OutOnTheOP

1) You clearly do not understand logic. One video of a hole in one proves that there is a probability of attaining a hole in one. NO videos of misses proves that you are incapable, or too lazy, to prove that they are not common. You are relying on nothing but your assertions, and expect us to just accept your flawed logic based on nothing but your badgering. Man up and present some PROOF. 2) Have you ever, in the real-world, delivered, or witnessed the delivery of HDGPs? I *have*. As a Fire Support Officer, I had a secondary duty as a JTAC; we trained with some F-16s at Ft Sill, and F/A-18s at... y'know, I don't remember where. Nevada? They drove us out for the day from out NTC rotation at Ft Irwin. Either way, I've been there for live deliveries. I remember a couple dozen shacks, and I don't remember any significant misses. I also don't remember them being significantly more accurate than LDGPs. 3) Have you ever cut the nose of a .22 lr bullet at a 45 degree angle to see how badly adverse balance issues affect a rotating projectile? No? I have. It's less than you think. 4) Who said Mk82AIRs hit "dead on"? I said when dropped from under 3000 feet AGL, they should hit within errors of approximately 30 feet. When talking 500 pound GP bombs, this is a hit. 5) Bullets with balloons on? Clearly you have NO idea of the actual drag index vs kinetic energy comparison on a Mk82AIR. These things don't just waft gently down, batted hither and to by the whim of the breeze. They still come screaming in fast, and they still have a VERY high sectional density, so wind doesn't hurt them that much. It's more akin to firing a flat-base bullet instead of a boat-tail one. Higher drag, but hardly a parachute. Speaking of which, you DO know these do not have parachutes, right? 6) No one has said that HDGP are inherently MORE accurate than HDGP. We've said they're accurate enough to be worth using. OBVIOSLY low delivery altitudes are assumed when talking about HDGP employment. If you could make leisurely deliveries from 5,000-plus feet AGL, there'd be no REASON to take HDGPs; you can do the same job better with the LDGPs, and the LDGPs cost less. The HDGP kit is there to enable you to drop from 500 feet instead of 3,000-plus. What do you think's going to be more accurate: shooting you with a musket from 3 inches, or a sniper rifle from 30 meters? 7) Ooh, hypothetical stories that have no bearing on reality? Me too, me too! LTC Sue Trawman: "2LT Johnson, I want you to attack that fuel depot with LDGPs!" 2LT Johnson: "Ma'am? ... instead of employing HDGPs in a 1,000 foot pop-up, you want me to zoom-climb to angels 5, roll in, and make a steady LDGP delivery? LTC Trawman: "That's right" 2LT Johnson: "...while a Gecko, battery of Tunguskas, and every SA18 in the area code has a perfect line of sight on me?" LTC Trawman: "Also correct" 2LT Johnson: *unprintable* ***or how about this alternative*** MAJ Falla Sie: "I want you to attack that truck park with Mavericks" 2LT Johnson: "Why don't we just use HDGPs? It's an area target filled with frag-sensitive targets, our supply of Mavericks are limited, and the terrain in complex, requiring needlessly long exposure to SAMs to employ multiple Mavericks against multiple point targets instead of one string of HDGP" MAJ Sie: "Yeah, but Mavericks are *ACCURATE*!" 2LT Johnson: *facepalm*

