Seems like you had time to line up two airplanes but you hit one and zip off😮 can't blame you cuz if my life was on the line my butt will be puckered just like you😂
A comparable strategy for the 1st gen jet fighters vs slow bombers would be to adopt the ME 262 tactics. They would dive down from above, strafing as they went then pull up as they broke through the flight of bombers scrubbing off speed. Then nose up and gun the bombers from below at slower speed but full throttle climbing too fast for tracking. The gunners on the bombers didn't have time to sight them in. The 'roller coaster' would have them swooping vertically through the flight up and down.
I heard once that older planes are harder to kill (when you hit) because of older construction techniques (that also gave greater durability against an explosion). Which implies that the missiles ARE modeled correctly. The thought is that modern fighters actually use their own skin as a part of the structure, while WWII planes only used the skin to smooth out their aerodynamics. The change was because it made planes significantly lighter, and therefore more maneuverable, more fast, harder to hit, more fuel efficient, etc. But it also meant that breaking the skin of the plane is a catastrophic problem. Older planes used a more rugged skeleton and didn't truly need skin on anything but the control surfaces (and a few holes on those wouldn't change much). Basically, it's not that old planes were hard to kill, it's that sneezing is all it takes to break the skin (aka structure) on a modern plane. So modern missles are just supposed to poke a few holes in the plane because that's all it takes; but for a warbird "Rubbin' is Racin." (I hope I'm not the only person my age that gets that reference).
This isn't necessarily true, the P-51 was of Semi-monocoque construction, and the Bf 109 was full monocoque, which means that the skin carries a lot of or all the load of the frame, just like modern fighters. The main difference between fighters of the past and now isn't the strength of the skin, but the fact that there's just so much more stuff inside a modern fighter than a wwii one. For example, the tail of a Warbird is in most cases an empty tube, in order to maintain the center of mass at the front for stability as well as to keep it light, because the power-to-weight ratio of the engines were incomparable to modern jet engines. A modern jet has little to no empty space in the airframe, as every open area is stuffed full of hydraulics, electrical stuff, fuel, radios, or sensors, and of there's any space that isn't necessary, the airframe is instead reshaped to eliminate it and maintain a better shape for aerodynamic and RCS reasons, as well as to save mass. Also, everything in the engines are more complex and massive, as well as fragile, like comparing your old lawnmower to an F1 engine. The performance impact of adding enough material to guard against shrapnel or the gunfire of other fighters would just make the armored jet too slow and sluggish to fight effectively, which is why they just don't bother. It's more effective to be quick and agile enough to dodge, or stealthy enough to avoid danger altogether, than it is to be armored enough that it takes 2 missiles instead of 1 to take you down.
Disagree Ken. A modern fighter is built like a brick s***house. It has to be to sustain mach airspeeds and 9g manuevers. Metallurgy is FAR more advanced. Titanium anybody? I have no idea what model they are using for missiles, but they are very, very lethal. The warhead tosses out pyrophoric fragments that are designed to light fires on any bit of structure they hit. Even a tiny AIM-9 warhead just shreds an opponent.
You do know that an F-15 can fly with one wing completely missing, do you not? The structure on modern aircraft is heavier because it has to support the same g-loads but the mass is much much higher. And critical systems often have multiple redundancy. There's a reason that modern aircraft have 20mm gatlings, not the .30 cal or .50 cal machine guns that were common in WWII.
Even with Kortana's sensibilities leading the way, you still know its a GR vid when someone manages to mangle a plane before takeoff lol. Great video as always and absolutely love the Kortana collabs!
Remember, GR pilots' worst enemies are 1) each other, 2) the ground, and 3) enemy fighters, in that order. Since 1 and 2 are both there during takeoff, it's natural that shenanigans will occur.
I really like this "which era" simulation Cap. This makes sense since it really can make a modern war cost effective if you exclude how much a human is worth from the calculation. Maybe some nations with expandable human resources would use some old fighters in a war to cause the enemy to struggle economicly and then deploy more advanced military assets later on to get the winning edge... thank you Kortana for setting things up, and rest of the team for participating. 🎉
The F-15 has got to be my favorite of all time. My son was in the Air Force and stationed at Elmendorf Air Force base in Alaska. My wife and I flew up to visit him. I was able to lay my hand on an F-15 that was armed and ready and had actually splashed a MIG. Always wanted to be a fighter pilot and this was a thrill of a lifetime. Oh, the smell of Jet Fuel. Love it!!!!!
A great story, one of the saddest SF stories I ever read - two others that were very good are "The Cold Equations" and the novella "A Rose For Ecclesiastes."
You need to get a mod for the Sabre - turn it into a CA-27 model with a lot more power, a pair of 30mm cannon and the ability to carry a pair of early sidewinders .
The P-51 was designed to be at home at 20k+ feet. She was made to dogfight around & through the bomber formation spread throughout 18-25 thousand feet. Open your cooler full and drop the hammer.
P-51 was designed to use the Alison V-1710 engine, which was terrible above 15000ft. It was only when it used the Rolls Royce Merlin engine that its performance at high altitude was acceptable. By that time, the British (for who it was designed) had lost interest in it.
Yeah. Shoulda just rocked the F-4, with the all the 20mm gun pods on it, lol. You could use a one sec burst and shred them. Like a hose taken to a sand castle.
You should try the 4th-gen scenario again with the knowledge that expensive Fox 3s don't work. Load with only cheap old Fox 2s (you don't need HOBS, all-aspect, or solar rejection) and cannon rounds, and your operation will be much cheaper.
So, in retrospect, they did at least kind of work. While we got very few immediate kills with any of the missiles, they did sufficient damage in a lot of the cases that the bomber opted to return home. We watched for some time after we stopped recording, and 3 bombers successfully ditched in France, and 1 successfully landed back at base. The remaining 44 were complete losses.
