isoul

Personally I was a bit shocked when I 've red the P-51 announcement. I wouldn't be if it was a standalone product not inter graded in the DCS series. I mean, here's a BlackShark and a Warthog with their missiles and stuff and now we have a P-51 roaming the skies? What for? A WW2 fighter which will fight Ka-50s and A-10s? DCS lacks A-A combat and ED decides to set it up with a WW2 fighter? Its a weird decision to me. It would be great if Flying Legend would be a separate product with WW2 and early-jet era aircraft but mixing these with modern jets and helicopters is just weird.

Hmmm, when the simple 7.62 round pierces 4mm of steel how come the 20mm just pierces just 12mm? Don't get for granted that the closer the range the best performance in piercing you get. For example the highest piercing power, for a G3 rifle, can be achieved when the target is at 500-550m. Although the rifle's "effective range" is 400m the best results are at 500m and not at closer distances. I can't explain you why is that, since I lack so specialized ballistics knowledge, but what I am writing here is what I know from my training during military service.

Actually they were talking about light armored vehicles (not necessarily APCs or IFVs) but surely they weren't referring to armored vests. The 7.62x51 AP round fired from the HK G3 rifle can penetrate 7mm of steel at a range of 500m (or 1/4 of an inch at 550m). The standard round can penetrate up to 4mm at the same range. I don't see why the 30mm HE round can't penetrate at least the thin parts of a M113. EDIT : Changed the 20mm to 30mm after EtherealN mention it (sry I was confused)

I remember a report from Greek military stuff and arms specialists opposing to the idea of Greece adapting the 5.56mm NATO rounds (Greece is currently using the 7.62mm NATO round) that was post on press. These guys claimed that, although the 5.56mm assault rifles are better for urban warfare, for the needs of the Greek Army the 7.62 was better. One of the reasons, according to them, is that 7.62 rounds are able to penetrate light armor while 5.56 can't. I don't know, they may be wrong, but they were ex and active military stuff and arms specialists. They can't be totally wrong!

Maybe this will help a bit... APC and IFV are considered light armor. There are numerous tests proving that a 30gr shrapnel produced from a blast can penetrate light armor, given the blast was close to the armored vehicle. Personally I believe that a hit from a 20mm or 30mm HE round could penetrate light armored vehicles, since these rounds weight enough to do so... Why don't you just give it a try in game and see?

Actually I wasn't trying to say anything of these. Ka-50, along with many other weapon systems, was designed in an era where everyone had in mind big clashes between regular armies and warfare where technology could dictate the winner. These times are over and with that all the doctrines that came with it and some of the equipment that was to be build for them will never be build. Ka-50 was a highly specialized helicopter of that era, originally intended to be a heavy recon, CAS for special forces, but lacked in other operating areas (day and night capabilities). Then the Mi-28 can do what Ka-50 and Ka-52 does. So why having two or three different helicopters when your main needs are met by only one?

As Boberro mentioned, since the '80s (when Ka-50 first flew) many things have changed. The USSR is no more, the Cold War is no more, large scale conflicts are rare and clashes between regular armies are even rarer. The battle environment has changed so does the requirements for the various equipment/weapons. In other words, back in the '70s the A-10 designers would never think that their plane will hunt down irregular troops instead of heavily armored Russian tanks. Similar things happened to the Russian side. Production line shifted to Ka-52 and the Russia's main attack helicopter is the Mi-28 but the Ka-50 is still in operational use but in very small numbers.

I believe that you 'll experience poor performance.

I got the boxed version but nowadays I would prefer Steam. The fact that you don't have to activate/deactivate your product seems a lot more worry-free. When I am going to get DCS:Warthog I would choose Steam unless I could find a boxed version at lower price.

