Invader ZIM

Did you get to see it Phantom88?

Thank You!!! :thumbup: Playtesting with 12 Excellent M1A2's vs 12 Excellent T-80U's in daylight both 1.5nm from each other facing each other results in pretty equal casualty rates in multiple runs. It's no longer lopsided, the battle can go either way, so it's looking much more promising from a CA commander's point of view. Using terrain, or surprising an enemy on his flanks can turn the battle now I'm guessing. Many Thanks Again For The Fix!!

I think you guys are thinking a "Kill" is a spectacularly exploding King Tiger after being strafed by P-47's, but I think what seems to have really happened is mobility kills, damage caused on the back and topside of the tanks by API .50 cal ammo was known to cause fires in stored fuel, and enter the ventilation areas on the back of the tanks messing with cooling systems, etc. Enough to cause a fire in a fuel line, or start an oil fire and soon you have to abandon the tanks because of it. And to a fighter pilot that sees a tank burning for any reason, it's a kill. Even if it's a mobility kill the tank can't get to where it's supposed to. We need to model these in DCS. It must have been a problem for the German Army because: And: While the risk from artillery, mortars, shell splinters etc was much the same for most of the war, the risk from strafing aircraft was not. By 1944/45, Allied air superiority was almost total and they could roam about the battle areas pretty much at will. German armoured vehicles could be, and often were, subjected to air attacks at a level and frequency they had rarely experience before. Whilst a single strafing run from a lone aircraft was most unlikely to cause much damage, it was a different matter when there were repeated runs from groups of aircraft. And this could happen several times in the course of a day! What the above extracts (together with other evidence) do show beyond dispute is that, in the closing stages of the war, the Germans were becoming much more concerned than they had previously been, about the possibility of bullets from strafing aircraft entering these openings. I don't have to penetrate much armor when I can get a few rounds into the vents on the top and rear of the tank. 8 .50's firing API at 500+ rpm should get some in there if your determined. And remember, there's ample evidence of an M1 being disabled and having to be abandoned for the same reason after being hit from the rear by a Bradley's 25mm cannon. It had started a fire that disabled the engine and the M1 had to be abandoned, a mobility kill, but for all intents and purposes a kill nonetheless. Big ventilation areas: The upgrade looked something like this:

Three animated gif's. Enjoy :)

Most likely entirely HEI rounds, there's not much armor to fight against in the region, so units switched out to using entirely HEI for the 30mm in most cases from what I had heard.

LOL, it's preventive maintenance Sithspawn, after the movie is out we'll get a lot of new guys here after seeing the movie wondering why they can't put 12 AGM-65's and 4 AIM-9X on their A-10's in DCS. Hollywood... Sheesh... :lol: P.S. I did think it was cool that the A-10's in the U.S. version of the Godzilla movie killed him with AGM-65's.

LOL, Bucic you reminded me of one I had: Might as well add the others in my collection to the board lol.

There's a few 75mm gunned -G and -H models firing in the video, have to watch for it though. Has a distinct quick flash, coupled with a few seconds until you see the impact in the distance. P.S. Marcos, thanks for the video above, I was looking for that particular one, I knew it had British aircraft strafing German shipping, but all I remembered was them flying over that cliff and launching rockets as they dove in, great find, I enjoyed seeing it again after all these years. Here's a better B-25 strafe video, gun camera is mounted in the nose, at 0.37 seconds and just 10 seconds before, you can see the pilot aiming and firing the 75mm into the buildings in the bottom right of the video. Also a video showing the 75mm with the radar directed gun and it's results: http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675059994_B-25H-Mitchell-planes_firing-cannons-on-target_survey-team Radar was AN/APG-13 "Falcon" More color 75mm armed B-25 guncam here: I used to have detailed radar info that showed how to use the 75mm with the radar in the cockpit to fire accurately at a ship target over 3000 yards away from a veteran who flew the -H, hopefully I can get that up, it would be neat to get a B-25H modeled with the radar like that someday in a WW2 sim. Some info and photos inside the B-25H here: http://home.mchsi.com/~anderson.kevin/b25h_pictures.html I have a particular affinity to these B-25 strafers, a lot of veterans from my area flew them, and they used to modify them out my way also:

Here's a rare one, B-25 strafers doing attack runs on Japanese airfields, you can see the parafrag bombs, as well as the long fuse settings on the other bombs (Yes, in the video those bombs are striking the ground and bouncing back up at near the height of the aircraft and detonating on the second impact.) http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/second-world-war/ww2-b-25-gunships-strafing/1650927482001/

I can't find the full story on that one myself. I did have some guncam footage that looked similar, it was a small number of German's on the beach, but it turns out they were setting up mines and tank traps for the impending invasion by Allied forces. Sometimes we just don't have the full story on why your seeing what your seeing when it comes to guncam footage. It could be something outside the field of view of the guncam, etc.

Chicken police break up a rabbit fight.

