P-51s' need Napalm

[Mojeaux]

Just put it on the to do list please.. There are many sorties where P-51s' used "NAPALM" could ya would ya?

[O_Smiladon]

 

OH YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH !!!!!!!!

[Azazel]

I completely agree!

[Blaze]

Mmm napalm would indeed be a nice addition. :)

[-Mop-]

I would appreciate that too

[[FD]Ripper]

+1

burn burn

[Terminal Meltdown]

Might be worth buying with napalm :) Until then, I'll wait for FC3 and fly the hog & shark.

[Aries]

Yeah right, napalm... get real... we aren't even at realistic explosions jet...

...on the wishlist, yes! :thumbup:

[Jona33]

God no, that stuff should be outlawed.

[HiJack]

Was napalm used during WWII? :noexpression:

[Elnocho3]

Was napalm used during WWII? :noexpression:

 

Most definitely yes. Look up the bombing of Dresden for example.

 

Would be a good addition - but can't say I like the weapon, and can't believe derivatives of it are still in use!

[Luigi Gorgonzola]

Not Dresden (that was "traditional" incendiary and high-explosive ammunition), but PTO saw Napalm first in 1944. According to Wikipedia, that is.

[Mojeaux]

Pic of a P-51 dropping NAPALM

 

I found this in a "TIME LIFE" article!

 

The most interesting part of Joe’s presentation was the question and answer session. He said that the P-51 had a torque problem but nothing he couldn’t handle. It had bad visibility to the ground and the cockpit was always hot. It was a noisy plane. It had an exposed radiator and coolant system so was susceptible to small arms fire when flying low. That’s why he did not like rocket runs since the enemy would fire at him. He preferred machine gun runs and especially napalm runs when everyone below would crouch down in their trenches and not fire at him. He said, “We loved napalm!” The 50 caliber machine guns were used in only 3-5 second bursts otherwise they would overheat. Most of his attacks were over North Korea. He did lose one P-51 which was hit by his own rocket parts during a rocket run. The rocket pieces hit his coolant system. The ejection seat did not work so he “dove from the wing” and parachuted at about 1500’ AGL. Army Rangers picked him up. The only way to handle T-34 tanks was dive bombing them with 500 pound bombs. He would dive from about 15,000 feet to 2500 feet and his body sustained about 3-3.5 Gs. At 10,000 feet he would be flying about 410-420 mph.

 

mojeaux out;

[Daze]

I heard it smells good in the morning

[Evil.Bonsai]

I heard it smells good in the morning

 

Like...victory?

[WRAITH]

I think P-51 is an awesome A/C it really was a remarkable fighter in past wars, but what is it doing in modern war with the likes of F-15 and A10's jet age btw, I'm confused.:cry:

 

Not needed, :music_whistling: so many other things that DCS needs as priority more Theaters with DYNAMIC WAR CAMPAIGNS like a Balkans, Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Vietnam and Afghanistan more fighter A/C like F-16's and F-18's and more Nato and Russion jets with true avionics and realistic flight model with full clickable 3D cockpit no more 2D c'mon please.

 

Then you can add more as it develops later all the fun stuff later, priority first!

 

:helpsmilie: Its 2012 not 1990 c'mon, sorry combat sim world needs good positive direction to much poor attempts out there.

 

Its a combat sim :joystick: priority please

 

from a passionate user my 2cents ;)

Edited June 9, 2012 by WRAITH

[Jona33]

I believe it was cichidflan who said this.

 

"Don't get your priorities mixed up with ED's."

[Pyroflash]

I think P-51 is an awesome A/C it really was a remarkable fighter in past wars, but what is it doing in modern war with the likes of F-15 and A10's jet age btw, I'm confused.

 

Not needed, so many other things that DCS needs as priority more Theaters with DYNAMIC WAR CAMPAIGNS like a Balkans, Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Vietnam and Afghanistan more fighter A/C like F-16's and F-18's and more Nato and Russion jets with true avionics and realistic flight model with full clickable 3D cockpit no more 2D c'mon please.

 

Then you can add more as it develops later all the fun stuff later, priority first!

 

Its 2012 not 1990 c'mon, sorry combat sim world needs good positive direction to much poor attempts out there.

 

Its a combat sim priority please

 

from a passionate user my 2cents

Regardless, I really don't see why the anger is justified. ED hasn't released an aircraft in the past couple of years that DIDN'T have a 3d clickable cockpit. Aside from that, we are getting a DCS: Typhoon , a DCS: F-15E, and a DCS: MiG-21Bis. I don't know what more you would want to see WRAITH..

 

And please don't go off and say "But.. but.. but they aren't releasing MiG/Su/F/A/B/C/H/Ka/Mi/Tu/An/Yak/T/M/EF/EC/V-X/XX/XXX/XXXX/XXXXX!". Not everyone is going to conform to your specific expectations, nor should they be expected to. Even if they could be held accountable as such, it would likely be at the expense of something else.

 

As far as FC3 goes, ED still has to make cash to pay for these higher fidelity aircraft we all love.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Pyroflash

[tomcatter]

Back to the topic...

 

God no, that stuff should be outlawed.

 

I agree totally with you.....

