Jump to content

Vietnam War - POLL


Hueyman

Vietnam War - POLL  

1091 members have voted

  1. 1. Vietnam War - POLL

    • Yes, it would create a new dimension to the DCS World simulator
    • No, I prefer 3rds to still work on aircrafts, and to fly in the same old Caucasus


Recommended Posts

You forgot the third option, "Someone should start making more maps, don't care where, as long as they are good...."

Amen!

AWAITING ED NEW DAMAGE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WW2 BIRDS

 

Fat T is above, thin T is below. Long T is faster, Short T is slower. Open triangle is AWACS, closed triangle is your own sensors. Double dash is friendly, Single dash is enemy. Circle is friendly. Strobe is jammer. Strobe to dash is under 35 km. HDD is 7 times range key. Radar to 160 km, IRST to 10 km. Stay low, but never slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

id still have my money on both mig17//21 in a horizontal manuver fight vs the f105.

 

Depends on what you mean by a horizontal fight, but I think what you mean by horizontal fight is really a slow speed fight of both Mig's, in which case you would be correct. That said, both Phantoms and Thuds were clearly superior in fights against both aircraft below 15K and above 500 kn. A look at the -21 Bis's EM diagram gives 12 dps sustained and 13 instantaneous at .9 M and 5K. I don't have -17's EM diagram, but do have the -15's and it has the A/C bumping into it's max Q at SL around .9 M, the -17 is a little faster but it gets across the general idea.

 

Both Migs have their best turn rates between .5-.6 M, Phantoms and Thuds are best around .9 M. Have Doughnut, Project Red Baron and Aces and Aerial Victories - Air Force Historical Studies all say that. Moral of the story, fight low, fight fast, speed is life.

 

f105 only did have guns and a heatseakers for self defense purposes.

 

Arguably the most effective (more kills per attempt that any other weapon) AA weapon during Rolling Thunder 1965-68 was the gun, as you've referenced by your comments on the Aim-9B and Aim-7E. Heat seakers plus an internal gun beats the dead weight/drag of 4 Sparrows, a gun pod and a WSO ;) Now the 1972 Linebacker/Linebacker II Sidewinders and Sparrows were much better, but by then the only Thuds left were Weasels, which had no business doing AA.

 

even with better tactics it would really be misusing the thud since its not meant to dogfight or shoot down planes with missiles. the thud really was a bomber first & foremost, fighter second, only for self defence purposes if absolutely necessary.

 

Not really, the 105 was typical for a 1950's Tactical Air Command fighter. It was expected to carry out all missions a tactical fighter would carry out, nuclear delivery, conventional air to ground and air to air just like the F-84, F-86 and F-100. The lone standout was the F-104 which didn't last very long in USAF. Now, one might argue the existence of the bomb bay is sure proof it's a bomber. But, with full fuel and an internal store it is still a 7.33 G aircraft and can sustain 6.5 G in that configuration; get to 60% fuel and it sustains the aircraft limit; get rid of the store at 60% fuel it sustains 8 G and has an aircraft limit of 8.67 G. That's pretty impressive performance for a bomber. The expectation is the fighter defends itself from Mig's alone and unafraid to deliver its can of instant sunshine. TAC in the late 50's early 60's put a lot of emphasis on SIOP.

 

That mindset helped to atrophy core fighter pilot skills. But, the really bad tactics were rigid formations and the mindset that all of the wing men existed to support the lead's shot are the ones most harmful (the Phantom community had the same problem BTW). By better tactics they should have taken a page from the F-8 community and gone loose deuce adopting the engaged and supporting model where everybody's a shooter. Robin Olds did exactly that and the boys at Ubon kicked butt.

 

Also, it's important to remember that the Mig's often avoided the fighter escort, hid in the clutter and jumped the Thuds. During Rolling Thunder the Phantoms had no solution, by Linebacker the appointed Air to Air F-4 units had Combat Tree which made that tactic harder to pull off. But typically a strike package of 4 flights of 4 F-105's one flight was the designated Mig flight and would jettison and keep the Mig's occupied until the Phantoms arrive or the rest of the flights got their bombs on target.

 

The point is what was tactically sound really depended on the situation. A perfect illustration of this is Leo K. Thorsness, Google the mission he earned his Medal of Honor.

