MBot

Yes have tried this extensively and it is somewhat successful: The problem I have with it is that it is a bit unreliable. To get the release cues you have to put the pod into tracking mode first. When coming in at ground level for a loft, the angle to the target is very flat which can lead to gross errors in target distance. This affects both the precision of the initial ballistic trajectory of the laser-guided bomb and the positioning of Pave Spike at the end the delivery maneuver. It is often the case that pulling down from the bomb release and transitioning to the designation phase, the target is outside the field of view of Pave Spike and cannot be found. Because when the pod was put into track mode initially before (or during) the pull-up, the pod's sight line to the target was just too flat and it ends up tracking a point way ahead or beyond the target. I can get this attack type to work in training and with multiple tries. But I would not trust it to work with just one chance after a 1 hour flight to target. I was therefore hoping that LABS LOFT could be used together with a WCRS target. This way, the pod would not be needed for the actual weapon delivery portion of the attack and could be kept aligned with the WCRS target until the laser designation phase of the attack begins.

My understanding is that pullup range is the distance from IP to pull-up initiation, and release range is the distance from pull-up initiation to target. The sum of both therefore is the distance from IP to target. This seems to match up. Since WRCS just needs to know at what distance from the target it needs to start the LABS maneuver, I think the Release Range from the Bombing Table needs to be entered.

Lastly, I was really hoping to use LABS LOFT with Target Find integration to loft laser-guided bombs. The idea was that since this whole process generates a WCRS target (Target Insert with offset), Pave Spike could be put in WRCS acquisition mode and be pre-aligned with the target when coming out of the weapon delivery maneuver. To my huge disappointment, Pave Spike WCS integration is unavailable in the LOFT weapon mode: null @Heatblur: Is this correct behaviour, even when LOFT weapon mode has been connected to Target Find with the TGT FIND switch in HOLD?

I have been trying to get LOFT working with the Target Find integration in order to enjoy WCRS enhanced LABS lofting (target insert with offset on IP, then the WCRS will guide you precisely to the loft location). But I am having troubles with the bombs landing consistently long. I don't think it is a general accuracy issue of the system, as on repeated tries all bombs land consistently on a similar spot 1.5 NM behind the target. I would appreciate if someone could help me troubleshoot this. An example is in the attached track. This is the attack plan. IP is a railroad bridge, target is 170°/8.78 NM from IP. This are the offset calculations using the bomb table. Offset as mode of delivery is used here only to calculate the N/S and E/W WRCS values which are entered in the WSO cockpit by hand. All other values to be ignored. These are the calculations for the actual loft. Only Loft Angle and Release Range are used and entered manually in the WSO cockpit. All other values are ignored (not needed when LOFT is combined with Target Find). This is the state of the pit before release. Note TGT FIND is in HOLD, TGT INS has been pressed on IP overflight (with hotkey from front pit) and ACTIVATE has been turned on after TGT INS. Then steering cues provided by WRCS to the loft point are followed. When the loft begins, ADI pull up cues are followed and pickle is held to release (in WRCS supported LOFT you only press pickle after pull-up begins). In general the attack works mostly as intended. The bombs lands 1.5 NM long. I noted in the instance of this track I was about 30 kts fast at release (580 instead of 550), but according to the bomb table that would only account for about 2'000 ft long and not 9'000 ft. In other attempts when I was slow the bombs still tend to land equally long. Has anyone been able to get this to work consistently? LOFT_WCRS.trk --------------------------- The manual suggest that 1 second prior to pullup, a 0.38 sec beep is heard to signal AJB-7 activation. This is not happening in DCS and pullup is signaled without warning. Can Heatblur please comment on this? https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/stores/air_to_ground/bombs/employment/lofting_tossing.html

In coniferous forests there are smaller trees which are extremely bright in color. Coniferous forest and deciduous forests have almost the same color. In general, coniferous forest are usually a lot darker than deciduous forests.

