OutOnTheOP

Seriously, dude. Stop trying to mansplain in your overbearing, smarter-than-thou manner. I have plenty of time in the service. I have plenty of time on the M2. More than a few firefights, thank you very much. I am also a gunsmith. And conversant in basic physics. Do you REALLY think that a hundred or so degrees Celcius of barrel heat makes a lick of difference in the tolerances of the functioning parts of the M2? By the by, the coefficient of thermal expansion of steel is, depending on the alloy, 0.000005 to 0.000009 inches per inch thickness per degree F. Let's go with a middle-of the road number of 0.00000645 inches per inch per degree F. The barrel walls of the M2 are about an inch thick at the chamber (slightly under, really), and will expand both out (away from the chamber) and in (toward the chamber). So the reduction of chamber size, if you heated the barrel TWO HUNDRED DEGREES F, would be all of 1.29 THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH. There is more than enough clearance between the barrel extension threading and the barrel threads that this will not seize... and even if it did, so what? That part isn't *SUPPOSED* to move while the gun is in operation. So the only part that heat *might* induce jams, is in the chamber itself. Only... the chamber is quite generously cut, as is the case in pretty much every machine gun chamber ever, and the cartridge is tapered for ease of chambering. There is plenty of tolerance there for the couple thousandths of an inch that it might expand. Powder fouling will be responsible for an order of magnitude more dimensional shrinkage of the chamber than will thermal expansion. And, oh by the by, Browning kind of, you know, *made allowance* for powder fouling and the other assorted detritus that might make its way into the chamber. :doh: Never mind that there's about 80 pounds of spring pressure and a ton of inertia behind the bolt assembly, so even IF the chamber managed to magically shrink due to thermal expansion, the bolt would actually swage the cartridge in *anyway*. I can tell you've never hand-loaded cartridges of any type; it is remarkably easy to re-size a brass cartridge case a couple thou. Technical jargon-tossing aside, you're really flailing at your argument here.

Which is a perfectly reasonable stance, and one I generally agree with. Moreover, they fit well in game design, because firing under g load is something that can be deliberately avoided, and which is an easily identifiable cause-effect event that players can make an informed decision to risk, or play safe. I would note, however, that the M2 was (compared to other airborne weapons of WW2) fairly reliable under g load... at least when mounted upright, as in the P-51D. There was some difficulty with the M2 jamming under g load in earlier P-51 models, but that was due to the guns being mounted tilted sideways to fit into a thinner wing section, which forced the feedway to go through a fairly sharp bend right before the belt entered the receiver. This was rectified in the P-51D. However, the bulk of this conversation has been regarding the M2's alleged propensity to jam due to "wandering" headspace and timing, and then, when that was disproven, about jamming (or inaccuracy) due to excessive heating (which, incidentally, should be a greater issue to the FW190 and Me109, whose guns are mounted in the engine bay and run hotter than wing guns on account of engine bay heat). Anyhow, heat jams and headspace/timing jams are the false assertions to which I am responding.

I know, I know, some of you are probably stuttering "but, but, FM 3-22.68 on table 5-2, page 5-9, clearly states that the rapid rate of fire for the M60 is only 200 rounds per minute, in burst of 6-8, with 2-3 second pauses between bursts! Clearly, despite documented evidence to the contrary, long bursts are impossible!" Whatever. Even FM 3-22.68, 21 July 2006, clearly states that in an emergency, the gunner can use cyclic rate for one minute on a 60 or 240 with an uninterrupted ammunition supply. That's 550-950 rounds straight, by the way. There is nothing that makes the 60 or 240 special, that they would be able to do that (fire a long, long burst at the expense of wearing out the rifling), where an M2 couldn't. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The M2 is temperature-insensitive: it has no moving parts whatsoever in the barrel and chamber area, where the heat is. There is every reason to assess that the M2 is LESS prone to barrel heating-induced failures than gas-operated systems like the M60 and M240. These limits listed in the manuals are NOT because the gun will stop working if exceeded. They are there to reduce wear and tear on the barrel, to maintain a sustainable ammo expenditure rate, and other factors. They are NOT accurate representations of mean rounds between failure on cyclic rate.