Marcos, you're acting all kinds of retarded at the moment. He asked for proof to the contrary. One video might not be INCONTRIVERTABLE proof, but you haven't provided any proof contrary whatsoever. Absense of proof is NOT proof of absence. He's shown great accuracy is obtainable, onus is now on you to prove that's the exception instead of the rule. Dig up a couple videos of someone slicing it into the bunker, since you insist his video is the rare "hole in one". That aside, I would like to know precisely what physics would indicate that HDGPs are inherently inaccurate? I compete in rifle marksmanship, and NOTHING I have ever seen indicates that "draggier" bullets are less accurate. I was also trained in field artillery fire direction, and nothing I learned *there* indicated anything of the sort, either. In fact, in many cases, the heavier, slower, draggier bullets are MORE accurate (though not for any reason that an HDGP bomb would be more accurate than LDGP bomb). As long as the parameters are fairly consistent (ballute diameter is known, and therefore so is drag index), and the bomb spins to minimize any asymmetries, delivery accuracy should be fine. The only inherently undesirable thing having higher drag does ballistically is increase wind drift, so HDGPs should be somewhat more wind-sensitive. In return, the HDGPs should have less tendency for precession/ wobble than LDGPs, since they have that nice big ballute keeping them centered nose-forward in the air. What PHYSICAL FORCES are applied to a HDGP bomb that would make them inaccurate? to be inaccurate laterally, they'd need lateral forces applied: either they would have to induce tumbling to the bomb (doubtful; as I mentioned, the ballute should tend to keep it better centered nose-fore than the small fins of the LDGP), or would have to apply a LOT of asymmetric drag (which wouldn't really matter anyhow; spin minimizes any error induced that way- and what Eddie's video DOES prove is that the Mk82 AIR spins). Range error is more believable; if the ballute does not fully inflate, you'd get range error. Assuming a fairly consistent delivery airspeed, air density, and known ballute fabric shape, you should get a pretty consistent drag index. Not to mention that the HDGP is delivered from 500-3,000 feet AGL. At those ranges, any error is minimal. Even assuming the HDGP drifts 1 foot for every 100 (a HUGE amount of error), you're going to put the bomb within 5-30 feet of the target- well within the standards of a "hit" for a 500 lb bomb. To put it in perspective, a good rifle will induce error of approximately 10 inches at 3,000 feet. But like with rifles, the main limitation on accuracy is RARELY the ballistic capabilities of the weapon- it's the delivery accuracy (crappy shooters or FCS quality) that are the primary limitation. No, if ANYTHING is broken in about the HDGPs in DCS, it's that they aren't accurate ENOUGH.

No, the IS3's is; it's an old, obsolete tank, made with old, inferior steel, formed with old, inconsistent casting techniques. None of which make for good armoring. Fair enough, though: what's the straight-line physical thickness of the T72 armor on the turret sides? Not on anything I've ever seen; the only ones approaching that (and I stress "approach) are the very late model M1A2 and Challenger 2 (outside very amateur "wargamer" estimates, anyhow). And even with those two, it's only fairly small portions of the side. Chally has pretty impressive side armor, though. Keep in mind that the original T72's turret FRONT armor was around 350mm RHAe. I very much doubt the sides are significantly better than what was originally on the front; and 500mm is just waaaay outside the realm of reason. (I should note that I'm talking exclusively RHAe vs KE, though... 300-500mm vs HEAT, I can believe. In fact, with the newer Kontact ERA, I could believe up to 1000mm RHAe vs HEAT on turret sides for the later T72 marks)

I would think the way to do IHADSS would be to superimpose a semitransparent layer on top of the main viewport. Maybe give a keystroke/ button enabling the player to switch which "eye" he's focusing on, thereby making the IHADSS overlay more or less transparent (and the main viewport correspondingly less or more visible)

80 rounds I can believe... 1.5 km, not so much. Pretty sure the GAU8 has significantly higher muzzle velocity, and it needs slant ranges of closer to 500 meters.

