Vietnam War - POLL - Page 13 - ED Forums
 


Notices

View Poll Results: With the aircrafts we have, should devs focus on creating a Vietnam environment ?
Yes, it would create a new dimension to the DCS World simulator 817 86.00%
No, I prefer 3rds to still work on aircrafts, and to fly in the same old Caucasus 133 14.00%
Voters: 950. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-28-2015, 08:01 PM   #121
AG-51_Razor
Senior Member
 
AG-51_Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,599
Default

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.
AG-51_Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2015, 09:21 AM   #122
Buren
Member
 
Buren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Венгрия
Posts: 130
Default

The F-105! Don't forget the Thud! It bore the brunt of the bombing in the earlier campaigns (i.e. Rolling Thunder). Forgetting it would be akin to forgetting the B-17s in the WW2 ETO.
__________________
Buren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 04:02 AM   #123
mkellytx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev2go View Post
the only jets that could really give migs trouble in air to air would be the Agile F8 crusader, or the F4 phantom.
Despite phantom lack of maneuverability compared to even the mig21 it did have incredible engine thrust, and advanced radar, avionics, and missile amount count.

f-105 - ill maneuverable mach 2 Bomb truck
That unfortunately is the conventional wisdom about the Thud. That said, if it weren't for the bad ROE, poor tactics and bad personnel policy (no involuntary second tours); they would have shot down more Migs than the 27.5 officially credited. Reading Have Doughnut report and F-105 Thunderchief Mig Killers of the Vietnam War was eye opening and changed my mind.

With out the bombs it was a surprisingly good aircraft down low and fast. Per 1F-105-1, a clean Thud at sea level with 60% fuel (includes a bomb bay tank) could sustain a 7.3 G turn at 17 degrees per second. The bay tank limits G to 7.33, a clean Thud, no tank at 60% fuel sustains 18 dps at 8 G and can do 19-20 dps at the 8.67 G aircraft limit. With 4 Aim-9B, a BB tank at 60% fuel sustain is 7 G for 16 dps and instantaneous is 7.33 for 17 dps.

Just for reference, an F-4E with two Sparrows, two Sidewinder and 50% fuel is a 7.5 G bird with 14 dps sustained and 17.5 dps instantaneous. During Rolling Thunder (65-6 the Phantoms were C's and D's which were about 2,000 pounds lighter and could do slightly better.

All that to say the F-105 in a DCS Vietnam map would be an awesome add!

Cheers

Last edited by mkellytx; 10-14-2015 at 02:10 AM.
mkellytx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2015, 11:50 PM   #124
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkellytx View Post
That unfortunately is the conventional wisdom about the Thud. That said, if it weren't for the bad ROE, poor tactics and bad personnel policy (no involuntary second tours); they would have shot down more Migs than the 27.5 officially credited. Reading Have Doughnut report and F-105 Thunderchief Mig Killers of the Vietnam War was eye opening and changed my mind.

With out the bombs it was a surprisingly good aircraft down low and fast. Per 1F-104D-1, a clean Thud at sea level with 60% fuel (includes a bomb bay tank) could sustain a 7.3 G turn at 17 degrees per second. The bay tank limits G to 7.33, a clean Thud, no tank at 60% fuel sustains 18 dps at 8 G and can do 19-20 dps at the 8.67 G aircraft limit. With 4 Aim-9B, a BB tank at 60% fuel sustain is 7 G for 16 dps and instantaneous is 7.33 for 17 dps.

Just for reference, an F-4E with two Sparrows, two Sidewinder and 50% fuel is a 7.5 G bird with 14 dps sustained and 17.5 dps instantaneous. During Rolling Thunder (65-6 the Phantoms were C's and D's which were about 2,000 pounds lighter and could do slightly better.

All that to say the F-105 in a DCS Vietnam map would be an awesome add!

Cheers


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

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

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.

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





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.


aim9b' had a really poor hit rate, plus reliability issues.. I mean they are just plain bad. having used the gar8s, and Russian copy of it, the R3S missiles in DCS ( on the f86 and the Mig21 respectively), i honestly wouldn't count on those to save you, especially not in tight g turn dogfights

those are only reliable enough for relatively gentle turns or steady flying targets

ground clutter, sun, or even reflection from the sun is enough to give the missile issues with target tracking . firing too close , under 900/800 ish metres also has sometimes resulted gar8/r3s just passing by enemy targets.

the aim7e sparrows didnt have good success rates either in bvr.

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.
__________________





Build:


Spoiler:


Windows 10 64 bit,

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.


Last edited by Kev2go; 10-13-2015 at 01:57 AM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 07:43 PM   #125
Vectury
Member
 
Vectury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Currently, France
Posts: 174
Default

A Vietnam environment would be nice, but i'd rather have an F-4 Phantom II module first. That way the Mig-21 will finally meet its natural enemy. So I'd say modules first, then the map. Besides, there is plenty of tasty stuff currently in development.
__________________


Spoiler:

-- i7 4790K
-- Club 3D R9 290X Royal Ace SOC
-- Asus Maximus VII Ranger
-- G.Skill Trident X 16GB DDR3-2400 CL10
-- Gelid Tranquillo rev.2
-- Corsair RM850
-- Corsair 760T White
-- Windows 10

Last edited by Vectury; 10-13-2015 at 07:48 PM.
Vectury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2015, 11:15 PM   #126
WildBillKelsoe
Veteran
 
WildBillKelsoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Posts: 6,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Penguin View Post
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.
WildBillKelsoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2015, 04:41 AM   #127
mkellytx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev2go View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
mkellytx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2015, 11:27 PM   #128
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,753
Default

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.ph...94#post2486694
__________________





Build:


Spoiler:


Windows 10 64 bit,

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.


Last edited by Kev2go; 10-17-2015 at 11:32 PM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2015, 05:33 PM   #129
SkipperSMG
Member
 
SkipperSMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: BW, Germany
Posts: 185
Default Vietnam War - POLL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev2go View Post


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.ph...94#post2486694

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

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


Last edited by SkipperSMG; 10-22-2015 at 05:38 PM.
SkipperSMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2015, 01:00 AM   #130
The_Pharoah
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 539
Default

The F5 is a welcome addition. I still want the F-105. you can't have a vietnam war scenario without it.
__________________
Intel i5-3570K/Asrock Z77-Extreme 4/G.Skill Ares (24GB) 1600/SSD: SanDisk Extreme 120GB/Seagate Barracuda 2TB/6GB GTX 1060/Coolermaster USB3.0 RC-912/Antec HCG 520/Coolermaster Hyper 212 EVO/Win10
The_Pharoah is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:59 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.