Iron_physik

something that crossed my mind Would it be possible for the A-6 to get its nuclear weapons? (B43 or B61) third party devs can add them (as seen with the Mig-21) and the A-6 would give NATO their nuclear capability as counterpart to the Mig-21 even a basic A-6 would have all controls to deliver nukes in any setting and your ballistic control panel can be programmed with airburst in mind: here the nuclear controls in the weapon system diagram:

AIM-9L and M have a internal argon bottle for "gas cooled" sidewinders the cooling time is about 2h and it takes about 2 minutes to cool the missiles sensor down.

I would need a source on that and second that doesnt make sense if it has a 40+ g maneuvering capability, but only a structural limit of 40g the missile would break apart mid flight the 45g value comes from a DTIC source, Im currently trying to find it again, it was about structural issues the 9L had, so they needed to pull steel rods through the missile to increase its structural stability.

The original thread gained alot of traction in the WT forum, so I decided to copy it over here into the DCS forum, hoping you all also will appreciate it Introduction The AIM-9 (Airborne Interception Missile) Sidewinder is probably one of the most, if not the most influential and important invention of Aerial warfare, with this thread I want to explain anyone the genius of the design, how it works and how the AIM-9 evolved in its long history. In the begining and a brief explaination of how the AIM-9 works: The Sidewinder Evolution and Performance Thx to MacedonianSukhoi from the warthunder Forums for the image ------------------------------------------------- AIM-9A - Sidewinder 1 Development of Sidewinder began in 1950 at the NOTS (Naval Ordnance Test Station) - later renamed as NWC (Naval Weapons Center) - at China Lake. The idea was to create a very simple heat-seeking air-to-air missile by equipping a 12.7 cm (5 in) air-to-air rocket (based on the 5" zuni) with a lead sulphide (PbS) photo cell in a hemispherical glass nose to detect IR radiation. Another simple, yet effective, idea was the use of "Rollerons" (sliptream-driven wheels at the fin trailing edges acting as stabilizing gyros) as roll-stabilizing devices. The first test missiles were fired in 1951, and on 11 September 1953, the first air-to-air hit on a drone was scored. In the same year, the prototype missile received the offical designation XAAM-N-7. XAAM-N7 Sidewinder prototype AAM-N-7 Sidewinder I (AIM-9A) General Electric began low-rate production in 1955, and in May 1956, the AAM-N-7 Sidewinder I entered U.S. Navy service. Only 240 Sidewinder I missiles were built, and full-rate production missiles (built by Ford Aerospace (Philco) and General Electric) were known as AAM-N-7 Sidewinder IA. ------------------------------------------------- AIM-9B - Sidewinder 1A [USN + USAF] The AIM-9B (Sidewinder 1A) was the next step in the development, it improved on the early prototype Sidewinders by mounting a more sophisticated rear section and by mounting more aerodynamical better frontal fins: The Actuators, rocket motor warhead and seeker stayed the same though. Initially the USAF did not like the AIM-9 due to rivalries, but they switched over after a flyoff against the AIM-4 falcon, the AIM-9 simply performed better in ANY way. this version was the first real serial model and had more than 8000 units made. Performance AIM-9A/B Length: 2.83 m (111.5 in) Finspan: 0.56 m (22 in) Diameter: 12.7 cm (5 in) Weight: 70 kg (155 lb) Speed: Mach 1.7 Propulsion: Thiokol MK 17 solid-fuel rocket (Mk.15 on the AIM-9A) Thrust: 3820lbs (1732kg) for 2.2 seconds Guidance duration: 20 seconds Warhead: 11kg (25lbs) Mark 8 Blast Fragmentation with 4.76kg (10,5lbs) HBX-1 (7,62 kg TNT) Prox Fuze triggering distance: 9m (30ft) Seeker: FOV: 4° Gimbal limit: 20° (Mark 1 mod 0) 30° (Mark 1 Mod 1-14) Tracking rate: 11°/s Cooling: None Maneuvering capability: up to 10g at Sea Level Maneuvering surface: Delta canard Servo torque: 750 in-lbs (84,74 Nm) Max Launch load limit: 2g Rear Aspect only ------------------------------------------------- AIM-9C / D - Sidewinder 1C [USN] The limited performance of the AIM-9B prompted the Navy to look for improvements. The AAM-N-7 Sidewinder IC was developed in two version: a semi-active radar homing version designated AIM-9C in 1963, and an IR guided version, later designated as AIM-9D. Improvements common to both IC versions include a new Hercules MK 36 solid-fuel rocket motor for significantly increased speed and 18 km (9.7 nm) range, a Improved MK 48 continuous-rod warhead, and slightly larger fins. The SARH AIM-9C was only used with the Navy'S F8U Crusader fighters to provide these with an all-weather capability without having to fit a Sparrow-compatible radar. However, the AIM-9C was not very successful, and only 1000 were built by Motorola between 1965 and 1967. Many were later converted into AGM-122A Sidearm anti-radiation missiles. The IR seeker of the AIM-9D (in a more pointed nose) featured a new nitrogen-cooled PbS seeker, which had field of view of only 2.5° (reduced background noise) and a higher traking rate of 12°/s. However, only about 1000 AIM-9D missiles were built (by Philco-Ford and Raytheon) between 1965 and 1969. Performance AIM-9C/D Length: 2.87 m (113 in) Finspan: 0.63 m (24.8 in) Diameter: 12.7 cm (5 in) Weight: 88 kg (195 lb) Speed: Mach 2.5+ Propulsion: Hercules MK 36 solid-fuel rocket Thrust: 2880lbs (1306kg) for 5 seconds Guidance duration: 60 seconds Warhead: 11kg (25lbs) MK 48 continuous-rod warhead with 2.95kg (6.5lbs) HMX (~ 5kg TNT) Prox Fuze triggering distance: 9m (30ft) Seeker: (AIM-9D) FOV: 2.5° Gimbal limit: 40° Tracking rate: 12°/s Cooling: Nitrogen Maneuvering capability: up to 18g at Sea Level Maneuvering surface: Delta canard Servo torque: 1100 in-lbs (124,28Nm) Max Launch load limit: none Rear Aspect only ------------------------------------------------- AIM-9E [USAF] The AIM-9E was the first version specifically developed by the USAF. It was an improved AIM-9B with a new seeker with thermoelectric (Peltier) cooling, and a higher tracking rate of 12°/s. The Peltier cooling method allowed unlimited cooling time while the missile was on the launch rail. Externally, the AIM-9E differed from the AIM-9B by its longer conical nose section. About 5000 AIM-9Bs were converted to AIM-9E. The AIM-9E-2 is a variant with a reduced-smoke motor. Performance AIM-9E Length: 3.00 m (118 in) Finspan: 0.56 m (22 in) Diameter: 12.7 cm (5 in) Weight: 74 kg (164 lb) Speed: Mach 2.5+ Propulsion: Thiokol MK 17 solid-fuel rocket Thrust: 4200lbs (1905kg) for 2.2 seconds Guidance duration: 40 seconds Warhead: 11kg (25lbs) Mark 8 Blast Fragmentation with 4.76kg (10,5lbs) HBX-1 (7,62 kg TNT) Prox Fuze triggering distance: 9m (30ft) Seeker: FOV: 2.5° Gimbal limit: 40° Tracking rate: 12°/s Cooling: Peltier (electric) Maneuvering capability: up to 11g at Sea Level Maneuvering surface: Delta canard Servo torque: 750 in-lbs (84,74 Nm) Max Launch load limit: 2g Rear Aspect only ------------------------------------------------- AIM-9F [Export] The AIM-9F (also known as AIM-9B FGW.2) was a European development of the AIM-9B, of which 15000 were built by Bodensee Gerätetechnik (BGT) in Germany. It featured a now CO2-cooled seeker, some solid-state electronics, and a new longer nose dome. This version entered service in 1969, and most European AIM-9Bs were converted to AIM-9F standard. Performance AIM-9F Length: 2.93 m (115.35 in) Finspan: 0.56 m (22 in) Diameter: 12.7 cm (5 in) Weight: 70 kg (155 lb) Speed: Mach 1.7 Propulsion: Thiokol MK 17 solid-fuel rocket Thrust: 3820lbs (1732kg) for 2.2 seconds Guidance duration: 20 seconds Warhead: 11kg (25lbs) Mark 8 Blast Fragmentation with 4.76kg (10,5lbs) HBX-1 (7,62 kg TNT) Prox Fuze triggering distance: 9m (30ft) Seeker: FOV: 4° Gimbal limit: 30° (Mark 1 Mod 1-14) Tracking rate: 16°/s Cooling: CO2 Maneuvering capability: up to 10g at Sea Level Maneuvering surface: Delta canard Servo torque: 750 in-lbs (84,74 Nm) Max Launch load limit: 2g Rear Aspect only ------------------------------------------------- AIM-9G [USN] Another Navy variant was the AIM-9G, an improved AIM-9D. It featured SEAM (Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode), which allowed the optics either to be slewed through a search pattern, or to be slaved to the aircraft's radar to acquire a target. 