This maybe somewhat irrelevant but... The need to use labels, in many cases, is derived from the need to engage/destroy specific targets in order to complete a mission. Worse, these specific targets may be hiding in areas that makes them almost impossible to spot. Personally I dislike labels, and try not to use them, since in real life you don't have labels helping you to spot possible threat/targets. You actually have to use your eyes and sensors to reckon all the time and be careful were you go. Still, in quite many missions you have to destroy something lurking in a forest. Quite many times people place MANPADS or AAA in thick forests which keeps shooting at you even thought it doesn't have a clear LOS at you, while other times you have to destroy 4 tanks which you can't spot using your eyes+sensors because there are hundreds of trees around. I get very disappointed when I see missions with such objectives. My suggestion? While we try to reproduce real combat situations we should try not to exaggerate. Example : In real life a MANPADS may be hiding in a dense forest but it won't fire at you through the dense forest, same goes for AAA. Suggestion : Since we don't have a mechanic were trees in the LOS of an AI unit prevents it to fire at you, try not to place, at least, SAMs and AAAs, in dense forested areas. In real life they wouldn't be there, or if they would, they couldn't open fire at you 90% of the time. Such targets in open or semi-open areas are fine. Example : In real life no one would send you to spot and attack X number of tanks in a forest were its almost impossible to spot them. Suggestion : In real life tanks rarely pass through thick forests were no roads are present (its too damn difficult, time consuming and dangerous). Even if its too easy to place a tank in a think forest using the ME, in real life that's not so easy. Avoid placing tanks in heavy forested areas where even you can't see them. Don't expect yourself to be able to attack and destroy a tank through woods using your guided missiles. Example : In real life an infantry platoon may be hiding in a dense forested area attacking a nearby target. Your mission is to attack them. Suggestion : In such situations no one would ask you to kill every last soldier hiding in the trees simply because no one can't know how many they are. It would be nice (I don't know if that is possible using the ME) to place 20 soldiers in the forest but consider the mission a success once you manage to hit the first 10 of them (even through lucky shots). Example : In real life you get the order to attack and destroy a tank platoon (4-5 tanks) not a whole armored division. Suggestion : Don't place overwhelmingly high number of vehicles on the field. It seems ridiculous, to anyone that have even the slightest idea, to see a whole armored division (+ it's support sometimes) placed on a tiny piece of land! I think that way the missions would be more realistic and more meaningful minimizing the need to use labels.

In Greek language, officially, by saying pilot we mean the man who fly a fixed wing aircraft. When we want to refer to the man who fly a rotary wing aircraft we call him with a word similar to "operator". When I served in the Army Aviation, an Apache pilot told me that they prefer the term "operator" as they don't feel they are the same as pilots... Years later, after I 've tried to fly the Shark, I believe that I understand what he was talking about.

Can't agree more! The Ka-50 is no fighter/interceptor and in general rotor-crafts doesn't do extreme maneuvers (fast/steep climbing, loops etc.) like fixed wing aircraft do.

First of all use the S-8OFP2, there's no need to use Vikhrs against the hidden troops in the forest. Rockets (at medium salvos) and cannon will do the job. More important, follow the convoy and stay about 3km behind it. The ambush will start once the convoy reaches a predefined point, so the best thing is to be at a good firing position once this happens. The good firing position is a bit behind the convoy so you can keep some distance in order to determine where your rockets must be aimed. No need to screen the convoy because this means that when the attacking troops engage the convoy you will either flown past them or you will flying above them.

Isegrim we are just having different views on the same thing. We are not offending each other, neither I felt offended. Its just a polite conversation. On the matter now... Everyone is free to play the game as he likes. I am trying to say that using cannon against tanks isn't advisable since it requires a lot of effort, even in-game, to do what is usually done with a pair of missiles. On the other hand a newcomer may believe that cannon was meant to deal with heavy tanks and that is wrong too and may lead to some rather frustrating experiences. Its like the numerous threads about fly with or without AP channels. You can fly as you want but you have to know that normal flight is always performed with AP channels turned ON. Thats the way the Ka-50 is meant to fly.

Let me say it otherwise... The 2A42 cannon was not designed or intended to deal with heavy armor. For example same goes for Apache's 30mm chain gun which isn't expected to penetrate every armor part of a modern heavy tank (armor thicker than 70-80mm of steel). I was serving in Greek Army Aviation and I 've heard one thing or two from the pilots themselves before posting it here. =)