@Grim Reapers here's another use for the b-1b other than as a air superiority. I don't know if you guys can actually do this but it's an idea..... ua-cam.com/video/GQyKArUAMRY/v-deo.html
From a ww2 radar operator herself being interviewed. They picked up the bombers as soon as they took off from French bases anywhere near the coast. Then watched the bombers form up before they started across the Channel.
@@grimreapers: chain Home. The Humongous Long wave radar towers could detect bombers out to 100Nmi/ 190km And could tell the range to 1 km and even calculate the speed/ arrival time/ intended target using maths and track on the ground in places like Bletchley park. Not bad for a box of vaccuum tubes and switches that goes beep boop clunk. But you’re right the ones on night fighters and even submarine hunters could only see out to 20km for bombers 35km for ships.
@elitebuster2012 the Germans solved that problem by having fighters airborne patrolling the likely approach paths. They'd vector these towards the radar contacts and scramble additional fighters as they closed. Usually the scrambled 109's and 190's had about 20-30 minutes to get to 30,000ft. That gives the 109's 30 min and the 190's about 45-60 min to intercept the bombers before the need to RTB and refuel.
Cap - love these scenarios where you're testing out different gens of technology against a common scenario. But the deliberate aerial collisions ("Fox 4"s) take away a lot from the experience for me. Everyone's different, but it'd be great to see a scenario where the pilots get a bonus for surviving, or a penalty for colliding. I know it happens sometimes by accident, but there were so many midairs in this battle, and it really messed with the totals. Plus it's dramatic seeing people trying to survive all that fire, and then suddenly turns silly when they commit suicide :)
Cap, thank you for taking the MIG 15 out and showing the cannon shots. It was amazing how the added punch of the cannon was effective but cost in limited ammo stores. Thank you GRs! God Bless!!
As somebody trying (and struggling) to learn the Bf-109, Fly's takeoff roll at 4:18-4:32 was smooooooooooth. As a suggestion for a repeat experiment to see if the Gen 2/3 jets can do this even more efficiently - try a formation of all MiG-21's armed with 4x R-3R's. You get a very cheap, Mach 2 capable interceptor armed with a cheap missile, plus very fast startup from cold & dark and outstanding climbing ability. With IFF capability and using Fox 1's only, you can avoid the friendly fire incidents to keep airframe losses minimal. Its fast enough that RTB'ing and re-arming with another 4x R-3R's should be do-able, and the 23mm cannon is good enough for at least another 1-2 bombers in a gun attack. I'll bet you guys can knock down the entire formation with a lot less than $113 million expended.
Boys(and girl), I have to tell you just how much I enjoy EACH of your fantastic contributions to these missions. On this little praise I have to point out our fearless and hysterical leader. Your skills and your hysterical commentary really make this enjoyable to watch, day after rewarding day. Also an unsung hero, who is clutch in tough moments and always the voice od calm and reason….Matrix. It is a pleasure to watch you fly sir, truly! Thank you all. You make my days!
The B-17 has enough documented crew lives saved from durability to make the argument that it's the toughest war plane in history. Truly a flying fortress!
for an allied WWII inceptor my bet would be the F8F Bearcat, 2200hp and 4 20mm cannons. there's also the F2G super corsair, it had even more grunt with the 3000hp+ wasp major, but only had 4 .50 cals so lacked the punch for this kind of mission.
F7F Tigercat would do well in this scenario too; two Double Wasp engines making 2,100 horsepower each and armed with four 20mm cannons and four .50 caliber machine guns.
It looks like you started to come around to this way of thinking with the 6 AIM-9Xs instead of -120s, but if you wanted to be less expensive, consider putting 6x 9M, 2x AIM-7 Sparrows and 4x -120Bs on the Hornet. They'll be just as effective but much less expensive, and you wouldn't have to reduce the number of missiles carried.
Somehow science fiction has made me believe that interceptors are very fast and nimble because they are very small. Actual interceptors are fast because they have massive engines over everything else.
I'm not sure where it would fit exactly, but I thought I would see a Messerschmitt ME262 tossed into the fray, for historical airplane geek purposes. Interestingly, Germany discovered researching B17 wrecks that it took "at least" 20 rounds hitting a B17 to bring them down (wiki).
They were def. the mk.6 Canadair Sabres with the Orenda, they flew so damn fast that Cap could barely get his gunsight on the B-17s long enough to get shots in!