2120 AIM-9G were built by Raytheon from 1970 to 1972. Equivalent to ATM-9D, there was also an ATM-9G training version of the AIM-9G. The Sidewinder was of course used extensively over Vietnam by both the USAF and the Navy. The Air Force scored 28 AIM-9 air-to-air kills using the AIM-9B/E versions, achieving a kill probability for this missile of about 16%. The USN's most successful Sidewinder variants in Vietnam were the AIM-9D and -9G, which were resposible for the majority of USN air-to-air kills in this conflict. A total of 82 air-to-air kills over Vietnam are attributed to the AIM-9. Performance AIM-9G Length: 2.87 m (113 in) Finspan: 0.63 m (24.8 in) Diameter: 12.7 cm (5 in) Weight: 87 kg (192 lb) Speed: Mach 2.5+ Propulsion: Hercules MK 36 solid-fuel rocket Thrust: 2880lbs (1306kg) for 5 seconds Guidance duration: 60 seconds Warhead: 11kg (25lbs) MK 48 continuous-rod warhead with 2.95kg (6.5lbs) HMX (~ 5kg TNT) Prox Fuze triggering distance: 9m (30ft) Seeker: FOV: 2.5° Gimbal limit: 40° Tracking rate: 12°/s Cooling: Nitrogen Maneuvering capability: up to 18g at Sea Level Maneuvering surface: Delta canard Servo torque: 1100 in-lbs (124,28Nm) Max Launch load limit: none Rear Aspect only Has SEAM ------------------------------------------------- AIM-9H [USN] To increase the reliability of the AIM-9G, the Navy developed the AIM-9H. The main difference to the AIM-9G were solid-state electronics in the guidance and control system. The seeker tracking rate was also increased to 20°/s to complement the more powerful actuators. Only a few AIM-9Hs were fired over Vietnam. The ATM-9H was a training version for captive flight target acquisition. The latter phase of the Vietnam war, the Linebacker campaigns, saw the first application of the subsequent naval Sidewinder. The Hotel saw some radical changes resulting from experience with the D/G, which suffered reliability problems due the intolerance of vacuum tubes to repeated 20 ft/sec sink rate recoveries on aircraft carrier decks. The AIM-9H was the first solid state Sidewinder, with the complete guidance package built with semiconductors. In redesigning the electronics, the G optical system was essentially retained, but the tracking rate was further increased, to complement the more powerful 1350 in.ib actuators (compared to 1100 in ib of earlier Navy models) While few of the AIM-9H were fired in combat due shortages of supply, they are reported to have scored a much higher kill rate per launch than any other Sidewinder in the campaign. Over 3,000 were built by Philco-Ford and Raytheon. The AIM-9H was by far the best of the early Sidewinders and distinguished itself in Vietnam achieving the best kill rate of any missile in the campaign. Using a solid state seeker with a Nitrogen cooled Lead Sulphide detector, and a more powerful actuator system, the AIM-9H was the most reliable of its kind. The subsequent AIM-9L was directly derived from the AIM-9H. Performance AIM-9H Length: 2.87 m (113 in) Finspan: 0.63 m (24.8 in) Diameter: 12.7 cm (5 in) Weight: 84 kg (186 lb) Speed: Mach 2.5+ Propulsion: Hercules MK 36 solid-fuel rocket Thrust: 2880lbs (1306kg) for 5 seconds Guidance duration: 60 seconds Warhead: 11kg (25lbs) MK 48 continuous-rod warhead with 2.95kg (6.5lbs) HMX (~ 5kg TNT) Prox Fuze triggering distance: 9m (30ft) Seeker: FOV: 2.5° Gimbal limit: 40° Tracking rate: 20°/s Cooling: Nitrogen Maneuvering capability: up to 18g at Sea Level Maneuvering surface: Delta canard Servo torque: 1350 in-lbs (152,53 Nm) Max Launch load limit: none Rear Aspect only Has SEAM ------------------------------------------------- AIM-9J / P [USAF] The USAF's AIM-9J was an improved AIM-9E. It had partial solid-state electronics, a longer-burning gas generator (increasing flight time), and more powerful actuators which drove new square-tipped double-delta canards. The latter feature doubled the single-plane "G"-capability of the missile. About 10000 AIM-9Js were eventually built from 1972 on, mostly by converting existing AIM-9B/E missiles. While the AIM-9L fulfilled the role of the frontline all aspect dogfight missile, a need still existed for a second tier weapon for use in less demanding situations, and also suitable for export to less than absolutely trusted allies. This requirement was fulfilled by the AIM-9P family, derivatives of the AIM-9J/N. The AIM-9P-2 and P-3 were introduced in the mid seventies and use improved guidance electronics, a new rocket motor and an active optical fuse. While not receiving the publicity of the AIM-9L, the success of the weapon is testified to by the fact that no less than 21,000 have been built, with substantial numbers in the USAF inventory. The AIM-9P is a USAF sponsored development of the AIM-9J/N family, to provide a missile for use in less demanding applications. The AIM-9P has evolved through the P-2, P-3 to the all aspect P-4, and the P-5 with additional counter-countermeasures capability. Large numbers of various AIM-9P subtypes are in use with the USAF and many export customers. The missile retains the conical nosecone and characteristic double delta canards first used in the Vietnam era USAF AIM-9E. The AIM-9P-4 is an incremental development of the AIM-9P-3, with an all aspect seeker using some of the technology developed for the AIM-9L. In comparison with its cousin, it is less agile but still a very effective missile. The AIM-9P-5 is further improved by the addition of a counter-countermeasures capability. The wide range of types which can carry the P-3/4/5 suggest that the gas coolant is carried on board, as with the L/M. Performance AIM-9J / P Length: 3.05 m (120 in) Finspan: 0.58 m (22.8 in) Diameter: 12.7 cm (5 in) Weight: 74 kg (164 lb) Speed: Mach 2.5+ Propulsion: Thiokol MK 17 solid-fuel rocket Thrust: 4200lbs (1905kg) for 2.2 seconds Guidance duration: 40 seconds Warhead: 11kg (25lbs) Mark 8 Blast Fragmentation with 4.76kg (10,5lbs) HBX-1 (7,62 kg TNT) Prox Fuze triggering distance: 9m (30ft) Seeker: FOV: 2.5° Gimbal limit: 40° Tracking rate: 16°/s Cooling: Peltier (electric) Maneuvering capability: up to 22g at Sea Level Maneuvering surface: square-tipped double-delta canards Servo torque: 1050 in-lbs (118,63 Nm) Max Launch load limit: 7g Rear Aspect only ------------------------------------------------- AIM-9L / M [USN + USAF] In 1971, the USAF and U.S. Navy agreed to jointly develop the AIM-9L, a vastly improved Sidewinder based on the AIM-9H. Major development goals were ALASCA (All-Aspect Capability) and effective use against violently manoeuvering and high-speed targets at all ranges. The AIM-9L had new long-span pointed double-delta canards, a modified MK 36 solid-fuel rocket motor (MODs 8 through 11), and a new AN/DSQ-29 solid-state guidance and control section. Additional improvements include a completely new Argon-cooled Indium Antimonide (InSb) seeker, a DSU-15/B AOTD (Active Optical Target Detector) laser proximity fuze, and an improved 9.4 kg (20.8 lb) WDU-17/B annular blast-fragmentation warhead. All AIM-9L features resulted in a vastly improved missile which could acquire targets at all aspects, and had a much improved tracking, manoeuvering, terminal homing, and killing performance. Production started in 1978, and more than 16000 AIM-9Ls have been built by Philco-Ford, Raytheon, BGT (Germany), and Mitsubishi (Japan). The AIM-9L was used very successfully by the Royal Navy in the Falklands War during 1982. Training versions of the AIM-9L are the ATM-9L for firing practice, the captive (non-launching) CATM-9L, and the non-flying DATM-9L for handling and loading practice. There is also a version designated NATM-9L, which is equipped with special test and evaluation equipment. There is also a loading practice version of the AIM-9L known as GDU-6/C. This may be just another (earlier) designation for the DATM-9L. The AIM-9M is a development of the AIM-9L and replaced the latter on the production line. It features a reduced-smoke