OutOnTheOP

The Russian cannon-launched guided missiles are, quite frankly, not that useful. Why? Size. The penetration capability of a shaped-charge warhead is determined primarily by the diameter of the warhead. The Svir/ Reflecks has, at most, a 125mm diameter warhead. That's exactly the same warhead as the non-guided HEAT rounds carried by the T80 and M1. Probably LESS than the non-guided HEAT rounds, because there has to be room for the motor and guidance system. Now, anyone who knows anything about armored combat knows that HEAT rounds are far from the prime choice for killing tanks; HEAT is used primarily against bunkers and light armor (sabot has poor post-penetration effects against soft targets and light armor because it tends to punch a hole in one side and out the other without creating the spall produced from penetrating heavy armor). Further, the TOW-2A has a 150mm tandem warhead. The US Army determined that this was inadequate for killing the more modern T72 and T80 (reactive armor or not), so they went with a top-attack system on TOW2B (hitting the armor where it's very thin). And, as mentioned above, direct fire gun systems use sabot instead of HEAT. The M1 has a superior frontal armor package to the T80, so if 150mm tandem HEAT can't defeat T80 reliably, you can be sure 125mm HEAT can't defeat M1A2 armor. SO, long story short, even if the Svir/ Reflecks hits an M1, the chance of penetrating frontal armor is next to none... and in order to get the angles to get a flank shot, you're probably going to have to be a lot closer than 5000 meters, so who cares about the range advantage?

Agreed, but if they ever have any intention of integrating armored combat, they'll need to overhaul the damage model. ...not that I see it getting as intricate as the Steel Beasts Pro penetration model anytime soon... that one is pretty in-depth, and accounts not only for armour thickness, but also composition, sloping (on a shot-by-shot basis), and which systems are in the path of the projectile in the case of penetration.

heck, I'd be happy with a penetration-based/ systems damage model instead of a hitpoint-based system where even the weakest weapon can destroy the strongest target if you hit it enough.

Up for primary this year, so... yeah, I sure as fsck hope soon. I can't imagine NOT; I've been top-blocked on every OER I've gotten since... er, EVER.

I *suspect* the problem is due partially to a lack of any kind of ricochet simulation. I don't think DCS simulates the effects of high-angle-of-incidence hits; therefore glancing hits on the side of the turret count the same as a full-on, 90-degree square hit to the side of the turret. Since the M1 has a rather long turret, you'd see a lot of these type of hits, which would erroneously lead to relatively easy kills. Also, the comment that "there's no code favoring one or the other" tells me that things ARE wrong. There *should* be code favoring one or the other. If there's no distinction in the code, that means that the armor strength and layout on both are considered identical (they're not, the Abrams has significantly superior armor), and it means that the T80s' poor ammo stowage and tendency to brew up when hit (as opposed to the relatively survivable post-penetration characteristics of the M1) are not simulated. It also means that the superior fire control of the M1A2 is not simulated. Nor the higher rate of fire. Nor the vastly superior capability for fire on-the-move (even assuming both stabilization systems were equivalent- which they are not- the T80s' gun tube visibly flexes more under lateral stress. And even if all statistics are treated identically for the T80U and M1A2 in-game right now, that STILL leaves the T80U at a significant advantage: it's smaller, and therefore harder to hit. No, they *should* be different. Also, Apocalypse 31, you the same A31 from Steel Beasts? Once upon a time of A/1-14 Cav? Bronco 53 here.

I really hope ED implements real fire-control computations eventually; they make a huge difference (and are probably part of why the M1s are having such a hard time against T80s right now). If you've played a bit of Steel Beasts before, you'll know how feasible 4km+ sabot kills against moving targets are in the western tanks... and also how HARD those same kills are for the T72, with it's lack of automatic lead computation.

