Cap, at the 58:49 min mark, George's info of the TOW missile is INACCURATE. I was a Bradley Fighting Vehicle gunner for a year while deployed in Iraq. 2002-2005. I've shot two TOW missiles in combat and about 9 other at Bradley/Abraham Range. There are 4 different types of TOW Missles. The one George is talking about is the TOW-2B. Developed in 1987. Max range is 4200 meters. Most Bradley's when I was still in the Army, used the TOW-2A, which had to actually impact the target that you were aiming at. TOW-2N is the latest developed missile with wireless datalink, 1989, however the US military did not adopt this version. This also is a TOP-attack warhead. I believe the game is modeled off the TOW-2A which the missile has to impacted its target. Other than that George did a great job with showing all of us how to use the Ground Vehicles in DCS. Bravo sir! Cheers
This was fun! I always hoped for a good tutorial on CA. This was it. The only thing we now need is ED overhauling CA to implement multi-position tanks, make the CA stuff a bit more accurate and of course ADD lots of stuff. Personally, I suggest doing it by army.
its the real world part thats the problem. i hope i am ignorant to the information but it sounds like he is giving away restricted information on weapon systems. for eg, exact ranges for missiles and weapon systems, esp Optics are VERY much not to be posted on public forums. My apologies if I am being over pedantic based on my background
Thank you George and Cap, I learnt a lot, not just with CA but about armour as well. I was surprised when George said the F18, Ka50 and then another tank were the biggest threat and did not mention the A10
Because its not, in todays would-be threat environment, there are far to many pieces of kit that can locate, track, target, engage and destroy the A10 faster than a single A10 can destroy the network of systems that todays modern combat zone consists of. A10 would get eaten alive, too slow, too few sensors required to enable it to survive long enough to engage targets at will. the A10 is NOT ideal or as effective for when the initial high tempo and high intensity combat has already occurred. The only reason the a10 and the "bbrrrr" are even a thing, and a meme, is because we have been fighting combatants in sandals, etc.. A lot of kids over the years, and ignorant individuals, only exposure to the a10 and combat are the wars in the middle east against "sandal" wearing combatants. Not Soviet armored divisions and IADS of the cold war. The KA-50 at least can stay low and slow/fast, and into the dirt, and use the topography and trees, etc., etc.. and all the other ground clutter to really mask it and make it difficult to detect with radar at most ranges other than right on top of you. Against a peer/near-peer military, a10 will be saved until after al the initial strikes, bombings, DEAS/SEAD missions, or else it would get torn up, gutted, and eaten alive. The a10 is in that inconvenient threatened zone: not slow enough (but isn't a helo a that can use ground clutter effectively and all the other niche capabilities that helos can do), and not fast enough, nor kitted out with the proper sensor suite and weapon fittings like the f18. Its an odd ball that can only, truly be an effective at what it does in very niche environments, scenarios and engagements and threat environments. I'd venture to say that's why he didn't mention the hog.
@@liammarra4003 The A-10C is more than capable on the modern battlefield in a CAS role. It was never intended to do anything but CAS, and always was going to require battlefield prep before it could do it's work properly. Lol did you think the hawg was intended to just rush out into enemy airspace without cover, and wild weasel/SEAD work done? It's receiving another upgrade, and it's service life has been extended indefinitely, so obviously somebody must not share your opinion.
@@JohnnyKaw11B the A-10 does not, has not, has never, and will not operate over a battlefield that has not had its IADS thoroughly saturated destroyed or rendered combat ineffective as well as enemy airforces not being destroyed or rendered combat ineffecitve. Because it would never get there. To provide CAS, there needs to be land forces operating and fighting that need CAS. If the DoD can help it, Those forces will never be engaging threats on a battlefield covered by IADS and where the airforce does not have air dominance. And only after a prolonged and sustained bombardment will ground assets move in, encounter resistence and ground threats that require CAS support which will be probided by Said a10.
@@liammarra4003 Lol No shit, that's what the plane was designed to do, and the environment it was designed to work in. CAS is a niche role, thats best filled by a dedicated weapons platform. Nobody reasonably expects any different. The fact remains that it's incredibly effective at what it does. It was responsible for destroying roughly a third of the tanks, half of the artillery pieces, and a third of the APCs in the Gulf War. Iraq had an extensive, fairly capable, air defense at that time. The bombing, and SEAD campaigns saw to that, and it damn well better in the next conflict. If it doesn't, CAS with any platform is a moot point.
the arm digs into ground to stabilize the gun while firing, also you can fire artillery without locking and itll tell you what range the round will land at based on your guns elevation
I don't mean to be a nit picker here, but 1000mm is NOT 6ft. 1000mm (mili = 1/1000 ; meter = metric unit). So 1000mm = 1m (roughly 3.3 ft) 6ft is roughly 1.8m (1,800mm). I know it's hard for Americans to do metric. Just wanted to point out the serious difference in 6ft and 1,000mm (1m)
Great stuff. I always wondered if you could set up a SAM net with the escort ships around the carrier. Then try to suck the enemy fighters close enough for them to engage. Or could be used as an “Alamo” location.