The SAMP-250 is frequently blowing up adjacent bombs in a salvo when dropped in intervals that are normal practice. This then propagates from bomb to bomb. This behaviour I never observe with the Mk-82, also a 500 lb-class bomb. SAMP-250.trk

I think @Nealius makes a good point as well. It can be argued that the closer engagement distance of the woodlands and rolling hills (but not mountains!) actually favors the Soviet numerical advantage and hurts the NATO long range firepower advantage. I remember from the strategy game Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm that the main challenge playing NATO was always to find suitable killboxes with long range fields of fire. Defending valleys and woods was always very difficult because the Soviets would still advance very quickly along roads, with defensive positions quickly being overwhelmed at close range by numerical superiority. In this regard the area between Bad Hersfeld and Fulda actually seems quite favorable for the Soviets. Perhaps the term Fulda Gap is a bit unfortunate (though striking) because Fulda is at the southern end of the "gap".

No, put I did use release advance by setting it up in the rear cockpit by hand. 375 ms for the center of a 6 bomb stick with 150 ms interval.

It is also interesting that sometimes those maps that are being passed around make very little sense. The following map from the German Bundeswehr website is apparently based on the memories of a former NVA staff officer that was involved with the planning by the Soviet commander of the 1st Front (2 Soviet and 1 NVA armies in the southern half of the GDR) in 1983. By this plan the 8th Guards Army would have attacked with two mechanized rifle and one tank division in the first echelon, with a mechanized rifle division in the second echelon. Look at the path projected for the 79th Guards tank division. It goes right through the Rhön Mountains. This is just the worst terrain possible for a tank division.

I would like to deposit some observations I sometimes make with Dive Toss. I am using DT regularly and probably have made hundreds of drops. Most of the time it works very well. But every now and then the following happens: I order Jester to lock the ground return as usual, put the pipper on target and press/hold the pickle button. I expect to hear the peep tone until the release (as some delay to release is obvious by the attack geometry), but I hear no tone and the bombs drop immediately on pickle. Of course the bombs land hundreds of feet short of the target. It actually just happened to me this evening. So after the mission I went back to check the track to see what might be the problem, just to discover that in the track replay it worked "correctly". Upon holding pickle, the tone came up and the bombs didn't release immediately. Of course in the mission I released the pickle button as soon as I recognized the bombs dropped early, so in the track replay pickle was also released early and no bombs were dropped. But it is highly probably that if the pickle would have been held down in the replay, the bombs would have released on target normally. It has long been my impression that sometimes there is something fishy going on in DT but because it doesn't show in tracks it is almost impossible to show to Heatblur. Perhaps we just have to file this as "DT is unreliable" as was apparently often the case IRL. I guess when making important attacks where you only have one chance to get it right, dropping all bombs in a pop-up attack 1 hour into a deep strike mission, it is better to just use Direct and be on the safe side.

Note the following example deliver profile for the CBU-52 found in the F-5E weapons delivery manual. Note the impact patter diameter of 692 ft. In DCS, delivery with these parameters produces the following submunition patter: The runway has a width of 200 ft, which corresponds roughly with the impact patter diameters (delivery direction from bottom to top). The impact pattern therefore is at least 3 times too small. This is a repeat of a bug report from 2016: CBU.trk

The BL-755 CBU in the game currently has a fixed fuze function time of 4 seconds. This long delay before the bomb opens makes it unsuitable for low level attacks. The BL-755 was designed for low altitude attack. The manual "LTV A-7K Weapon Delivery Manual( Non Nuclear)" (easily found if required) lists the following fuze settings for the BL-755: Mk 1 bomb for British use: Setting A: 1.13 seconds Setting B: 1.38 seconds Setting C: 1.64 seconds Setting D: 2.00 seconds Mk 2 bomb for German use: Setting E: 0.68 seconds Setting F: 0.80 seconds Setting G: 0.94 seconds Setting H: 1.13 seconds

Right, removing hot air balloons and air racing cones will surely make available the performance to add a multi-million inhabitants metropolitan area

Relative small extra? You are basically asking to add Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Brussels. It seems to me that these densely populated and developed areas are deliberately not included in Phase III in order to keep resources under control (both development and actually running the map). It has yet to be proven that even Phase III as currently envisioned remains playable.