Ima just leave this here: [ame] [/ame] And, as a privately-owned class III firearm, THAT M2 is AT LEAST 40 years old, and probably has many, MANY thousands of rounds through it already. Yet, 100 rounds straight, no jam. Barrel's not even particularly hot, just a little smoke because the oil is past its smoke point. And again: [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFwKWLQBNJM[/ame] Funny, gun didn't just seize up. Barrel's not glowing or nothing. 10-15 second straight burst, and gun runs just fine. Not even smoke this time. Listen to how LONG that burst takes to complete. Think you're ever going to hold the trigger that long in a fighter? Somewhere out there is a video of some guys at a machine gun shoot with an M60 that they ran for something like 1000, 2000 rounds STRAIGHT BURST. Barrel got so hot it glowed and sagged. But you know what? The gun still cycled and fired. Edit: for your enjoyment, here it is: [ame] [/ame] Heat doesn't jam guns. Guns jam, but heat is almost never the reason. And it's not just M2s, other guns can also fire ridiculous bursts without seizing. Mind you, the M2 is recoil-operated, and has ZERO moving parts in the barrel, so you don't have to worry about frying your gas regulator, boring out your gas port, or destroying your piston, operating rod, or other pieces prone to breaking in other machine gun designs. All the heat in the M2 is contained in the barrel, which has ZERO moving parts. Not like the M60 above, or this M249, which both have much thinner profile barrels, and a gas regulator/ piston design up there where all the hot gas is: [ame] [/ame]

Not how it works. While overheating a barrel does decrease accuracy, that's only even noticeable in the context of a match-grade rifle. As in, my groups will open up from between a half and one minute-of-angle to perhaps 2 minutes of angle if I run a rifle REALLY hot. The reason for the ever-so-slight change in accuracy is the rate of expansion of the metal parts of the rifle are different, so the tension between parts changes. Still, that's the difference between hitting a golf ball at 300 yards, and hitting a softball at 300 yards. With a heavy machine gun, rattled around by recoil, inherently designed with a barrel that is *not* permanently/firmly mated to the receiver, mounted on a not-perfectly-rigid mount, in a not-perfectly-rigid wing, you would never, EVER notice the difference in group size between a hot and cold barrel. The group is already something around 15 or so minutes of angle (roughly 4 mils) to start with, which means each gun covers a 5 foot area at 400 meters. The game currently appears to model the hot guns' groups opening up to a nigh-ludicrous ~90 minutes of angle dispersion, with rounds passing either side of the target's wingtips at 1000 feet! Now, if you hold the trigger down for the full 300 to 500 round belt, you MIGHT burn the rifling out of the barrel, and then, yes, you would lose accuracy. Moreover, you would lose it permanently (at least, until the barrel was replaced), and not just until the barrel cools. But barrel heating has, in reality, a negligible effect on mounted machine guns. Most shooters never even notice it with scoped rifles, because the effect of their own inherent errors in aiming are far greater than that of barrel heat. In fact, in my experience, ammunition type has much more bearing on accuracy than does barrel heating. But the notion that firing a gun hot will cause it to jam is ludicrous, and the idea that accuracy goes completely pants if you fire more than a 20 round burst is equally bunkum. And even a twenty-round burst is a long, almost two-full-second affair. The only time jamming due to heat becomes an issue is when you get parts SO HOT they start to materially fail. As in, when you start to soften metal. Takes more than a few hundred rounds for that.

Then "some guns" were incorrectly maintained and serviced by you, and you failed your squad, platoon, and service because you could not be bothered to do the correct PMCS on your weapon.