Another Great video Cap asks if a 152mm gun can kill a tank..... Cap apparently not familiar with the mighty KV-2 Question: which key setting is Gun stabilize.... as it's not called that in the Controls menu? is it: Turret to current direction lock? if you're sending in a bug report about CA......please tell them to add a way to de-spawn destroyed vehicles or at least let one edit the time that the vehicle is on fire/smoking..... that's what's killing the frame rate at the moment (a destroyed ground vehicle will be on fire/smoke for 20 minutes)
I really enjoy the videos. Looked them even twice to translate it in french :D. Is there any way to get the mission file ? I tried to reconstitute it but I forgot some items I guess. Thanks and continue the same way, it's perfect!
That was fun - Specially the Tank vs Aircraft stuff. Hope we'll see you do that in "real combat" Cap. I'd bet It'll confuse the hell out of your enemies :P
The ZSU-23-4 used 4 single barrel cannons not only because it was an earlier design but because the guns could be fired individually if there were any faults with any of the cannons. The M61 Vulcan & other GAU type rotary cannons cannot operate in this fashion.
There are russian rotary cannons, but they mostly used on ships. AK-630 is 30mm russian rotary cannon. Original Mi-24 (not one ED is working on) had rotary 12.7mm machine gun.
Yes it's a sort of semi auto loader, but it was to reduce the crew and speed up the fire rate of it,. Just funny that Sweden was the first country to even put, try and use an auto loader for an artillery piece. that being the Bofors Bandkanon 1A
God, if they could get even an arma I style damage model on ground vehicles, combined arms would be amazing. If they could get a halfway decent ground AI, and a better damage model the helicopter play would be out of this world.
reminds me of the battle documentary where the guys won all kinds of medals for missle attacking tanks from a bradley. in between loading their missile packs they shot with their 25mm guns at the tanks. crazy. t72's I think they were fighting. was it 1991 war. anyway.
For such an experience you guys should try out Alpenwolf's cold war server. Combined Arms is included in most missions if not all. And guys always use it.
@@grimreapers Yeah, I know. Some people really want 100% realism XD But when in a vehicle the external view for that is activated (insert-key). Otherwise SA would be impossible. So it is doable. We had an incredible BMP-2 vs Bradley warfare for about 2 hours fighting over one FARP. It was amazing!
Someone should tell the devs to stop calling the Humvee a "Hummer". A hummer is a stupid SUV soccer moms drive, or a present your GF gives you for your birthday. The U.S. Army's HMMWV is not a hummer. As a former US paratrooper, it annoys the crap out of me.
@@nooneno12 I know typical scouts get triggered when people call the Bradley a tank instead of an infantry fighting vehicle or scout fighting vehicle, but that's about all I know (irl experience) about tanks. That, and changing track is a b*tch and half. I did see one at Ft. Knox once though lmfao. Seriously though, for me the HMMWV is just a "truck" or "the truck". Calling it a "Hummer" is super cringe. Considering how pissy people seem to get when you (properly) call an F-16 the falcon instead of the viper, people should appreciate why a soldier would cringe out when they hear hummer. If we want to have fun playing war, we could at least put some effort into nomenclature. Oh btw, I definitely don't want to do the "viper debate" either. I was born and raised at Hill AFB, for me that aircraft will always be what it is. Conformity, aint nobody got time for that. Also, on the Abrams, I would imagine that tankers who play combined arms would definitely care if something that they put so much work into was being poorly represented. I never served with a leg unit, so I wouldn't know.
Also you can click middle mousbutton then you have a constant cursor speed you can pull on any direction, makes targeting moving targets far away much much easier.
The guy said the frontal armour of an Abrams is 6 feet thick? I laughed out loud for real. I actually read it was between 700mm and 850mm (2½ft) which is probably nearer the truth. I mean come on...6 feet thick armour! Its a tank not a bloody battleship! Has this guy really commanded tanks?
@@firing_pin9971 He said the turret was 3 feet thick and the frontal armour was 6 feet thick! I'm not a complete moron and Google/wiki search etc say anywhere from 350 to 850mm thick even though the actual thickness is classified. But I cannot believe it is 6 feet thick lol, it may "look" 6 feet thick on the outside but usually, the frontal (glacis plate) armour of a tank is like 3 to 8 inches thick MAX and sloped to make it thicker against penetration.
@@TheGeezzer It is 6 feet in physical thickness. Effective is somewhere around 700-850mm Kinetic and 900-1300mm Chemical. 3 inches are WW2 armor. Heck. WW2 had tanks with more than 6 inches of armor.