Regarding shooting pilots in their chutes, it did happen, and there's accounts of it on all sides during the war, Japan did it as well. The video of the guy in the chute, at 1:34 you can actually see he's pulled his legs up and hunched his head over as he is trying to be a smaller target, as the plane flies toward him you can see he's still alive, not limp, and there's no ammo being fired at him, despite the fact that he's dead in the gunsights for a considerable amount of time. Pilots would film the parachutes on their guncam not always because they were firing on the pilot, but to prove when they got back to base that they had made a verified kill. At 1:16, you can actually see the pilot bail out, and subsequently, his parachute harness slips over his head, allowing him to freefall to the ground. :( 2:29 and 2:34 large electrical arcing from the strafing, power lines hit. 2:42 power substation being strafed, another substation at 2:52 Regarding the trains, at 3:01 and again at 3:07 you'll notice of all the cars in that railyard, the pilots are focusing their runs on the Engines, you may not destroy the supplies, but you'll make it very difficult to distribute the supplies without the engines to haul them. 3:14, boiler going up on engine. 3:22 at least two aircraft strafing the engine. 3:43 Possible V2 launch tower??? 4:31, multiple people near parked military aircraft. And about the ships, they would strafe anything that could be used to supply the enemy, even if it was just food on a commercial ship. At 5:27 I see incoming AA tracers toward the strafing aircraft, so it's not as one sided as it may seem. That's simply the result of total unrestricted war. Thank you for the video, these are not random indiscriminate strafing runs, if you know what your looking at, the targets are tactical in nature, Power, Supplies, Large warehouses and factories with smoke coming from the stacks (Indicating they are in use.) Which these fighters helped to disrupt the enemys ability to wage war.

Radar absorbing paint is the main reason U.S. aircraft are the colors they are. http://theaviationist.com/2012/08/30/have-glass/#.UWXqoH7D99M It's currently called "Have Glass 5th generation" according to the site above But you can do a search of the "Have Glass" "Have Glass I/II" program or "PACER GEM I/II" and find out it's not a normal paint scheme. Iron Ball is one of the earlier types of this paint example. Source: http://evangelidis.gr/embry/F35LO-ShortReport-HTML.htm So even though nr1jc was joking a bit in the post above, it turns out he's actually correct. ;)

Mikoyan, make sure to point that out to the Navy, they'll set the Boeing guys straight and in a few months or years you'll see the new design proposal. :lol:

LOL, I didn't want to have to use nukes in the scenario to get rid of the site Kaktus was describing, but it's the only way to be sure.

+= :lol:Sorry, couldn't resist.

This sounds like a job for JASSM or JASSM-ER :smilewink:

LOL, just remember, it's in the development stages, the design can change quite a bit, especially when you have 15 years before the first prototypes are expected. :smilewink:

Well, from the article I posted the Swedish Defence Minister Sten Tolgfors even claimed that the So straight from the Swedish Defence Minister, the Gripen really shouldn't be operating out there by itself, which means that you'll have to pay more for other aircraft in order to support in in a war footing. Perhaps years ago when WW3 was possible Sweden was hoping for another country to provide the AWACS support. I mean you could go without AWACS, but your really limiting the capability of your air force doing that, and if you can't rely on having a good AWACS capability, then an aircraft that has some of the detection capabilities and other systems to help locate air surface and sea targets might be more useful, stealth in this case is also a BIG bonus and multiplier, right now you really can't beat the usefulness stealth provides.

lol, by 2030, it may not be, always good to plan ahead.

Thanks for that video, it's looking like it might be a really fun Real Time Strategy depicting the mid/late 80's era of the cold war. Hopefully it will be ready this summer.

I actually liked the idea of the F-15SE, but when you factor in how much it costs to maintain the F-15 fleet as is, and in the news article it doesn't state the actual full cost of the F-15SE's in comparison to the F-35, it may be a bargain to get the F-35's and they'd break even on the F-35's maintenance over the course of time, say 10 years. The kind of capability the F-35 would offer is unique, even compared to the Silent Eagle, and your getting a platform that's going to be around for at least 30 years so like they say, you get what you pay for.

So a possible 60 F-35 or Silent Eagle purchase from South Korea later this year? From the following Reuters site: http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-korea-usa-fighters-idUSBRE93210220130403?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563

Don't know if this was posted before, but another recent Distributed Aperature System video while flying over a town, almost immediately multiple hostiles on the ground are identified and marked. I can see why the aircraft has a rather unique recon capability not usually seen in a strike or fighter aircraft. Link:

Well, some of these countries have requirements that don't fit in with what you think might be the better choice. Here's the article in Norwegian on why the Gripen didn't work out: http://www.tu.no/industri/2009/01/19/svensk-innrommelsebr--gripen-passer-ikke-norge Google Translation of article above: I would think the Defense minister might have better classified info on what would be the best choice for his countries airforce. He may have seen something that most of us haven't in regards to the performance and value the F-35 provides for their country. :book: