Nerd1000

True the Kh-25L can't kill bunkers, but it can take down the Buk radars or launchers when the MPUs can't get a lock.

If you feel inclined you can edit the mission file and replace them with laser guided Kh-25MLs. Be aware that the ML has a max range of around 10km.

To explain this, Most missiles home in on you using a method known as 'proportional navigation'. In essence, the missile is trying to lead your plane so that it is on a collision course, much like how you pull lead when using guns on a turning plane. At very low altitude this means that a steep dive will sometimes make incoming missiles crash into the ground- The missile doesn't know the ground is there and attempts to lead you, except the point where it would intercept your diving flight path is somewhere below ground level. It also means that if you zig zag back and forth the missile will waste lots of airspeed trying to pull lead on you again and again- hopefully so low that it won't be able to turn sufficiently tightly to hit you. This approach works against missiles coming in from long range, but it won't help at closer ranges because you won't be able to bleed enough of the missile's speed before it reaches you. A typical approach would be to zig zag back and forth within the gimbal limits of your radar. That way your radar beam is still illuminating your enemy for the missiles you've presumably launched at him.

In the MiG-21 the rudder can be used to roll in high AoA turns where the ailerons are ineffective. Just apply rudder in the direction you want to roll.

On second thought, most of what we're seeing is probably mostly happening because the ground combat AI is suicidally stupid. Tanks that come under fire when traveling on a road will often simply drive around their dead allies to keep moving along the road at walking pace:doh:. They will shoot at the enemy vehicles, but moving tanks are quite rightly less accurate than stationary ones, and as such tend to lose. One of the Ka-50 scenarios asks you to support a pair of T-80U columns that are assaulting a town defended by Abrams, Bradleys, some assorted other vehicles and one of those stinger spamming Avenger Humvees. The T-80s have a numerical advantage and will cut through the Bradelys like a hot knife through butter, but if you let just a couple of Abrams live long enough for your tanks to make contact all of the T-80s will die attempting to drive over the top of a hill at 20 km/h.

Dunno about the Kurfurst's ammo load in-game. With 30mm HE it should be 1-2 hits on average to bring down a WW2 fighter. Its probably worth noting that this means 'render the plane unable to remain airborne' not 'cut the plane in half'. In my experience with discussions of WW2 German aircraft on the War Thunder forums people can sometimes get unrealistic expectations about what 'able to destroy a fighter with a single hit' means. On the topic of inconsistency with the Mk108 as mentioned by several posts, the gun is a 'spud launcher' with a rather slow muzzle velocity for an air-to-air weapon (Its velocity is similar that of folding fin rockets!). This means that for a successful attack on a maneuvering fighter you will need to either fire at very close range or have Luke Skywalker level force powers for determining the amount of lead and elevation required to hit at longer distances. Furthermore, the cowling mounted machine guns have a much higher velocity, which means that you can be observing 13mm hits while the 30mm shells pass well behind the target's tail :(. If you're finding that the 30mm has little effect, try switching the machine guns off and just firing the cannon so that the tracers from the MGs don't mess with your aim. IMO the AIs are significantly more durable than human players. In my experience this is mostly because they don't have complex system modeling, so damage that would cripple vital avionics (such as the targeting systems) or control systems in a player controlled aircraft doesn't really bother them. To use an example, a while back I was playing with Air to Air combat in the Ka-50. My aircraft would be essentially out of action after a single Vikhr hit, but the AI generally needed at least 2 hits to be taken out of combat even though the level of damage to his airframe was the same or worse after the first missile hit him.

I think DCS's simplistic tank modelling means that the M1 isn't much different from other MBTs as far as durability is concerned (at least when under fire from ATGMs). That said, it seems to consistently out-shoot Russian tanks, especially when the Abrams is stationary and the Russians are trying to assault its position. I suspect that the M1 can fire its gun over longer ranges, while Russian tanks seem unable to fire their ATGMs when moving. As a result when they are attacking an Abrams position they are out-ranged and get killed off in huge numbers.

Imperial units on a French aircraft? Is the use of knots, feet and miles a NATO standard or something?

The MK108 fitted to the Bf109K had 3 main types of shell: 2 different versions of the minengeshoss HE round and an API round. The subversions of the minengeshoss differ in the shape of the nose of the projectile- the earlier version had a blunt nose and thus more HE filler. It was replaced by the less draggy pointy-nosed version in an attempt to mitigate the MK108's dismal ballistic performance compared to most contemporary aircraft cannons (A muzzle velocity of only 580 m/s left a lot to be desired when range was concerned). I'm fairly certain that the 109K would have been equipped with the later shells. The API shell was fitted with a fuse intended to be triggered by passing through liquids, in an attempt to set bomber fuel tanks on fire.