... and back ON topic, I'd say that QUALITATIVE parity in available modules for each side isn't as important as having FUNCTIONAL parity. That is to say, even if the western side has late 90s-era F-15Cs and the WP/ eastern side has mid-80s MiG23s, that's not a game breaker, as the mission can be designed with numerical superiority to offset qualitative inferiority. What matters, though, is that both sides can conduct the same missions: if one side has an interceptor, the other side needs an interceptor. If one side has a CAS aircraft, the other side needs a CAS aircraft. If one side has an MBT, the other side needs one too. And so on. ...obviously, there can only be SO much qualitative disparity, though. MiG15s against F-22s wouldn't be a whole lot of fun. And I hate to think how much numerical superiority that'd take to even out!

...I would contend your assertion that the Russians have a qualitative advantage in ground forces right now- or indeed, at any point since about 1985. The M2 Bradley is a superior vehicle to the BMP series, both in armor, sensors, fire control, and armament (the 25mm M919 rounds have CONSIDERABLY more penetration than the 30mm BMP2 rounds). The M1A1(HA) and newer models, and the entire M1A2 line have vastly superior armor to the entire T72/T80/T90 line, and again have vastly superior thermals and fire control, in addition to much better post-penetration survivability (armored ammo storage rather than a centrally located, unprotected carosel loader), and the human loader on the M1 series gets rounds up much faster than the T72/T80/T90 series autoloader. Additionally, the M483A1 and A2 are much, MUCH better penetrators than the short-rod penetrators used in the Russian 125mm. T72/T80 isn't really able to fire effectively on the move (certainly not nearly so as the M1 series), and while the numbers on the AT11/ 9M119 are impressive, they are SACLOS rounds that require full-time-of-flight guidance, and require the launching vehicle to be stationary to employ with any effectiveness- so their practicality is minimal. To be honest, I think the AT11 was developed less as an overmatch capability than as a solution for the inferior performance of the 125mm sabot rounds and fire control. The T-series also doesn't carry vary damned many of them in onboard stowage. ...also, lest anyone think I'm just being nationalistic here, I'll point out that every advantage listed for the M1-series also applies for the Leopard II and Challenger II (penetration doubly so for the latest marks of Leo II, with the 120mm 55 caliber gun). The Russians have done pretty well in man-portable AT weapons, though I would argue that AT-4, AT-5, and AT-14 are qualitatively equivalent to similar-generation TOW, though with slightly greater range (the utility of that extra range in anything but the most favorable terrain is questionable, though). The Russian systems do have an advantage in higher airspeed, though (which more importantly means lower time of flight). I don't have the precise velocity numbers handy at the moment. The Russians really don't have a good answer to the capabilities of the Javelin, though- and it's a HUGE capability; unlike AT-4/5/14 or TOW, it's readily man-portable and can essentially be fired from the march with no set-up. Not to mention the top-attack profile can easily defeat any tank out there (and considering the location of the T-72/T-80/T-90 ammo stowage, will almost certainly result in a total catastrophic kill), and the fire-and-forget capability means a lot for the survivability of the missile team. In individual infantry kit, the Russians are lagging a fair bit in night-vision. Not that they don't make good NODs, they just don't issue them nearly as universally as the US (I would assume the Brits and Germans also issue on a much wider scale than the Russians as well, but I haven't got that on good authority). The US hands them out like candy. Literally EVERY infantryman in a company will have a set; PVS-7s with upgraded imaging tubes at a minimum; more likely they'll have PVS-14s. Of course, there will always be the eternal argument over whether the AK47 or M16 derivatives are superior- I have shot both extensively, and I'd throw my lot in with the M16 camp (including superiority in durability- though not in ease of maintenance. At any rate, stamped receivers bend out of true too easily, so the claims the AK47 is somehow indestructable make me laugh). Either way, rifles don't make a huge difference in a conflict, unless they're of totally differnt generation (like bolt actions versus autoloaders) Probably the most important (and most underrated) advantage the western nations (US in particular) has is in C4I (command, control, communications, computing, and intelligence. Most armchair generals don't really take this (or logistical trains) into account, but they honestly make more difference to success in a campaign than thicker tank armor or higher cyclic rates. Ultimately, the US side is can exploit a huge amount of ISR assets to spot the enemy, bring extremely accurate and lethal deep and close fires on them, and move maneuver forces into a position of advantage to engage or disengage almost at will. Without equally responsive ISR and communications systems, any foe is going to be stuck trying to just keep up with the pace of operations, and will never have an opportunity to sieze the initiative. ....I will admit the Russians have way (WAY!) better mobile SAMs, though.