I would like to see how Patria 8X8 AMV (Armored Modular Vehicle, successor of 6X6 "Pasi" APC and looks much like US Marines LAV-25 that was tested to swim in first episode) armed with double barreled, 120mm automatic mortar system: Patria AMOS (Advanced Mortar System). It can be installed on many other surfaces too such as CV90 & M113 APC's (not sure but why not M2 & M3 Bradley's too?) among many other APC's, IFV's and boats. Actually I'd just wanted to see the AMOS in action, platform doesn't matter. But as fast as possible... I don't know how would it be to code on game properly though, as it can (indirect-)fire 12 rounds on same target and all rounds falling on target at the same time as all 6 (x2 barrels = 12) rounds are shot on different angles and muzzle velocities and then quickly... or, as quickly as possible with 4 500kg turret, leave the scene (aka "shoot-and-scoot") to avoid possible counter barrage or missile strike. It has tactical benefit to seem like an actual salvo from artillery battery so two AMOS units can tie enemies in certain location, for example to wait some other guns. AMOS has all kind of other specs why I'm interested on it's performance as it has not seen live-action, yet. Like indirect range up to 10km depending on ammo (handy at forest warfare), I think the almost 20kg top-attack IR-guided STRIX AT-mortar munitions has range of 7,5km (similar to 120mm XM395 Precision Guided Mortar Munition) although don't remember the MRSI (multiple rounds simultaneous impact) "salvo" distance. It has ability to sustain 20 rounds/min fire rate (first 4 ammo in 5 sec) carrying 48 ammo (at least on Patria AMV). Also has direct fire range of 1,5km... and so on and so on...
CAP ! DCS mission: Extreme CAS. Only 1980's aircraft fixed wing and rotary wing, stop one or more soviet tank divisions from flooding into Europe through the Fulda Gap!
the tow 2b goes and flies over the tank and the proximity fuze likes it and blows the fucking tank up thru the top where as tow 1's just go the old style
Why the hell does the artillery go from 3 seconds to two minutes to find a firing solution at greater than 4km? Does it suddenly forget how to do calculus at long range? All it's doing is computing the angle of elevation for a given range, and from point blank to its maximum range that should be as simple as a look up table that a human could operate at a glance. Two fucking minutes doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Don't take this as an insult as it isn't ment to be at all. But it amazes me how few people have any understanding of weapon systems or simple ballistics. Even with people who play "more realistic" (it's certainly closer than most but not actual realism) games like this, there seems to be very little knowledge. For example thinking it's "silly" for artillery pieces to not have a stabilizer. If your operating an artillery piece and your using direct fire... EVERYTHING IN YOUR WORLD HAS GONE WRONG!!! lol :) while you can, and it is certainly "physically effective". That is worst case scenario for artillery. If your 100+mm arty party and you can see your target with mark 1 eyeball..... your doing it wrong. 🤣 ~30mm vrs any modern tank is simply a no go period. It's just not going to work. The only ~30mm "modern" tank kill I know of was an Bradly using a 20mm vrs an iraqi t72. But they were literally in spitting distance. As in feet away when the Bradly opened fire. At anything resembling expected/effective engagement range that small a weapon will simply bounce off the majority of the time and do no damage at all. You can try shooting a bear with a bb gun if you want but..... Targeting/gunnery thoughts: When you were trying to kill helos with tank main gun rounds. With the first tank you were shooting WAY LATE. You got more effective with the next tank because "you" adjusted. With the t80's missiles, your best bet is to only attempt to engage if the helo is moving towards or away from you only. Tanks vrs jets... The targeting computer on a main gun of a tank is designed to engage land vehicles. Tanks, typically speaking, are slower than 400 knots....... Again, if you want to use a main gun on a tank "you" have to adjust for the velocity and direction of the aircraft because the computer really shouldn't be able to, it was never designed for that. At 400 knots moving away from you your going to go from being in direct just point directly at it range to I have to aim pretty fucking high to compensate for gravity acting on the round with a quickness. The exact opposite if its moving towards you. You struggled with this significantly (not a shame on you, just noting it to help with your gunnery). You wanted to aim at the point where the computer told you to according to when you first marked that target. But that range was 3k different than it is now. You can't trust the rangefinder because when you marked the target initially it might have been say 5k out. But when you finally fired it might have been 2k away. That is a MASSIVE aim difference as you may recall from shooting from the hill in the begining of the first video. The aim difference required for a 1k target and a 5k one..... During ww2 the us military did a study to figure out why some fighter pilots were more effective gunners than others. What they found was the most accurate pilots typically had experience hunting birds. Particularly ones you generally spook into flight and shoot when they are flying such as ducks. These people were some of the most effective because they already understood the importance of and how best to lead a target. This type of excersice, while completely impractical in the real world, will greatly increase your fighter vrs fighter gunnery skills. If you can do the math in your head that your relative speeds are x and your direction is this and there's is that. You know you have to aim roughly there to have a realistic shot. If you can do this all you need the targeting computer for is the fine adjustment to get you perfectly on target. Otherwise your simply desperately trying to chase a dot. Much harder for anyone. Good video though. Fun to see the bugs and oddities introduced by the game vrs real life. The 250+ mph tanks was pretty awesome 🤣🤣🤣
in warthunder ingame you can see really thermal view ...engines are much more hot than the rest and when tank stands still it looses a lot of signature ! DCS is outdated even more now
really wish ED would fix/sort out the ground war shit. Get us a little closer to War Thunder mechanics at least? not exact, but close, would be enough.
