Scrim

One important thing to remember is that the ECM pods for the A-10C aren't as sophisticated as those on say the SR-71. IIRC, these pods only do "noise jamming", which does zero to keep SAM radars from locking on to you. What happens is that instead of seeing a nice radar signature that they can range acquire, they see a broad band, that is the "noise" caused by the pod. This means that they will still know where you are in elevation and azimuth, just not in range. Therefore they won't know when you're inside their range, and the targeting radar won't be able to tell the SAM when to arm its proximity fuze. The SAM operators will have to rely on other means of information to determine when you're within range (EW radars that can triangulate your position and what-not, their MK1 eyeballs, or God forbid, you being to close that they burn through your jamming. In the latter case, you're just dead) and they will be forced to fire a SAM that arms a long time before it gets near you, making it very prone to react to chaff, the ground, etc. and detonate before reaching you. Now, I don't know how well simulated all of this is in DCS, but they are nonetheless very sound guidelines to follow. If you want to get some (virtual) experience of what it's like on the other end with ECM, pick up SAM simulator.

Why not just bring up the map on either MFD and look for the plane marker?

Agreed. Semi is the best option the way I see it, as it allows you to cycle to other programs IIRC so you can drop preventive CMS, doesn't waste your flares, and from my experience in DCS and BMS, as well as reading account from RL pilots, your plane (using the RWR and MWS) will in 99% of the time tell you that something is launched before you detect it yourself and will determine what it is better than you as well. Since you already rely on it to that extent, you might as well let your plane determine what CMS program is best suited to the situation. I'd use Auto, but as has been established, that would spend the CMS far to soon due to things that you can easily figure out is a bogus threat, as well as the fact that it locks you into one program, making preventive CMS impractical.

What's the purpose? The Huey copilot isn't even able to follow a flight plan, let alone fly straight. All three settings it has can be accomplished with far superior results using the Mi-8's autopilot.

The way I see it, the actual autopilot of the Mi-8 is far superior to the AI copilot of the Huey. The latter drifts to either side when told to fly level to the extent that I constantly have to interrupt him, and redraw the course to wherever I'm flying. It's been that way from the start, and despite the fact that this makes the AI copilot utterly useless for anything else than short stretches, it hasn't even been commented on yet.

Pronouncing that one is "good" at something intellectual is if anything a proof of the opposite. 1: Look it up yourself. As I said, what I've stated are facts. You go ahead and disprove it then. 2: Yeah, no. There is a lot more to breaking the Enigma codes than the capture of the code books and Enigma of the U-110.

You appear to horribly uninformed about this. For starters, American submarines at the start of the war had a longer range, higher speed and more firepower than anything else than a few German submarines had at the end of the war. New technology was more prevalent on American subs than on German ones. So you're saying that a German sub was sunk during, or before '32? Because that's the first time cryptoanalysts broke the Enigma. Did the capture of an Enigma help? Yes. Was it vital to breaking the codes? Heck no. There is a lot more to the history of breaking the Enigma code than just "lolz, we hacked your code with this one thing we found".

UHH what? Seriously, everything I wrote about the submarines and the campaigns are facts. Please, go ahead and disprove any of it instead of childish "duh, you're wrung" posts. The Enigma? Breaking that code was a part of the intelligence aspect of the Battle for the Atlantic. Your point being what then? Well, not Intercontinental, right? I think Germany would've lost even without Hitler. It would have taken longer time, but in the end they were in such a position that they couldn't have won. But ultimately I suppose speculating about a war without Hitler is of little point, as his absence would've made the WW2 we know today, or even a war at all very unlikely.

I've never heard of the British having NV sights, just the Americans. In regards to the German submarine campaign in the Atlantic, and the American submarine campaign in the Pacific, there is one vital difference: That the Americans won an astounding victory in achieving their goals. The Germans never did. Whilst they inflicted harsh blows on the Allies in the Atlantic, they never managed to cut the lifeline to the UK. In the Pacific, the USN simply never stopped dealing out blows against both the Japanese merchant navy, and their Imperial Navy from day one. Even despite the short time-frame in '41, the USN subs sank more Japanese merchants than they could replace in the same time. USN subs completely severed the supply lines between mainland Japan and many Pacific island outposts, to such a degree that a famine started in Japan, and that entire island garrisons that were bypassed almost starved to death despite resorting to cannibalism. And this is despite the standard submarine torpedoes in the USN inventory being dangerously unreliable for a long time after the war started. In addition carried out reconnaissance, raids, etc. during the war. They also sank almost twice as many warships as the U-boats did. Not to mention the fact that they sank more shipping than all everyone else combined. So did the German U-boats, but the Kriegsmarine didn't have quite as many surface ships out in the Atlantic as the Allies did in the Pacific. Comparing American and German submarines is also something that the former seems to take home the highest score on. They had longer range, more firepower, and more technological advances than the Germans did, e.g. radar. Few German submarines were equipped with that even by the end of the war. The American submarines were also more capable in regards to range, firepower and speed from the first day of the war than many German submarines were even by the end IIRC.

Have you played BMS? The smart scaling doesn't mean you can see aircraft from across the map, it's "scaling". It becomes large enough to see when you'd see it IRL, and then it's really quite small. Try flying without radar on in BMS, and even at the lowest difficulty setting the AI will shoot you down in MiG-17s before you know what happened.