@@grimreapers to be fair the Nike Hercules warhead has a much bigger warhead 1000lbs with 250lbs of explosive vs the 50lb total warhead weight of an amraam
@Grim Reapers a Nike Hercules is 2/3 the length of an F-14 with a 1,000lb warhead. The aim-9 has a 20lb warhead and the Aim-7 80 while the AIM-120 49 or 44lb. For reference, the 30mm cannon shell used by the mk108 has a pound of explosive. So small warhead + the fact that they usually kill using shrapnel, unless they get a direct hit they just damage the plane instead of outright blowing it up.
Also old warbirds were built with the expectation of being engaged by machine guns on fighters. Small cannon, and big flak rounds, and to reasonably survive that, most times. To deliver their payload. They were tough as hell, with redundancy in their flight controls, cables and control rods. Spread out as much as possible from each other…you got hit a lot things in them, to refer them useless, plus no composites, at a higher speed and g load, so they won’t disintegrate, from smaller weapons.
USAF vet here again. Glad to hear some love for the F111. I was an avionic tech on the FB111A bomber flown by SAC. Communication, Navigation and ECM specialist. I used to fly the actual base flight sim on the weekends. The planes top limits were classified for a reason. 2100 kts I hit on the simulator. BTW as a former Missile Systems Maint specialist before that, I don't understand all these "misses". or close calls. We ran proximity fuses that were designed to explode long before actual impact with enemy. Missiles are flying hand grenades. They have a large ring of death when they go off. I want to fly DCS I have a top rig and monitor, its all the hw and sw I find daunting to have to buy, to be competitive. Also I have a GSX1000 I ride when its warm. PC gamer since the 90s build all my own rigs and anyone elses smart enough to have me do it. Keep up the good work guys. I love the Tom Clancy style scenarios and even the star wars stupidity!
Heck, even the A26 Invader with up to 22 .50 guns.... (nose, wings, fuselage). For many reasons it seems more the spiritual precursor to the A-10. There were apparently some prototypes and even a few production models with 75mm cannon in the nose. Other configurations known to exist: 75mm + 37mm, dual 37mm, and, get this, exactly one with a 105mm cannon for testing purposes.
@@dpwellman The aircraft designers back then seem to have had a "thing" for the 37mm. A lot of designs had that weapon specified, but only a few made it to production. The P-39 Airacobra for example. While it gave good performance in ground attack - the Soviet's loved their lend-lease P-39's, its low muzzle velocity and poor ballistics made it problematic for air to air. When the RAF ordered some, prior to US entry into the war, they specified replacing the 37mm with a 20mm. After Pearl Harbor the US kept the aircraft (needs must sort of situation) but due to the changes requested by the RAF the aircraft were designated as P-400's
@@KortanaDCS I suspected as much. It doesn't get as much love as the more glamours airframes - pity though. Very few US aircraft from that period could match/beat its firepower and those that could - most would be at a disadvantage in a dogfight. With the possible exception of the P-70.
Tears For Algernon! Best sci Fi story ever, was also made into a movie starring Cliff Robertson, but the written story was totally awesome. *Edit...it might have been 'Flowers For Algernon ' I cannot remember, but it was a great story.
18:52 A beautiful death is it's own reward👍👍 42:59 You have/had The F-111 Aardvark!?🙃 lol I've made a request in the past F-111 VS MIG-27K!👍 Yo Cap once again if you had access to The Me-262 you'd being going crazy! Well The P-80 Shooting Star is The U.S. version for its time!! PLEASE Fly The P-80 Shooting Star into essentially this except FW-190's and BF-109's escorts! I'm willing to pay for this although I really dont feel like I should need to as I think you all should be excited to use This Legendary Plane!!🙏
@@guystucker4738 I wish there were more options for planes in this era, they go usually from F-86 straight to F4s, skipping the whole century series fighters. My personal favorite is the starfighter, in spite of it's dubious flight record
I noticed that when the bombers get shot by the P-51 (armed with only 50 cal MGs) there happens some explosion effects that are as big as the bomber, but the bomber visually externally seems to not be obliterated by such an explosion. This can be seen at 13:40 What is that VFX? And what is the purpose of it, if the bomber does not get obliterated by it?
It's probably just over the top effects. 50 cal tracers *are* incendiary ammo, and will set planes on fire directly. I've no idea if DCS properly models the incendiary effects of the tracer rounds hitting fuel and ammo stores inside target planes.
@@Silversiren28 a tracer projectile likely is capable of causing a plane to catch on fire, but projectiles with actual incendiary compositions will just be a lot more effective at that. And America made widespread use of Incendiary projectiles on 50 cal belts thought WW2. IDK the composition of DCS belts, but there is a good chance of that P-51 be using late war belts (because it is of the D model). And if that is the case, it will certainly have API and APIT projectiles (Armor Piercing Incendiary and Armor Piercing Incendiary Tracer, respectively), with a some chance of also having Incendiary projectiles (M23 Incendiary)
@Grim Reapers - I have a scenario idea for you: - If the 6th Fleet CSG entered the Black Sea, with the support of a UK type 45 Destroyer, could it establish air-superiority over Crimea? - Recommend a few separate focused missions to be launched from the carrier during this campaign: 1) SEAD to neutralize Russian S-400’s, 2) Black Sea Anti- ship strikes, etc.. If you can’t program layers of different attack missions into a CSG like that, then make it as interesting as you can. I would recommend spreading out the CSG DDG’s and CMP’s when they are in formation with the carrier. Normally they are not all crammed close to the carrier. They are spread out providing visibility and coverage out in front and to the sides of a CSG.