You can fire 500 rounds from the M2 in one trigger pull without JAMMING the gun. The reason there is a scheduled firing rate (IE, that table) is NOT to prevent jams. It's to keep you from burning out the barrel or unintentionally firing ("cooking off") a round. The hotter the barrel is, the more material each bullet (and more importantly, the hot gases and unburned particulates) grinds away from the rifling as it passes down the barrel. Letting it cool extends useful barrel life; it does not really have much to do with preventing jamming. If a Mustang pilot just laid on the trigger, those .50s would fire the full 400 rounds from the inboard guns without trouble. ...the "trouble" would come when the pilot then had to explain to his armorer why he needed a new set of barrels already. But whatever; if that's what the pilot needed to do to get himself and his aircraft home, ok. Firing bursts longer than recommended may also lead to cook-offs, but those don't jam the gun... they just mean it fires unintentionally because the barrels are hotter than the ignition temperature of the propellant. The gun would still cycle that round just fine. It's worth noting that the high airflow and low air temperature associated with aerial mounts means they have much less trouble with cook-offs than do ground mounts. I would also say that the firing rates to prevent cook-off on Crumpp's table are *extremely* conservative. They are the recommended limit to ENSURE a cook-off doesn't happen, and do not mean that, if exceeded, a cook-off WILL happen (much like the WEP time limit for the Mustang is a "soft" limit; merely a recommendation, and does NOT mean that the engine will seize immediately if slightly exceeded.... though apparently THAT is in contention by the Luftwaffe-uber-alles crowd, too. Not that I'm going to name names.). Barrel heat does make a huge difference in barrel life, though. Say you have two identical rifles (let's go with AR15s), call them rifle A and rifle B, and a bunch of identical ammunition. Rifle A, you fire and fire and fire as fast as you can load ammo and pull the trigger until the rifling is worn out. For something like an AR15, this will take only around 1000 rounds to do. As in, after about 1500 rounds of this abuse, you are shooting a smoothbore musket with NO rifling. Rifle B, you fire single shot, and allow one minute of cooling between each shot. This rifle will go for easily 20,000 rounds before the rifling starts to go. And by this, I mean that you won't have match-grade accuracy after 20,000. The rifle will have useable military-grade accuracy (6MOA or less) for up to 40,000 rounds if treated this way. This does not, however, have anything to do with frequency of jamming.