Yes, and the IS3 had around 120mm average on turret sides. You're only quoting TURRET dimensions; hull thickness tends to be less (though in the WW2 and immediate post-war, tanks generally had more evenly distributed armor than the more modern models, where it is weighted forward and up). (*edit*: I forgot to mention also that 120mm LOS thickness on the IS3 likely equates to closer to 80-90mm RHAe by modern standards: cast turrets were not known for particularly consistent tempering, nor was the alloy mix of the day as good as modern "armor steel") Also, the Josef Stalin series are the same weight class as the T90, and the T90, like most modern tanks, has advanced armor to the front, and occasionally the turret sides, but almost never to the hull sides or rear. Even the most advanced modern tanks tend to have fairly thin, relatively unsophisticated armor to the sides: compare with the much heavier Abrams, which STILL (by all sane assessments) has only ~250mm RHAe for the turret sides, and 50-150mm RHAe for hull sides. If you actually think that the much heavier, much more expensive Abrams has significantly worse armor protection than the T90, which is based on a 1970s chassis, weighs 20 tons less, and was essentially discontinued by the Russians (I mean, if T90 was so great, why'd they stop buying them?), then something is wrong in your logic.

.... or you could just fire the current GAU8 projos at the tank from aspects at which it can penetrate. Or use a Maverick. Or a CBU97. No need to add weight and complexity to the aircraft just for marginal gains to the gun's capabilities.

Ok, so first off: that's not a definitive assessment, it's a best-guess by a software company with no access to classified information. Second, what "tiny spot"? Looks to me like the entire engine bay (55mm KE) and the side plates by the suspension (30mm KE) are perforable by modest autocannon AP rounds; the M919 25mm AP rates around 100mm at 2km; the 30mm GAU8 probably runs similar (*edit* the coloring book indicates 80mm at 500 meters with 70s ammo). Also, the 25mm has PROVEN capable of knocking out M1s from the rear aspect. There's absolutely no speculation about it: it happened. ...where does the coloring book state the roof is impenetrable?

Where the heck did I say that? I said that ERA has little or no ability against KE. I further said that Russian tanks almost universally carry ERA; which makes accurate assessment of their "RHA equivalency" difficult, because KE and HEAT warheads perform very differently against ERA. Nowhere did I say anything about Russian tanks having "virtually no ability against KE". Please re-read my comment. Now, I would argue that the T90 isn't the indestructable beast some make it out to be: it's a product-improved T72, and any attempt to portray it as anything different is silly.

Exactly; never said it was INTENTIONAL, just that it happened. I suspect it was close-in city fighting, with the two vehicles VERY close together (like a tank length or two): the roof-mounted sight may have had a clear line of sight over the M1, but the cannon did not. But that's spectulation; either way, a Bradley hit an M1 and knocked out the engine.

Sure about what? That any given armor may have higher or lower RHA equivalencies depending on whether it's hit by KE or HEAT? Even the link you sent supports that. Or do you mean sure that ERA is largely ineffective against KE, which, well, it IS: it's certainly going to provide SOME protection- but then, so would strapping phone books or feather pillows to the side of the turret. Point is, ERA is MUCH more effective against HEAT than KE. And the Russian's claims of their "secret sauce" ERA's effectiveness against KE must be taken with a grain of salt; they're trying to SELL this stuff. That aside, they've pretty much out and out admitted now that Kontact doesn't work against the M829A2 or M829A3 long-rod penetrators. If ERA was going to work well against ANY KE round, you would expect it would be against projos with a high length-to-diameter ratio. (*edit* because it's easier to tumble or break them than short, squat rounds) Also, that link doesn't address side nor rear armor values (to which I'd note my earlier comment was a fairly generous assessment of turret side strength... there's plenty of open-source out there indicating that the T72 series has parts of the side (mostly lower hull sides, around the running gear) as thin as 20-30mm RHA equivalent. *edit* Wolfie, I'm pretty sure that table is pretty SWAG estimate, and I'd guess it was made by an American or Brit (westerner, anyhow) with no military background: it vastly underestimates some of the Russian armor values (well, the early stuff, anyhow. It still falls in the trap of huge estimates to T90) ...though not as badly as Marcos' link OVER estimates the T80U and T90. Seriously... T90 is just a trade name for the T72BM. It's JUST a fancied-up T72. I find it hard to believe that at a mere 40 tons, and without having armor so overinflated that it looks like the Staypuft Marshmallow Man, it's supposed to have 4 times the protection level of the baseline T72. Not to mention, better turret frontal KE defeating performance than the Leo 2A6 and M1A2SEP? Highly doubtful. HIGHLY doubtful.