Cap, I love the videos. GR rocks. I don't have dcs but I love watching you guys. I was wondering if dcs is planning on adding an F-4U Corsair. That is my favorite aircraft of WW2. I think you guys would like it as well. I think it's the F-4U but either way is the gull winged Corsair used by the navy and USMC
The yellow undersides were a leftover from British prototype aircraft being painted yellow all over to ensure that they were not shot at by friendly anti-aircraft fire. Once war broke out, they introduced the camouflage on the upper surfaces, but had the yellow 'P' on the fuselage. Captured enemy aircraft just had an 'FE' (Foreign Equipment) number painted on the tail.
I think you may have a left engine fire Cap? There are a couple of big gaps in the timeline of aircraft for DCS at the moment. We need more insanely gifted modders! Hunter, Delta Dart/Dagger, Panther, Javelin, Mystere and Drakken for starts please!
This. I would LOVE to see the Drakken modelled. That thing must have been insane to fly with it being mostly lifting body. It was the first plane to ever do the cobra manouver as well because of that.
@@albird87 damn it now I’m gonna have to organise a Bird fan club or something where we record useless motivational rubbish so you can play it when Cap’s mean 🤣
13:25 _"Come on, Mustang. You were literally designed for this."_ No, the Mustang was literally designed to be a long-range bomber escort, to go to Berlin and back with B-17s. The Spitfire was actually designed to be a short-ranged interceptor.
From what I've seen between DCS and IL-2, I'm surprised any Mosquito pilots survived the war. That's legitimate science, right? As an Australian I definitely remember the F-111. We only retired them in 2010.
The recce mossies survived due to high altitude and high speed. Being just 50-70 mph slower than the 190 or 109 meant that unless the interceptor was already in the air and within 50-90 miles of you when they are ordered to intercept, they'd be out of gas by the time the could catch up to the missile.
With the FB mossie, radars can't see you until 30 miles if you are less than 100ft off the ground. So often, the intercept order would not go out until after the mossies hit their targets.
Good to finally see someone else struggling to get to altitude! Getting to and staying above 20000 ft is a challenge for me especially when I need to initialise another climb after getting comfortable and I was starting to think it was just me who had that problem. I exclusively fly single player and the AI (in all sims/games I've had) seemingly have a different version of gravity to overcome and never just drop out of the sky sometimes like I can if I'm not paying attention! It might just be that they use optimal engine settings in any given scenario though and I need to go back to the manual and fly more like a robot..?
Hey Cap is landing into Kortana’s fuel dump the best thing to do when you have an engine fire? You’d be lighting that F-111 “airshow blaze” from the wrong end!
Flowers for Algernon was almost required (but not actually required if you took dummy English classes)reading in NYC High Schools, one of the few things they got right in their crappy school system. To the best of my recollection (it's been 40 years) he, protagonist is working in a lab where they discover a drug that turns a mouse into a super intelligent mouse, This guy is below average or average intelligence (the janitor?) and wants to try the drug. He takes it and becomes a genius. As time passes they see the mouse separate himself from the group and even kill the other mice (I think).They become concerned as this guy is achieving unbelievable math equations and other acts of super human intelligence. Then the mouse Algernon begins to show clear signs of regression in all ways, Algernon curls up into a ball and dies. You know where this is going. A great book.
try using a harrier jj against German fighters and bombers of the ww2 era. Or try using attack helicopter of today against ww2 bombers top speeds are a close match, but the Heli as the advantage of heavy modern weaponry and an ability to hover.
@@grimreapers That TH-cam link is a hoot. He doesn't see how A-10s could possible intercept WWII bomber formations because they are so slow and have such a low rate of climb. Never mind that Spitifires did it and A-10 is faster than a Spitfire and has twice the rate of climb.
A first generation jet that could be pretty good at intercepting these bombers is the Hawker Hunter. While it is pretty sluggish when slow, it does have 4x ADEN 30mm revolver cannons. I think it could potentially be even better than the MiG-15
@@ian12262 I thought that at least the first variant of the Hunter (Hunter F.1) could be considered a Gen 1 fighter jet, it basically is very similar to other Gen 1 fighter jets (at least in War Thunder). And IIRC not even later variants of the Hunter (F.6, FGA.9, F.58) are not supersonic capable in level flight, but these later variants have INSANE engine performance + they get access to missiles. Also their engine is non-afterburning
@@LuizBarros99 I guess I have a very British/US perspective on this. To me, Vampire & Meteor (& US P-80) with their unswept wings & centrifugal compressor turbojets were 1st gen, swept wing aircraft with axial flow engines were 2nd gen. We get uncomfortable when reminded that Me262 had both ;) If MiG 15 had been European or American, I believe it would have had an axial flow engine, it ended up with a copy of Nene because that's what they had available. I'm pretty sure we thought it was a sweet deal to give them that - hard cash for what seemed obsolete tech. They used it rather well.
@@ian12262 @Ian Nichols yeah, the sale of the Centrifugal Rolls-Royce jet engines for the Soviets was certainly a mistake. (Not only the Nene was sold, there was also a slight smaller centrifugal jet engine that was also sold, and was used on some aircraft such as the Yak-30 and the La-15)
Just go all out. F106 Delta Darts with the MB-2 Genie nuclear air to air missiles. They aren't precision missiles, they were unguided but had a short flight time and a large (estimated 300 meter) blast radius.
You can comfortably run the mustang at 3000rpm for quite a long time, especially at altitude. You were struggling to catch up because you were being too conservative with the engine. Max RPM and 55-60 inches would give you much more speed, and the engine will last for plenty of time.
When I saw in the warbirds stage. Had two look twice as their was a British fighter I've never seen before. Not int tell someone . It's a Focke'- wulf. Lol. But it does look good in British colours. I know that the RAF used mustangs. But don't see many documentarys about them. I think , in a case.i can remember. They used to fly with USA bomber , till they reach a cost, turned back . Refill or whatever. Take off . And meet the bombers coming back. Still . It looks good in brits colour. 👍
How about A-10s with all pylons loaded with missiles, and loaded with only tracers and HE? They're faster than bombers, they can carry a massive weapons load, and the gun is devastating.
I was thinking coming in low and going up at them right when he said the bottom is the weak spot😂 I mean gravity will always slow you down because gravity always eventually wins LMAO
The Mig19 is imprressive considering how few years there were between the very first jets and it but its contempoaries were just as good. The F100 Super Sabre and English Electric Lightning.
Personally, I'm wishing you guys would try the same combat simulation again only it's against US WW2 heavy bombers like the B-17s, B-24s or even B-29s. It would be a nice POV change to see what it's like on the German, Japanese or even Italian side during WW2 trying to shoot down US heavy bombers. And what the difference could be for Gen 1 jet fighters trying to do the same thing as it'll give us something close to the Korean War when using F-86 and MiG-15 jet fighters to intercept heavy bombers like the B-29s.
@@KortanaDCS That's great! Thanks for replying and letting me know. BTW, I really enjoyed your combat simulation setup (WarGames 5b) involving a formation of B-17s going against a mix of German 88 AA guns and early 1960s-1970s Soviet SAM systems. There is a dieselpunk-themed feel to that simulation when you consider the early German WW2 research in SAMs. German Anti-Air Missiles of WW2: th-cam.com/video/Cx_lsh0BJGs/w-d-xo.html German AA Missiles - An Efficient Alternative to Flak?: th-cam.com/video/B7Q92V5hK-c/w-d-xo.html Something about WarGames 5b makes me think about the time period (the 1950s I think?) the Soviet SA-1 and SA-2 SAM systems were developed and how they might have fared if you guys could set up a similar combat simulation using jet fighters and bombers from the same time period the SA-1 and SA-2 were developed, i.e. 1950s jets fighters and bombers. Soviet SAMs: th-cam.com/play/PLbeRRNpuu7hzryHrq5ezBVTgVSUYuMmaW.html I hope you don't mind the rambling and historical references as I really enjoyed the WarGames simulations you guys made.
nobody tried to take up the A-10 and give them the gun?
th-cam.com/video/6ZRFK1Ekqz0/w-d-xo.html
That would be interesting just to see what type of abuse the A10 can take😮 I mean they come back home with missing engine and wings😊
Seems like you had time to line up two airplanes but you hit one and zip off😮 can't blame you cuz if my life was on the line my butt will be puckered just like you😂
Can the A-10 carry AIM-7’s?
i don't think so, i might be wrong but i don't think the A-10 has it's own radar@@damienkramer
A comparable strategy for the 1st gen jet fighters vs slow bombers would be to adopt the ME 262 tactics. They would dive down from above, strafing as they went then pull up as they broke through the flight of bombers scrubbing off speed. Then nose up and gun the bombers from below at slower speed but full throttle climbing too fast for tracking. The gunners on the bombers didn't have time to sight them in. The 'roller coaster' would have them swooping vertically through the flight up and down.
I was just about to suggest this tactic when I saw your comment😊😊😊
I heard once that older planes are harder to kill (when you hit) because of older construction techniques (that also gave greater durability against an explosion). Which implies that the missiles ARE modeled correctly.
The thought is that modern fighters actually use their own skin as a part of the structure, while WWII planes only used the skin to smooth out their aerodynamics. The change was because it made planes significantly lighter, and therefore more maneuverable, more fast, harder to hit, more fuel efficient, etc. But it also meant that breaking the skin of the plane is a catastrophic problem.
Older planes used a more rugged skeleton and didn't truly need skin on anything but the control surfaces (and a few holes on those wouldn't change much). Basically, it's not that old planes were hard to kill, it's that sneezing is all it takes to break the skin (aka structure) on a modern plane. So modern missles are just supposed to poke a few holes in the plane because that's all it takes; but for a warbird "Rubbin' is Racin." (I hope I'm not the only person my age that gets that reference).
This isn't necessarily true, the P-51 was of Semi-monocoque construction, and the Bf 109 was full monocoque, which means that the skin carries a lot of or all the load of the frame, just like modern fighters. The main difference between fighters of the past and now isn't the strength of the skin, but the fact that there's just so much more stuff inside a modern fighter than a wwii one.
For example, the tail of a Warbird is in most cases an empty tube, in order to maintain the center of mass at the front for stability as well as to keep it light, because the power-to-weight ratio of the engines were incomparable to modern jet engines. A modern jet has little to no empty space in the airframe, as every open area is stuffed full of hydraulics, electrical stuff, fuel, radios, or sensors, and of there's any space that isn't necessary, the airframe is instead reshaped to eliminate it and maintain a better shape for aerodynamic and RCS reasons, as well as to save mass. Also, everything in the engines are more complex and massive, as well as fragile, like comparing your old lawnmower to an F1 engine. The performance impact of adding enough material to guard against shrapnel or the gunfire of other fighters would just make the armored jet too slow and sluggish to fight effectively, which is why they just don't bother. It's more effective to be quick and agile enough to dodge, or stealthy enough to avoid danger altogether, than it is to be armored enough that it takes 2 missiles instead of 1 to take you down.
Disagree Ken. A modern fighter is built like a brick s***house. It has to be to sustain mach airspeeds and 9g manuevers. Metallurgy is FAR more advanced. Titanium anybody? I have no idea what model they are using for missiles, but they are very, very lethal. The warhead tosses out pyrophoric fragments that are designed to light fires on any bit of structure they hit. Even a tiny AIM-9 warhead just shreds an opponent.
You do know that an F-15 can fly with one wing completely missing, do you not? The structure on modern aircraft is heavier because it has to support the same g-loads but the mass is much much higher. And critical systems often have multiple redundancy. There's a reason that modern aircraft have 20mm gatlings, not the .30 cal or .50 cal machine guns that were common in WWII.
Even with Kortana's sensibilities leading the way, you still know its a GR vid when someone manages to mangle a plane before takeoff lol. Great video as always and absolutely love the Kortana collabs!
Remember, GR pilots' worst enemies are 1) each other, 2) the ground, and 3) enemy fighters, in that order. Since 1 and 2 are both there during takeoff, it's natural that shenanigans will occur.
I really like this "which era" simulation Cap. This makes sense since it really can make a modern war cost effective if you exclude how much a human is worth from the calculation. Maybe some nations with expandable human resources would use some old fighters in a war to cause the enemy to struggle economicly and then deploy more advanced military assets later on to get the winning edge... thank you Kortana for setting things up, and rest of the team for participating. 🎉
The real lesson is that this stuff is adaptable to drones that are flying cheaply built airframes.
"Flowers for Algernon" was made into a movie with Cliff Robertson. It's about fixing something that may not be broken.
The movie's title is "Charly." Heartbreaking, both the written story and the movie.
The F-15 has got to be my favorite of all time. My son was in the Air Force and stationed at Elmendorf Air Force base in Alaska. My wife and I flew up to visit him. I was able to lay my hand on an F-15 that was armed and ready and had actually splashed a MIG. Always wanted to be a fighter pilot and this was a thrill of a lifetime. Oh, the smell of Jet Fuel. Love it!!!!!
"Tears for Algernon" - did you mean "Flowers for Algernon", Damp?
Yeah, I'm really sorry, I forgot... ironic isn't it?😅
Added to audible library, up next
More apt title, actually.
Maybe Damp suffered a great loss....of words?
He was on a mission after all, occupied with flying, navigating, and general call to arms...
A great story, one of the saddest SF stories I ever read - two others that were very good are "The Cold Equations" and the novella "A Rose For Ecclesiastes."
You need to get a mod for the Sabre - turn it into a CA-27 model with a lot more power, a pair of 30mm cannon and the ability to carry a pair of early sidewinders .
The P-51 was designed to be at home at 20k+ feet. She was made to dogfight around & through the bomber formation spread throughout 18-25 thousand feet.
Open your cooler full and drop the hammer.
P-51 was designed to use the Alison V-1710 engine, which was terrible above 15000ft. It was only when it used the Rolls Royce Merlin engine that its performance at high altitude was acceptable. By that time, the British (for who it was designed) had lost interest in it.
The P51 was an escort fighter not an interceptor. In a pinch you could use it a fighter / interceptor.
Yeah. Shoulda just rocked the F-4, with the all the 20mm gun pods on it, lol. You could use a one sec burst and shred them. Like a hose taken to a sand castle.
Kortana - always like her involvement in these missions 😊
this is my best series now.
It's the most fun to fly in.
You should try the 4th-gen scenario again with the knowledge that expensive Fox 3s don't work. Load with only cheap old Fox 2s (you don't need HOBS, all-aspect, or solar rejection) and cannon rounds, and your operation will be much cheaper.
So, in retrospect, they did at least kind of work. While we got very few immediate kills with any of the missiles, they did sufficient damage in a lot of the cases that the bomber opted to return home. We watched for some time after we stopped recording, and 3 bombers successfully ditched in France, and 1 successfully landed back at base. The remaining 44 were complete losses.
Fox 1 have a larger warhead and potential kill, I've often had to use 2-3 aim-9L to kill 1 Ju-88.
My theory on the warbird damage model is that they just dont have that much to damage where the missile would normally hit.
I thought that but then I saw the old 50's footage of a Nike Hercules missiles hitting a drone B-17, it was atomized.
@@grimreapers to be fair the Nike Hercules warhead has a much bigger warhead 1000lbs with 250lbs of explosive vs the 50lb total warhead weight of an amraam
@Grim Reapers a Nike Hercules is 2/3 the length of an F-14 with a 1,000lb warhead. The aim-9 has a 20lb warhead and the Aim-7 80 while the AIM-120 49 or 44lb. For reference, the 30mm cannon shell used by the mk108 has a pound of explosive. So small warhead + the fact that they usually kill using shrapnel, unless they get a direct hit they just damage the plane instead of outright blowing it up.
Also old warbirds were built with the expectation of being engaged by machine guns on fighters. Small cannon, and big flak rounds, and to reasonably survive that, most times. To deliver their payload. They were tough as hell, with redundancy in their flight controls, cables and control rods. Spread out as much as possible from each other…you got hit a lot things in them, to refer them useless, plus no composites, at a higher speed and g load, so they won’t disintegrate, from smaller weapons.
Simba has become such a pro with these plugs for the channel!
The bombs striking the airfield looked like a B-52 carpet job. (Impressed) Around 17:25
USAF vet here again. Glad to hear some love for the F111. I was an avionic tech on the FB111A bomber flown by SAC. Communication, Navigation and ECM specialist. I used to fly the actual base flight sim on the weekends. The planes top limits were classified for a reason. 2100 kts I hit on the simulator. BTW as a former Missile Systems Maint specialist before that, I don't understand all these "misses". or close calls. We ran proximity fuses that were designed to explode long before actual impact with enemy. Missiles are flying hand grenades. They have a large ring of death when they go off. I want to fly DCS I have a top rig and monitor, its all the hw and sw I find daunting to have to buy, to be competitive. Also I have a GSX1000 I ride when its warm. PC gamer since the 90s build all my own rigs and anyone elses smart enough to have me do it. Keep up the good work guys. I love the Tom Clancy style scenarios and even the star wars stupidity!
F-111 Avionics/Radar here... 😎✌ RAF Upper Heyford
Cap's Kamikazi deaths = best Kamikazi deaths? Not many get to force-mate with their terminal target in such a cinematically sexy way!
I put a HUGE magnet in the fuselage.
How could you possibly forget about their majestic Mosquito formation, Cap?
I'm naughty.
For Warbirds, no P-38? The nose mounted 1 20mm and 4 x 50 cals packed a heavy punch into a small target zone
No P-38 in DCS as of yet. We were in general agreement that it would be excellent for this mission though
Heck, even the A26 Invader with up to 22 .50 guns.... (nose, wings, fuselage). For many reasons it seems more the spiritual precursor to the A-10.