There are 1,000 mm in a meter, which is roughly 3.3 feet. It's a bit embarrassing listening to this guy claim that a thousand millimeters is just short of 2 meters and then later he said it's almost 6 ft...
Dude what are you doing!? you sound like you are not roughly guessing give or take away. We all know you dont tell our enemies the EXACT SPECIFICATIONS of our weapon systems. Expect a letter for this one brother.
What does a US commander know about tank warfare that doesn't involve sealclubbing rice farmers, carpet stitchers or outdated, unorganized, demoralized militia-like militaries :D.....
axised001 with out USA there would be no second and third fronts in europe and italy, also no daylight bombing campaigns, also no lend lease supplys to the sovjets, so the germans would most likely have won the european war
@@higaluto yeah sure soviets won the war due to us lend lease hahaha yeah... Just keep believing what they teach you little boys at school, if you're happy with that. Guess I can't even be mad, I mean in PRNK they learn that US are the Satan at school and believe it... So each to their own. As a German, knowing our history pretty good, having a lot of relatives who know how they lost the war, having grandfather's who fought on both fronts, I'm pretty confident to say first and foremost we lost the war because Hitler was a fanatic with bad strategically knowledge. great generals ensured a lot of victories but the longer the war endured the less he listened to his staff and screwed up the entire war. Fighting against 3-4 opposing army's, being outnumbered by factor 2-4 on 2-3 wide frontlines. If anything the war was won by combined allied effort. Saying the US won the war is just hilarious
@@axised001 i didnt say they won the war i said they gave US victory, US meaning the ALLIES, learn to read.... and to deny that fact its just ridiculous, they also defetead the japanese so yeah.. and there would never been another front than the russian front without USA. and of the allies it was only soviet union that had higher casualties, and USA didnt enter before 1941. go and read history little kid....
![BRASIL vs. PERÚ [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tbyOJKXfQnI/mqdefault.jpg)
*Shooting Range*
00:00 MBT T-80U (continued from part 1)
02:01 SPAAA ZSU-23-4 Shilka
06:21 SAM SA-19 Tunguska 2S6
11:28 SPAAA Gepard
14:10 SPH 2S19 Msta
18:13 SPH M109 Paladin
19:50 SAM Avenger M1097
*Shooting Ships*
22:18 SAM SA-19 Tunguska 2S6 vs Carrier
25:25 SPH 2S19 Msta vs Ships
28:55 SAM SA-19 Tunguska 2S6 vs Ships
*Targets Returning Fire*
33:35 MBT Leopard-2 vs RPG's
34:39 MBT Leopard-2 vs RPG's Tactics
38:26 MBT Leopard-2 vs Vehicles
39:16 SAM SA-19 Tunguska 2S6 vs Vehicles Tactics
*What's Effective Against Tanks*
0:43:49 SPH 2S19 Msta
0:48:43 AAA Vulcan M163
0:50:12 SAM SA-19 Tunguska 2S6
0:52:43 SPAAA Gepard
0:54:13 SPH 2S19 Msta
0:58:45 ATGM M1134 Stryker
1:02:17 ARV BTR-RD
1:05:34 MBT Leclerc
*Shooting Moving Targets*
1:12:21 Start
*Tank vs Helicopter*
1:14:44 MBT M1A2 Abrams
1:18:13 MBT Leopard-2
1:20:46 MBT T-80U
*Tank vs Vehicle*
1:23:33 MBT T-80U
1:26:00 SAM SA-19 Tunguska 2S6
*Tank vs Plane*
1:29:15 MBT M1A2 Abrams vs FA-18C
1:33:53 MBT M1A2 Abrams vs P-47D
1:37:45 Thank You George!
Wow thanks!!
thx
George is the man. Worked helo's with him a few times. He will move the map, but also his comms and leadership ingame are spot on.
wher the feck are u Weavin???
George, this was excellent. Well prepared and well executed. I learned a lot about CA I was not aware of.
Cap, at the 58:49 min mark, George's info of the TOW missile is INACCURATE. I was a Bradley Fighting Vehicle gunner for a year while deployed in Iraq. 2002-2005. I've shot two TOW missiles in combat and about 9 other at Bradley/Abraham Range. There are 4 different types of TOW Missles. The one George is talking about is the TOW-2B. Developed in 1987. Max range is 4200 meters. Most Bradley's when I was still in the Army, used the TOW-2A, which had to actually impact the target that you were aiming at. TOW-2N is the latest developed missile with wireless datalink, 1989, however the US military did not adopt this version. This also is a TOP-attack warhead.
I believe the game is modeled off the TOW-2A which the missile has to impacted its target. Other than that George did a great job with showing all of us how to use the Ground Vehicles in DCS. Bravo sir! Cheers
Thanks man
Now I would love to play DCS with a solid team in the air and on the ground.
I want to be the guy who guides pilots in for a carrier landing.
So would I.
That would be dcs end game. I wouldn’t get sleep then
Try to play russian ground against abrems and leo2 lol
@@raketny_hvost russia would win
This was fun! I always hoped for a good tutorial on CA. This was it. The only thing we now need is ED overhauling CA to implement multi-position tanks, make the CA stuff a bit more accurate and of course ADD lots of stuff. Personally, I suggest doing it by army.
would love it if you guys shared the mission file! I'd love to have a go at the range.
"Does this work at night?"
🤣
i too facepalmed hard
I still haven't met a civilian to this date who doesn't ask that question.
That was really some education! both for real world and for the game.
its the real world part thats the problem. i hope i am ignorant to the information but it sounds like he is giving away restricted information on weapon systems. for eg, exact ranges for missiles and weapon systems, esp Optics are VERY much not to be posted on public forums. My apologies if I am being over pedantic based on my background
Great info! was anxiously waiting for You to try shooting some of the traffic driving by...
Thank you George and Cap, I learnt a lot, not just with CA but about armour as well. I was surprised when George said the F18, Ka50 and then another tank were the biggest threat and did not mention the A10
Because its not, in todays would-be threat environment, there are far to many pieces of kit that can locate, track, target, engage and destroy the A10 faster than a single A10 can destroy the network of systems that todays modern combat zone consists of. A10 would get eaten alive, too slow, too few sensors required to enable it to survive long enough to engage targets at will. the A10 is NOT ideal or as effective for when the initial high tempo and high intensity combat has already occurred. The only reason the a10 and the "bbrrrr" are even a thing, and a meme, is because we have been fighting combatants in sandals, etc.. A lot of kids over the years, and ignorant individuals, only exposure to the a10 and combat are the wars in the middle east against "sandal" wearing combatants. Not Soviet armored divisions and IADS of the cold war.
The KA-50 at least can stay low and slow/fast, and into the dirt, and use the topography and trees, etc., etc.. and all the other ground clutter to really mask it and make it difficult to detect with radar at most ranges other than right on top of you.
Against a peer/near-peer military, a10 will be saved until after al the initial strikes, bombings, DEAS/SEAD missions, or else it would get torn up, gutted, and eaten alive.
The a10 is in that inconvenient threatened zone: not slow enough (but isn't a helo a that can use ground clutter effectively and all the other niche capabilities that helos can do), and not fast enough, nor kitted out with the proper sensor suite and weapon fittings like the f18.
Its an odd ball that can only, truly be an effective at what it does in very niche environments, scenarios and engagements and threat environments.
I'd venture to say that's why he didn't mention the hog.
@@liammarra4003 wow thank you for the insight, appreciated
@@liammarra4003 The A-10C is more than capable on the modern battlefield in a CAS role. It was never intended to do anything but CAS, and always was going to require battlefield prep before it could do it's work properly. Lol did you think the hawg was intended to just rush out into enemy airspace without cover, and wild weasel/SEAD work done? It's receiving another upgrade, and it's service life has been extended indefinitely, so obviously somebody must not share your opinion.
@@JohnnyKaw11B the A-10 does not, has not, has never, and will not operate over a battlefield that has not had its IADS thoroughly saturated destroyed or rendered combat ineffective as well as enemy airforces not being destroyed or rendered combat ineffecitve. Because it would never get there.
To provide CAS, there needs to be land forces operating and fighting that need CAS. If the DoD can help it, Those forces will never be engaging threats on a battlefield covered by IADS and where the airforce does not have air dominance. And only after a prolonged and sustained bombardment will ground assets move in, encounter resistence and ground threats that require CAS support which will be probided by Said a10.
@@liammarra4003 Lol No shit, that's what the plane was designed to do, and the environment it was designed to work in. CAS is a niche role, thats best filled by a dedicated weapons platform. Nobody reasonably expects any different. The fact remains that it's incredibly effective at what it does. It was responsible for destroying roughly a third of the tanks, half of the artillery pieces, and a third of the APCs in the Gulf War. Iraq had an extensive, fairly capable, air defense at that time. The bombing, and SEAD campaigns saw to that, and it damn well better in the next conflict. If it doesn't, CAS with any platform is a moot point.
the arm digs into ground to stabilize the gun while firing, also you can fire artillery without locking and itll tell you what range the round will land at based on your guns elevation
That was pretty interesting. I don't have DCS, or the hardware to play it, but I still watched the whole damned thing. Say thanks to George.
I don't mean to be a nit picker here, but 1000mm is NOT 6ft.
1000mm (mili = 1/1000 ; meter = metric unit). So 1000mm = 1m (roughly 3.3 ft)
6ft is roughly 1.8m (1,800mm).
I know it's hard for Americans to do metric. Just wanted to point out the serious difference in 6ft and 1,000mm (1m)
Good info regarding the exhaust thing for RL tankers intending to fight vs. Abrams 😈 - but I'd guess they already knew that
Very helpful and expertly done. Thanks you two.
Part two came out AS i was watching part 1. Nice timing GR.
Same here, pretty good!
Thanks George!