Hmm, maybe I'm mixing it up with the campaign mission payloads.

I think that the fuel gauge tends to get set a little high when you are on the ground. I find that when my external tank is empty the fuel gauge is usually on ~3000L, while the aircraft internal fuel capacity is 2750L, though that might be caused by parallax error when reading the gauge. As insurance, make sure to check the status light panel on the right hand side of the cockpit (the one that tells you when the external tank is empty). IIRC there are 3 lights, indicating 1000L, 450L and 100L remaining. These lights are independent of the fuel gauge, as they are lit up when specific groups of fuel tanks are completely empty.

IIRC The stock patrol, short range uses the R-3S rather than the R60.

It is my understanding that the AI doesn't really 'see' per say. Instead the game engine tells the AI where you are at all times, and the AI then decides whether it is allowed to act on that information based the distance and direction it would be looking along to spot you (AI planes aren't allowed to 'see' planes that are in their cockpit blind-spots). I rather doubt that contrails (which are just a particle effect) have any influence on that. You can see evidence for the above by looking at AI SAM units using the F5 camera as you approach them. Vehicles like the TOR and Tunguska will keep their radar retracted and off-line until you come within a certain range, at which point they will extend their antenna and power up, even if you are hidden from them by a 5km tall mountain.

The general issue here is that as forward velocity increases the ram pressure and therefore thrust of the engine increases as well, given a constant altitude. Ram drag rises as well, but apparently not at the same rate as pressure at the entrance to the compressor. When you set the inlet cone to manual you are preventing the cone from moving forward and keeping the shockwave it creates focused on the inlet lip as your speed increases. The pressure recovery of the inlet therefore drops as speed rises, reducing the amount of thrust you can produce and limiting your speed. IRL the speed limit is usually set by the maximum operating temperature of the blades in the final stage of the compressor. I can't see any reason that the engine should flame out when you exceed a certain speed- Exceeding Mach 2.1 doesn't suddenly stop the fuel in the combustor burning. AFAIK the RL consequence of exceeding the speed limit would be damage to the compressor blades, eventually leading to failure (read: snapping off and flying through the engine in a manner similar to fragments from an artillery shell). Alternatively, the nosecone might delaminate or burn, seeing as it is made from plywood.

Su-25s and A-10s are tough bastards and often survive the first hit (though they will typically lose an engine). I usually fire R3Rs at them because in my experience IR missiles won't lock until you are almost at minimum range. Helicopters are even worse. The only time I ever tried to use an R-60M on a Ka-50 I was practically on top of him before I got tone.

The R60M is the most agile missile available to the MiG and can lock on to targets from the side, above and below rather than just from behind. Downside is the tiny warhead, which rarely scores a 1-hit kill. This isn't as bad as it sounds: Planes that have taken a R60 are rarely in a state conducive to dogfighting, so you can just finish the job with the cannon. Edit: The R-60 is also small and light, which gives you better range and agility than carrying an equal number of bigger missiles.

I usually carry the 800L tank, a full gun load, Countermeasure dispensers, 2x R-60M and 2x R-3R. The CMs aren't very effective in most cases, but I don't see the point of RATO bottles when we always have access to nice long runways. Even a 1% chance of spoofing a missile is better than 0% IMO.

I have trouble getting the AoA into the red 'danger zone' at all when flying at normal speeds. Its almost like the elevator angle limiter system prevents you from reaching the AoA limits. When I'm really slow I can get it into the red zone however. As mentioned above, applying full rudder and full up elevator will result in a spin. AFAIK the MiG's delta wings mean that it generally won't spin unless there is a lot of side-slip. Otherwise excessive angle of attack results in very large increases in drag and a small loss of lift associated with entering the so-called 'second regime', where lowering the nose will actually decrease your sink rate.

Indeed, the AI cheating is entirely normal. It can look or feel weird at times though.

Indeed, the AI has an odd mix of super-powers (Super situational awareness, simplified FM, unrealistic weapon lock abilities) and total ineptitude (cannot even do BFM). It makes fighting them very weird.

Not 100% true. Even the earliest lock-on capable airborne radars (such as the AI Mk IX from ~1944) use a range gate- when locked they reject returns that are sufficiently closer or further away than the target was on the last pulse. The MiG shouldn't have a hope of keeping lock on a low flying target that is below the horizon, but if you and your target have got enough altitude the radar should be able to reject the ground clutter, as it is significantly more distant than the target. This is of course dependent on actually getting a lock first. One other limitation is that AFAIK the MiG radar has no way of telling the difference between a plane and chaff without the 'passives' filter on. If you have a lock on a plane and it deploys chaff the radar should probably begin to track the chaff cloud rather than the plane.

