Runway Attacks in DCS World: Is (Almost) Everyone Doing It Wrong ???

[graveyard4DCS]

Runway Attacks in DCS World: Is (Almost) Everyone Doing It Wrong ???

Note: this post might sound a little provocative, but that’s intentional. Its purpose is not to criticize but to provide an insight into what tactical thinking can look like for real fighter pilots. Runway attacks are more than just dropping bombs—they require careful planning, an understanding of weapon dynamics, and a mindset that balances risk and reward. By the end of these articles, you’ll see why so many virtual pilots get it wrong and how you can get it right.

Runway attacks in DCS World are among the most thrilling and demanding missions a virtual pilot can undertake. The combination of flight precision and the high-stakes environment of overflying a heavily defended airfield makes a successful strike incredibly rewarding. However, despite their popularity, many pilots fall into the same traps when attempting to crater runways using unguided "dumb" bombs in 20th-century combat scenarios.

If you've ever watched DCS runway attack videos on YouTube, you've probably noticed that the same tips are repeated over and over again. The most common mistake repeated by their authors is to attack parallel to the runway, a tactic that is not optimal in terms of overall efficiency.

(Nearly) all Youtubers will show you parallel runway attacks...

I will try here to discuss the most common errors and lay out the key principles for executing a successful runway attack.

The Core Issue: Ignoring Aiming Errors

One of the biggest oversights in runway attacks is the failure to account for aiming errors and the optimal attack direction. Bomb accuracy is influenced by several factors, many of which are often overlooked:

• Crosswind drift: wind can push bombs laterally, causing them to miss the target.

• Height vs. piper depression: higher release altitudes increase the potential for sighting errors.

• Parallax issues: differences between the pilot’s viewpoint, the HUD aimpoint, and the actual bomb impact point can lead to inaccuracies.

• Bomb ballistics:  all bombs are very susceptible trajectory deviations, during the separation phase for example, or due to pilots movements during bomb release, and high drag bombs are very susceptible to wind, making them less predictable.

Even in modern aircraft equipped with advanced systems like INS and radar ranging, these errors persist, even if it's to a lesser degree. Pilots must therefore plan for these inaccuracies rather than assuming a perfectly aimed bomb run will yield perfect results.

Aiming errors are systematically studied for each weapon and each weapon system in order to compute CEP (Circular Error Probable) and refine bomb delivery methods. Example from "AGARD Flight Test Techniques Series - Volume 10 - Weapon Delivery Analysis and Ballistic Flight Testing".

This lack of understanding manifests in two critical mistakes:

1. Attacking Parallel to the Runway
The most widespread error is conducting bombing runs parallel to the runway. While this approach might seem intuitive, it significantly reduces the effectiveness of the attack. The main issue it that aiming errors combined with a parallel attack vector can result in all bombs landing entirely to one side of the runway. This leaves large sections intact and still usable. Or even worse, all bombs can land off runway...

Example of attack perfectly parallel to the runway.

However, attacking perpendicular to the runway isn’t a perfect solution either. As highlighted in historical accounts like Operation Desert Storm, a perpendicular attack with a string of bombs can still fail if the spacing between bombs coincides with the runway’s width. This means that even a well-aimed release can result in wasted ordnance if the bombs fall into the gaps between the runway’s critical sections.

Excerpt from "Gulf War Air Power Survey - Volume IV - Weapons, Tactics, and Training".

The key is to find a balance. Pilots should aim for an oblique angle—neither perfectly parallel nor perpendicular—to maximize the likelihood of hitting the runway while minimizing the risk of wasted bombs.

2. Poorly Calculated Bomb Intervals
Another common mistake is failing to compute the correct interval between bombs. This leads to one of two problems:

• Bombs too close together: overlapping craters waste ordnance and fail to maximize the damaged area, or even worse, result in all bombs falling long or short of runway.

• Bombs too far apart: Large gaps between impacts allow aircraft to maneuver around the damage and continue operations, when we don't have a bomb before and the next one after the runway.

The key is to strike a balance. Pilots must calculate bomb intervals based on expected aiming errors, runway width, and the number of bombs available. This ensures that at least two or three bombs reliably crater the intended section of the runway, creating an effective denial zone.

Quote

Long, narrow targets such as runways, bridges, and roads created special targeting problems. An attack along a major axis would miss if azimuth error were off slightly, and attacking directly perpendicular with a string of bombs could waste bombs because the space between falling bombs might coincide with the target, even if the release was otherwise perfect.

 "Gulf War Air Power Survey - Volume IV - Weapons, Tactics, and Training" p.156

3. Not Targeting the Most Critical Runway Points
Many pilots distribute their bombs too randomly, failing to prioritize the most critical areas of the runway. Identifying the best Desired Mean Points of Impact (DMPIs) on the runway is crucial for maximizing effects. Key DMPIs include:

• Runway intersections: disrupting these prevents aircraft from using several runways in a single strike.