I know, I know, this is just a simulation and no one is killed, but napalm is the most horrible weapon after the nuke bombs.

The effect on people is just so bad and dishonest, and it has no precision at all.

I think, at least is what i try, we have to be "human kind" in our simulations, and the use of napalm is a questionable way of destruction in the real world and should be questionable in the sims.

I know this is a little stupid argument, but just trying to introduce a ethic question in the simulation universe ...

[martinistripes]

Hi Wraith,

 

I believe the P-51 was a part finished project picked up by Eagle Dynamics. They were impressed with what was already there and decided to push it along to completion and include it as a module. It wasn't something planned and started from scratch by ED.

 

Dynamic single player campaign would of course be great but I think you'll find all efforts focused on the multiplayer aspect of things now. With real life commanders, pilots and ground forces things will be as dynamic as you like.

 

Finally, any 2D cockpits your seeing are relics from the original Lock On: Flaming Cliffs which I believe was released in 2005. The aircraft was ported across and not a DCS module from the ground up. It's really a gift and, of course, far better than having no aircraft at all.

 

Hope you're having fun.

[Blaze]

I think P-51 is an awesome A/C it really was a remarkable fighter in past wars, but what is it doing in modern war with the likes of F-15 and A10's jet age btw, I'm confused.:cry:

See this:

 

Q: Why was the P-51 selected?

A: The P-51 began as a side project by some of the staff and showed good progress. Rather than put that effort to waste, we decided to flesh it out and release as a new aircraft for DCS.

 

Q: How is the P-51 supposed to fit into DCS? This makes no sense to me.

A: DCS is an open simulation environment, not confined to any one era, level of fidelity, or 1st party development. In the future ED and 3rd parties may add all sorts of different units ranging from gliders to X-51s.

 

Q: How is a P-51 supposed to fight in a modern Georgian war against modern aircraft and air defense systems?

A: It simply does not need to. It is up to the mission designer to put what units he or she wishes into the mission.

 

 

Not needed, :music_whistling: so many other things that DCS needs as priority more Theaters with DYNAMIC WAR CAMPAIGNS like a Balkans, Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Vietnam and Afghanistan more fighter A/C like F-16's and F-18's and more Nato and Russion jets with true avionics and realistic flight model with full clickable 3D cockpit no more 2D c'mon please.

Then you can add more as it develops later all the fun stuff later, priority first!

Don't confuse your priority with ED's priority. :) All of these things take time. You can't just 'BAM' have full 3D clickable cockpits, complex avionics and AFM's for all of the old FC aircraft just like that. That's something that takes a lot of time, and for the amount of work that would go into each jet each would probably be sold as its own module at that point. Terrain creation takes even longer (I should know) and it's unbelievable just how much work has to be put into a new theater. I agree that all of those theaters would be nice, but they would take years to make at a good enough level for DCS. Hopefully this is a new area that third party development can step into and we can have developers like ORBX or MegaScenery for example creating terrain for TFCSE (that is my wish).

[effte]

He did lose one P-51 which was hit by his own rocket parts during a rocket run. The rocket pieces hit his coolant system. The ejection seat did not work so he “dove from the wing” and parachuted at about 1500’ AGL.

 

Now, that's a brilliant quote to have at hand when people refer to eyewitness accounts referred in books and magazines as sources for technical or operational matters.

[effte]

I know, I know, this is just a simulation and no one is killed, but napalm is the most horrible weapon after the nuke bombs.

 

Oh, I dunno... WP, high velocity bullets, all those bullets designed to fragment, jumping mines...

 

Then you have anti-personnel lasers, those area denial mines which string an area with trip wires, cluster bombs, FAE, various NBC weaponry...

 

Many contenders for that particular title. I think napalm seems horrible to us more due to the fact that most of us can relate to getting our skin burnt one way or another, but very few of us have experience of the discomfort caused by having your guts shredded by a fragmenting bullet, our flesh torn off by high-velocity bullets or having WP fragments burn while embedded in us.

 

Sorry if I made someone lose his or her appetite, but this is what we simulate after all so we should be able to talk about it openly.

[Jona33]

Oh, I dunno... WP, high velocity bullets, all those bullets designed to fragment, jumping mines...

 

Then you have anti-personnel lasers, those area denial mines which string an area with trip wires, cluster bombs, FAE, various NBC weaponry...

 

Many contenders for that particular title. I think napalm seems horrible to us more due to the fact that most of us can relate to getting our skin burnt one way or another, but very few of us have experience of the discomfort caused by having your guts shredded by a fragmenting bullet, our flesh torn off by high-velocity bullets or having WP fragments burn while embedded in us.

 

Sorry if I made someone lose his or her appetite, but this is what we simulate after all so we should be able to talk about it openly.

 

Of course but to me burning is just a horrible way to die.

[Spy Guy]

Of course but to me burning is just a horrible way to die.

 

A horrible way as opposed to this stuff?

[...]the discomfort caused by having your guts shredded by a fragmenting bullet, our flesh torn off by high-velocity bullets or having WP fragments burn while embedded in us.[...]

Just...

 

Humans have interesting ways of killing each other, don't we?

 

(OT: I'm also in favour of napalm in DCS)