There were apparently some prototypes and even a few production models with 75mm cannon in the nose. Other configurations known to exist: 75mm + 37mm, dual 37mm, and, get this, exactly one with a 105mm cannon for testing purposes.
@@dpwellman The aircraft designers back then seem to have had a "thing" for the 37mm. A lot of designs had that weapon specified, but only a few made it to production. The P-39 Airacobra for example. While it gave good performance in ground attack - the Soviet's loved their lend-lease P-39's, its low muzzle velocity and poor ballistics made it problematic for air to air. When the RAF ordered some, prior to US entry into the war, they specified replacing the 37mm with a 20mm. After Pearl Harbor the US kept the aircraft (needs must sort of situation) but due to the changes requested by the RAF the aircraft were designated as P-400's
@@KortanaDCS I suspected as much. It doesn't get as much love as the more glamours airframes - pity though. Very few US aircraft from that period could match/beat its firepower and those that could - most would be at a disadvantage in a dogfight. With the possible exception of the P-70.
Sorry, mis-typed that should be P-61
Tears For Algernon! Best sci Fi story ever, was also made into a movie starring Cliff Robertson, but the written story was totally awesome.
*Edit...it might have been 'Flowers For Algernon ' I cannot remember, but it was a great story.
F-14 is always my favorite, such a beautiful and well performing aircraft
Big fan of these costing over the generations videos. Great stuff :)
Man, Cortana kicks some serious warbird butt!
18:52 A beautiful death is it's own reward👍👍
42:59 You have/had The F-111 Aardvark!?🙃 lol I've made a request in the past F-111 VS MIG-27K!👍
Yo Cap once again if you had access to The Me-262 you'd being going crazy! Well The P-80 Shooting Star is The U.S. version for its time!! PLEASE Fly The P-80 Shooting Star into essentially this except FW-190's and BF-109's escorts! I'm willing to pay for this although I really dont feel like I should need to as I think you all should be excited to use This Legendary Plane!!🙏
That only YOU Guys seen to have access to The F-80! It most certainly deserves its Own Exclusive Vid! :(
3 Fockers in formation - There are more than 3 Fockers in GR TBF
Do you mean "Flowers for Algernon?" This also became a movie called "Charly."
thx
Awesome. You guys never fail to deliver a good time.
say it every time - love the sound modelling of the warbirds.
You might want to place targets on the ground in the target area and assign monetary value to each. Maybe this way the effectiveness could be measured
70-80’s USAF with Air-2 Genies.
The only correct answer. As the story goes, never forget what the F106 carries swinging between it's legs
@@benmodel5745 F106 is one of me favorite planes of the era
@@guystucker4738 I wish there were more options for planes in this era, they go usually from F-86 straight to F4s, skipping the whole century series fighters. My personal favorite is the starfighter, in spite of it's dubious flight record
You could offer me pig feet pie but if it was served with a dash of Kortana it would be perfection.
Kortana: "tis but a scratch"
When calculating gliding distance to England I presume wings were part of the calculation
That is traditional.
I noticed that when the bombers get shot by the P-51 (armed with only 50 cal MGs) there happens some explosion effects that are as big as the bomber, but the bomber visually externally seems to not be obliterated by such an explosion. This can be seen at 13:40
What is that VFX? And what is the purpose of it, if the bomber does not get obliterated by it?
Likely a graphical glitch.
Back when I was doing QA, we would call that a 'design issue', priority 5. (lowest)
It's probably just over the top effects. 50 cal tracers *are* incendiary ammo, and will set planes on fire directly. I've no idea if DCS properly models the incendiary effects of the tracer rounds hitting fuel and ammo stores inside target planes.
@@Silversiren28 a tracer projectile likely is capable of causing a plane to catch on fire, but projectiles with actual incendiary compositions will just be a lot more effective at that. And America made widespread use of Incendiary projectiles on 50 cal belts thought WW2.
IDK the composition of DCS belts, but there is a good chance of that P-51 be using late war belts (because it is of the D model). And if that is the case, it will certainly have API and APIT projectiles (Armor Piercing Incendiary and Armor Piercing Incendiary Tracer, respectively), with a some chance of also having Incendiary projectiles (M23 Incendiary)
@@exidy-yt I would suppose this would then be a VFX issue?
I have an idea.....strap Air To Air Stingers on a Warbird, those bombers will be made scrap real fast and cost effectively too
7:15 Now that's a sick paint job!👍
8:00 Lol The Majestic Lion!😆👍
12:48 Come on Cap lol should've known Kortana eats Bombers for breakfast!👍
48:13 AWACS..?
Tears for Algernon? I thought it was Flowers for Algernon.
Always loved the sexy and beautiful F-15, and you have to respect that kill ratio.
That IS a majestic Mosquito formation, Simba!!
That left engine fire alarm was driving me nuts, why did you not push the extinguish button and fly on one engine.
@Grim Reapers - I have a scenario idea for you:
- If the 6th Fleet CSG entered the Black Sea, with the support of a UK type 45 Destroyer, could it establish air-superiority over Crimea?
- Recommend a few separate focused missions to be launched from the carrier during this campaign: 1) SEAD to neutralize Russian S-400’s, 2) Black Sea Anti- ship strikes, etc..
If you can’t program layers of different attack missions into a CSG like that, then make it as interesting as you can.
I would recommend spreading out the CSG DDG’s and CMP’s when they are in formation with the carrier. Normally they are not all crammed close to the carrier. They are spread out providing visibility and coverage out in front and to the sides of a CSG.
Thanks wilco
Cap, I love the videos. GR rocks. I don't have dcs but I love watching you guys. I was wondering if dcs is planning on adding an F-4U Corsair. That is my favorite aircraft of WW2. I think you guys would like it as well. I think it's the F-4U but either way is the gull winged Corsair used by the navy and USMC
On the J Turn Cap's the Wing tip glowing Bright red is an awesome touch from DCS game designers!