 

only time f105 would be without bombs in vietnam theatre if it was RTB or if it jettisoned them.

 

Or the bomb shortage early in Rolling Thunder, or a fragged mission to strafe helicopters in RP6, or going back to CAP for a downed wingman...

 

I mean against mig17s thud pilots could have just kicked in full burner and easily gotten away from those things and rtb after mission, but of course every pilot wants to be an ace, even if it means misusing an aircraft.

 

so yes bad tactics and ego got some pilots killed, especially when thuds actually had escorts like the F4 operating.

 

The ability to engage or disengage at will is generally considered a good thing.

 

You need to modify your pilot comment, because this gets to the heart of my personnel comment. Every FIGHTER pilot wants to be an ace, not every pilot who flies fighters, there's a big difference here because fighter pilots should be aggressive and the pilots who flew fighters needed to survive. The rotation policy during Rolling Thunder was asinine, rather than rotate units, they rotated people. Compounding things they did the 100 missions or one year thing. Even worse they had a policy of no involuntary second tours, so take a bomber or transport pilot and put him through the RTU at Nellis and you have a fighter pilot, not. Many of the Thud pilots had no business being in a fighter cockpit, they simply didn't have the skills. The guys who grew up in fighters were the ones who killed Mig's, even in the Thud which did officially get 27.5 to the Phantom's 59 during Rolling Thunder.

 

which is why i think ealier generation manoeuvrable fighters going up against lesser manoeuvrable, and heavier fighters in planes built for missile combat with early missile tech, is still highly challenging and thus still hard-pressed in away against the likes the mig17/mig19. In the case of the mig21, that thing meant as a missile interceptor but was pretty light and nimble for its short delta wing design.

 

So, your sentiment is understandable, if poorly worded since maneuverability by itself is a terribly imprecise word. Example, which is more maneuverable the fighter that sustains 18 dps at .5 M or the one that sustains it at .9 M? This is the rate vs radius argument and it's pretty challenging, but the fighter with more energy has more options, so I'd favor the .9 M guy.

 

All aerial combat is challenging, period. Even seemly benign things like flight testing a utility plane in a combat zone can get really sporting pretty quickly (been there, done that, have the tee shirt).

 

Now to keep this on topic, all of this richness and complexity are reasons a Vietnam theater would be thoroughly engrossing. Also, this period was hugely influential for developing modern ACM techniques and would be educational. Finally, it needs the Phantom, Thud and Crusader; all left their mark

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it would be nice to get the f4e phantom first, and with dcs 1.5/ 2.0 engine it is possible now to make 2 seater aircraft, and even make it for 2 player capable in Multiplayer.

 

the L39c is proof of this. of course a f4 would be much more complex, but i believe its doable.

 

 

but I think if any cold war 3rd gen fighter is to be expected in the near future, its more likely we are going to be getting a F-5E tiger 2 module first, before anything. Will make for an interesting and fairly close match against a mig21bis.

 

It has had it 3d model recently updated, and in at least 2 videos wags makes reference to it stating " Whats that F5 doing there?"

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2486694#post2486694


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vietnam War - POLL

 

 

 

but I think if any cold war 3rd gen fighter is to be expected in the near future, its more likely we are going to be getting a F-5E tiger 2 module first, before anything. Will make for an interesting and fairly close match against a mig21bis.

 

It has had it 3d model recently updated, and in at least 2 videos wags makes reference to it stating " Whats that F5 doing there?"

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2486694#post2486694

 

 

F-5E Tiger II confirmed by Belsimtek, check their website

 

:)


Edited by SkipperSMG

i5-2400 | 16GB Corsair XMS3 | MSI GTX 970 4GB | 500GB Samsung 850 Evo | TrackIR 5 | TM Warthog | Saitek Rudder Pedals | Windows 10 64 bit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vietnam War - POLL

 

Don't know which 3rd party Dev. had the Thud in their development list but i remember that i've read it somewhere. Would be nice indeed. :)

i5-2400 | 16GB Corsair XMS3 | MSI GTX 970 4GB | 500GB Samsung 850 Evo | TrackIR 5 | TM Warthog | Saitek Rudder Pedals | Windows 10 64 bit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-5E Tiger II confirmed by Belsimtek, check their website

 

:)

 

ah nice so its belsimtek making the f5e, i thought it may have been a ED project.