Great stuff. I always wondered if you could set up a SAM net with the escort ships around the carrier. Then try to suck the enemy fighters close enough for them to engage. Or could be used as an “Alamo” location.
Can we get the mission file for this, please?
Another Great video
Cap asks if a 152mm gun can kill a tank..... Cap apparently not familiar with the mighty KV-2
Question: which key setting is Gun stabilize.... as it's not called that in the Controls menu?
is it: Turret to current direction lock?
if you're sending in a bug report about CA......please tell them to add a way to de-spawn destroyed vehicles
or at least let one edit the time that the vehicle is on fire/smoking..... that's what's killing the frame rate at the moment
(a destroyed ground vehicle will be on fire/smoke for 20 minutes)
I really enjoy the videos. Looked them even twice to translate it in french :D. Is there any way to get the mission file ? I tried to reconstitute it but I forgot some items I guess.
Thanks and continue the same way, it's perfect!
That was fun - Specially the Tank vs Aircraft stuff. Hope we'll see you do that in "real combat" Cap. I'd bet It'll confuse the hell out of your enemies :P
More Great Stuff, awesome 2 series tutorial.
CHEERS!
Is the training mission they use available for download?
If you're enjoying ground vehicles "Steel Beasts" is pretty much the best thing going.
thx
Ooooh you gotta publish this mission, I want to play with all that!
Ask George, he'll prob sen d it to you.
@@grimreapers @shuntera, I'd love to get my hands on it too. How do we find George?
I don't know if it's modeled in DCS, but the M1a2 has the HEAT MP-T round that does have a proxy fuze and can be used for air targets.
Thank you very much !
The ZSU-23-4 used 4 single barrel cannons not only because it was an earlier design but because the guns could be fired individually if there were any faults with any of the cannons. The M61 Vulcan & other GAU type rotary cannons cannot operate in this fashion.
There are russian rotary cannons, but they mostly used on ships. AK-630 is 30mm russian rotary cannon. Original Mi-24 (not one ED is working on) had rotary 12.7mm machine gun.
That thing on a back of Msta is used to feed rounds from a ground. It’s basically a conveyor belt.
Yes it's a sort of semi auto loader, but it was to reduce the crew and speed up the fire rate of it,. Just funny that Sweden was the first country to even put, try and use an auto loader for an artillery piece. that being the Bofors Bandkanon 1A
superb video, very informative
God, if they could get even an arma I style damage model on ground vehicles, combined arms would be amazing. If they could get a halfway decent ground AI, and a better damage model the helicopter play would be out of this world.
Part 2 Yay!
Are the bindings for Combined Arms included in your bindings download pack?
I don't think so
Thank you!
How can you activate the little yellow perpendicular lines so you can select and activate things in the cockpit? Cheers
i believe the default setting is: LAlt + C
Clickable mouse cockpit in settings
reminds me of the battle documentary where the guys won all kinds of medals for missle attacking tanks from a bradley. in between loading their missile packs they shot with their 25mm guns at the tanks. crazy. t72's I think they were fighting. was it 1991 war. anyway.
Don't play this game. Still, hearing a tank commander talk amoured vehicle tactics and weaponry was completely awesome
Almost as detailed as in Steel Beasts Pro PE. Wow!
For such an experience you guys should try out Alpenwolf's cold war server. Combined Arms is included in most missions if not all. And guys always use it.
roger, used to go there all the time. Lack of external view causes problems with vid makers though.
@@grimreapers Yeah, I know. Some people really want 100% realism XD
But when in a vehicle the external view for that is activated (insert-key). Otherwise SA would be impossible. So it is doable. We had an incredible BMP-2 vs Bradley warfare for about 2 hours fighting over one FARP. It was amazing!
Someone should tell the devs to stop calling the Humvee a "Hummer". A hummer is a stupid SUV soccer moms drive, or a present your GF gives you for your birthday. The U.S. Army's HMMWV is not a hummer. As a former US paratrooper, it annoys the crap out of me.
Do you also get annoyed over the M1 Abraham tank's name?
@@nooneno12 I know typical scouts get triggered when people call the Bradley a tank instead of an infantry fighting vehicle or scout fighting vehicle, but that's about all I know (irl experience) about tanks. That, and changing track is a b*tch and half. I did see one at Ft. Knox once though lmfao. Seriously though, for me the HMMWV is just a "truck" or "the truck". Calling it a "Hummer" is super cringe. Considering how pissy people seem to get when you (properly) call an F-16 the falcon instead of the viper, people should appreciate why a soldier would cringe out when they hear hummer. If we want to have fun playing war, we could at least put some effort into nomenclature. Oh btw, I definitely don't want to do the "viper debate" either. I was born and raised at Hill AFB, for me that aircraft will always be what it is. Conformity, aint nobody got time for that. Also, on the Abrams, I would imagine that tankers who play combined arms would definitely care if something that they put so much work into was being poorly represented. I never served with a leg unit, so I wouldn't know.
Tunguska
Also you can click middle mousbutton then you have a constant cursor speed you can pull on any direction, makes targeting moving targets far away much much easier.
