about the Vikhr

[sobek]

Would probably make more sense to add that feature to a Ka-52, as it is/was supposed to be a flying 'command post' of some sort.

[Ryujin]

Hitting logistics would be the best way to attack armor with a KA-50 the M1 gets 0.6 miles to the gallon lol. That thing will use 50 gallons and hour just sitting in a combat idle :huh: .

[Yellonet]

Anyway, to me it seem very unlikely that a Ka-50 would go up against M1's. As have been said before, the Ka-50 is not meant for full scale war engagements but rather for relatively "cold" conflicts where the opposition does not posess very high-tech weaponry.

[Esac_mirmidon]

But the question remains. The vikhr could destroy a M1, T-90 or Leopard in real conditions hitting the front armour?

[Feuerfalke]

Hitting logistics would be the best way to attack armor with a KA-50 the M1 gets 0.6 miles to the gallon lol. That thing will use 50 gallons and hour just sitting in a combat idle :huh: .

 

Only the M1A1 did. The M1A2 doesn't, as the turbine can be turned off, when not driving AFAIK.

[Yellonet]

But the question remains. The vikhr could destroy a M1, T-90 or Leopard in real conditions hitting the front armour?

I doubt that it's been tested so no one can really say for sure.

Edit: or did you mean in game? The front armor of the M1 is rated higher than the penetration figures for the Vikhr so with one missile it should not be possible I guess. Ceramic armor is however vulnerable to repeated hits so if you keep pounding it with Vikhirs in the same spot it will give in :D But then again, the Vikhr is probably not accurate enough for that... better to just hit it in the side.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Yellonet

[GGTharos]

Not likely. The M1 has survived more powerful warheads. The possibility is not zero however, and a mission kill is very possible.

 

But the question remains. The vikhr could destroy a M1, T-90 or Leopard in real conditions hitting the front armour?

[Esac_mirmidon]

I am asking in " real conditions " not in game conditions.

 

And the Vikhr flight path is accurated enough in real life, for a side impact or rear impact? (Of course in a mobile target). A stopped one i think could be shot in any side with great accuracy.

 

Could be very funny searching the right place to hover finding the Abrams sides ¡¡¡

[GGTharos]

In game conditions it is not possible at this time to differentiate a mission killed tank from a destroyed tank, so you just blow it up. As for a moving, evading tank, sure, the trajectory would cause issues - but this is DCS, not SB PRO :)

Perhaps eventually the devs will look into a much more realistic damage model for armor.

[Yellonet]

I am asking in " real conditions " not in game conditions.

 

And the Vikhr flight path is accurated enough in real life, for a side impact or rear impact? (Of course in a mobile target). A stopped one i think could be shot in any side with great accuracy.

 

Could be very funny searching the right place to hover finding the Abrams sides ¡¡¡

To penetrate the front armor on an M1 with a Vikhr would be very lucky I would say. The hit probability is allegedly 0.95 for stationary targets, don't know about moving ones, but the Vikhr is pretty fast so I'd say those figures should be quite high too.

[sobek]

Only the M1A1 did. The M1A2 doesn't, as the turbine can be turned off, when not driving AFAIK.

 

But doesnt that beast take 8mins to start up? Probably just a rumor but its what i was told when serving with the astrian army (so info on the m1 might not be too accurate:music_whistling:).

[Ryujin]

not 8 mins, but a minute or two if you just turned the engine off (I'm not entirely sure). However, unless your trying to be sneaky, the tank is usually left at a combat idle in case you need to move quickly, rather than be stuck there for a bit if you come into contact. Having the ability to pop smoke and scoot on a moments notice is usually worth the fuel (assuming there's more coming, which is where your KA-50 would come in :joystick:) .

[Avimimus]

I am asking in " real conditions " not in game conditions.

 

And the Vikhr flight path is accurated enough in real life, for a side impact or rear impact? (Of course in a mobile target). A stopped one i think could be shot in any side with great accuracy.

 

Could be very funny searching the right place to hover finding the Abrams sides ¡¡¡

 

Of course, there is an upside to a spiral flight path: If you launch two missiles they are likely to hit very different spots. There is a high probability of hitting engine ports, weak spots, optics or the side/top with at least one of the missiles...

 

M1s have very poor rear armour and relatively weak side armour - so they should still be fairly vulnerable.

[GGTharos]

No, this is incorrect. First and foremost, any small opening is a SMALL probability hit. As you add missiles, the probability grows, but it is still SMALL.

 

Next, any non-perpendicular hit by the missile will be deflected, so a missile smacking sideways into the top or side is useless.

[Flyby]

I'm getting older

 

Hey GGT,

I'm content to wait for the release of BS. I just hope it's out before I start collecting a pension! :D Well, don't laugh too loudly. I turned 58 this past February!:doh:

Flyby out

[GGTharos]

I would think it'll be out in 2008 like they said, but obviously as always there is the 'stuff might happen' clause :)

You saw Wags' update though, bugs are being pwned!

[deviletk]

Talking about popping smoke - will smoke be view blocked for AI? Im guessing no as the smoke pillars arent that high nor reacting to wind in this engine. Would be nice for the upcoming engine though. So we can pop up behind some huge fire/smoke pillar and infantry etc cant see you. In armed assault we can do this. If there is huge fuel dumps on fire and wind so the smoke is bent in the wind, we can fly with a heli beside it and enemy AI cant see us.