rocket motor, an improved guidance section designated WGU-4/B, better countermeasures resistance (IRCCM - Infrared Counter-Countermeasures), and improved overall reliability. Production began in 1982, and so far more than 7000 missiles have been built by Raytheon in subtypes numbered AIM-9M-1 through AIM-9M-10. The principal current production versions are the AIM-9M-8 (USN) and AIM-9M-9 (USAF). They have further improved IRCM detection circuitry, and the latest versions of the rocket motor (MK 36 MOD 11), guidance section (WGU-4E/B), and AOTD (DSU-15B/B). The AIM-9M-10 is a slightly modified -9M-8 for use by the F/A-18E/F Hornet. Most existing AIM-9Ms will be upgraded to -9M-8/9 standard. In Operation Desert Storm in 1991, 12 air-to-air kills were attributed to the Sidewinder, all of which were probably AIM-9M missiles and they scored a kill propability of around 70% (18 missiles fired), compared to the initial 16% - 20% of early sidewinders this is a great imrovement and speaks for the capability of modern missiles and the long way the AIM-9 family came. Performance AIM-9L / M Length: 2.85 m (112.2 in) Finspan: 0.63 m (24.8 in) Diameter: 12.7 cm (5 in) Weight: 86 kg (191 lb) Speed: Mach 2.5+ Propulsion: Hercules/Bermite MK 36 solid-fuel rocket Thrust: 2660lbs (1206kg) for 5.23 seconds Guidance duration: 60 seconds Warhead: 9.4 kg (20.8 lb) WDU-17/B annular blast-fragmentation with a 3.175 kg (7 lbs) PBXN-3 filler (~ 5,4kg TNT) Prox Fuze triggering distance: 9m (30ft) Seeker: FOV: 2.5° Gimbal limit: 40° Tracking rate: 24°/s Cooling: Argon Maneuvering capability: up to 45g at Sea Level (limited electronically) Maneuvering surface: long-span pointed double-delta canards Servo torque: 1350 in-lbs (152,53 Nm) Max Launch load limit: none All aspect 3km frontal lock range (8.5km against afterburning targets) Has SEAM ------------------------------------------------- Text sources http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-9.html https://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Sidewinder-94.html https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/electro-optical-systems/ https://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/missiles/aam.html http://www.rolfferch.de/F104G/html/strikebeladeschema.html http://www.bredow-web.de/Drohnen_und_Raketen/AIM-9_Sidewinder_-_Raytheon/aim-9_sidewinder_-_raytheon.html Performance sources https://archive.org/details/OP2630SidewinderExerciseHead https://archive.org/details/OP23093rdAIM9B https://archive.org/details/OP2309Vo4AIM9BLoadAndCheckout https://archive.org/details/OP23092ndSidewinderGuidedMissleMark2 https://archive.org/details/OP3351AIM9C https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434389.pdf https://archive.org/details/OP3353AIM9CDPIlotsHandbook https://archive.org/details/OP3352AIM9D http://alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-9B_Sidewinder_1A_SMC_-_January_1972.pdf http://alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-9B_Sidewinder_CS_-_November_1971.pdf http://alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-9L_Sidewinder_SMC_-_November_1974.pdf https://i.imgur.com/iYh9q0m.png https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272984.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a486826.pdf https://mega.nz/#!arYizYqb!-EIWIRRJBsDJcqYUx8dbeaU6yo7KizkafLrQH92ELNE https://mega.nz/#!inIFDSaL!CpyF3NQTwpYnKEs7Qv5f-8OqLcosaAXEjj2RqwhIT0E https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/local/docs/pat-pubs/P-825.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a278261.pdf Performance Improvements with Sidewinder Missile Airframe Variants G.H. Rapp, Motorola GED, (1979) CD-101B-0901&2-15D Supplement to Phantom FG Mk1 and FGR Mk2 Aircrew Manuals -Weapon System CD-101B-0903-15B Supplement to Phantom F-4J Aircrew Manual - Weapon System I hope you ejoyed the read and learned about the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile! If you fnd any mistakes please let me know, I want to have all data accurately up to date using actual historic source material. Best regards Iron_physik