The guy said the frontal armour of an Abrams is 6 feet thick? I laughed out loud for real. I actually read it was between 700mm and 850mm (2½ft) which is probably nearer the truth. I mean come on...6 feet thick armour! Its a tank not a bloody battleship! Has this guy really commanded tanks?
That's the physical thickness of the armor, not effective. I've seen an Abrams, and yeah, they're 6 feet thick.
I'll have to go back and look for that part. Thought I heard 3 feet....
@@firing_pin9971 He said the turret was 3 feet thick and the frontal armour was 6 feet thick! I'm not a complete moron and Google/wiki search etc say anywhere from 350 to 850mm thick even though the actual thickness is classified. But I cannot believe it is 6 feet thick lol, it may "look" 6 feet thick on the outside but usually, the frontal (glacis plate) armour of a tank is like 3 to 8 inches thick MAX and sloped to make it thicker against penetration.
probably was just talking quickly and misspoke saying 6 feet instead of 6 inches
but who knows really
@@TheGeezzer It is 6 feet in physical thickness. Effective is somewhere around 700-850mm Kinetic and 900-1300mm Chemical. 3 inches are WW2 armor. Heck. WW2 had tanks with more than 6 inches of armor.
I would like to see how Patria 8X8 AMV (Armored Modular Vehicle, successor of 6X6 "Pasi" APC and looks much like US Marines LAV-25 that was tested to swim in first episode) armed with double barreled, 120mm automatic mortar system: Patria AMOS (Advanced Mortar System). It can be installed on many other surfaces too such as CV90 & M113 APC's (not sure but why not M2 & M3 Bradley's too?) among many other APC's, IFV's and boats. Actually I'd just wanted to see the AMOS in action, platform doesn't matter. But as fast as possible...
I don't know how would it be to code on game properly though, as it can (indirect-)fire 12 rounds on same target and all rounds falling on target at the same time as all 6 (x2 barrels = 12) rounds are shot on different angles and muzzle velocities and then quickly... or, as quickly as possible with 4 500kg turret, leave the scene (aka "shoot-and-scoot") to avoid possible counter barrage or missile strike. It has tactical benefit to seem like an actual salvo from artillery battery so two AMOS units can tie enemies in certain location, for example to wait some other guns.
AMOS has all kind of other specs why I'm interested on it's performance as it has not seen live-action, yet. Like indirect range up to 10km depending on ammo (handy at forest warfare), I think the almost 20kg top-attack IR-guided STRIX AT-mortar munitions has range of 7,5km (similar to 120mm XM395 Precision Guided Mortar Munition) although don't remember the MRSI (multiple rounds simultaneous impact) "salvo" distance. It has ability to sustain 20 rounds/min fire rate (first 4 ammo in 5 sec) carrying 48 ammo (at least on Patria AMV). Also has direct fire range of 1,5km... and so on and so on...
So it's easier to kill ships with tanks than with specialized aircraft armed with specialized missiles (Hornet with Harpoons).
Could you mount a Tunguska under the "green button" (F/A-18)?
lol THE PERFECT VEHICLE
CAP !
DCS mission:
Extreme CAS. Only 1980's aircraft fixed wing and rotary wing, stop one or more soviet tank divisions from flooding into Europe through the Fulda Gap!
can you share this map for practice?
I would love to do this how do I link up with this guy? I have dsc.
is combined arms really worth it?>
This guy knows his shit!
how to stable the cannon?
V key
@@grimreapers Thank you CAP
After that the king if the hill game will be interesting.
We did it last night, all of a sudden everyone is amazing...
Read the book. Fire support base coral .
I didn't even know you could drive land vehicles lol
“Roger.”
Also, your voice sounds familiar.
after this cap need to test WT.that game will surprise him quite bit.
Visually it looks great I'll give you that.
the tow 2b goes and flies over the tank and the proximity fuze likes it and blows the fucking tank up thru the top
where as tow 1's just go the old style
Why the hell does the artillery go from 3 seconds to two minutes to find a firing solution at greater than 4km? Does it suddenly forget how to do calculus at long range?
All it's doing is computing the angle of elevation for a given range, and from point blank to its maximum range that should be as simple as a look up table that a human could operate at a glance. Two fucking minutes doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Is there a link to download this mission?
Please contact George in the GR Discord.
Don't take this as an insult as it isn't ment to be at all. But it amazes me how few people have any understanding of weapon systems or simple ballistics. Even with people who play "more realistic" (it's certainly closer than most but not actual realism) games like this, there seems to be very little knowledge.
For example thinking it's "silly" for artillery pieces to not have a stabilizer. If your operating an artillery piece and your using direct fire... EVERYTHING IN YOUR WORLD HAS GONE WRONG!!! lol :) while you can, and it is certainly "physically effective". That is worst case scenario for artillery. If your 100+mm arty party and you can see your target with mark 1 eyeball..... your doing it wrong. 🤣
~30mm vrs any modern tank is simply a no go period. It's just not going to work. The only ~30mm "modern" tank kill I know of was an Bradly using a 20mm vrs an iraqi t72. But they were literally in spitting distance. As in feet away when the Bradly opened fire. At anything resembling expected/effective engagement range that small a weapon will simply bounce off the majority of the time and do no damage at all. You can try shooting a bear with a bb gun if you want but.....