 

good to know its official now( more than just teases/hints)

 

either way mig21bis never saw service in the vietnam conflict, at least not while the us was involved militarily, so for a 100% historical vietnam scneraio we would need a earlier second generation mig21 like the "PFM", and of course a vietnam theatre map to go with it.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent stuff. THIS is why I love this forum.

 

Thanks Neil.

 

Full disclosure, I spent ten years in USAF. In that time I had a vice wing commander who was a EWO in wave one for Baghdad in '91 and flew with two other Bears (EWO's) who in retirement were flight test engineers. Ever since I've been quite fascinated by any Wild Weasel or F-105 biography/memoirs and have read them.

 

So, all this to say I'd love to fly a Thud or Weasel.

 

Now, just a hint as to what I spend my limited free time playing with..12189684_10153758321319189_2474065665650508884_n.jpg?oh=92577925a0fa7178691ebafdb1878361&oe=5689B165

 

Care to guess what that is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't hesitate buying a module with a Viet Nam map in it. With the right mix of a/c, it could be a real hoot, both MP as well as SP. The "Lopsided" comment above is not very accurate when you look at the various missions that could be run on that map. Helicopter enthusiasts could fly their little hearts out with an AI ground battle raging while the fixed wing guys fly their ground attack missions. Assuming that a decent multiplayer carrier environment comes out with 2.0, the fight up North could very entertaining with Mig-17's, Mig-19's and Mig-21's flying against A-1's, A-4's, A-6's, A-7's, F-8's and F-4's.

 

 

The smart way for ED/ third party to go about it would be to do a regional map covering the South China Sea. Extending to Vietnam in the west edge of the map, around Shanghai in the north (so as to include Taiwan), and the Phillipines as the boundary to the South and East.

 

Build the map first as just terrain, with no roads or structures. Then add on the manmade features to build map variants: 1944, 1970, and 2010.

 

This would allow you to cover many of the most important campaigns (and what-if/ could-of-been campaigns) since the introduction of military aviation. You could cover significant portions of WW2 Pacific theater, Vietnam, the Vietnam-China war (maybe I should say conflict; it hardly lasted long enough to be really considered a war), the perpetual China-Taiwan crisis, and the current China/ everyone else in the South China Sea conflict as a modern theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unrelated to last post-

 

What are the prop aircraft used in the Vietnam war and would anyone want them?

 

Off the top of my head:

 

A-1 (formerly AD) Skyraider; CAS/ attack/ CSAR escort

T-28 Trojan; COIN/ light attack

OV-10; AFAC/ COIN/ light attack

O-2 Skymaster; AFAC

 

And yes, want all. Particularly the A-1, as it was used in both Korea and Vietnam, and was in fact a WW2 design that just didn't quite make it in time before the war ended, but would be neat for the "1946" scenarios (as would aircraft like the F8F Bearcat, P-51H, P-80, and others)

 

Edit: if you want to include transports, the number of aircraft is significantly larger. And, of course, there were AC-47 gunships made on the DC-3 airframe.


Edited by OutOnTheOP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see healthy discussion re Vietnam scenarios. I'd certainly pay good money for a fully detailed Thud, esp with an SEA map. The A1 would also be awesome...kinda like a prop version of the A10C!! this is off wikipedia:

 

Armament

 

Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) M2 cannon

Other: Up to 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of ordnance on 15 external hardpoints including bombs, torpedoes, mine dispensers, unguided rockets, and gun pods.

 

4 x 20mm cannon...mmm....

AMD AM4 Ryzen7 3700X 3.6ghz/MSI AM4 ATX MAG X570 Tomahawk DDR4/32GB DDR4 G.Skill 3600mhz/1TB 970 Evo SSD/ASUS RTX2070 8gb Super

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, Vietnam would be a bit unbalanced if it was down to air power in DCS. List of 'must-haves' for each side:

 

US and pals:

F-4 Phantom

F-105 Thunderchief

F-111 Aardvark

A-1 Skyraider

A-4 Skyhawk

A-6 Intruder

A-7 Corsair

F-8 Crusader

F-86 Sabre

Huey

AH-1 Cobra

CH-34 Choctaw

 

vs

 

North Vietnam:

Mig-15

Mig-17

Mig-19

Mig-21

Mil Mi-4

Mil Mi-8

Sim-level SA-2

 

You would have to REALLY flesh out combined arms and add an infantry component to compel people to play North Vietnam on multiplayer.