Ok, now that I actually have some time off to respond, I would like to say the following: 1) I don't care if you were, or are, in the army. So am I. I *also* used the .50 cal as a primary weapon system for a decade, am a gunsmith, and have a Browning M1919 (the .30 caliber clone of the .50) in my gun safe at home. I didn't mention any of that earlier, because it DOES NOT MATTER TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND. You're falling back on a logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority". Funny enough, some of the people *making* that logical fallacy on this thread spend a *great* deal of effort insisting that WW2 pilot's comments about their aircraft's superior speed/maneuverability/whatever are irrelevant, so... so is your opinion on the headspace and timing. 2) I suggest you re-read the field manual on operation of the M2 .50 caliber. If you have *ever* had an issue with the headspacing of the .50 wandering or becoming mis-set due to hard maneuvering aircraft/ bouncing across the terrain in a tank/ bumping the weapon, it is YOUR fault, because unless you failed to conduct your pre-combat inspections and failed to identify you had a broken barrel lock spring, this will never, ever, be a problem. If the bolt is forward, it is physically impossible for the barrel to rotate in the barrel extension threads, because the barrel lock spring (the bit that goes in the headspacing grooves on the barrel and clicks when you rotate it during headspacing) is pushed in and prevented from allowing the barrel to rotate, by a camming surface on the inside of the receiver. The barrel locking spring can ONLY be unlocked from the barrel when the lug (the little "nipple") on the back of the barrel lock spring is aligned with the little hole cut in the right-side plate. (FM 23-65, 19 June 1991 edition, section 3-6: Headspacing and Timing, portion b: "using the retracting slide handle, retract the bolt until the barrel-locking-spring lug is centered in the 3/8 inch hole on the right side of the receiver") The barrel will not rotate when the barrel extension is in any position EXCEPT the proper headspacing position. You're even supposed to verify that is true during pre-mission checks, if you're a competent operator (FM 23-65, 19 June 1991 edition, section 3-6.b.3: allow the bolt to go forward. Check the barrel for rotation. Attempt to turn the barrel in either direction. The barrel should not turn. If the barrel does turn, stop here and check barrel notches and the barrel-locking spring for damage). If you go out with a gun where the headspacing can wander, it's YOUR FAULT, because you didn't identify the damage and T/I the unserviceable part to your armorer. THERE IS A REASON YOU HAVE TO HOLD THE BOLT SLIGHTLY TO THE REAR WHEN HEADSPACING. It is to allow the barrel lock spring to move out of the headspacing detent grooves. This is the same method used to ensure takedown pins don't come out of slide-action pistols. Again, IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR JOSTLING OR BOUNCING AROUND TO CAUSE THE HEADSPACING TO BECOME IMPROPERLY SET. 3) The timing nut is held in place by the friction inherent with a very fine-pitch bolt, spring tension on the nut, and most importantly, a detent spring. This is essentially the same thing that holds rifle scope settings in place (only, the timing nut has a lot less inertia trying to move it, because it doesn't have a scope prism attached to it). Scopes do not lose their zero due to recoil, and the .50 doesn't spontaneously reset it's timing, either. Even if it did, it would take more than wandering a couple clicks to render the weapon non-functional; it would simply fire slightly faster or slower. Unless the timing becomes VERY fast (causing a premature ignition) or VERY slow (causing the firing linkage to not engage by the time the bolt assembly and barrel extension is fully forward), it will not jam the gun even if it *did* wander, which it doesn't. 4) admonitions in manuals instructing pilots to check headspace and timing prior to any firing mission do not mean the weapon is prone to jamming because of a wandering headspace and timing. It is simply a check that is done prior to flight. The manuals ALSO tell the pilot to ensure the ammunition is properly loaded; this does NOT mean that the ammunition is prone to spontaneously dropping out of the feed tray. Manuals instruct pilots to check for hydraulic leaks, this does NOT mean the aircraft frequently develops leaks. It is a check. Nothing more, nothing less. Further, the ground crew will have (assuming that they're not on a mission surge) removed the guns, disassembled them, cleaned them, lubricated them, and reassembled them prior to the firing mission. Remember what I said about checking headspace and timing when the barrel is removed? Well, there you go. Has to be done before a firing mission. Not proof of any propensity for jamming. 5) Therefore, the only reason to believe jamming due to headspacing and timing happened, would be if the ground crew screwed up, AND the pilot skipped his preflight. We do not even have the OPTION to preflight the aircraft in DCS, so it would be stupid to penalize the players for assuming they messed up their preflight, and if we *really* want to model ground crew SNAFUs, we're opening a whole can of worms, because we would ALSO have to model things like forgetting to put any fluid in the cooling system, leaving spark plugs unplugged from the electrical system, failing to tighten bolts in the engine head or prop hub, and all kinds of other catastrophes. No. Just, no. 6) On a related topic, modelling failures due to worn-out guns or poor manufacturing tolerances is also a non-starter, because it would piss off players to be punished randomly for failures that are out of their control.... and would be much more of an impact on the German A/C than the allied ones. I don't know of any of the Luftwaffe virtual pilots leaping for the opportunity to fly an aircraft that spontaneously breaks and may or may not perform as expected every time. Also, modelling failures due to manufacturing errors and wear is mighty subjective. There is practically no way to do it without relying on what is, in essence, a GUESS on the frequency of the failure. I'm sure we all know that the community would NEVER be able to agree on the right frequency of failures, and that this would be an eternal bone of contention. Failures should be tied to specific, relatively predictable actions: the player should know that if they do action a, they risk failure b. If I push WEP beyond time limits, there is a chance I will seize my engine. If I allow temperatures to get out of nominal range, I will seize my engine. If I choose to shoot the Mk108 while maneuvering hard, it will jam. NOT just "gee, I hope my guns work this time". 7) Now, to those that said I was overreacting and acting "persecuted", there's a good reason for that: no one came on and suggested that we model realistic failure rates for ALL guns on ALL modules. I would have far less issue with that (though I would still opposed it because of the "punishment for nothing" issue listed above. It is also worth noting that some of the individuals on here trying to convince everyone that the .50 is jam-prone, have a track record of double-standards: trying to convince everyone that the P-51's speed should be reduced because "laminar flow suffers from the wear and tear of field use and minor surface defects". while simultaneously, in other threads, arguing that the Bf109K4 "must be modelled according to the factory specs, assuming that an aircraft has been built properly, because manufacturing defects, damage, competence of teh ground crews, and logistical availability of parts and fuel are all outside the scope of what DCS simulates" (paraphrased, because I have no intention of wasting hours poring through old posts). In short, they argue that we should model things that hurt the aircraft... but only for one side, not the other. If we want to model failure rates on guns, fine by me. But only if we model failure rates for ALL guns. But then, I think we would see a lot more whining from Kurfurst pilots who suddenly lose 80% of their firepower whenever they try firing their Mk108 under g-load, than we would see whining from P-51D pilots who lose 17% of their firepower once every dozen sorties due to random jams. So good luck selling that one.

