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. =)

In my opinion the events there are too "fresh" and this war is no war between different nations. Its a damn civil war where neighbor shoots neighbor and the whole conflict didn't even come to past yet. I am no veteran of any war and I hope that I remain like this for the rest of my life. Eventhough I never saw war I think of it from a very different perspective. Maybe because, in my experience, people never went to war... it was war that came to them and they had no alternative but to fight. Still, if you want to judge it as a terrain, I would find it rather boring. Why choose a terrain which is so flat, why choose a theater of war where one side can fight almost unchallenged? Maybe something more challenging would be better.

Indeed in real life a tank "kill" (destructive kill, mobility kill etc.) can be scored using various methods. Still, in real life you don't rely on lucky hits simply because there are some real lives (your own sometimes included) at risk. If that was the case machine-gun fire or HE mortar shells would be used in a hope to damage the tank optics or some other important piece of equipment. After a short research in Wikipedia, the 2A42, using the right AP ammunition, is reported to be able to penetrate up to 55mm (yeah thats fifty five millimeters) of steel at a range of 1km. These values mean that you can harm BMPs and Bradleys for sure. No need to mention max armor values of tanks...

When I say that the 2A42 cannon isn't an efficient gun against heavy armor I mean that, even if it manages to inflict serious damage to a heavy tank, it will cast the shooting vehicle vulnerable to enemy fire for quite long... long enough for the target vehicle to respond. If you consider that a tank is almost never alone on the field, the attacking helicopter is risking being shot down once it engages a tank at close range.

@Isegrim Sure you can try to kill that lone tank with whatever you think it can kill it. In a game you can easily try to harm everything with whatever you want. The scenario you are describing above is a "what-if" scenario that could only happen in a game. So, in a game, you can react however foolishly you like. In such scenario I would keep my 100 AP rounds for my commander's butt for numerous reasons. Personally I don't think that AP rounds are an efficient way to take out modern tanks!

In my opinion gun is used for APCs/IFVs or softer targets. Coming close and personal with an armored target such as a tank is, tactically, not a good idea. The tank can withstand more AP rounds than your Ka-50, at such close ranges the tank has the means to fight back. More importantly.... When you start the engagement with a tank you are putting a 15 million $ piece of equipment (Ka-50) against a tank which costs a lot less (M1 Abrams $6 million, T80U less than $3 million). More or less its like hunting a warthog (the animal not the plane) with a knife. Coming close and personal isn't a good idea against that. Vikhrs are the way to deals with tanks... launch them in pairs, even that way they are quite cost effective!

The Ka-50 is designed as a single seat rotor-craft and thus it is equipped with a fair amount of systems that reduces pilot's workload. AP Channel Emergency Off is for ... emergency situations. Probably a failure/malfunction or when you get seriously hit. To be able to fly the Shark w/o AP channels is essential in case of emergency. To learn how to use AP channels (not just fly with them turned on) in your advantage is essential when you have to be efficient in combat. While I fly with AP turned on I have no problem controling the Shark w/o AP channels. Still this occurs in 1% (or less) of my flight time with the Shark. In case anyone is quite good in flying combat missions w/o AP channels, I am sure he would be even better with AP channels turned on, given he is willing to learn.

I always fly with the AP channels ON. I even use the AP Altitude Hold which comes in handy when you want to maintain a level flight or when you want to maintain AGL altitude. In case I want to get ride of the 20% AP authority I use the Flight Director.... usually in quite tight areas.

Actually the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia took place a few months before the release of DCS:BS. The map was already done at that time and was already used in FC too, right? The Russo-Georgian war in 2008 was fiction in the time ED chose to use that theater of war.Apart from this the map almost doesn't include the main area of the conflict (South Ossetia) and the major towns/cities that the conflict took place. Libyan revolution is ending up as a civil war and its happening now. I believe it would be too much to create a terrain where we "play" and "bomb" for fun while actual people are dying there. It would be disrespectful in the same way if Libyans asked a New York terrain with the WTC standing in a civilian airliner simulator back in 2001. On the other hand Libyan or Iraqi terrain would be rather boring (full of plains with a few mountains). If you want some nice terrain Balkans or Afghanistan would be a lot better.

As we write in this forum there are people in Libya that are killed in a civil strife. Not only military personnel, mercenaries or rebels... there are civilians getting killed aswell that are not terrorists or rebels. They just want to live a peaceful life. Now some of you want a map of Libya while a conflict in Libya is still going on? Some things aren't fun. Its disrespectful for the people who suffer to ask for a map to play with your A-10C attack aircraft while every day civilians die in a real war.

Libya has no such aircraft. Their most modern strike aircraft is probably the Su-24 Fencer while their most modern fighter is the Mig-23 and Mirage F1. The highest threat to western aircraft are Libya SAMS since their fighters are quite old to pose an actual threat. I don't think that any modern sea vessel is in danger in the Libyan sea. Given the aircraft and SAMs available to the Libyans, they can't be trained well enough to react to any modern aircraft attack. If you bear in mind that Libyans hadn't participated in any war lately and had no tensions with neighboring countries I doubt that they are so well trained. I doubt that Libyan navy will do the mistake to leave its naval bases. Libyan forces best chance is to enter urban areas(major cities) were aerial strikes are difficult to conduct and where you would need to deploy well trained foot soldiers to drive them off.