OutOnTheOP

...sounds like you're living in some bad action movie fantasy. The reality is that, had WW3 kicked off, the fighting would have been in western Germany and the Fulda gap, where intervisibility lines were generally 800-1500 meters, and almost never exceeding 3km. This means the range advantage of the missile is questionable, at best. Not to mention the notion of a "huge tank battle" is a bit silly; even the Russians didn't want to mass like that, because it becomes an awful tempting tactical nuke target. Also, considering the Russian doctrine was for rapid advance and the overrunning of defenses, a missile that requires you to be stationary to use doesn't quite fit in... and the chances of spotting well-entrenched and camoflauged defenders at anywhere near the maximum range of the missile is just about nil. Remember, Russian tanks only recently received thermal suites, and even the newest fielded sets really aren't all THAT good. I would be very surprised if the Russians would have had much opportunity to use the missiles at all. Also, against an M1A2, they will not penetrate frontally. Range regardless. Slap as much guidance on a 125mm HEAT warhead as you want, it's still only a 125mm HEAT warhead. They penetrate no better than a normal 125mm HEAT projo- and there's a reason that sabot, rather than HEAT, is the projo of choice for dealing with tanks. (well, two reasons; the first being accuracy, the second being poor penetration compared to comparable-caliber APFSDS). The notion that an Abrams "wouldn't stand a chance" in open terrain is, regardless, foolishness. It only requires a smoke volley to defeat these weapons, as you yourself just admitted. And the basic load was only, if I recall, two to four missiles. Which, by the way, cost as much as the entire tank. That said, it's a doctrine thing. The US uses attack helicopters to achieve the deeper kills, which is probably more realistic, given the improbability of tanks spotting each other at ranges much over 3km. The US DID experiment around with tube-launched guided projectiles: for example, the Shillelagh (which is not all THAT much older than Refleks/ Svir)- they just found that they're too expensive, too prone to failure, and too easy to decoy, spoof, smoke, or evade. And too long time of flight. And they require a stationary firing platform. And the firing platform must remain exposed the entire time of guidance. There's a lot of downsides to these. In the vast, overwhelming majority of tank combat, you're better off carrying a couple extra APFSDS instead. Also, the notion that the Russian tube-launched missiles are designed for antitank work is a bit... incorrect. They were intended for use against ATGM-firing tank destroyers (against which their warhead is plenty adequate), not against tanks.

I think it may actually be off by the same magnitude: I have found it generally takes the FW190 about 15-30 hits of 20mm to destroy my Mustang. Oddly, he almost never actually hits me with 13mm. I suspect this is because the super-gunner AI puts the aim point for the 20mm right on me, and the 13mm, with different ballistics, zip right by harmlessly. That said... I'm counting based on the numbers in parenthesis in the post-mission report. Are those actually the number of hits, or is it some kind of "hit points of damage done" thing?

More to the point, ONE .50 in the pilot or engine is likely to be sufficient. The engine may perhaps require two or three, but the point is that "18 hits" is a good estimate of hits required because that's the amount it'll likely take (everywhere else) on the airframe to ensure one of them hits a vital target. If you get extremely unlucky, I could see getting as many as 50-70 hits without downing the target, assuming your rounds are hitting from high deflection and punching clean holes through the wing top-to-bottom without destroying load-bearing members on the way through. The likelihood of this is low, however.

The realist in me agrees that a rebuild on new-manufactured part to spec is usually going to be the only way you'll ever see that plane fly/ engine run, because all-original parts are often impossible to find... and even if found, probably need cleaning-up that is itself a restoration, because you may need to, for example, weld in rusted-out or stripped threads and cut new ones. The purist in me feels compelled to point out that new-built parts can be "100% to spec", yet be completely different from the originals, because the originals probably WEREN'T quite "to spec". They were "close enough". Our machining is so much better these days (as is our metallurgy), compared to WW2, that the "same" engine can be made to perform much better. IE, if you produced a Merlin with modern materials and machining, to the blueprint specs of the original, you could probably push 120 inches (or more!) manifold pressure or something ridiculous like that. The parts we make now would just be *too perfect*. Same is true in automotive engines; the engine that may produce only 150 hp as installed in your everyday car, can, by replacing the individual parts with "blueprinted" ones cut to precisely the spec of the blueprints (within tiny fractions of a millimeter) gain 40, 50, or more horsepower... So... be careful with what you consider "same as the original". Matching the blueprints doesn't necessarily mean matching the original part.