 

Seriously, I don't think it would be that imbalanced, unless mission planners go out of their way to make the scenarios unbalanced. If you have subsonic bomb carrying Thuds, covered by missile only F4's, getting ambushed by Mig-17F's, I think you have a highly competitive and balanced mission. if the Thuds want to continue on target, they are gong to take loses, if they drop their bombs and jump to hyper space, they have a good chance of getting away. The Mig-17 pilots could easily get into a bad spot, if they start flying wings level behind a Thud, fixating on getting that kill, allowing F4 jocks to roll in behind and make good use of the AIM 9. Still, if the Mig-17 pilots keep their heads on the swivel and are ok with not getting a Thud kill, they should have a good chance of defeating a Aim 9 missile shot. I think that is really balanced. Now, if you have F-15s vs Mig-17's, then yeah, that would be a sad day for the Mig-17 fanbois, like me...:lol:

 

:thumbup: MJ


Edited by mjmorrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not unbalanced. What you're NOT including in the above list are the AAA guns and SAMs that ringed the north. That is the great 'balancing item' if you will. The AAA/SAMs shot down more a/c than VNAF jets I think.

 

Besides if we were to replicate a proper Vietnam War scenario, we'll need to replicate both sides to it ie. Route Pack I-VI (bombing missions in North Vietnam) vs ground support missions in South Vietnam.

 

Don't know if any of you have read books on FACs but those guys had balls, flying O-1s, OV1s and OV10s to name a few. The O-1s were armed only with WP rockets. If we had a proper Vietnam map, you would definitely need FACs.

 

This is where the dynamic campaign would come in, assuming its developed.

AMD AM4 Ryzen7 3700X 3.6ghz/MSI AM4 ATX MAG X570 Tomahawk DDR4/32GB DDR4 G.Skill 3600mhz/1TB 970 Evo SSD/ASUS RTX2070 8gb Super

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not unbalanced. What you're NOT including in the above list are the AAA guns and SAMs that ringed the north. That is the great 'balancing item' if you will. The AAA/SAMs shot down more a/c than VNAF jets I think.

 

Besides if we were to replicate a proper Vietnam War scenario, we'll need to replicate both sides to it ie. Route Pack I-VI (bombing missions in North Vietnam) vs ground support missions in South Vietnam.

 

Don't know if any of you have read books on FACs but those guys had balls, flying O-1s, OV1s and OV10s to name a few. The O-1s were armed only with WP rockets. If we had a proper Vietnam map, you would definitely need FACs.

 

This is where the dynamic campaign would come in, assuming its developed.

 

We do have aircraft to fill in as FAC aircraft until actual ones show up ( if we ever get actual dedicated FAC aircraft).

 

the 2 seater L39c, & perhaps the unarmed tf51 mustang :lol:


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the Thuds want to continue on target, they are gong to take loses, if they drop their bombs and jump to hyper space, they have a good chance of getting away.J

 

flying thuds aint like dusting crops boy! :pilotfly:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

"If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flying thuds aint like dusting crops boy! :pilotfly:

 

Yep! :megalol: DCS is my go to place for a Star Wars fix. I am convinced that the Sabre vs Fagot match up in DCS is the closest we have to a Twenty First Century X-Wing Vs TIE Fighter simulation for the pc, at least until we have a DCS Wildcat vs DCS Zero match up. When I look at this chase scene from Episode VII, involving the Falcon being pursued by First order TIE Fighters, I can totally imagine this chase happening on a DCS Vietnam multiplayer map, except with a DCS Thud as the Falcon and DCS Frescos as the TIE's.

 

:thumbup: MJ

 

https://youtu.be/EEG9rtTJV_c?t=7s


Edited by mjmorrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever heard of rouge squadron? A real hard sci-fi space sim.

 

I would 100% buy a Korean War map and fly all the aircraft from that era.