104th seems to be set up to make attacks on hostile A2G planes very difficult. Their AO is always on the opposite side of the map from your fighter base and protected by SAMs. Typically you'll be facing 2 main SAM threats- The main F-15/SU-27 base will have some kind of ultra long range air defense system like the Patriot or SA-10. These SAMs can lock on and fire at ranges up to 100km against a high altitude target. In addition, their missiles can pull 30g and have a top speed of mach 5, so just stay away from them. The other bases will be protected by medium range SAMs, typically SA-11 or MIM-23 HAWK. The Sa-11 will lock you at a little under 30km, the HAWK maybe a little further. Sa-11 batteries are easy to deal with because they like to launch large salvos of missiles (often 3-4 at once) at maximum range, so in general if you get locked just turn and fly away from the SAM site and any missiles that have been launched will fail to connect. Its a little risky but you can actually trick the SA-11s into wasting all of their missiles- just fly towards the site, keeping an eye on its location. When you see a smoke trail just turn and run, wait until the site breaks lock and the come back. Rinse and repeat until the site stops launching missiles at you (but still be careful! sometimes the SA-11s have SA-15s as backup). Its quite possible to make successful incursions on the enemy attack planes, particularly on the operation leopard mission when playing as the red side. On Op Leopard I like to load 2x R3Rs, 2x R-60Ms, a full gun load and the 800L droptank. Fly out to the north-west from Tbilisi on heading 300 and climb to 6000m or so to save fuel. Most of the Blue F-15s like to stay near the Bullseye or to the east of it, roughly on the line that leads from their base to Tiblisi, so this course should keep you out of most of the heat (F-15 radar can see you 100km away, so no guarantees). If you get locked, dive into the mountains and hide. Once you are due south of Nalchik turn to heading 330. The Blue A-10s operate in the area around Kislovodsk, and you should aim to get around 30 km west of Nalchik and its SA-11 battery before turning to fly directly to that location. Once you clear the mountains start to descend to around 1000m. The A-10s will generally fly at 3000-4000m as this keeps them out of reach of MANPADS, so your radar should be able to see them by looking up. Min-Vody has another SA-11 battery that will try to kill you. Thankfully its launchers seem to be poorly laid out, and I've often seen missiles taking off from Vody and exploding just after clearing the hill to the south of the base. I suspect that the search radar is able to detect aircraft operating in that area (I can hear it on the RWR), but the launchers and tracking radars don't have line of sight and thus the missiles get fired without a lock and self destruct. If Kislovodsk has been cleared the blue attackers will move to an area that is roughly due east of Min-Vody. Be careful of the SA-11 battery, as it can lock you when you are in this area. Unfortunately because of the MiG-21's short range you will have only 5-10 minutes in the AO before you need to RTB, or even less if you use the afterburner for an intercept. Given the predictable behaviour of A-10s and Su-25Ts that 5-10 minutes is usually long enough to get a couple of kills. If you find yourself with too little fuel to make it back to Tiblisi you can divert to one of the unoccupied airfields on the coast and then spawn a new plane, as civilian airfields will not refuel you.

It is possible if the tanks/APCs involved had very thin armour on the top. The BMP-1 has a mere 6mm of roof armour, so it would probably be vulnerable to a direct hit.

Try using Vsync rather than a frame rate limiter. It might help, it might not, but worth a try right? I personally find that the visual tearing that can occur when vsync is off very unpleasant (it makes my eyes hurt) so that might be part of your problem. Also make sure you have some of the more graphically expensive effects like TSSAA turned off. DCS often has a lot going on and the 'stuttering' can be a result of things like explosion effects that you can't actually see (A-10s dropping large numbers of cluster bombs can drop my frame rate from 25-50fps to more like 5fps). Reducing the load on your GPU will help with that.

You've gotta go faster! 350km/h is more reasonable for a Kurfurst in combat, and even then that's slow. Speed is life.* This will also help with your overheating woes (by increasing airflow through the radiators) and the nasty rolling. Remember that the 109 is a very small plane and features an engine that develops up to 2000hp. The Spitfire Mk XIV was well known for being a handful at low speeds due to its ~2000hp Griffon. The 109 has equal power with MW50 boost but is even smaller, and in particular has a puny little rudder that gives you limited authority at low speed. Speaking of that, I'd like to emphasize the importance of keeping the 'ball' in the turn and slip indicator centered. The plane should fly a lot better if you can do that. Unfortunately for some reason the Germans seemed to feel that a rudder trimmer was not a desirable feature on a fighter (neither the Fw190 or the Bf109 have one), so you'll have to apply left or right rudder at all times except when flying exactly at the cruising speed of (IIRC) 450 km/h. * There is a theory you might have heard of called the 'energy maneuverability' theory of air combat. Essentially Speed+Altitude = Energy, and whomever enters the fight with the most energy will probably win.