The German night vision was very basic, and they were not the only ones to have it. IIRC the Marine Corps had similar NV scopes before the Germans, and on a larger scale. They were certainly the only ones to have it on tanks, but on a very small scale late in the war. If they had had more and earlier, it would've taken a quite short time for the Allies to pick up on it via captured assets and intelligence, and they could then easily have rushed own IR optics out to their tank units, since this is active NV we're talking about, meaning that you illuminate something with IR light and use optics capable of seeing that light. The way I see it regarding aircraft technology is that they had some good very new technology, but that a lot of it wasn't knowledge exclusive to the Germans, but simply something that no other country recognized as being worthwhile developing at the expense of other things at the time. When you look at the waste resources diverted to the V1 and V2, rocket planes, jet planes programs, etc. it makes sense. Obviously the knowledge and especially the experience gathered from this was very sought after by all countries after the war, since it saved them the effort of finding it out for themselves. The submarines is something that I personally regard the Americans to have done better during the war. They had technology that took some time for the Germans to introduce in even small scales, they had further range, more torpedoes, and practically speaking, the USN's submarine campaign in the Pacific trumped the Kriegsmarine's U-boat campaign in the Atlantic.

I disagree since it's that, or not see at all. But as an option, why not? DCS desperately needs this. The dynamic campaign and the smart scaling are the main reasons I hardly play DCS any longer compared to BMS.

No, MiG-28 obviously.

"Don't talk politics here! Besides, your political views are incorrect." :doh: Are you legit kidding me? A weapon with the aerodynamic precision of a badly maintained arquebus is useful for anything? Hint: No, it's not. If you're supporting infantry in urban combat you're just as likely to hit them as your enemy. And it is anything but political to question the legality of the barrel bombs in Syria: The Geneva Convention explicitly forbids weapons that are indiscriminate by nature, e.g. by virtue of being very inaccurate. Don't make no difference who's using them; Illegal weapons are just as illegal regardless of if it's Darth Vader or Mother Theresa using them. Regardless of amateur views on the effectiveness and purpose of these bombs, they'd be tasteless to include IMHO. Why? Read the papers. The Syrian civil war has raged for years with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and heli dropped barrel bombs have no history of being used in any other conflict. Further, it is definitely a controversial weapon, blamed for the deaths of many civilians. Common sense: Let's not have that in DCS for the sake of entertainment. If the common decency aspect isn't convincing enough, try to imagine the public backlash BST, ED and DCS would experience at the hands of the news and social media if barrel bombs would be included.

Made it up based on sheer speculation.

Will the throttles be Warthog compatible as well?

For what it's worth from a total stranger on the Internet, my sincere condolences. And for the latter, my congratulations.

For dropping two, I don't think different codes would actually be needed if the targets are reasonably well separated. Try giving some sudden rudder next time you drop an LGB in CCRP and you'll see that it won't be able to pick up the laser at all. But dropping 6, no, not with your own TGP. The bang-bang guidance of the LGBs will mean that in the time they're left unguided, they'll stray so far off course they won't have the power to turn back enough to hit the laser spot when it comes back to them. They might even be so far off by that time that they can't even register the laser. If we get more modern GBUs with jets like the F/A-18 it might be possible. Later generation LGBs and JDAMs both have GPS and laser guidance. Obviously though, if the targets start moving, as the AI in DCS does by default when a bomb falls closeby, you'll have the issue of the bombs not registering the laser, or not being able to compensate sufficiently when the laser comes to them.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159709 I really quite like it. Especially since it makes away with the default issue of gigantic gaping holes in every sort of ship without even sinking them, and ships with decks more submerged than not and still driving away, and replaces it with flood-able compartments instead.

With the current levels of communication, I wouldn't even expect the T-2 to be finished.

So just generally speaking, is the A-10C module never ever going to be upgraded to get something it received IRL after the module was first released? Not even simple things like this bomb?

I think that's to do with faster jets like the F-15, F-16, Tornado, etc. sort of get stabilized because the compressing air since they travel so much faster, but that's just my amateur theory. As for nice smooth turns, get rid of curves and what not. All DCS modules are made with attention paid to having the stick behave realistically. If you want to do smooth turns, pay very close attention to your HUD, and keep your velocity indicator matched with the horizontal bar in the ladder. As long as it is there, it means you're not gaining or losing any height. It's all about doing that until it becomes second nature.

Yeah, I mean who wants to be in the submarine team that had actually accomplished what they were sent to do by the time the war was over? :D On the serious side though, with the Real Fleet mod, I'd definitely say SH4. Better graphics, wonderful gameplay with the mod, and different taskings like insert spies and commandos, recon missions, etc., instead of solely "go patrol that grid. Go patrol that grid. Go patrol another grid".

Decided to up the challenge since I'm fairly used to the "flying bus" configuration (though not 139% :P) by trying to take off with a 20m/s tailwind. The result was that I couldn't even get my tail off the ground until I careened of the runway into a fiery death. Talk about tail dragger :D

Is there any way of determining the speed of another aircraft by locking it on with the radar in the F-15C?