Was curious about the multi threading improvement? Even Javascript can do that. Maybe I'm missing something.
The yellow undersides were a leftover from British prototype aircraft being painted yellow all over to ensure that they were not shot at by friendly anti-aircraft fire. Once war broke out, they introduced the camouflage on the upper surfaces, but had the yellow 'P' on the fuselage. Captured enemy aircraft just had an 'FE' (Foreign Equipment) number painted on the tail.
I think you may have a left engine fire Cap? There are a couple of big gaps in the timeline of aircraft for DCS at the moment. We need more insanely gifted modders! Hunter, Delta Dart/Dagger, Panther, Javelin, Mystere and Drakken for starts please!
This. I would LOVE to see the Drakken modelled. That thing must have been insane to fly with it being mostly lifting body. It was the first plane to ever do the cobra manouver as well because of that.
Bird: “thank you” … awww Bird … we’ll find your self esteem 😂
ive never hear of these words...... self esteem.......🤣
@@albird87 damn it now I’m gonna have to organise a Bird fan club or something where we record useless motivational rubbish so you can play it when Cap’s mean 🤣
13:25 _"Come on, Mustang. You were literally designed for this."_
No, the Mustang was literally designed to be a long-range bomber escort, to go to Berlin and back with B-17s. The Spitfire was actually designed to be a short-ranged interceptor.
So which era of aircraft can do a better bomb raid escort
From what I've seen between DCS and IL-2, I'm surprised any Mosquito pilots survived the war. That's legitimate science, right?
As an Australian I definitely remember the F-111. We only retired them in 2010.
The recce mossies survived due to high altitude and high speed. Being just 50-70 mph slower than the 190 or 109 meant that unless the interceptor was already in the air and within 50-90 miles of you when they are ordered to intercept, they'd be out of gas by the time the could catch up to the missile.
With the FB mossie, radars can't see you until 30 miles if you are less than 100ft off the ground. So often, the intercept order would not go out until after the mossies hit their targets.
I did forget your channels name and just found you again with „hello valued viewers“. Just a classy signature move :D
I recommend watching the movie starring Cliff Robertson and Algunon the mouse. It is worth the effort
Kortana's voice is always nice to hear.
Love to see you try this with Warthogs. Slower plane and big gun.
That was done about a year ago. PLEASE SEE: Could An A-10 Warthog Squadron Have Prevented The WWII "Blitz" Raids? (WarGames 4)
Good to finally see someone else struggling to get to altitude! Getting to and staying above 20000 ft is a challenge for me especially when I need to initialise another climb after getting comfortable and I was starting to think it was just me who had that problem. I exclusively fly single player and the AI (in all sims/games I've had) seemingly have a different version of gravity to overcome and never just drop out of the sky sometimes like I can if I'm not paying attention! It might just be that they use optimal engine settings in any given scenario though and I need to go back to the manual and fly more like a robot..?
41:56 My favorite jet is the sexy F-14 of course!!!
Lol, Cap I always have a "scratchpad notepad" going on. Numbers, ideas, snippets of code! :)
The Doras look SOOO cool in RAF colours! ❤️❤️
Sea Fury anyone?
Simba asked again so Simba gets
Gen I jet fighters will wipe out the attack with ease and most efficiently.
Hey Cap is landing into Kortana’s fuel dump the best thing to do when you have an engine fire? You’d be lighting that F-111 “airshow blaze” from the wrong end!
Was thinking just this 😂
No Hawker Hunter love? I'd think that would be the ideal jet to intercept WWII-era bombers
Flowers for Algernon was almost required (but not actually required if you took dummy English classes)reading in NYC High Schools, one of the few things they got right in their crappy school system. To the best of my recollection (it's been 40 years) he, protagonist is working in a lab where they discover a drug that turns a mouse into a super intelligent mouse, This guy is below average or average intelligence (the janitor?) and wants to try the drug. He takes it and becomes a genius. As time passes they see the mouse separate himself from the group and even kill the other mice (I think).They become concerned as this guy is achieving unbelievable math equations and other acts of super human intelligence. Then the mouse Algernon begins to show clear signs of regression in all ways, Algernon curls up into a ball and dies. You know where this is going. A great book.
try using a harrier jj against German fighters and bombers of the ww2 era. Or try using attack helicopter of today against ww2 bombers top speeds are a close match, but the Heli as the advantage of heavy modern weaponry and an ability to hover.
Hi Cap. Would A-10s make for a great option? Slow, big gun, etc.
th-cam.com/video/6ZRFK1Ekqz0/w-d-xo.html
@@grimreapers That TH-cam link is a hoot. He doesn't see how A-10s could possible intercept WWII bomber formations because they are so slow and have such a low rate of climb. Never mind that Spitifires did it and A-10 is faster than a Spitfire and has twice the rate of climb.
You know, Cap, you COULD start shooting at the bombers BEFORE you're 9 feet from the tail of the bombers.
Too many bombers and not enough ammo to risk any wasted shots in this scenario.
IRL you probably would but, problem is there isn't many of us any we need every bullet to hit.
Should be attacking lead bombers from wind tip to tip.
A first generation jet that could be pretty good at intercepting these bombers is the Hawker Hunter. While it is pretty sluggish when slow, it does have 4x ADEN 30mm revolver cannons. I think it could potentially be even better than the MiG-15
Erm, technically the Hunter is 2nd gen - 1st gen is Vampire & Meteor. I'd love to have the Vampire to fly in DCS, btw. And Hunter.
@@ian12262 I thought that at least the first variant of the Hunter (Hunter F.1) could be considered a Gen 1 fighter jet, it basically is very similar to other Gen 1 fighter jets (at least in War Thunder). And IIRC not even later variants of the Hunter (F.6, FGA.9, F.58) are not supersonic capable in level flight, but these later variants have INSANE engine performance + they get access to missiles.