Wait, turret sides have armor almost as heavy as turret fronts? Not from what I've seen; M1 turret side armor is more in the 300mm RHA (vs KE) range, even in the latest versions. Which is still a good sight better than the T72/T80/T90 family, with closer to 150-200 RHA. M1A1(HA) turret FRONT is in the 850-950mm range, while M1A2 SEP is closer to 950-1000. All numbers are, of course, from open source media, and rather doubtful (but the best available), though these numbers do make sense: they are roughly equivalent of what turret FRONT armors were in the 70s, before the advanced armor packages were put in. Side armor generally doesn't include the thick arrays of advanced composite armors.

Regarding the 30mm vs rockets in anti-armor use, consider: 1) that the RHA equivalents of any given armor layout are *not* the same for both KE and HEAT. Generally the modern composite armors are 50%-100% more effective against HEAT than against KE, so a KE weapon with 100mm RHA penetration is just as effective in most cases as a HEAT one with 200mm penetration. Reactive armor- ubiquitous on Russian designs- makes the comparison even harder, as it's extremely effective against HEAT but does almost nothing to KE 2) the 30mm has essentially no chance of killing a tank from the front. However, even modern tanks like the T80U and M1A1HA generally have between 60-90mm RHA on the hull rear; the engine deck is generally understood to have less than that, but finding numbers is tough (and of course any numbers you find are suspect). A 45* or steeper diving attack onto the rear quarter of a tank can indeed find plenty of places- even on a modern tank- where 30mm AP can penetrate. Perhaps not into the fighting compartment, but certainly into the engine compartment. On the other hand, the front quarter (and turret sides) of even the old T54 were NEVER considered valid targets for the GAU8, even when it was first designed. Don't expect frontal attacks on tanks to work. But don't assume that this means tanks cannot be destroyed with GAU8. 3) I seem to recall an M1A1 that was disabled (not destroyed) by 25mm fire from a Bradley to the rear of the engine bay; it may not be a catastrophic kill, but perforating the engine bay and messing up the engine is going to take a day or two to recover- and you only keep so many spare engines laying around. ....and that's assuming the engine doesn't catch fire, in which case you may well lose the entire vehicle. 4) Obviously Maverick is going to be the better option. But you can only carry so many, there are only so many available, and they're expensive and hard to make and more difficult to transport compared to a couple hundred rounds of 30mm AP.

Short version (as has been mostly covered above): the GAU-8 CAN (as in, it's physically possible) fire them, but the sabot petals (jetisonned as the projo leaves the barrel) would eat up the engines, as they have very unpredictable paths on exit. The APFSDS rounds are designed for use with the Goalkeeper CIWS system, a naval anti-missile system that uses the GAU-8 cannon.

I tend to agree that 900-1300 feet is the best engagement range: at closer ranges, the target's apparent size is larger, but the gun's convergence means that the shots tend to pass to either side of the target, and as you get closer, you get locked into dead-astern pursuit, where you're firing at the wings edge-on. My best results are generally 1000-1200 feet (where the guns are all converging in a small area), with a slight deflection (so that I can see some wing plan).

Wow. You really want to get your rant in and then try to deny anyone the right to respond because it would be too "political"? Too late, you already politicized it. One, money spent on defense projects doesn't just *poof!* disappear into thin air, it is paid to companies that pay employees. Second, you REALLY can't see uses for this technology? I bet you're one of those people that think that GPS, satellite communications, computers, microwave ovens, advanced metallurgy, etc, etc just develop themselves, then? Many, MANY technologies have been developed explicitly for, or as spin-off technologies from military research. That aside, I have no idea where you get the notion that the only use of this technology is for MQ9-analogue UAS; it's useful as a next-generation cruise missile, transport aircraft, high-speed interceptor (both aircraft and missile), or reconnaissance aircraft in the same vein as the SR71. As to the above comment, as far as I know, SR71 was discontinued because a) it's very expensive to operate, b) they were wearing out, and c) while international law allows overhead passage of satellites, it forbids military aircraft overflight without permission as an act of war, therefore there is no NEED for an SR71-type aircraft; if you're staying outside their borders, you don't need to be so fast you can outrun missiles.

