OutOnTheOP

If you're using a radar-fuzed CBU like CBU87, CBU97, 103, or 105, sure. But Mk20 and CBU52 don't have a radar proximity fuze. Instead, they have a time delay fuze. They dispense at a pre-determined time after separation from the aircraft, NOT based on height above terrain. Therefore, the higher the altitude of release, the higher the altitude of CBU opening for Mk20 and CBU52. The Mk20 was retrofitted with an FMU-140/B radar proximity fuze at some point, though. I'm pretty sure CBU-52 never was. Either way, the variants modeled in DCS at the moment are time-fuzed. That *should* mean that higher releases result in wider dispersion of bomblets. But right now, it does not. So, something is broken in the weapon modeling.

Having tested both CM and HEI versus AI aircraft, I'm not entirely certain there is a massive difference in damage between the two, *but* the 20mm does seem to me to be grossly underpowered against aircraft at the moment. It is possible this is simply an artifact of the AI SFMs being largely unaffected by damage, but it seemed to regularly take 30-40 hits to down a MiG-21 or Hawk. That's an excessive amount of hits to bring down those aircraft. 10-20 would probably be more in line with reality. I think the issue may be compounded by the somewhat under-accurate M39s currently modeled. The gun is supposed to fire with 8 mils of dispersion according to the manual, but in-game, it seems to be something closer to 20-30 mils of dispersion (judging by comparison with the width of the 50-mil sight reticle). This makes it pretty difficult to get multiple hits on a target at anything beyond bad-breath distances. I suppose on the bright side, it also makes it easier to get *some* hits with sub-optimal reticle placement, since the pattern covers a larger area.

I had a bit of trouble figuring out a good match, too (other than the obvious "another F-5E"). Hawk/ L39/ Su25 were actually kind of frustrating to fight: while it's easy to stay in a dominant position on them, they can turn so hard at such low speed that all you can ever do is BnZ them; you can't really practice tracking gunshots because you can't get slow enough to turn with them; they'll always be inside your turning circle. It's easy to not lose against them, but hard to kill them (at least with guns). MiG-21 and MiG-23 are not too terribly difficult to defeat in BFM (the -23 seems easier to me), but they tend to just kick the burners as soon as you're in an advantageous position, and by the time you can bring the nose around, they're gone, out of range. This is a lot less problem now than it was: the AIM-9P5 that came with the very initial release was so slow and short-range it couldn't catch them as they zoomed away. The updates to the missile makes it extremely dangerous for the MiGs to try to break and extend like that, since it can actually catch them now. As a result, killing MiG21/ 23 with Sidewinder is pretty easy. That said, I have found that what is much better for BFM and gunnery practice is instead a 2v2 or 2v4 against MiG-21. When you're one-on-one, as soon as you start to bring the nose around, the AI runs and you'll NEVER get a gun shot. AIM-9, sure, but you'll never get to practice guns. However, when you have a wingman (even if he's unarmed!), one of the AI will frequently try to saddle on him (which will bleed the MiG of energy), and will get target fixated, allowing you to maneuver on him and get into a good guns firing position on a maneuvering target. As a side note, I have found that in multiple-aircraft engagements with MiG21, 23, or other aircraft that can out-accelerate the F-5E (IE, pretty much anything else with afterburner!), I go to the guns as my first weapon. If I feel I can get into engagement envelope, I go straight to gun. In a turn fight, the F-5E seems to have the advantage against the WARPAC fighters. So, I save Sidewinders for the targets that try to use their acceleration and climb advantage to extend away from me. There's nothing more frustrating than watching an enemy zoom away from you and being able to do nothing about it because you wasted your 'winders early in the fight on targets you could have killed with gun!

Well, that's good news indeed. I'll have to find some time to get some dogfight iterations in, then. edit: oh, good, AIM-9P5 is more or less working. It now locks from front aspect (at least at short range) and can reach out to about 3nm tail-chase at 25,000 feet (not that I would expect kills beyond maybe 2nm... which is about right). It's actually a useful missile now! ...after struggling with the 9P5 at module release, the corrected version feels so easy to employ!