can confirm 785g is a good middle ground and well sourced the VFX department then just needs to fix their error

I also just noticed something else you sell these pictures as different individual sources But I did some digging, they are all in 1 document called the "Großringbuch" a compilation of munition used by german armed forces. here are all chapters: http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/D_HEER/D0460/0460_01/Inhalt.htm#top these specific pictures are from volume 1 part F here the indiividual pages: http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/D_HEER/D0460/0460_01/Blatt_F/145a.htm http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/D_HEER/D0460/0460_01/Blatt_F/147.htm http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/D_HEER/D0460/0460_01/Blatt_F/144a.htm Im just shocked at the audacity of you trying to deceive people to think you got "many sources" when it all just boils down to some pages from 1 single document while you meanwhile try to ignore 3 primary sources from germany themself + one american source that deeply analysed german exposive ordnance. you should be ashamed of yourself at this display of dishonesty and a lack of integrity everyone in the historic community should have. as someone who studies history im deeply disapointed, not only in you, but also kinda in ED for not taking such reports seriously by just waving 4 primary sources away. other game companies handle this bug reporting process better.

these rounds both are issued with a base plug for base fuzes, thus they have less filler. also, whats the title of that source? A good historian always says where he got his material from, a single picture without further referrence wont be enough ON TOP of that these 2 sources also dont confirm your 698g of filler, both of them claim 785g of filler. also all your values seem to be are without the value for the explosive inside the fuze cavity, so the are missing about 100-200g of explosives for the Booster charge thus you come to 900g when you include that. at this point I need to ask you, do you even read my sources? How is Heeresdienstvorschrift 481 541 "Merkblatt für die Munition Der 8,8cm Flak 18 Und 36" from 1942 not a primary source? I even linked you the original document on Scribd I so far gave you 3 different documents that all agree with each other about the explosive filler being 900g all of which I have properly referenced but sure, lets add ANOTHER document that confirms a 900g explosive charge for the Sprenggranate L/4,5: http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/HEER/HDv_481/Heft_060/Kap_C5.HTM stop being condensating and maybe explain why pretty much every technical drawing of these rounds states a cast explosive? Eingegossen