Yeah? And you know what was known for jamming WAAAAY more frequently than the upright-mounted M2s as fitted to the -51D? The Mk108 as fitted to the Bf109K4. When's the last time you had that jam under g-load?

Why? Because his incorrect assertion supports further nerfing of the Mustang? Yes, but a 75-round burst, even at the higher 800rpm limit of the light-barrel aerial guns, is still a FIVE AND A HALF second burst. That's an incredibly long burst. It's almost a third of your entire firing time. I don't think I've EVER fired a burst that long. ...and if you knew as much about the .50 caliber machine gun M2 as you seem to claim, you would know that it is a CLOSED bolt automatic weapon.

Not true. Headspace and timing do not need to be "checked often"; and by phrasing it that way, you are (intentionally or unintentionally) implying that the .50 caliber M2 was less reliable, or more demanding of maintenance than other weapons of its class. The only time headspace and timing need to be checked, are when the barrel is replaced. Once set, it is good to go until you remove the barrel. It is, however, true that errors in setting the timing nut will cause the gun to run slow. Headspacing actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the rate of fire of the gun, but if it is set incorrectly (too long), AND timing is set incorrectly (too fast), it can cause a round to fire out-of-battery (before it's all the way in the chamber), which of course is a Bad Thing.

In my practical experience, this is either a) not true, or b) so small a difference as to be imperceptible. Keep in mind this is a recoil-operated gun. That means that while heavier rounds have more mass/inertia for the springs and forward inertia of the reciprocating parts to overcome in the loading stroke of the action (slowing the action), it ALSO has more mass/inertia providing rearward force through recoil (speeding the action up). There may be a tiny difference, but at least in the audible cadence of the gun, you can't tell. ...but you can quite easily tell the difference in a gun that has improperly set timing, because it doesn't sound right.

No, pretty sure it's because the WW2 option on the poll was added late, thereby pretty much invalidating the poll for drawing conclusions. Kind of like the "next US aircraft" poll, which included a selection of aircraft for literally months, then added the F-16 after everyone had already cast their vote for the F/A-18