I'd give it a "mostly excellent". The flight model and most of the avionics are top-notch and work fantastic; it's a joy to fly and maneuver. However, it is saddled by two immense flaws, which I hope are rapidly rectified: (edit: I am told they've been hotfixed; happy days!) BST ninja-patched these issues in the past couple weeks, disregard above; I haven't fired up F5 in a couple weeks due to work obligations eating my time

Er, no. And again, I am going to assume you are not a native english-speaker, as you do not seem to understand the definition of "handgun". In modern english, "handgun" means a pistol; a small sidearm that can be employed with one hand and carried in a holster. I think you are referring to "small arms", which are generally considered to be man-portable guns up to 12.7 or 14.5mm caliber. By strict modern US military definition, a cannon is a high-velocity gun, larger than small-arms, that can employ explosive projectiles. The MG151/15 was a cannon and was 15mm. Such small calibers are rarely used because they can't carry large enough explosive payload to be effective. Again, you are incorrectly conflating "tank" and "armored fighting vehicle". Not all armored fighting vehicles are tanks, but all tanks are armored fighting vehicles. IFVs are not tanks, because their main role is carrying and providing fire support to infantry, not mounted maneuver warfare. APCs are not tanks, because their main role is transporting infantry to the battlefield. Mobile SAM and SPAAG are not tanks, because their main role is air defense, not mobile mounted warfare. SPHs are not tanks, because their main role is indirect fire support. And none of those are tanks, because they are not armored to protect against all (or the vast majority of) battlefield anti-armor weapons. No, it is not. Neither 20mm API nor HEI will cause disabling damage to a tank, nor will it regularly, predictably disable most IFVs or SPHs. You might break some vision blocks, but the crew has spares inside that they can replace without having to leave the vehicle, and even if you are so lucky as to disable the gunner's primary sight, almost all tanks since 1960s have a backup sight consisting of a simple telescope sight mounted coaxially to the gun, usually in the mantlet. Many IFVs have the same (and additional simple iron sight backups used from an open hatch for many IFVs). So you might, if lucky, slightly degrade their main gun accuracy, but they would not be mission-ineffective. AC-130 would like to speak to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 Or Hs129-B3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129 Or B-25G. Or Ju88P. Large-caliber cannon have been mounted on plenty of aircraft. They're really not all that effective most of the time. Frankly, no airborne cannon of any type has ever been particularly effective against tanks. In modern times, there's much better ways for aircraft to kill tanks than to try to strafe them

But even then, they are easily differentiated by role: a tank exists for mounted maneuver combat as a primary weapon system on it's own. An IFV, even a BMP-3 or CV90, exist to transport infantry and provide fire support to the infantry on the battlefield. The ones that really blur the lines are the Merkava (which can be used to transport infantry internally, but it primarily used in the traditional tank role) and vehicles like the Centauro and Stryker MGS, which aren't heavily armored enough to properly count as tanks (never mind the wheels), and whose role, like the BMP-3, is primarily infantry fire support, rather than mounted maneuver warfare. Not sure I'd say "90%" of not-tank AFVs on the modern battlefield are fair game for 20mm API, though: The BTR is, but even a BMP-1, possibly the least well armored IFV, is almost impervious to it at realistic strafing distances. Bradley, Marder, Pizarro/Ulan, CV90 series, or pretty much any western tracked IFV is almost completely impervious to 20mm API at any range. Most SP artillery are right on the cusp of where a 20mm *might* penetrate, but are entirely likely not to. 20mm just isn't a very good round to use against any kind of AFV. In fact, against rolled homogeneous armor at 1000m, .50 caliber M8 API actually penetrates better than 20mm M53 API, believe it or not: 8mm at 1200m for the .50 cal, versus only 6.3mm at 1000m for the 20mm. The 20mm just isn't very aerodynamic: it is light-for-caliber because of a large incendiary filling (almost half the volume) and is a fairly blunt shape. At the muzzle it should penetrate somewhat better, but at any distance, .50 cal API actually surpasses it. .50 cal SLAP blows it out the water, with 19mm penetration at 1500m. The 20mm M53 API only penetrates 20mm at 100 meters; the .50 SLAP maintains that penetration FIFTEEN TIMES farther away (http://docslide.us/documents/20mm-m50-series-m53-api-m55-tp-m56-hei.html). The velocity chart on the same page indicates that the 20mm M53 API also loses velocity mighty fast; by 1000 meters downrange, the .50 cal M8 API is already significantly faster than it is. So at strafing ranges, don't expect 20mm M53 API to do much more than you would expect out of a .50 cal. It may be marginally heavier and carrying marginally more energy, but it also has a much larger frontal area, which means it needs to expend that much more energy punching that much larger a hole through the armor plate. The 20mm M53 is just about twice the projectile weight of the .50 cal M8, so at 1000 meters it has twice the energy of the .50 cal M8, *but* 20mm M53 *also* is two and a half times the frontal surface area (2*pi*square of the radius), and therefore requires roughly two and a half times the energy to push a hole through the same thickness of armor. As a result, beyond maybe 700-800 meters, the .50 penetrates armor better (assuming rolled homogeneous armor, not low-density, high-thickness materials like sand, wood, or masonry, against which the 20mm would perform better due to higher inertia). 20mm API *might* get the job done against light armor like a BMP, but don't count on it.