its not a option when its the most common filling and when most subvariants of that shell use the cast explosive the page of michael hiske is the original documents digitalized http://michaelhiske.de/StartSeite/StartSeite.htm so these are indeed primary sources. the US source I used also is a primary source, it is a analysis of german munition by the US after WW2 to add to this, here the original page: https://de.scribd.com/doc/271410565/133547165-H-dv-481-541-Munition-Der-8-8cm-Flak-18-Und-36-1942 I dont think you can just wave this source away, considering that 3 of 4 projectile versions use the 900g explosive charge, and considering that Casting is ALOT cheaper to do according to DTIC sources (also primary) the majority of german AA projectiles did use a 900g charge and changing that value in DCS to the proper amount (1.0) will make the effects much nicer, and thats a good thing.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/630358.pdf

Merkblatt für die Munition der 8,8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 18 und 8,8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 36 C. Angaben über Patronen VI. Gewichtsangaben http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/HEER/HDv_481/Heft_541/Kap_C6.HTM 8,8 cm Sprgr.Patr. L/4,5 (Kz.) gepreßt = 698 gegossen = 900 it depends on how you fill the shell, but looking through several sources it seems like that the FP.02 (Füllpulver 0.2 or TNT) was cast into shells more often than pressed (it is easier to cast TNT) so it is clear that 900g is accurate, and considering the betterlooking effect of the explosions I would indeed use the 1.0 value Also greetings From Der schönsten Stadt am Rhein, Düsseldorf

which shell where you looking at? the only HE shell with that filler is the 8.8-cm Sprgr. Flak 41 outright using a 1,5lbs burster charge (pretty much exactly 698g) HOWEVER this shell was not made for the Flak 18/36/37 series of guns, only the Flak 41 could fire it for higher alt targets The fulltext of the german source (Merkbuch über die Munition für die 8,8 cm SK L/45, 8,8 cm Flak L/45  (Nachgebohrte Rohre), 8,8 cm SK C/30,8,8 cm SK C/30 U, 8,8 cm Flak 18 M, 8,8 cm Flak 36 M und 8,8 cm KM 41 der Schiffs- und Marine-Küstenartillerie) confirm my source that a 2lbs (900g) charge is used the lower ~700g charge is used a result of the Base fuze used in some of the projectiles ("BdVschr" for Boden Verschraubung or "Base plug" in english) this plug could get either a Incendary device, or a Base fuze but at the cost of some of the explosives. Without Base fuze: With base fuze / Incendary insert and the projectile without the plug option:

Hello Today I played around with some mods and the original Free 8.8cm Flak 18 from the base game I noticed that the Flak "puffs" look much better on the modded guns and that this is a effect defined by the explosive filler used so I checked how much filler is used in the original 8.8cm guns from the base game its 698g for the "Spr.Gr.39" There however is 2 issues with that: The value of 698g is wrong According to GERMAN EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (PROJECTILES AND PROJECTILE FUZES) from 1953 there is no "Spr.Gr.39" listed so that name is simply false. the 88mm round listed for the Flak 18/36/37 for AA use is the 8.8-cm Sprgr. L/4.5 Zt. Z with a 2 pound (~1kg) Explosive charge How to fix: Change the 2 lines in the Ammunition.LUA file Bursting charge from 0.698 to 1.0 Name from Spr.Gr.39 to Sprgr. L/4.5 or Sprgr. L/4.5 Zt. Z Now why do I say 1.0 as mass and not the proper 0.907? thats quite simple when you go beyond 1kg explosive filler you get the nicer looking black smoke puffs that also last a little longer, this would greatly enhance the immersion of getting shot at by Heavy AA Base 8.8cm Smoke puffs without editing: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/269535523922509826/828662206786306068/700g_filler.gif compared to the accurate 1kg filler: (everything else is the same, I only changed the value from 0.698 to 1.0) https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/269535523922509826/828662076854632478/1kg_filler.gif Next reason to use a value above 1kg is the chemistry of Amatol 60/40, it has a 1.22 RE factor, meaning it is 22% stronger than the same mass of TNT so a 907g Amatol charge has the same effect as a 1.1kg TNT charge This small change in the code would increase the visuals and immersion of players by quite a bit Best regards Iron_physik

I tried to make a summary of the performance and capabilities of the A-6 and mentioned the most important factors of it

The B-52s modern main role is NOT nuclear, its conventional, so stop trying to push this narrative that the B-52 is mainly a nuclear bomber, when it isnt. also consider this: Boeing is helping RAZBAM making a year ~2000 era F-15E strike eagle, the newest F-15E manual I could find is from the mid 90s so Boeing is certainly interested in having their aircraft implemented well. a B-52 is ALOT LESS advanced than a F-15E and most of its systems are well known.

