesn't get as much love as the more glamours airframes - pity though. Very few US aircraft from that period could match/beat its firepower and those that could - most would be at a disadvantage in a dogfight. With the possible exception of the P-70.

Sorry, mis-typed that should be P-61

Likely a graphical glitch.

Back when I was doing QA, we would call that a 'design issue', priority 5. (lowest)

It's probably just over the top effects. 50 cal tracers *are* incendiary ammo, and will set planes on fire directly. I've no idea if DCS properly models the incendiary effects of the tracer rounds hitting fuel and ammo stores inside target planes.

@@Silversiren28 a tracer projectile likely is capable of causing a plane to catch on fire, but projectiles with actual incendiary compositions will just be a lot more effective at that. And America made widespread use of Incendiary projectiles on 50 cal belts thought WW2. IDK the composition of DCS belts, but there is a good chance of that P-51 be using late war belts (because it is of the D model). And if that is the case, it will certainly have API and APIT projectiles (Armor Piercing Incendiary and Armor Piercing Incendiary Tracer, respectively), with a some chance of also having Incendiary projectiles (M23 Incendiary)

@@exidy-yt I would suppose this would then be a VFX issue?

S-300 was always capable of hitting ground targets. It's just that... seems silly to waste expensive SAM's on doing that.

@@dariozanze4929 interesting. I imagine it’s a different guidance system then typical s-300 used as SAM, right?

@@connorc4309 Sadly I can't say for sure how the system works, but I can say for sure that it had the capability to hit ground targets back in the 80's. I'm guessing it guides the missiles with the datalink.

The only correct answer. As the story goes, never forget what the F106 carries swinging between it's legs

@@benmodel5745 F106 is one of me favorite planes of the era

@@guystucker4738 I wish there were more options for planes in this era, they go usually from F-86 straight to F4s, skipping the whole century series fighters. My personal favorite is the starfighter, in spite of it's dubious flight record

This. I would LOVE to see the Drakken modelled. That thing must have been insane to fly with it being mostly lifting body. It was the first plane to ever do the cobra manouver as well because of that.

That is traditional.

thx

That was done about a year ago. PLEASE SEE: Could An A-10 Warthog Squadron Have Prevented The WWII "Blitz" Raids? (WarGames 4)

Sea Fury anyone?

Thanks wilco

You are a true GR hero!

ive never hear of these words...... self esteem.......🤣

@@albird87 damn it now I’m gonna have to organise a Bird fan club or something where we record useless motivational rubbish so you can play it when Cap’s mean 🤣

The recce mossies survived due to high altitude and high speed. Being just 50-70 mph slower than the 190 or 109 meant that unless the interceptor was already in the air and within 50-90 miles of you when they are ordered to intercept, they'd be out of gas by the time the could catch up to the missile.

With the FB mossie, radars can't see you until 30 miles if you are less than 100ft off the ground. So often, the intercept order would not go out until after the mossies hit their targets.

Was thinking just this 😂

Erm, technically the Hunter is 2nd gen - 1st gen is Vampire & Meteor. I'd love to have the Vampire to fly in DCS, btw. And Hunter.

@@ian12262 I thought that at least the first variant of the Hunter (Hunter F.1) could be considered a Gen 1 fighter jet, it basically is very similar to other Gen 1 fighter jets (at least in War Thunder). And IIRC not even later variants of the Hunter (F.6, FGA.9, F.58) are not supersonic capable in level flight, but these later variants have INSANE engine performance + they get access to missiles. Also their engine is non-afterburning

@@LuizBarros99 I guess I have a very British/US perspective on this. To me, Vampire & Meteor (& US P-80) with their unswept wings & centrifugal compressor turbojets were 1st gen, swept wing aircraft with axial flow engines were 2nd gen. We get uncomfortable when reminded that Me262 had both ;) If MiG 15 had been European or American, I believe it would have had an axial flow engine, it ended up with a copy of Nene because that's what they had available. I'm pretty sure we thought it was a sweet deal to give them that - hard cash for what seemed obsolete tech. They used it rather well.

@@ian12262 @Ian Nichols yeah, the sale of the Centrifugal Rolls-Royce jet engines for the Soviets was certainly a mistake. (Not only the Nene was sold, there was also a slight smaller centrifugal jet engine that was also sold, and was used on some aircraft such as the Yak-30 and the La-15)

yup

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6ZRFK1Ekqz0.html

@@grimreapers That RU-vid link is a hoot. He doesn't see how A-10s could possible intercept WWII bomber formations because they are so slow and have such a low rate of climb. Never mind that Spitifires did it and A-10 is faster than a Spitfire and has twice the rate of climb.

nice

Yeah they tried the big wing approach where a load of fighters would link up in the air but by then the Heinkels had dropped their bombs.

​@@ivorharden which is why radar was useful

Now THAT would have been something to see for sure! A mere half-second burst from the GAU-8 would absolutely atomize a Ju-88.

probably not much, not enough skilled A10 pilots available at recording time to be able to hit anything without tracers.

They have done A-10 vs German bombers before. It takes ages to catch up to them. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6ZRFK1Ekqz0.html