Not necessarily; just because it's rated for 9G doesn't mean it instantly falls apart at 9.1 G- and an F-15C (which I believe are also rated at 9G) managed a 12-plus G turn in pursuit of a MiG25 in the Gulf War, so there's planes out there that have done it...

It would be an excellent start, yes... but you would need the Corsair to go with the Panther. And ideally, the Skyraider, as well. For some reason people seem to think it was only in Vietnam, but... From the DPRK side, all we'd really need is a Lavochkin-9 and Yakolev-9... which would also be an excellent start for WW2 Russia. Is the AN-2 already in DCS World?

To use the missiles, switch the selector on the center panel (the one partially hidden by the stick) to "missile". You'll hear the sidewinder growl. It has a pretty poor seeker, so you'll likely need to be within a kilometer or so for it to pick up a target. The seeker is boresighted straight ahead, and has a pretty narrow cone where it will "see" a target. Gun trigger fires the missile (obviously, only when missile is selected on the armament panel!), but you have to hold the trigger depressed a second before it launches. *edit: oh, and don't expect it to hit anything from anywhere except dead astern, within a kilometer launch range, and in the absence of flares. As to the gunsight, it appears to default to radar tracking. The little red light in the bottom left of the sight housing indicates it has a radar return, and it will automatically set range for you. There's a knob next to it that I *think* controls the width of the radar beam; setting it a little narrower seems to stabilize the stuttering of the sight (caused, it seems, by multiple radar range returns?). It only gets good radar range at something like a mile or less.

...who, after five or ten minutes figuring out controls on the Sabre, had an uncontrollable urge to load 'er up with GAR-8s and set up a tail chase against a FW190D9. I couldn't help but cackle maniacally as the missile went right up his tail, ending the fight nigh-effortlessly for me. "Suck it, Hans! That's for all the grief when the AI FW190D9 first released, and took a zillion and a half rounds of .50!" Ahhh, it feels good. From what I've seen (so far), the F-86 is a dream of a module. The only issues I've had so far are generally related to my computer setup, which is very sub-optimal since I moved recently and haven't really put the computer back together right. It does seem to ground loop a bit on the easy side, though. Landing was a piece of cake, but as soon as I touched the brakes, it was doing donuts off the runway. Might be a setup fault with my toe brake axes, I don't know. *edit* I was impressed that the lock-on distance for the GAR-8s against the FW190 seemed so short... I think only 800 meters. I had previously tested them against the AN-30, and it seemed to get good tone against that from around 1.5km. Granted, I haven't done in-depth testing on it, just noticed it as I was toying around with the module, but if IR signature and radar signature are separately modeled, that's fantastic, and good on ya', Eagle Dynamics

...and it sounds like you want your cake and to eat it, too, as well. I have no issues that the Mustang might be denied a fuel that it commonly used, but I *do* have issues with a quite rare (in the Luftwaffe) lead-computing gunsight being slapped on every FW190 AND the Mustangs not having access to the better fuel that a great many of them (a majority, from what I've seen!) had access to. It's like someone said "oh, hey, the modelled P-51 has a lead computing sight, so we need to equalize that on the FW190 for game balance", but didn't want to do the same for the Mustang. Particularly annoying considering that the weapons loadout is already dissimilar, so why are they trying to "equalize" it? Isn't the greater impact of the cannon perfectly adequate "balance" for a lead-computing sight's superior accuracy?

I'm not quite certain which part is inaccurate. The Syrian military *is* the only force that seems to be using anything similar to this, and unless you believe that a barrel is aerodynamic enough to retain militarily effective accuracy against fleeting point targets, it's hard to imagine them being used in such a way that is *not* detrimental to civilians.

Was this one rebuilt from blueprints, or just built "close enough"?

...for best, or worst? =P (Piper Cub?)

Seems legit :pilotfly:

The newer LGBs no longer use bang-bang guidance, though; they use proportional steering. That said, if you need to attack multiple targets in one pass, you can easily use either IIR/ EO (against moving targets) or GPS (against stationary targets) guided munitions.

cannot believe no one has posted:

You know what? Get stuffed. You are a brick wall. NOTHING gets through to you, and your debate technique consists of: I guess they will be best, if they equip the mecha with Reality Shielding as efficient as that you have employed. I'm done arguing this. A whole PARADE of folks have come through and posted on why this is not practical or efficient in comparison. We have shown you the math. We have shown you real-world, apples-to-apples comparisons. MOST of the posters here were downright dismissive, and blew off the very idea as a joke. I at least tried to enlighten you on the reasoning behind it. You cannot, or do not want to, get it through your head- nor do you even dignify it with a real response. You claim "omigawd, your maths are SO wrong", but never actually disprove them. Everyone that has posted on here, other than you two, has agreed it's a silly idea, mechanically speaking. You two are fanboy zealots, and no amount of reality will change that. I see my effort is wasted, and therefore withdraw from this entire asinine endeavor. I have no doubt that you will pat yourself on the back at your "victory" in the debate.

And yet walking magically allows that same surface to bear higher transverse loads, applied in relatively sharp impulses, rather than the steady push of a track or wheel? There's some interesting physics in your little world...

You DO realise you just said the EXACT same thing I did, only with different words? The point is that during half the stride cycle, it's 80% gravity. During the other half (the "up phase I mentioned; when the leg is lifting your mass up to the top of the pendulum cycle), the muscle is doing 80% of the work. Either way, you were trying to say that gravity does 80% of the work for the entire stride, and that is entirely incorrect.

No one, repeat NO ONE has argued that current-technology powerplants are more efficient than animal metabolisms. We have argued that the MOTIVE TECHNOLOGY, IE DRIVETRAIN, IE LEGS are inherently less efficient than wheels. If you use animal metabolism to drive wheels instead of legs (like, oh, I don't know, a BICYCLE?), it is much more efficient than using your legs to walk. Same powerplant efficiency, better drivetrain efficiency.

With wheels exerting the same ground pressure as the human foot? Exactly the same. Now, if I need to climb over some REALLY bad terrain, sure... but "really bad terrain" for a 2-wheeled, human-scale bicycle != "really bad terrain" for a low-stance 20+ ton vehicle. Brush that would stop a human bicyclist is inconsequential to a HMMWV or tank.

Gee, I wonder why they're that inefficient? Oh, RIGHT! The POWERPLANT is inefficient. That has NOTHING to do with the drivetrain. And if you accelerate to a sprint, then come to a stop, exactly as much energy is wasted in deceleration as is wasted to do the same on wheels without regenerative braking: ALL of it.

I call BS. Apples to apples, here. You have to assume, when making comparison, that the power plant technology is available equally to walkers or conventional vehicles. That said, a cursory look at an exercise calculator website (https://www.healthstatus.com/perl/calculator.cgi) indicates that 60 minutes each of the following exercises have these caloric (energy) requirements: 14-16 mph cycling, 960 kcal 4 mph walking, 468 kcal 12-14 mph cycling, 792 kcal 12 mph running, 2,028 kcal 8 mph running, 1,224 kcal This means that, in terms of energy efficiency, as measured in kcals per mile (total calories burned in an hour divided by distance covered in 60 minutes) you get: 13mph cycle= 61 kcal/mi 12 mph run = 169 kcal/mi 15mph cycle= 64 kcal/mi 4mph walk= 117 kcal/ mi 8mph run= 153 kcal/mi That means you can move at the same speed on a bicycle for 37% as much energy as required to run that speed, or you can move the same distance THREE TIMES FASTER on a bicycle for approximately half the energy expended even to walk it- which is much more efficient than running, as has been pointed out. And all this is based not on a machine designed to move wheels, but rather on a machine designed to (rather inefficiently) transfer energy from a machine designed to walk (your legs) into power to drive wheels. So it's STILL not quite apples-to-apples, because there's an unnecessary level of mechanical friction (all the gears and axles of the bike in addition to the inefficiency of your legs) working against the bicycle. Are you QUITE SURE walking is as efficient as you think it is?

And now you're arguing about the efficiency of the powerplant, NOT about the efficiency of the motive method. We have to assume, when comparing the efficiencies of wheeled/ tracked motion versus legged, that both are drawing power from the same powerplant technologies. If you can make "myomer" muscles to drive legs, you can also use them to drive "pistons" in a reciprocating engine.

How much of the energy you spent accelerating yourself to a dead sprint is conserved after you come to a stop? ALSO none.

You're reading their message wrong: it doesn't mean that it takes 80% muscle to walk backwards... it means that during the "up" phase of the stride, 80% of the power is provided by muscle, 20 by inertia assist. During the "down" phase of the stride, 80% is gravity, 20% muscle. That says nothing about the overall efficiency of the stride, only about the relative use of muscle during select PARTS of the stride