• Runway access points: damaging these disrupts both runway use and ground operations.

• Thresholds and center sections: the idea is to make sure that no undamaged part of the runway is long enough for take-off or landing. That length will depend on the type of aircraft based on the airbase.

• Taxiways intersections: damaging these disrupts ground operations.

Case study of runway cuts depending on the type of aircraft. Source here.

Even with modern precision-guided munitions, targeting these high-impact areas ensures optimal disruption of airfield operations.

4. Poor Multi-Aircraft Coordination
While a single aircraft can cause temporary damage, a coordinated strike is essential for full runway denial. Common errors in multi-aircraft attacks include:

• Dropping bombs in the same area: this wastes ordnance instead of maximizing coverage.

• Improper timing or geometry: following aircraft risk damage from bomb fragments of the first wave.

• Deconfliction failures: poor planning can result in aircraft interfering with each other’s attack runs, at a time when pilots must be entirely focused on their target.

Effective coordination requires precise timing, well-planned spacing, and a clear target assignment strategy. Each aircraft should focus on a specific section of the runway to ensure comprehensive coverage.

Conclusion: Rethinking Runway Attacks

If virtual pilots want to truly deny an enemy’s runway, they must move beyond random bombing runs and adopt a more methodical approach. The mistakes outlined above highlight the need for careful planning and execution.

In the next posts on my personal page, you’ll be invited to dive deeper into the specifics of runway denial, including:

• Case studies of real-world examples: learning from historical runway attacks, such as Operation Allied Force.

• Systematic study of proper techniques: breaking down optimal offset angles and spacing.

• Data-driven decision making: providing tables and figures to help you choose the best attack parameters.

In the mean time, I invite you to engage a discussion here, and tell me if my analysis sounds meaningful, or how you would adapt it to modern PGMs (Precision Guided Munitions)!

Runway under repair at Aleppo after an Israeli strike with a single PGM.

Edited March 20 by graveyard4DCS

[KenaiPhoenix]

Thanks for the insight! 

 

Truly a must read to anyone doing runway attacks, at least I know I wasnt doing it good either (but will improve in it).

 

My opinion is that people tend to try "mechanize" their attacks by following guides and videos, that way you wont screw up in the most critical moment of the operation. This causes that a mistake made by one, is now made my many.

[Lace]

JP233 had two bomblet dispersal density settings.  One high density for cuts across the runway, usually by three aircraft, and one low density for along the runway, by the remaining aircraft in the four-ship.

RAF Vulcans in the infamous 'Black Buck' raid on Stanley during OP Corporate also attacked across the runway (35 degrees) and only managed one bomb crater (of 21 dropped) on the runway (42 if you count the second raid too). 

[graveyard4DCS]

The JP233 drawing is very interesting. What is the original source??

The number of sub-munitions made it possible to make nearly perpendicular cuts without fearing the "perfect miss". Interestingly, we can see that the 4th aircraft is exactly in the situation described in my mathematical analysis (around 20° offset).

[Lace]

37 minutes ago, graveyard4DCS said:

The JP233 drawing is very interesting. What is the original source??

The number of sub-munitions made it possible to make nearly perpendicular cuts without fearing the "perfect miss". Interestingly, we can see that the 4th aircraft is exactly in the situation described in my mathematical analysis (around 20° offset).

My source is a contemporary (1980s) magazine article.  Not sure where they got it, perhaps it is just representative.  RAF manuals, especially anything tactical are hard to come by.

I imagine the three crossers would be aligned with central taxyway access points for maximum effect.  You can imagine Erfurt below being carved into quarters by the crossers, then finished off by a shallow offset #4.

Pic credit: mil-airfields.de

[Mr_sukebe]

I read one of the books covering the Vulcan raid against Stanley and now routinely bomb at an angle of 10-20 degrees to offset the potential for drift and similar.  Works a treat.

[Dragon1-1]

With the Durendal, a high speed, low alt pass with CCIP can be an option. You can also try a high angle popup attack with CCIP. One nice thing about this technique is that you don't have to worry about interval, just figure out how many pairs you want to drop (unless you have very few bombs, it's more reliable to drop in pairs for this), then place each pair "by hand" during the pass. By dragging the pipper across the runway you can hit multiple points in one pass and poke a nice pattern of holes in it.

[G.J.S]

The (at the time of my service) method was for, if 4 ship, 1 straight down the runway, 1 or 2 straight down long enough taxiways (circa 20-30 seconds after runway pass), and the 4th, or a pair if no long taxiways were expected, would perform a 30 degree “cut”, (direction dependant on airfield layout, and again - 20-30 seconds after second drop pass).
If the cutter was single ship it would be close to centre of runway (airfield configuration dependant), if 2 ship then a distance between aircraft laterally of circa 1-3000ft (runway length dependant).

Edited April 4 by G.J.S