I guess other aircraft such as the AV-8B Harrier will also see the MK.77 fire bomb?

the TRAM turret only augments the basic bombing systems and gives more intel you can still do normal dumb bomb attacks with the radar. here the flowchart of the attack/nav system:

so I played a bit around with the mod and like it quite a bit obviously its not finished, but I dont mind considering I can fly the A-6 in DCS only issue I have is that the AI doesnt know how to drop MK-84 and 83 bombs, and that the Mod uses MK.82AIR instead of MK82 snakeye also the GPHD bombs are only on TERs, not MERs best part however are the wallpapers:

so a while ago I made a poll on reddit, because I think asking the community what they want can be useful in making a decission on what exact variant to model. https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/lrq1zh/what_a6_variant_would_you_like_the_see_most_in_dcs/ here are the results of that poll:

Dont forget the AA guns charlie mounted on the ridge to disrupt operations.

thx m8

overall the best version may actually be WCSI it was the most numerous model that also had most capabilities documentation on WCSI is also plenty sure I just dont like it when people either strawmen me, or put out blant wrong information in a topic I spend weeks, months and even years researching and the AIM-9 family is one of these topics I havent yet had the chance to transfer the thread from the WT forum over to the DCS forum, I will do that when I have time, but currently Im busy with work and learning for my history Exams (on my way to become a historian )

reading your own source is very helpful, you know? "Originally designed specifically for export, the AIM-9P has found itself in use by the US Air Force in recent years. The AIM-9P is a simpler, less expensive Sidewinder, without many of the advanced electronics and seeker features of the AIM-9L and AIM-9M. There are several flavors of the AIM-9P, depending upon the needs of the receiving country and what the US is willing to let them have; they are all based on the AIM-9B/E/J series, and many are in fact rebuilds." AIM-9P =/= AIM-9P1 just like AIM-9J =/= AIM-9J1, the J1 is a upgrade to the J on the Guidance and Control section J2 adds a reduced smoke motor You edited your comment and it shows Original qoute: Edit: thats honestly kind of sad tbh

"While the AIM-9L fulfilled the role of the frontline all aspect dogfight missile, a need still existed for a second tier weapon for use in less demanding situations, and also suitable for export to less than absolutely trusted allies. This requirement was fulfilled by the AIM-9P family, derivatives of the AIM-9J/N." J and P are identical, both use the same G&C section, Rocket motor, warhead and fuze the difference starts with P-2 which uses solid state electronics instead of the Tube/Solid state mix of the J/P the P-3 brings a new fuze and a different motor P-4 adds all aspect capability P-5 adds IRCCM where did I claim the M is a export of the L??? I didnt, so stop creating strawmen arguments! if you would have actually read the link I posted you would notice that it even says that the M is a evolution of the L AIM-9M uses the same G&C section as the L, but changes the rocket motor into a reduced smoke motor and adds IRCCM apart from that they are identical and have the same kinematic performance.

not quite accurate (again) its only "not recomended", not forbidden its not me that is calling other "liars" because I state a fact, instead I get called a liar. this here is about DCS not getting weapon performance right, and I listed the thread from that forum, because posting a link is easier than to make a copy of the whole thread that I worked several weeks on. in many cases the drag of bombs is also wrong (the ballistic tables dont match from the F-5 manual for sight depression) now when I challenge you guys about proving that im a "liar" you get all defensive and misqoute forum rules. shame on you

maybe check the F-5 tiger II for once edit: just because you may not know it AIM-9J = AIM-9P P is just the export name of the Juliet, apart from them they are 100% identical