dumgrunt

i wonder what caused it? a runnaway gun on a machine gun is generally when the sear gets stuck downwards, hence the breech block will just keep chambering rounds. all cannons that I know of fire from a closed breach. the drill is keep the weapon pointed at the target and get the no2 to cut the ammo belt. obviously didnt happen here. its scary enough on Mag58, f*** that on a 30mm!

"worth the wait" it will be indeed :D

In a word, no. The level of complexity modeled is no where near a real life scenario. And those complexities are all to often the difference between achieving the required end state and not. Taking off, flying a course and landing may be a different story. Remember even after training, an apprenticeship of sorts exists, you try and have a hi-lo skills mix so the jewb can learn from the more experiance operator.

if its against vehicles, forget about the CBU-87, stick to the 97/105. set the burst height for 500ft. if loft bombing, which is good in CCRP if the threat means you need to be sniffing the weeds, set it to 300ft (setting this height normally from a dive attack profile wont give the SFW time to deploy). look at the target profile, using CBU-97 against dispersed targets is a waste, and a GBU-12/MAV combo is generally a better use. but if the targets are densely packed, such as in a convoy, the the SFW is perfect. if you are blatting infantry, iron bombs/rockets are your best bet. as always this is a general rule of thumb, the threat profile should dictate the type of weapons and their employment. that said the CBU-97 is one of the easiest and most effective weapons to use in the game.

righto... the claymore is actually a relevant example, since it is a DIRECTIONAL weapon designed explicitly for soft skin targets. yes actually, it is relevant. at Fri13, sorry but im not going off a forum post youve dragged up from somewhere. I KNOW i will feel fairly safe in an IFV, even a modern APC. if some ****er was bracketing arty on me, does not mean id hang around though. at neon67, bzzzztt wrong, modern APC's are designed with "vents" designed to attenuate thermobaric effects. i KNOW they actually work quite well. I am unsure about vehicles designed to be CNRBD proof. at Aginor, no again sorry, yes you are talking about concepts of momentum and kinetic energy, RHA actually does pretty well against a projectile, even punches above its weight when you start talking about slopping. then you have composite armour, then you have ERA (which we dont use) none the less. so presumably (in fact i'd wager) it will do even better against shrapnel. i think i will stay in my AFV, its much safer, i have a big gun, and there is air conditioning. maturin, another internet statistic? injuries or deaths? many shrapnel wounds arnt realised untill the reorg. and also you assumption about if your close enough to get killed by the pressure effects, you are already dead from shrapnel? that is if you are not behind cover, behind which i think you would find most people on a two way range.... oh and the ARMA example was only to demonstrate that there are other things to model before weapons effects which was the point of concern at the original post. it was an illustration of a possible remedy, not a comparison...

I think some of you are vastly over estimating the effect of fragmentation. As myself and others have noted its only one element to damage caused by blasts. the first is the pressure, this if sufficient will cause extensive internal damage, most easily recognised by bleeding from the mouth, ears and nose, more serious cases can even cause bleeding from the bowl (although if it was this close you would prabably be distracted by other effects of the weapon) the second is fragmentation, more on this in a second. the third are actual injuries being caused by a person being "thrown" by the blast and hitting some thing that renders the injury. some would refer to a fourth catergory effect of blast injuries, but they fundamentally result from the saem vectors in the above 3 elements. Fragmentation is an incredibly haphazard phenomenon. during the demolition of an old hospital in canberra (the australian capital), a girl was hit and killed by fragmentation from the blast over 1000m away from it. the M26 grenade had a lethal radius of over 220m, this was due to the size of the fragments, as a result, unless you were actually close to the detonation, you had a small chance of being hit and killed. (not to mention no one can throw a half kilo lump of metal and comp b 220m) the claymore *cough mine* - sorry anit personal weapon, is a DIRECTIONAL weapon that has has 700g of PE and 700 ball bearings roughly the size of SG-18 shot. the effect at about the half way point of the lethal zone is suprisingly little, enough that it COULD ruin your day and take you out of the fight, but far well and truely short of a garrenteed kill, and nothing remotely as spectacular as a cannister or splintex round from an AFV. SO, fragmentation isnt a magic bullet, far from it. some of you whinging that frag does nothing to tank in the game, well guess what, AFV's are explicitly designed to protect its crew from fragmentation, hence penetrator war heads either kinetic or chemical are what achieves the kill. "splash" damage in the game isnt that far off, its the damage model of objects that causes the issue. Look at ARMA 2; a rocket or HE round hitting near a soft skin vehicle, if it doesnt kill it, will likely destroy the tyres, and achieve a mobility kill.

For all intents and purposes, splash damage is the "simulation" of blast effects, fragmentation being one of those. The problem is not the splash damage, but the vehicle damage model. Vechiles are either alive or dead, there is no mobility kill for example. Besides without knowing of the top of my head the size of the ffar warhead, short of a direct hit or very near hit, it probably would not outright destroy a soft skin vehicle, but may disable it or kill the driver.

