MISSION 3

[Endy]

as that's how it's designed now.

That's why I was arguing against the use, or at least limiting of smart and too powerful weapons, not to make things too easy. If on the other hand, you had to attack the column in CCIP mode using unguided bombs it would at least take some effort other than slewing the cursor on mav screen and pressing release :)

Sorry but that's my view on how the mission will progress. I may be wrong but if the cooperation is good on blue side, with such loadouts it will be a massacre. And you will eventually gain air superiority because the planes can't stay up forever and we will prolly see changes in balance then. And they won't be able to take off and get to the action very fast (10-12 minutes).

I'd like to hear your point of view on the situation and why you think it is not unbalancing. I know it's realistic and fun to use such weapons but try to understand the mission and balance limitations as well...

[33rd_Havoc]

Sorry dude but this is a pure theoretical scenario, ignoring all other circumstances based on our missions.

 

As an A-10 you have to perform 1-2 Missions before the CAS/Tank hunting became fokus. Until these missions are acomplished, the hole situation ist not as close as this scenario which you bring to mind.

[Leto]

Let me first ask you again: where did I "try to attack you with arguments you don't appreciate" ? What were they?

 

 

 

And back to your question:

 

May we stick to reality and what happened in the last two missions or do we want to make decission on made up scenarios about what could happen no matter how unrealistic it is?

 

It's just unrealistc to assume 10x A10 will kill 60 tanks in one minute and argue on that base. Plain and simple. We will not see that.

 

Let me ask you a question. Do you fly any DCS product or just FC3? Because I wonder where your idea of "slewing the cursor on mav screen and pressing release" is all it takes comes from.

[Spanker79]

Please guys stop it..Keep the post clear for the sign in and the briefings..Let's enjoy the mission as it is and not trying to be the "Top Gun" pilot...

 

(I am building a scenario located back in 70's with limited weapons!!!So let's finish this campaign first plz...)

[Endy]

@LEto

 

First you went into exagerration instead of normal discussion then accuse me of staging some "ban concert". You did not listen to what I had to say but instead you tried to strike it all down as senseless "ban weapons" stuff.

And sure, it was a made up scenario to prove a point. Requires some cooperation which might not be realistic in the circumstances but easy to pull off by an organised group. If you can't pull it off then it's rather lack of communication and cooperation between flights, not because you don't have the means to do it.

And yes, I fly DCS:A10c and if you're trying to say shooting mavs is difficult or that you can't destroy a column of tanks with them in one go then give me a break...

It's funny how this discussion went. Here, I'm trying to balance the scenario because I know how it looks like and how many units there are and how well protected they are so believe me, I'm basing this on something more than assumptions.

[Endy]

That's why I suggested you think about perhaps accepting SAM's in the mission to make it more difficult.

Anyway, the reality is that predicting the future from past two scenarios is sort of baseless, since in the first there were no fighters with BVR capabilities and in the second one they were close enough to be over the AO most of the time and neither side had strong advantage in the air. This will probably be different today and create a certain zone of comfort for one side at a time when air superiority is established. You simply do not take changes which i mentioned into account and base your assumptions on past conditions which aren't valid now.

But I won't guess nor try to convince anymore. We will see what happens today and what you can do with what you got even with 6 mavs each if Greg allows it.

 

Like Vaggos said, it's really not worth anybody's time arguing in the briefing thread. If we feel the need to we'll make a debriefing thread after the mission.

See you in the air.

[mwd2]

Problem with MAVs: in the ME you can change the equipment at the airfield - any change in the equipment will lead to a fail in the LAU-88 MAV holder!

A single MAV is not a problem, because is a different MAV holder.

 

... from the realistic point: no A-10C have more than 4 MAVs under the wings!

[Leto]

@ Endy: I agree, no sense in arguing with you. The good thing: we will see in this mission who was right.

[Shapper]

A retired USAF buddy of mine who has his 1,000 hour patch for the A-10 (granted circa 1980's), says they routinely flew with only one 65 under each wing and that's it. Their primary weapon back then was considered to be the gun as their primary mission back then was killing Russian tanks heading for the West German board en masse. Anything more under the wings and they would lose speed and maneuverability. So it was blast off, shoot two mavs, go to the gun, RTB when empty, and do it all again after hot re-arm and re-fuel. Granted, the scope of the mission and capability of the aircraft have changed.

 

So naturally flying with a wider assortment of ordnance under the wings while sacrificing performance is more routine today. That being said, flying a bomb-truck at max gross weight with every ordnance configuration possible under the wings is highly unrealistic. A balance of a couple of Mavs, a couple of bombs whether guided or unguided, and a good load of fuel is realistic.

[Shapper]

Now for what I actually came in here for today. Speaking of air defenses, can we get some AD beefed up around the FARPs for the rotary guys? I'm sure the Blues wouldn't like it having fast-movers "Hawking" their FARPs and killing them on the pads either. Nothing too crazy like S-400s or anything. Just a Tunguska here and there would be nice.

[Endy]

Yes Shapper, the latest test version has increased defences around the FARP, it was one of the points that had to be changed after last week :) Greg promised to protect you guys a bit more and I hope it works better today :)

[Shapper]

Muy bueno muchahos! :) (and that's about as far as my Spanish goes) Thanks to the planning team.

[Endy]

Great fun yesterday, some really intense fights in the air :)

 

Does anyone have a Tacview file from yesterday, and if yes, can you please post it?

[gregzagk]

Hello! I had a great time yesterday too.Thank you all for participating!

 

Here you are : http://www.foinikas.org/ftp/public/DCS_World/Chameleon%20Campaign/Mission%203/Chameleon%20ACMI%20Mission%203.rar

 

I hope the tacview is ok cause i didnt have time to check it yesterday. I will check it once I am back from work.

 

Cheers !