Very interesting pictures. I have no doubt that the Mk-84 will penetrate and destroy a regular HAS. It has after all 4 times the kinetic energy of a Mk-82.

All hardened aircraft shelters and bunkers on the map can be destroyed by a single 500 lb bomb. While NATO HAS in Europe were not super-hardened (like some in the middle east), I beliefe they were built to a standard to resist a direct hit by a 500 lb bomb or a near miss by a 1000 lb bomb. Does anyone know if the eastern HAS were build with a similar strengt or even harder? Also I would expect that ammunition bunkers and especially those nuclear warheads storage bunkers, to be even stronger.

Ok I have to ask, what do people think about the new sounds? It is difficult without a direct comparison, but I really, really liked the old sounds. I thought they were great. Great engine whine, range of pitch as you spooled up, powerful. The new sounds however sound extremely weak to me. And the flyby sound I would even call poor. I haven't seen anyone mention it anywhere, so I begin to question my sanity...

Found this little gem discussing the situation of the West German III Corps and the Warsaw Pact forces in the southern half of the GDR (in German): https://zms.bundeswehr.de/de/publikationen-ueberblick/ungleiche-gegner-bundeswehr-nva-und-sowjetarmee-im-kraeftevergleich-1987-5852752

I know we had this discussion before, but my take would be to model the whole base+radome as scenery object but not including a collision model for the radome. That way any any manually placed radar unit would rest inside the radome and be fully functional. The radome is only very light material, so any weapon would pass right through it anyway.

While the criticism for the use of large templates is fair, I think it should be expected and is acceptable for a map of this size. Especially for things like army bases, barracks or industrial sites. Credit must be given to Ugra for the incredible number of unique airfields with a lot more still to come. I think priorities were weighted correctly here. Also I support the idea that nice generic templates for SA-2/3/5 and Hawk SAM sites are used. But I would expect that these SAM site templates will ultimately be placed on every known position in Germany (the community has provided a lot of references for this). I absolutely love the map and think Ugra has done a fantastic job. The negative things that stood out most for me yet are the colors and the Autobahns. The greens seem too bright to me but will probably not change much, as this seems to be a design decision by Ugra (see also Normandy). I am from Switzerland, so while not from the map area it probably looks similar here. If I look outside, I see some light green trees (especially now in spring) but the forests are generally quite dark. There are basically no natural forests left in Switzerland (outside the national park) so all forests are managed with a high degree of conifer, which is very dark. The fall and winter seasons will probably be the solutions for those that take issue with the green tone. We have to wonder though how the spring textures will look like... The Autobahns are difficult to make out from the air, being too small without a Grünstreifen and emergency lanes. Also there shouldn't be any crossroads, instead overpasses and exits/entries. What is also becoming quite apparent is the blocky nature of roads and especially the Autobahns. This is probably nothing that Ugra can do anything about in the map-SDK. But don't you think in 2025 roads should have smooth curves?

+1 for bigger Autobahns.

In the F-4E, which also has AGM-65D (in addition to TV AGM-65A and B), the seeker is not supported by any aircraft avionics and thus is not ground stabilized or can be cued in any form. That means the seeker can only be slewed in relation to the aircraft, requiring flying very precise and stable before attempting a lock-on. Then Heatblur has also improved the realism of the lock-on process. The target has actually to be fully within the tracking gate before a successful lock-on can be attempted (while at least in the FC A-10A it will magically snap to the nearest target). In the Phantom, this makes the whole process of using Mavericks a lot more challenging and quite satisfying. I would like to have the same experience with a contemporary early A-10A.

Just the way you target the Mavericks is a world of difference. Try it in the F-4E, it's actually pretty difficult. Also to fly the A-10C imagining an early A-10A you might just as well fly on the Caucasus map imagining it is Germany...

Yes, a period correct A-10A would be great for the Fulda Gap. Truly an icon of the era. No computerized pipper, no gun stabilization, old TV-Mavericks. Heatblur's F-4E shows how challenging aiming Mavericks with no ground stabilization was (even the AGM-65D). Compared to that, locking Mavericks in the FC A-10A feels like magic. A 1980s A-10A really seems like a long hanging fruit at this point.