I have been getting the same error, and likewise, it seems as if installing CA is the cause.

Agreed regarding audible warning; it's real easy to miss the visual cue when you're heads-out of the cockpit- doubly so when you're looking UP (IE, when dogfighting) and can't see the canopy frame. I *think* there was some visual buffet in the P-51 in the previous version, but it was too subtle, and very easy to miss. An audible rattle/ rumble would help a lot.

even better, do it like the real FBCB2/ BFT: have units gradually fade out over time, so you can visually estimate how long it's been since last spotted.

What? No, Patriot (as a system including missile, launchers, command post, and radars) was developed by Raytheon in the US at Redstone Arsenal

I believe the US bought a few of them for the (rather niche, granted) role of point defense of political targets in Washington DC. Ironically, they didn't go with any of the indigenously designed ground-mount AMRAAM launchers.

True, if you hunt ADA, they've done their job... against that one sortie. But (in real life) you (or another pilot) will have to dodge them the next sortie, and the next, and the next... and eventually they'll get to do their job by shooting someone out of the sky. If you destroy that SA-8 or 2S6 today, you won't have to worry about him again tomorrow. There's something to be said for attritting enemy ADA. ...of course, if you're on a do-or-die, friendlies-about-to-be-overrun ECAS mission, then yeah, forget about the ADA, the ground forces need your ordnance, and they need it now.

Ah, ok; so it's somewhere between the two currently, and as a result of the box-intersection hit tracking, will ultimately account for impact angle/ damage track. Thanks!

A quick question for the devs regarding damage modelling: is damage from guns modelled as "more hits= more damage", or is penetrating damage modelled? I ask because have found that, despite what I always hear in documentaries, the dead-astern, close-range shot appears considerably harder than the 1500-foot, 20-30 degree deflection shot, when it comes to getting kills. Now, I'm sure part of this is because of convergence (certainly it's hard to get all 6 guns to hit the target in close), but I think part of it is damage modelling I suspect damage is currently moddeled simply by counting the number of hits, rather than accounting for the ANGLE of the hits and modelling the systems in the path of the bullet as it travels through the aircraft. The issue seems to be that modest deflection shot in the game gets more hits (because there is more visible planform to hit), while a low-deflection shot gets less hits (because you're firing at an edge-on target), yet each high-deflection hit incurs the same amount of damage as a low-deflection hit. The problem is that in reality, a low-deflection hit with a .50 cal is likely to travel right through the wing from rear to front, making a rather long "wound channel" and obliterating everything in it's path, to include wing spars (reference all the gun camera footage of wings snapping clean off Focke-Wulf), while a high-deflection shot would have fairly short "wound channels" that most likely would simply punch a hole in the wing top skin, hit nothing vital, then punch right out the bottom skin. Is there, or are there plans to, model bullet impact angle?

Well, I'm no real-life Mustang pilot, but my experiences in the sim so far indicate that 1500 feet is probably just about right; given the turning radii of the Mustang (and presumably, by extension, other contemporaries), it seems that in a turning fight, that's about exactly the distance I end up at when I get the nose around on the target. As to pattern versus point harmonization, I would note the standard pattern puts all guns into a 10 foot x 10 foot pattern at 1500 feet: a pattern just a little bigger than 1/4 the size of a Mustang. That's pretty pinpoint, if you ask me!

Wierd, why on earth did it post a new reply when I hit edit?

Oh REALLY? They do? Because on IAEA's DU FAQ at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml, it says: "DU does not add significantly to the normal background radiation that people encounter ever day. It is weakly radioactive. For example, DU is 3 million times less radioactive than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times less radioactive than what is used in fire detectors." "It is a common misconception that radioactivity is the main health hazard of DU rather than chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage. " "a) Practically all (98%) DU entering the body is excreted and never reaches the blood stream. b)Of the fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood, around 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days" "The most definitive study of DU exposure is of Gulf War veterans who have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any health abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity." Though I'll admit that the banana bit was a bit of an estimate; DU is more radioactive, in terms of Becquerels per gram; HOWEVER, radioactive potassium is readily absorbed by the body, while DU is most certainly not. Perhaps a better example would have been limestone, which is active (due to radium 226 content) at about 0.42 microCuries per gram, comparable to the 0.40 microCuries per gram for depleted uranium. I didn't bother to crunch the numbers, as they weren't the point: the fact that DU is not a significant source of radiation compared to natural background levels was the point. At any rate, it's less radioactive than plenty of everyday objects we store around the house (and less radioactive than the naturally-occuring ore from which it is extracted), which is the point I was trying to make.