And what do you want to bet that the X51 was NOT lab tested to mach 6? I mean, we Americans, we're just sooooo stupid, we build the full-scale test aircraft without EVER lab testing it. Lab test != real world performance. :doh:

SA19? Probably not; I think HARM is too small a radar return. SA15, though, is generally considered capable of it (though I believe ED made the decision that the radar return was too small for it, as well. SA15 is really better against cruise missiles and big 2000 lb GBUs) The early 2S6 is certainly not capable of it; the laser fuse wasn't capable of reliably detecting such small targets, so the missile would've passed by without ever detonating. Newer missiles have improved fuzes

As I understood it (to perhaps further muddy the waters), with Tunguska, the *target* is radar or optically tracked, while the *missile* is optically tracked via a flare in the tail (like a TOW), using a SACLOS system. Missile corrections are sent *to* the missile via radio link. Interestingly, this makes Tunguska vulnerable both to countermeasures in both IR (spoofing the missile tracking flare) and radio (jamming the missile guidance uplink) channels. Which is probably why Pantsir moved to radar tracking of the missile instead of IR beacon flares. As Alfa mentioned, the M1 version also may have done away with the flare tracker.

I would just like to take a moment to point out the irony of using this particular adage when talking about the science of designing rockets. :D

And yet, gun crime (both in statistical rate and total quantity) is on a significant decrease, even as many struggle economically (typically a causational factor in violent crime). Funny, that.

Just to put things in perspective, Syrian population: 22,530,000. Kosovo population: 1,733,000. US population: 314,134,000. That's ten times the population of Kosovo and Syria COMBINED. Yes, I would expect to see more fatalities. ...not that your numbers are correct. If you have an accurate source for gun violence in Syria, I'd like to see it; I'm pretty sure they're not handily available like the US FBI crime statistics. If you check the FBI stats, the 2010 firearms-related homicide total for the US was 8,775. This is HOMICIDE, not MURDER. That means justifiable (defense) shootings and accidental shootings (where the victim was not the perpetrator) are counted in this total. There were 617 firearms homicides ruled justifiable. So, 8,158 firearms deaths including both murder and negligent homicide (the FBI data doesn't break it down any further that I can see). Out of all the firearms homicides, that most evil example of the felonious firearms culture, the "assault rifle" was almost a non-player-only 358 homicides with ALL rifle types, to include pappy's ancient hunting rifle. One can only guess how many of the subset were "assault rifles"; and despite this, it's the arm that the activists are most strongly pursuing banning. By the way, well over half the gun fatalities in the states are suicides, and not *really* linked to the availability of firearms (edit: for clarity, they're not included in the above numbers; they total around 15,000 all told). Considering that in Japan-where there are essentially no firearms available- the suicide rate is 20 per 100,000, twice the suicide rate in the United States, I think guns can be ruled out as the proximate cause in those deaths. Also, Hajduk, I don't think you've EVER said anything nice about the US in this forum. EVER. For living here, you sure seem to hate it. Don't mistake that for me saying "you disagree with my stance on gun control, therefore you're un-American"; you're entitled to your opinion; but EVERY time you comment on the US, it's always couched in the presentation of "here's why the US is worse than every other 3rd-world shyte hole out there". It's getting kind of old.