Also their engine is non-afterburning
@@LuizBarros99 I guess I have a very British/US perspective on this. To me, Vampire & Meteor (& US P-80) with their unswept wings & centrifugal compressor turbojets were 1st gen, swept wing aircraft with axial flow engines were 2nd gen. We get uncomfortable when reminded that Me262 had both ;) If MiG 15 had been European or American, I believe it would have had an axial flow engine, it ended up with a copy of Nene because that's what they had available. I'm pretty sure we thought it was a sweet deal to give them that - hard cash for what seemed obsolete tech. They used it rather well.
@@ian12262 @Ian Nichols yeah, the sale of the Centrifugal Rolls-Royce jet engines for the Soviets was certainly a mistake. (Not only the Nene was sold, there was also a slight smaller centrifugal jet engine that was also sold, and was used on some aircraft such as the Yak-30 and the La-15)
I was talking to someone about DCS and the videos I watch.
They told me, it's rich people making money playing video games....😂
There's nothing rich about me I can tell you that. But yes I admit we are playing video games.
Just go all out. F106 Delta Darts with the MB-2 Genie nuclear air to air missiles. They aren't precision missiles, they were unguided but had a short flight time and a large (estimated 300 meter) blast radius.
You should try this one against B-17 formations instead of JU-88's
Already being worked on :)
18:05 lol it looked like the explosion propelled the plane forward...
I don't think I have seen any Shindens yet.
There's the economy jumpstarted
Hi Cortana! (spelling?) kick their asses!
Cortana did a thing. Lost a wing.
We got Violet! just in time.
I was hopping to see what the A-10C would have done.
Now THAT would have been something to see for sure! A mere half-second burst from the GAU-8 would absolutely atomize a Ju-88.
probably not much, not enough skilled A10 pilots available at recording time to be able to hit anything without tracers.
They have done A-10 vs German bombers before. It takes ages to catch up to them.
th-cam.com/video/6ZRFK1Ekqz0/w-d-xo.html
After Algernon came Doctor Rat - an interesting little read from the viewpoint of an intelligent laboratory rat.
Should try the AC130 interceptor.
nice
You can comfortably run the mustang at 3000rpm for quite a long time, especially at altitude.
You were struggling to catch up because you were being too conservative with the engine.
Max RPM and 55-60 inches would give you much more speed, and the engine will last for plenty of time.
I've been bitten so many times by that engine, I've learned to just stay at 2700rpm and suck it up.
When I saw in the warbirds stage. Had two look twice as their was a British fighter I've never seen before. Not int tell someone .
It's a Focke'- wulf. Lol. But it does look good in British colours. I know that the RAF used mustangs. But don't see many documentarys about them. I think , in a case.i can remember. They used to fly with USA bomber , till they reach a cost, turned back . Refill or whatever. Take off . And meet the bombers coming back. Still . It looks good in brits colour. 👍
I'm not sure whether Reaper was inexperienced with the Mustang Model, but It should be a near perfect model for an interceptor.
Flowers for Algernon.
thx
I think you forgot to include the cost of all the flares!
I would have took the F-14 because of the Swing Wing design. More stability at low speeds
Flowers, not tears.
thx
Yay Cortana!
That was fun
Cold War bombers next?
Not next, but will definitely be part of this series
How about A-10s with all pylons loaded with missiles, and loaded with only tracers and HE? They're faster than bombers, they can carry a massive weapons load, and the gun is devastating.
I was thinking coming in low and going up at them right when he said the bottom is the weak spot😂 I mean gravity will always slow you down because gravity always eventually wins LMAO
The Mig19 is imprressive considering how few years there were between the very first jets and it but its contempoaries were just as good. The F100 Super Sabre and English Electric Lightning.
Personally, I'm wishing you guys would try the same combat simulation again only it's against US WW2 heavy bombers like the B-17s, B-24s or even B-29s. It would be a nice POV change to see what it's like on the German, Japanese or even Italian side during WW2 trying to shoot down US heavy bombers.
And what the difference could be for Gen 1 jet fighters trying to do the same thing as it'll give us something close to the Korean War when using F-86 and MiG-15 jet fighters to intercept heavy bombers like the B-29s.
Yep! That is already in the works. Not sure exactly how large of a bomber raid the server will be able to handle though
@@KortanaDCS That's great! Thanks for replying and letting me know. BTW, I really enjoyed your combat simulation setup (WarGames 5b) involving a formation of B-17s going against a mix of German 88 AA guns and early 1960s-1970s Soviet SAM systems. There is a dieselpunk-themed feel to that simulation when you consider the early German WW2 research in SAMs.
German Anti-Air Missiles of WW2: th-cam.com/video/Cx_lsh0BJGs/w-d-xo.html
German AA Missiles - An Efficient Alternative to Flak?: th-cam.com/video/B7Q92V5hK-c/w-d-xo.html
Something about WarGames 5b makes me think about the time period (the 1950s I think?) the Soviet SA-1 and SA-2 SAM systems were developed and how they might have fared if you guys could set up a similar combat simulation using jet fighters and bombers from the same time period the SA-1 and SA-2 were developed, i.e. 1950s jets fighters and bombers.
Soviet SAMs: th-cam.com/play/PLbeRRNpuu7hzryHrq5ezBVTgVSUYuMmaW.html
I hope you don't mind the rambling and historical references as I really enjoyed the WarGames simulations you guys made.
42:08 f 14 is my favorite
Lead Nosed Diesel Fighter 😂
In Germany we called them "Luftverteidigungs Diesel" (Airdefence Diesel).
18:54 sound like r2d2 😂
Why no Mirage 2000?
It was available for us to take, but it has only 4 missiles and a 30mm with very little ammunition.