 

Who would pay for a Falklands map after the tornado comes out

 

Then we could add the Super Étendard, Skyhawk A-4 or mirage IIIEA. :D

 

(excuse me in advance)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

"If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, I don't think it would be that imbalanced, unless mission planners go out of their way to make the scenarios unbalanced. If you have subsonic bomb carrying Thuds, covered by missile only F4's, getting ambushed by Mig-17F's, I think you have a highly competitive and balanced mission. if the Thuds want to continue on target, they are gong to take loses, if they drop their bombs and jump to hyper space, they have a good chance of getting away. The Mig-17 pilots could easily get into a bad spot, if they start flying wings level behind a Thud, fixating on getting that kill, allowing F4 jocks to roll in behind and make good use of the AIM 9. Still, if the Mig-17 pilots keep their heads on the swivel and are ok with not getting a Thud kill, they should have a good chance of defeating a Aim 9 missile shot. I think that is really balanced. Now, if you have F-15s vs Mig-17's, then yeah, that would be a sad day for the Mig-17 fanbois, like me...:lol:

 

:thumbup: MJ

 

The Mig-17 vs F-105D match up is a very good one, a classic radius vs rate fight. Also, the Thud was more capable than many give it credit. Consider, USAF shot down 135 Mig's in seven and a half years, during the 18 months between 29 Jun 1966 and 19 Dec 1967 the Thuds shot down 27 Mig-17's and shared a kill with a Phantom crew. The Phantom box score during the same 18 months was 21 Mig-17's and 21 Mig-21's, and the -21's rarely targeted the F-105D's, they preferred to go after the Weasels. Also, the -105's had more Mig encounters (151) than any other USAF model (Jon Lake's F-105 THUNDERCHIEF MIG KILLERS OF THE VIETNAM WAR).

 

Technically the F-105 was subsonic with bombs and tanks, but that was a paper Technical Order limitation. The tanks carried a 600 KCAS limit and depending on how many and what type of bombs the limit was between 600-675 KCAS. The SL speed of sound is 660 knots. I've read plenty of memoirs of Thud pilots who punched the tanks, kept the bombs and accelerated out past 700 KCAS to leave the Mig's behind.

 

Typical Rolling Thunder strike packages in the mid '66 to end of Rolling Thunder consisted of 16 F-105D split into 4 flights of 4, 4 F-105F Weasels (or 2 F's and 2 D's), and 4 F-4C/D's. Typically the Mig-21's would do a hit and run on the Weasels and the Phantoms would engage. Then with the escorts drawn away the -17's hit the D's. Again, typically one of the 4 flights of D's was the designated escort, they would have Aim-9's and would jettison all bombs and tanks. The remaining 3 flights would likely punch the tanks (especially if empty), light the burners and press on to the target.

 

The deciding factor of any -17 vs Thud match up is who sticks to their strengths, if the Thud keeps the speed above 500 knots and altitude below 15,000 they are superior in every measure of performance to the Mig. One of the main reasons both the Phantoms and Thuds didn't shoot down more Mig's was they were using bad tactics that only treated the flight lead as the primary shooter. Freed of that constraint in DCS, the match up is very balanced.

 

Cheers


Edited by mkellytx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mkellytx- That would be super cool. I really think it will be a solid and fun match up. Without bombs and such, i think that Mig-17F sim pilots will have our work cut out for us. I am pretty sure that the Thud had a favorable kill to death ratio against the Fresco and there are some really talented DCS sim pilots out there. Outside of attacking the novice AI, I think I am going to be in my parachute a lot.

 

@Frosty- I have heard of that sim. if I had the free time, I would add it in my rotation, but I have to keep what game time I do have for DCS and the DOW server crew. i like your taste in planes, too! Out of the three you mentioned, i think the A-4 Skyhawk would be a great one for a Vietnam map.

 

@Buzzles- The F-104 is an interesting plane. I wonder how it would fare? Not necessarily in Vietnam, I think it had a tough time against the Mig-21, but had success against the Mig-19. On a Vietnam map, with the right tactics, it ought to be effective against the Mig-17F or the Shenyang J-6, I suppose. P.S. The Shenyang J-6 might be a good first PRC plane for DCS World, since we don't have a Chinese plane, yet.


Edited by mjmorrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This also my strongest wish about DCS, I eager it so much!!!

1 authentic data make fly real, (real control procedure of Mig-21 A-10c and UH-1 makes DCS the top of combat simulator.)

2 many different missions with different aircrafts, possibility.

3 easy to make scenery, trees and trees and more trees, almost no building need to be fit with satillite scenery.

3 dogfight attract more flight sim beginner join DCS

and more


Edited by bin801
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...