How about we leave the ad hominem attacks out of this and have a grown up conversation now? Wildbill, you too. This is the second post in as many days where you've acted like a pompous ass- I'm sure the guy with a question about P-51 arming switches really appreciated your humor, too. You don't need to imply I'm not smart enough to learn the DCS simulations; I'm already quite competent on the A-10C, thank you very much. And no, Ethereal, I HAVEN'T "rejected" your "apples vs apples" comparison- I take issue with your basic assumptions: namely, that more complexity always equals more capabilities. I disagree. Using the radar example (with some arbitrary simplifications- and NO, I don't care about discussing specific modes on specific aircraft, that's just a stupid straw man to distract from the issue at hand): Let's say the DCS:F-XX version has 3 radar modes. Mode A has 50km detection in look-up, 30 km detection in look-down, and a 20* search sector. Mode B has 60 km in look-up, 10 km in look-down, and a 40* search sector. Mode C has 80 km in look-up, 30 km in look-down, 10* search sector, but is easily notched. Obviously, a good pilot knows what mode to use in a given situation, and chooses appropriately. This gives the good DCS:F-XX pilot a huge advantage against a pilot who doesn't know how to DCS:F-XX, or against DCS:F-YY, which doesn't have modes B and C available. But FC:F-XX simplifies all those modes into ONE mode. The radar has "on" and "off" only. "on" has 80km in look-up, 30 km in look-down, 40* search sector, and doesn't suffer notching issues. The FC:F-XX pilot doesn't have to go heads-down to flip switches, doesn't have to worry about ever being in the wrong mode, and gets all the advantages of all modes. Against DCS:F-XX, FC:F-XX is now at an advantage, no? Now, ultimately it comes down to how the programmers design the simple version: they CAN design the simple version so that the pilot only gets mode "A" and can't switch it, or they can make a combined mode "A-B-C" in the simplified version. I find it hard to believe that they're going to trim off capabilities in the interest of making "detailed" modes in a "simplified" model.

Er.... No. The US has 8,700 M1 tanks, mostly M1A1 (armor upgraded to M1A2 standards). Russia has about 700 T90, about 4,500 T80, about 5,000 T72, and a thousand or so probably-rusted-out T64s. Total of 11,200 give-or-take. Hardly three times the number; not even quite twice. And the US didn't ALWAYS have that huge budgetary advantage (like, say, around 1975 when Russia was cranking out thousands of T72?). Agreed, though, there's plenty of sacred cows on both sides of all the arguments around here. I've found GG to be generally fair in his treatment of things: he tends to favor the US stuff, but only when there's proof to back it up

Ethereal, apples != oranges. You can't compare the simple version of one aircraft to the DCS version of another. Implying that because one cannot enter coordinates on the FC Su25 means that it is impossible is ridiculous. As is implying that the "varied sensor modes" and "close control of countermeasures" is inherently better in a DCS suite aircraft. The FC A-10A isn't inferior to the DCS A-10C because it is FC, it is inferior because it is an A model. And yes, there is more to operating the radar on the F-15C etc etc... unless, of course, the FC version of it automates all those functions and/ or automatically grants the same detection range WITHOUT THE PILOT HAVING TO DETERMINE AND SWITCH TO THE RIGHT MODE. In that case, the FC pilot is getting all the advantages, but doesn't ever have to worry about checking his switches, nor will he ever be in the WRONG mode. Just because the FC version doesn't have "modes available to the real one" doesn't make it at a disadvantage. This is a simplified computer simulation of the aircraft, it's NOT the same as if they'd taken a REAL aircraft and superglued the radar mode switch to "RWS" So unless the SIMULATION gives an inherent advantage, then no, there is no advantage. No, if you take this to the logical (but extreme) extent, you end up with one player flying a real airplane, and the other playing HAWX, with the game offering up flawless 360 SA to him on an F10 map radar screen, who only has to "hit t to select next target". Do I think it will ever be THAT pronounced, no, but everything that the game does FOR the player makes it easier. You won't convince me, sorry. As to "me being the one to stop that simplification", you're right: I don't play on servers with FC aircraft, simple as that.