Realism is relative, I'm not a pilot but I can tell you with absolute surety that armoured and infantry combat are not remotely realistically simulated (dont take it personally, neither is arma 2, constraints with the AI?) so actual CAS therefore is not accurate. but fundamentals of mission planning seem relatively "close enough". So if you are having to deal with a dense SAM threat and getting bounced by the CAP at the same time it shows a lack of mission planning. Threats are treated by tactics. It sounds like you are refering to the shore campaign? The main threats are the s-300 and the CAP, stay at low altitude, and keep an ear out to the AWACS if the migs are beading a line to you. You do have fighter cover, but you need to be careful calling for it since they generally get shot down by the s-300 batteries. The a-10 was designed to operate in a contested environment. Though not if the enemy had air superiority.

first make sure that your TGP (or more accurately what the TGP is looking at) is SPI by TMS up long, and then checking either the diamond on the HUD has a line coming off it, or by checking the diamond on the TAD has the wedding cake symbol over it. next yes you can manually lase by holding NWS, but its probably better to set up auto lase in the DSMS profiles page for the GBU-12. DO the PGM tutorial in the training missions, all will be clear. EDIT, also make sure the laser is armed, next to the TGP switch

we'll buy em off ya for $1 an aircraft if they are so worthless :thumbup: but in all seriousness why put the entire fleet through a major upgrade, just to send them to the boneyard just after its done? look i have great confidence that despite all the negativity and the speculation that the f-35 will be a great combat aircraft, but without its IOC confirmed isnt it a bit early to start retiring the current inventory?

haha, great story, thanks for sharing.

not really sure what red herring you are trying to catch here, but the VVS record speaks for itself; not a maximum effort granted but they didnt gain true air superiority against a military with less than a dozen su-25's and a couple of Buk batteries in the 5 day war. not really sure how well they would do against a combined organisation who have been exercising and deploying together for the last 60 years, plus have two of the most recent combat air frame designs currently in service and operationally tested. Russian IAD is it only real trump, but you make no mention of that.

That story is a great example of what training is meant to produce, regardless of how tired or under the pump you are, you follow procedure for the task at hand. which the pilot did. mixing live ammunition with 'dry' training is always fraught with unnecessary risk. still a great read, thanks for posting it.

Maybe consider a low low low mission profile? If sa-11's are giving you a headache, search for, mark point, then do a pop up attack on the search radar. Same applies for any tungs in vicinity of the target area. If its a CAS mission in the hammer campaign you will have a hard time unless you sanitize the area of air defences but. Use stand off weapons to destroy air defence then save bombs and the the gun for afvs.

Yeah, they thought "total" war was impossible along the whole "to much to loose economically" argument at the turn of the last century. Then global diplomacy failure 1.0 happened. To think that another high intensity symmetrical conflict is impossible of even unlikely in the future is wishful thinking. Oh and you can't seize and hold ground with a JDAM either. But don't worry, never let common sense get in the way of politics. The a10 program through its lifetime seems to have had more lives than a cat. The USAF heirarchy seem quite frankly to just not like it.

Navy weren't really concerned with CAS at the time, bears with cruise missiles were the big concern. hence the investment they put into the Tomcat. The Marines LOVED the A-4, and had just put a large amount of dollars into an upgraded variant for them, so why take the risk with a new model (which many in the air force were poo pooing the idea of the A-10 anyway) But yeah a navalised A-10 would be cool. The air frame would certainly be strong enough.

well that is uber cool. guess some of the flight regime restrictions got lifted weapons testing.

I heard it as aiming for the tank to ricc rounds into the belly. go to any direct fire support weapons range and you will see a lot of funny shaped holes in rolled plate. that is from ricochets. the rounds do lose energy, but dont tumble normally (youll know if they do). still id be skeptical that the 12.7mm API ammunition of the day would penetrate 25mm of armour in the manner stated. as mentioned before, you would be better off aiming for the engine shroud/grill. the 4 20mm cannons on the typhoon would be a different story but....

Yeah I've got the same problem with vehicle wreck smoke, more than 3 or 4 in the FOV, and it turns into a slide show. Surely a patch can be distributed and not needing to wait for 1.2.4? Ah well back to 1.1.1.1 for the time being then.

ye nah, its all good because Plagiarism is neither illegal or unethical right?

.

I think confrontations and territorial disputes become more of an issues when there is something worth fighting for. I think the US "shift to the pacific" came after the fact not before. And the dispute became heightened when the shitload of oil became a very real prospect if not certainty. Look at the Agean, and that is between two NATO "allies". The US seems to be far less willing to take on the global policeman role. The intervention in Libya where Obama insisted the EU do some of the heavy lifting is a perfect example. Probably one of his best pieces of foreign policy to date. One massive counter balance that people are forgetting is India, who are actively helping the Vietnamese with natural resource prospecting in the region, have a confrontational history with China, and probably are the only credible threat to the Chinese in the region. The US forming closer ties with Pakistan at the expense of relations with India could have been at the risk of greater consequences down the line. One major element at least here is the underestimation of the chinese willingness to go to war over the south china sea. Recent conversation i had with mates: White guy: China would never go to war, it doesnt make economic sense Chinese guy: you don't understand it not just about the money. And this is coming from a country where our defence spending is at its lowest since the great depression, which was announced the same time as us inviting an MEU at Darwin. (yes we are bludging off the yanks too) One thing I am asking myself is it really against Australia's interests if the Chinese own the South China sea. Because if shit gets real (our treaty with the US and Singapore) we will be involved.

re the side skirts, he mentions the similar problems experienced in Georgia and the Chechen conflicts. The side skirts alone provide standoff. but the ERA will reduce the chance of a mobility kill. I'd say they fall off simply because they weren't redesigned for the additional weight of the ERA briquettes to hanging off them. Either way they are better there than not.

That must be specific to the C model, since LASTE (and CCIP) were in a block upgrade well before EGI was introduced in the A model. Maybe in the C model its to do with the IFFCC? but regardless in sim you lose EGI, you loose CCIP. What I do if I loose EGI, I just use the map the ruler and get a heading to the divert, however being proficient in the "legacy" nav systems is something I am aiming for at the moment.

politicians listening to the military? :megalol: two words. Stephen Smith.