Would I be incorrect to assume english is not your native language? I think you may have some misconceptions that appear to me to be due to some translation issues: namely, that a BMP is not considered, in english-speaking countries, to be a "tank". It is an armored fighting vehicle, more specifically an infantry fighting vehicle, but most certainly not a tank. An M113, regardless of armament fittings, is not a tank. A tank is a tracked, armored vehicle whose sole purpose is mounted maneuver warfare against other ground units (including other tanks), and which uses a high-caliber cannon as primary armament. Simply having armor and tracks and a gun does not make a vehicle a tank. As to the M2 Bradley series... no. It was designed initially to be proof against 14.5mm HMG fire from all angles, but was quickly (in the late 80s) upgraded with applique armor to be proof against 30mm all-round. The Bradley as depicted in DCS is in fact the up-armored variant. I entirely disagree with your assertion that 20mm AP is useful against a proper tank, even including a T54/55. Even the 30mm GAU8 AP round is marginal against the T54 and T62, and it's much, much higher energy than the 20mm M39 AP rounds (20mm M53 AP has only 50% probability of penetration of only 6.3mm RHA at zero degree slope at 1000 meters, versus some 59mm penetration of a 30 degree sloped plate at 1000 meters for the GAU8 ). Even the BMP-1, which is quite poorly armored even for an IFV, has 6 to 33mm armor protection, and 20mm AP would be marginal against it. Large numbers of hits from relatively close range would kill it, but it wouldn't be particularly effective. The original, short-lived un-up-armored base version of the Bradley had 13mm steel armor over a base hull of aluminum. The newer versions have increased that significantly (an extra 20-30mm steel on top of the 13mm steel standoff plates and aluminum of the original variant). While weaker on the top, I do not believe it is under 6mm RHAe. While you could damage sights and antenna on a proper tank with 20mm, you'd probably be more likely to do so with HE than AP, as even a hit *near* a sight or vision block would be likely to significantly damage them. They are, after all, just glass. Very thick glass, certainly, but even superficial scratches and "spiderweb" fractures will render them all but useless (assuming, of course, that the crew doesn't see the aircraft coming and close the gunsight armored cover before the attack). Rear armor on any MBT in use since the '60s will deflect 20mm API from any sane firing range (IE, any range that doesn't involve flying the F-5 into terrain during the pass), and most MBT are completely proof against 20mm at *any* range at *any* angle. Long story short, you just spent an awful lot of words saying exactly what I already did: that 20mm AP is useful against light armor like a BTR or BMP.

Are you sure combat mix in the F-5E is 4:1 AP:HEI? Combat mix is just a generic term used to refer to the standard mix used on any given aircraft. As the F-5E uses a small-caliber autocannon primarily in the air-to-air role, I would expect it's combat mix to be significantly more HEI and HEI-T. CM is 4:1 or 5:1 AP-heavy on the A-10 because the primary role of that aircraft is ground attack of armored and lightly armored vehicles. Combat mix on an F-15 or F-16 is, if I recall, exclusively HEI and/or SAPHEI Ultimately, there are not terribly many targets that 20mm API can kill, but against which 20mm HEI are ineffective (or even less effective than 20mm API). HEI is better against aircraft and unarmored ground targets, and both are ineffective against anything more heavily armored than a BMP (certainly neither will kill a tank). BMP/ BTR/ ZSU23 type targets are about all you would use 20mm API against. Granted, there are plenty of those target types on a modern (or 70's-90's Cold War) battlefield. Against the top armor of any of those (particularly the BTRs), 20mm HEI could still work, but be fairly inefficient. Anyone know where to look it up in the game code?

This problem is also affecting the Mk20 on the Mirage2K; it might well be an ED weapons coding issue rather than a Belsimtek module coding issue. Either way, it is incredibly frustrating on both modules. I would be interested to see how altitude of release actually affects the in-game impact pattern; on M2K it doesn't seem to have any effect at all: release from 3000ft AGL or 20,000 ft AGL seems to have exactly the same pattern size. It's as if the submunitions just stop spreading out after a certain point.

My "original attitude" was to ask a simple question, point out what I believed to be a bug, and then to state my preference and reasoning for why I felt that should be an immediate priority. YOUR immediate attitude was to flip a shit attitude complete with sarcastic "smileys" and nothing of substance to add to the thread. Funny thing about respect: if you want it, you have to give it. You can't expect to come shit all over someone else's thread, make mocking comments, and then expect them to treat YOU with respect in return. So you'll excuse me if I have precisely zero sympathy for your bruised ego.

Oh, I'm sorry, did you want to actually CONTRIBUTE something of VALUE to the conversation? Here, let me rephrase it in a way your simple, sarcastic mind is more likely to understand: the highest priority and greatest developer programming time should be given to fixing the AIM-9P5, with the close second priority given to implementing A/A1 gun mode, and all other extant bugs a distant, distant third. With such a crucial feature of the aircraft not yet even implemented, F-5E isn't even in Beta state yet, it is at best a late Alpha. Better?

You guys should probably get on that immediately, then; I strongly suspect DG will be the most commonly used gun mode in the F-5. It's extremely impractical to use standard RWS-type radar mode to lock up a target in dogfight, and unless the target is extremely cooperative, chances are it will at some point leave the radar gimbal limits during a dogfight and need to be re-locked to get the guns solution.

So, it appears that if you use DM or DG radar mode to lock a target, the gun pipper does not compute lead for the LCOS reticle. I'm not sure if this is correct behavior, but if so, it certainly makes the F-5E a less effective dogfighter. Having to use the heads-down radar display to lock a target in order to get a lead computation seems very, very wrong to me. I suspect that correct behavior is that DM, DG, or normal radar operation is used to determine how a target is locked, but that the pipper behavior AFTER lock should be determined solely by the sight mode setting; so that after locking a target with the DG radar mode, the pipper should give an LCOS lead solution. Otherwise, DG is a useless mode; it just gives range data for a fixed gunsight, which is less than helpful. I suspect this is a bug.

Yes, but if I recall correctly, it requires a ridiculously long towed antenna array to do so (and I'm pretty sure the sub must set course to stream the array aligned to the transmitter), as the wavelength is so long the antenna cannot pick it up if it is not huge. Hence the earlier comment about detecting "tiny submarines". It's not that the submarine is physically tiny, it's that it's tiny compared to the wavelength, and anything smaller than the wavelength doesn't reflect the energy. Mostly, comms with subs are conducted through floating towed wire antennas operating on more conventional wavelengths.

I hate to ask, but are you in the copilot (left) seat? The flexible sight is only on the copilot side, and has to be pulled down into position to operate. Pilot-commander has fixed sight only, and while the copilot's flexible sight is stowed, the guns will move to the fixed forward position matching the pilot-commanders's fixed sight

I would imagine, given the proliferation of inertia-detecting sensors in such mundane commonplace items as cell phones, that the IR head-tracker technology is pretty much at its end. Instead, we will see either inertia sensors on the player's head that require no camera, or more likely, facial-recognition software that works with conventional cameras without requiring attaching anything to one's self. Again, mundane everyday cell phones manage it, so I can't see any technological barrier to computers, and it's certainly preferable to having to wear a clip or IR light set.

While I would love to see a P-61, I would MUCH rather see an A-20G. It would give us a relatively fast, turret-armed light bomber and attack aircraft with excellent forward firepower (4x 20mm+2x.50cal or 6x .50cal), used by USAAC, RAF, *and* VVS, *and* it would give us about 95% of the systems for the P-70 night fighter, meaning they could release the A-20G/ P-70 as a package deal. They could do similar with an A-26C (strike bomber)/ B-26N (night fighter) package, which gives the advantage of being useable for Korea and Vietnam era, but the B-26N was relatively rare compared to the P-70, and was operated only be France, post-war. Still, extremely fast and maneuverable light strike bomber with ridiculous forward firepower, good turret armament, and a night-fighter variant.

I think you mean Isaac Asimov reference. The laws of robotics featured in pretty much all his works, not just the collection of short stories titled "I, Robot".... and certainly not just in the pile of steaming hollywood wreckage that bismirched the name.

Then something is very wrong with it's dispersion modelling in the game, as a 15-degree diving delivery at 300 knots from 15,000 ft AGL release altitude *still* gives me an impact pattern barely larger than a single truck. From that release altitude, it should be opening at 10,000 + feet, and spreading the submunitions over the entire COUNTY. Release at 3,000-6,000 foot AGL and 30 degree dive angle *should* give me a pretty fair pattern versus density of submunitions, but nothing I have done so far has affected the visible impact pattern. F6 weapon view doesn't seem to work for me, though, so I haven't been able to actually watch them fall, just look over shoulder at the impacts. ****EDIT**** Yes, it seems that the canister is bursting at the correct point, after 2.5 seconds of freefall... but the submunitions appear to simply fall in perfect formation, with zero dispersion, for thousands of feet. This wouldn't be terribly surprising, the same behavior was noted in CBU97 parachutes; they disperse a certain distance, then fall in perfect formation with no drift (meaning higher HOF with it just increases error due to wind, without increasing footprint). I tried Rockeyes from the Mirage once again with 45 degree dive angle, 300 knots, 8,000 foot release, and carefully watched the track replay on half speed. Though the canisters burst at probably 5,000 foot altitude (which would result in a HUGE pattern with the CBU87) it still just printed a tiny little pattern maybe 30x30 meters on the ground. I guess Mk20 is simply useless until the radial dispersion of submunitions is addressed. Mods, please move this to "bug reports"

I finally found the time to try the Mirage, and cannot seem to make the Belouga/ Mk20 work for me. No matter which of the fuze switch settings I use, and no matter the altitude at which I release, the Belouga/ Mk20 seems to burst at maybe 100-200 feet AGL, and as a result puts all the bomblets into a tiny, 30x30 meter (or so) area. This means that the damage area is so concentrated that you need a direct hit to do anything. As a result, the CBUs behave almost exactly as if they were Mk82 GP bombs. Does anyone know how to make the bombs burst higher?

My understanding is that is was determined the force of the ejection "kicked" the nose down out of the spin. You have to wonder if they could ever replicate that (getting it out of the spin, much less the landing!)

This. Exactly this. I would rather see ED flesh out a solid WW2 airpower simulation first, rather than having half-assed orphan modules of everything under the sun, which do not fit together into a coherent and enjoyable whole. If I feel the need for tanker fun, there are other simulations that are far better at it than DCS would be without a MAJOR redesign of just about everything about the ground vehicles and maps. As has already been pointed out before, to make a tank sim truly work (beyond just the button-pushing aspects), you need to have detailed terrain, and enemies that use appropriate tactics. Right now, that doesn't exist in DCS. I'm pretty sure they haven't even nailed down the AI being able to see through trees yet. I also think people are getting hung up on the "detailed simulation" bit. The thing is, tanks are more about tactics than button-pushing... there aren't *that* many buttons to push, many of them are used only rarely to configure the vehicle, and never touched in combat, and overall their impact on the holistic experience is a lot less important than the tactics portion. Having a perfectly-simulated tank in a poorly-simulated virtual environment would be boring. Would it be nice if DCS could do it? Sure. Will it happen anytime soon? I doubt it. (or more accurately, maybe *could* make a foolish decision to market a poorly-supported orphan module of a tank in a sterile tactical environment, but I can't see it being any fun!)

The AI was also given a 2:1 numerical advantage. Doesn't take a genius to win 4v2.

Fixed. This poll is far from the only venue in which WW2 sim fans have repeatedly told ED that they are not interested in DCS until it has more content (improved damage modeling being a second common request). Other posts here, other sim fan forums, or even just a casual look at the breakdown of DCS user numbers versus other WW2 flight sim user numbers, would tell you that ED is losing customers to the competition, and that one of the main reasons is their neglect of content. I really don't understand why ED keeps burying their heads in the sand regarding the importance of AI and mission content for DCS...