Not sure how you think forcing the fight to high altitude would be any more "unfair" or "not fun" than the current situation where the P-51 is at a severe horsepower disadvantage, has strongly nerfed firepower due to the poor representation of API/ penetrating hits, and (on most servers) is outnumbered, as well. As to needing heavy cannon to down bombers, .50 is plenty adequate, if (big IF) ED updates the damage model to reflect reality better. The .50 simply has a different damage mechanism than the 30mm. 30mm counts primarily on blowing pieces of the aerodynamic surfaces off; .50 cal is intended to penetrate the aircraft, any armor inside the aircraft, and perforate something critical (generally speaking, the engine or the pilot). I can tell you from real, firsthand experience that a single .50 cal AP into the engine block of a car will seize it instantly, while a 60mm mortar exploding immediately adjacent to it will do practically nothing (though I'll admit the Toyota Hilux *is* known for continuing to run after some truly absurd punishment). 30mm will not penetrate the engine block: it will explode on or immediately past the cowling. Damage to the ancilliary equipment and wiring harnesses, no doubt... but blast effect is a poor damage mechanism against engine blocks (and, for that matter, quite ineffective against humans, too), and minengeschoss has exceedingly poor fragmentation effect on account of the super-thin casing. ...not that fragmentation is a particularly effective damage mechanism against engine blocks either, but it's more effective against wiring and hosing than blast effect, at least. TL;DR: .50 cal API is in some ways more effective than 30mm, if your aim is precise and you hit the engine bay, pilot, or get lucky enough to get a direct hit on a wing spar (or those wonderfully detonating 20/30mm ammo bays in the wing roots of many axis fighters). .50 cal API is terribly INeffective if you're just hitting the skin of wing panels. The damage model in DCS just doesn't do a very good job of simulating it yet. On topic, I think we first need allied heavies. Then axis mediums. The He177 and Ar234 are, in my opinion, stupid things to wish for. The He177 saw only limited service, and the Ar234 was both exceptionally uncommon, AND pointless in a game perspective, since there's nothing that would actually catch the damn thing. Seems to me that some people are more interested in giving the Germans the biggest and baddest, instead of anything approaching a realistic portrayal of even moderately common scenarios. I bet the same folk suggesting Ar234 would get their panties in a twist if a B-29 was introduced (waaah, but that didn't serve in Europe, waaahhh! Never mind that it was over three times more common than the Ar234 and He177 COMBINED). He111 and Ju88, each 10+ times more numerous than the aforementioned uber-bombers, would be much, much more appropriate.

Meh. I have a hard time getting behind yet more goodies for the Kurfurst, when the Mustang is still so lackluster. Besides, it's not like the German A/C are the only ones missing significant portions of their available weaponry. Where are the 20lb frag clusters for the Mustang? Or napalm? Or even, for that matter, proper API ammunition in the guns?

You need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that Belsimtek wouldn't be cleared to make the simulation (in fact, I'm quite sure they HAVE been), I said that the USAF variants of the F-5E, in real life, didn't get cleared to operate very many weapons loadouts, because the USAF never intended to use them for actual wartime operations. As to why I think that's the version we're getting; well, as pointed out earlier, the new AI F-5E is a lot of effort to go through just to make an updated AI model, and to make whole new weapons and loadouts *right* before the playable module would be a lot of duplicated effort. Of course, it is entirely possible that they only included the *simple* new weapons, and that the more complicated new ones (like Bullpup) are still in-progress. However, it takes no more effort to implement 4 sidewinders than it does to implement 2, so that heavily implies the two-sidewinder variants... which means almost certainly the USAF super-basic capabilities version.

Sadly, it looks like they're modelling the bog-standard, earliest model F-5E, and only with stores approved by the USAF. ...Assuming that the loadout on the AI F-5E in-game now is an accurate reflection, and I see no reason to believe otherwise. This is very unfortunate, because the USAF never adopted the aircraft, and therefore had essentially zero motivation to expand the carriage clearances or authorized munitions beyond what was carried by the F-5A in the Vietnam "Skoshi Tiger" tests. So we're stuck with only the ordnance outlined in TO 1F-5E-34-1-1 (can be found at http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/northrop/f-5tigerii/to-1f-5e-34-1-1-f-5e-f-tiger-ii-aircrew-nonnuclear-weapons-delivery-manual-to-1f-5e.html Stores configurations on page 31) To my understanding, the outboard wing pylons have the appropriate wiring and plumbing for Maverick or Sidewinder, but USAF never bothered to clear them. Certainly many other F-5E carry Sidewinder on the outboard wing pylons; it takes all of 2 minutes to find photos of it on Google. It's also quite easy to find examples of MERs with Mk81 and Mk82 under pylons 3&5, which is also not reflected in the TO or in the current AI F-5E. Interestingly, there are no TER or MER configurations whatsoever shown in that TO, so it's obvious that the TO is incomplete.