Targeting/gunnery thoughts:
When you were trying to kill helos with tank main gun rounds. With the first tank you were shooting WAY LATE. You got more effective with the next tank because "you" adjusted. With the t80's missiles, your best bet is to only attempt to engage if the helo is moving towards or away from you only.
Tanks vrs jets... The targeting computer on a main gun of a tank is designed to engage land vehicles. Tanks, typically speaking, are slower than 400 knots....... Again, if you want to use a main gun on a tank "you" have to adjust for the velocity and direction of the aircraft because the computer really shouldn't be able to, it was never designed for that. At 400 knots moving away from you your going to go from being in direct just point directly at it range to I have to aim pretty fucking high to compensate for gravity acting on the round with a quickness. The exact opposite if its moving towards you. You struggled with this significantly (not a shame on you, just noting it to help with your gunnery). You wanted to aim at the point where the computer told you to according to when you first marked that target. But that range was 3k different than it is now. You can't trust the rangefinder because when you marked the target initially it might have been say 5k out. But when you finally fired it might have been 2k away. That is a MASSIVE aim difference as you may recall from shooting from the hill in the begining of the first video. The aim difference required for a 1k target and a 5k one.....
During ww2 the us military did a study to figure out why some fighter pilots were more effective gunners than others. What they found was the most accurate pilots typically had experience hunting birds. Particularly ones you generally spook into flight and shoot when they are flying such as ducks. These people were some of the most effective because they already understood the importance of and how best to lead a target.
This type of excersice, while completely impractical in the real world, will greatly increase your fighter vrs fighter gunnery skills. If you can do the math in your head that your relative speeds are x and your direction is this and there's is that. You know you have to aim roughly there to have a realistic shot. If you can do this all you need the targeting computer for is the fine adjustment to get you perfectly on target. Otherwise your simply desperately trying to chase a dot. Much harder for anyone.
Good video though. Fun to see the bugs and oddities introduced by the game vrs real life. The 250+ mph tanks was pretty awesome 🤣🤣🤣
1000mm is just short of 2m? 1000mm is exactly 1m aka 3ft. Most Tank armor is between 100 and 150mm thick.. that's 1/2 ft
in warthunder ingame you can see really thermal view ...engines are much more hot than the rest and when tank stands still it looses a lot of signature ! DCS is outdated even more now
Proud to be a fucking tanker
Good man :)
really wish ED would fix/sort out the ground war shit. Get us a little closer to War Thunder mechanics at least? not exact, but close, would be enough.
agree
....and I'm done!
cap should play World of tanks XD
would love to
@@grimreapers If you do, I would be happy to platoon with you!
5 mk 84 to defeat carrier
There are 1,000 mm in a meter, which is roughly 3.3 feet. It's a bit embarrassing listening to this guy claim that a thousand millimeters is just short of 2 meters and then later he said it's almost 6 ft...
Oh the Russians do have a lot of rotary cannons... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630
thx
Dude what are you doing!? you sound like you are not roughly guessing give or take away. We all know you dont tell our enemies the EXACT SPECIFICATIONS of our weapon systems. Expect a letter for this one brother.
FYI, Cap, the Yanks stole kettle technology from the Brits for their tanks. Maybe ask him about that.
lols
DANNGG I WAS ALMOST FIRST
First
What does a US commander know about tank warfare that doesn't involve sealclubbing rice farmers, carpet stitchers or outdated, unorganized, demoralized militia-like militaries :D.....
axised001 Long military traditions that also gave us victory in WW2?
@@higaluto no the soviets did. And Hitler himself
axised001 with out USA there would be no second and third fronts in europe and italy, also no daylight bombing campaigns, also no lend lease supplys to the sovjets, so the germans would most likely have won the european war
@@higaluto yeah sure soviets won the war due to us lend lease hahaha yeah... Just keep believing what they teach you little boys at school, if you're happy with that.
Guess I can't even be mad, I mean in PRNK they learn that US are the Satan at school and believe it...
So each to their own.
As a German, knowing our history pretty good, having a lot of relatives who know how they lost the war, having grandfather's who fought on both fronts, I'm pretty confident to say first and foremost we lost the war because Hitler was a fanatic with bad strategically knowledge. great generals ensured a lot of victories but the longer the war endured the less he listened to his staff and screwed up the entire war. Fighting against 3-4 opposing army's, being outnumbered by factor 2-4 on 2-3 wide frontlines.
If anything the war was won by combined allied effort. Saying the US won the war is just hilarious
@@axised001 i didnt say they won the war i said they gave US victory, US meaning the ALLIES, learn to read.... and to deny that fact its just ridiculous, they also defetead the japanese so yeah.. and there would never been another front than the russian front without USA. and of the allies it was only soviet union that had higher casualties, and USA didnt enter before 1941. go and read history little kid....