 

Something to think about maybe for future release? ;)

[GGTharos]

Way ahead of you in the wishlist dept. :)

Can't comment on future engines and releases, but I can tell you at least that ED is considering all of this sort of stuff - so keep putting out ideas.

[Flyby]

so maybe...?

 

Anyway, to me it seem very unlikely that a Ka-50 would go up against M1's. As have been said before, the Ka-50 is not meant for full scale war engagements but rather for relatively "cold" conflicts where the opposition does not posess very high-tech weaponry.

Assuming you are correct, cold conflicts may mean battling insurgents. Is DCS_Black Shark able to simulate a war against insurgents? Also, in a full scale war scenario, the Black Shark might be able to play a supply interdiction role. Correct? But then again, hitting enemy supplies suggests surviving in enemy territory. That might be an odd mission:

* set up local air superiority in enemy air space

* send in air assets to perform SEAD

* send in the Black Sharks to deal with the supply depots (then hustle out of there under the air umbrella.

Simply, eh?;)

Flyby out

[Yellonet]

Assuming you are correct, cold conflicts may mean battling insurgents. Is DCS_Black Shark able to simulate a war against insurgents? Also, in a full scale war scenario, the Black Shark might be able to play a supply interdiction role. Correct? But then again, hitting enemy supplies suggests surviving in enemy territory. That might be an odd mission:

* set up local air superiority in enemy air space

* send in air assets to perform SEAD

* send in the Black Sharks to deal with the supply depots (then hustle out of there under the air umbrella.

Simply, eh?;)

Flyby out

Simply without RWR :cry: :joystick: :doh:

[Flyby]

hey there Yellownet...

 

you mean the SEAD strike won't elimintate all radar-guided missile threats? :( what's the use of being a Black Shark pilot if you can't depend on others in a combined-arms strike to pave the way. Might as well change the chopper's name from Black Shark to Kamov Ka50-Kamikaze, then save fuel and weight by designing it only for one-way missions. Oh the horror! The horror!:cry:

BTW, anyone know how much a Black Shark costs in r/l?

(the irrascible) Flyby out

[Yellonet]

you mean the SEAD strike won't elimintate all radar-guided missile threats? :( what's the use of being a Black Shark pilot if you can't depend on others in a combined-arms strike to pave the way. Might as well change the chopper's name from Black Shark to Kamov Ka50-Kamikaze, then save fuel and weight by designing it only for one-way missions. Oh the horror! The horror!:cry:

BTW, anyone know how much a Black Shark costs in r/l?

(the irrascible) Flyby out

Hehe... I guess you'll never know until you go boom! :D Well I was a bit disappointed about the Ka-50 not using any RWR, it somehow feels very limiting, both in awareness and about what type of missions that you can undertake, but as it's all how it is in real life I can't really complain :) But when you think about it there will probably lots of fun missions even without RWR:pilotfly:

[Flyby]

loads of fun

 

Yellownet I agree that the BS is limited without rwr. Well maybe limited is the wrong term. "Vulnerable" comes to mind. Makes you wonder what the Kamov designers were thinking. Fun missions in a modern battlefield will probably have a high pucker factor. I'm having trouble seeing the gunship in less than battlefield deployment. Anyone got any ideas on an anti-insurgent mission scenario? Need a little help with that vision.

Flyby out

[GGTharos]

There are plenty of ideas with an anti-insurgent scenario ... you have to blow up their camps, their trucks, their RPG-guys, possibly 'intercept' say a certain car within a city, Israeli-missile-strike style.

Maybe you need to cover the extraction or insertion of troops, etc.

 

The Ka-50 is not meant for the 'real' battlefield. It was back in the 80's, but now that's over - it's the Mi-28's job.

 

The Ka-50, being a coaxial heli with high lift capacity is uniquely suited to attacking insurgents or troops in the mountains where other helicopters struggle. Its armor makes it well suited to close contact scenarios if you're willing to foot the repair bill.

[nemises]

Anyone got any ideas on an anti-insurgent mission scenario? Need a little help with that vision.

Flyby out

 

 

How about Warlord vs Warlord in a drug related conflict, where one warlord splashes out for a KA50 and a mercenary pilot (ex russian airman of course)....limited supplies..the other warlord might have ground troops, and maybe even a mobile AAA solution of some sort!...but mostly, it's about sneak raids against shipments (land or sea), or targeting a warehouse in a city..all the while avoiding any government involvment.

 

How about a corperate black ops campain, where you are a mecenary hired by a multinational company, paid to take out other companies ships whilst trying to avoid detection by any authorities, and making it look like accidents at sea.

 

or playing AS an insurgent general trying to force reluctant vallages of slave labour to do your evil biding....you Vs un-armed locals (blow up the village elders truck as a warning....terrorise the local herdsman..;)

 

There lot's of low intesity conflict possibilities..not every campain has to involve an organised military force with air assets and SAM's...just pick a Tom Clancy (or similar) story set in Africa and you'll get an idea ;)