All true, but in the 44-1 mix, its primary purposes (and the reason for such a high amount) was as an anti-knocking (anti-detonation) agent.

I agree that the NATO phonetic alphabet should be added. As should colors (these are particularly important for WW2 US callsigns). Further, callsigns should be compoundable: IE, you should be able to have "Springfield Bravo Three", or "Zulu Red", or other variants. Also... why not add some actual squadron callsigns from real units?

Mostly accurate, but a few points I'd like to make: 1) The Bf109 powerplant isn't modelled any more accurately than the other warbirds currently in. All of them had detonation effects modelled (at least, according to the newsletters). They're all modelled accurately, it's just that the DB605D as installed in the Bf109 is the only one of the powerplants that does not have built-in safeties that prevent detonation. 2) The Mustang could also, when running the exceedingly simple (and common) modifications for 44-1 / 150grade fuel, push significant boost (75" MP), and risked detonation. A leaded anti-detonation additive was used in the fuel to prevent knocking and detonation. The additive had the potential to foul the spark plugs, so the pilot had to work the engine a minute at high power periodically to ensure they stayed clean. 3) The MW50 on the Dora is operated exactly as on the Bf109 in-game. The pilot has to enable the system by turning on the MW50 switch, and then when the throttle is advanced past a certain point, it automatically feeds MW50 to the engine.

Off the top of my head: A-1 (formerly AD) Skyraider; CAS/ attack/ CSAR escort T-28 Trojan; COIN/ light attack OV-10; AFAC/ COIN/ light attack O-2 Skymaster; AFAC And yes, want all. Particularly the A-1, as it was used in both Korea and Vietnam, and was in fact a WW2 design that just didn't quite make it in time before the war ended, but would be neat for the "1946" scenarios (as would aircraft like the F8F Bearcat, P-51H, P-80, and others) Edit: if you want to include transports, the number of aircraft is significantly larger. And, of course, there were AC-47 gunships made on the DC-3 airframe.

The smart way for ED/ third party to go about it would be to do a regional map covering the South China Sea. Extending to Vietnam in the west edge of the map, around Shanghai in the north (so as to include Taiwan), and the Phillipines as the boundary to the South and East. Build the map first as just terrain, with no roads or structures. Then add on the manmade features to build map variants: 1944, 1970, and 2010. This would allow you to cover many of the most important campaigns (and what-if/ could-of-been campaigns) since the introduction of military aviation. You could cover significant portions of WW2 Pacific theater, Vietnam, the Vietnam-China war (maybe I should say conflict; it hardly lasted long enough to be really considered a war), the perpetual China-Taiwan crisis, and the current China/ everyone else in the South China Sea conflict as a modern theater.

Yes, of course, we should only expect, or desire, aircraft known to have historically engaged in combat in the limited theaters portrayed in DCS. So, please, give me a moment while I delete the P-51, Fw190D9, Bf109K4, F-86, A-10, and F-15 from my hard drive, because none of those ever performed a single combat mission over Georgia. I guess I can at least re-install the P-51, Focke-Wulf, and Messerschmidt when Normandy comes out, but I'll just have to go without for now. :doh:

Um... every source I've seen indicates F-5E carries 4 AAM, and has 280 rounds per gun. Technically, I believe it *should* be able to carry AMRAAM, as they use (as best I recall) the same rail launchers as Sidewinder... but it would have to launch them maddog, with no support from onboard radar. But then, when I say "technically possible", I mean that in the context that it should also be "technically possible" to load a JDAM on an F-5E. It'll fit; doesn't mean it'll work right.