Oh REALLY? They do? Because on IAEA's DU FAQ at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml, it says: "DU does not add significantly to the normal background radiation that people encounter ever day. It is weakly radioactive. For example, DU is 3 million times less radioactive than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times less radioactive than what is used in fire detectors." "It is a common misconception that radioactivity is the main health hazard of DU rather than chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage. " "a) Practically all (98%) DU entering the body is excreted and never reaches the blood stream. b)Of the fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood, around 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days" "The most definitive study of DU exposure is of Gulf War veterans who have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any health abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity." Though I'll admit that the banana bit was a bit of an estimate; DU is more radioactive; HOWEVER, radioactive potassium is readily absorbed by the body, while DU is most certainly not

Yes, but you can also take out a BMP or BTR with a .50 cal. I suspect even .338 Lapua has enough energy to penetrate significant portions of the BTR. At close range, I'm almost certain 7.62x51 SLAP rounds will penetrate as well. It's not as if the TP rounds are made out of plastic and dissipate into fairy dust when they hit something; I'm pretty sure they're made of solid steel. The "Target Practice" bit doesn't mean they're safe, or that they're designed to shoot at troops during training exercises. They're used for training instead of HEI or AP because they're CHEAP (also, not being made of DU is nice... though the safety concerns of DU are blown out of proportion. A banana is more radioactive; DU is bad because DU oxides cause heavy metal poisoning. For what it's worth, they have basically the same health risks as lead bullets, for which the lead oxide ALSO causes heavy metal poisoning) Anyhow, the fact remains that with HEI, a near miss is good enough; with AP or TP, you need to hit the guy directly. Just not nearly as effective; you don't get the density of impacts to be truly effective. ...at least, not against an area target, where you open fire from much further in the hopes of getting some dispersion. I suppose if you really, REALLY wanted, you could use the GAU-8 as the world's largest sniper rifle and really drill one dude from very close range. So I suppose it would be useful against a mortar team or crew served machine gun, but still not a fraction as effective as proper HEI. When it comes down to it, against infantry, a 30mm AP or TP round is no more effective than a 7.62mm ball round. If you hit the target directly with either, they're a casualty and out of the fight. If you miss them, it does no good whatsoever.

.... you're the kind of person that thinks #8 birdshot is effective as a defense ammunition, aren't you?

Yeah, but you have to get a direct hit. If you're lucky, you might get one or two. With HEI, you just have to land a round within 3-5 meters of an infantryman. Which do you think is more likely? That's like saying 120mm APFSDS is an effective antipersonnel round, and we should go with it instead of M830A1 HEAT or M1028 canister

No, Hitman, I am a Soldier, and as one, smart enough to know when it's the time for bravado, and when it's time extricate oneself from a tactically disadvantageous position. ...but no, Marines don't seem to have the mental faculties to determine when they're about to get their ass handed to them ;) (though I've certainly met plenty of scouts that thought they were gonna take on the world with their M4. ...until they were in a real fight, then they wanted all the mortars, artillery, and air support I could bring them)

^^^^^ This. You may fight an enemy with no tanks, in which case HEI-only is nice. You will NEVER fight an enemy with ONLY tanks. Every enemy will have infantry, supply trucks, artillery, fuel depots, etc, etc, etc... AP is all but useless against infantry, and a lot less effective against soft-skin trucks than you'd think. So if you give up that 1-out-of-5 HEI round, you lose almost ALL effectiveness against infantry and soft targets, in return for a 20% increase in effectiveness against tanks. Not a good trade.