Another great mission from Grim Reapers/Kortana! Keep em coming and while 92.7% more Kortana is nice, there's room there for MORE! Plus, Kortana as a Skydiver herself can probably tell us how fast you get as you plummet!
I’d love to see the CF-100 Canuck in this, especially in limited visibility situations. It was all weather as compared to the MIGs and Sabres which were day fighters.
@@exidy-yt If they haven’t I know a historian with access to the archives in Ottawa. His specialty is naval history, but he probably knows someone studying the RCAF.
Quoting from Len Deighton's "Bomber" (an amazing book, BTW): "Each of those engines required the manufacturing capacity of forty simple car engines. The man-hours spent constructing each four-motor aeroplane would have built almost a mile of Autobahn. The radar and radio equipment alone equalled a million radio sets. The total of hard aluminium amounted to 5,000 tons, or about eleven million saucepans. In cash, at 1943 prices with profits pared to a minimum, each Lancaster cost £42,000. Crew-training averaged out at £10,000 each at that time more than enough to send the entire crew to Oxford or Cambridge for three years. Add another £13,000 for bombs, fuel, servicing and ground-crew training at bargain prices and each bomber was a public investment of £120,000." A Spitfire or Mustang cost some £10,000 in 1944, or £370k these days. Methinks those costs for the warbirds are a bit suspicious. Are they inflation adjusted? Also, maybe you can factor the crew training costs in there somewhere? Training the pilot would've cost easily as much as the plane (some 10,000 WW2 pounds each). I see a good few pilots wouldn't have survived the warbird mission.
Mig 15 is kind of an international fighter when you think of it. Like Fly said....FW had a similar design then the Russians managed to steal or buy the design of an early Rolls Royce engine and added the 37mm gun from Lend Lease P-39/63 Aira/King Cobras. Also during WW2 Germans got a bit of lead time just like the British did by being able to see the bombers circling over bases to group up before heading out. Maybe add that little warning time into another video for this? Also even with the advent of the chin turret Germans found a head on to be best attack as it could kill or incapacitated the pilots.
I would love to see you use ground attack rockets like Zuni. The Germans used unguided rockets to great effect when they could get in position. Gen 2, 3, 4 aircraft would have no problems getting good firing solutions. Rockets angled slightly up through the back of the formation so they fall back through the formation further on. Fun would be had by all. And they would not go chasing other fighters.
Not going for head on passes was a huge missed opportunity. Hitting the cockpit in head on passes was the most successful tactic used by the luftwaffe.
The dynamic I love here, is with Gen 2-3, and 4, the required communication levels increase significantly (for obvious anti-FF reasons) - pretty neat, but in reality, I think it would have been the inverse due to the limited data-link/status systems of the Warbirds.
DCS should do something about the defensive gunnery in these bomber formations. IRL they supported each other. Every gunner in each aircraft had his arc of fire to monitor. At the moment the main defensive gunnery comes from the rear only. No waist guns. No ball turret that I can see. No defense at all when you attack head on. A bit weak really.
When the game Warbirds first came out circa '97 or '98 some teams filled the airfields with B17s on the ground to act as air defense. It worked so well and caused so much angst it sparked flame wars between both sides of players and the devs in a flame 3 way
Not knowing DCS, but knowing WW2 aircraft, is there a Tempset or Typhoon model in the game? Would be superb interceptors and give the Dora a run for it's money
Me 262 is "Gen 1" because it's still part of the gun-armed, subsonic generation of jet fighters. Sabre and MiG-15 are the top end of Gen 1. The main hallmarks of 2nd gen are supersonic airframes, afterburners and (usually) missile-armed from the beginning of the design.
Realistically speaking, I would wager the bomber crews would have dumped their bombs and scattered. Historically, there was one raid where 37 German jets went up against a formation of 1,221 bombers and 632 escort fighters. The 262s destroyed twelve bombers against the loss of three aircraft. Given the numbers you have here, the bombers would be very hard pressed to be considered combat effective. In later stages of the war, after that attack, it was reasoned that the massed defense didn't work as well with smaller raids, and pilots were trained to dump everything they had, and scatter, only to reform at a predetermined point. The reasoning being that while they did lose their overall massed defense, the jets (which were known to be small in number) would have a harder time picking targets.
Why do you get so much speed and zoom past the bombers when attacking from behind? You then have to turn around and waste a ton of energy. Wouldn't it be better to take your shots and then pull up to bleed off speed and convert it into altitude, letting you dive down again for more shots and repeat? Another thing is that you wait too long before shooting. Guns have a really long range and anything with 20mm+ cannons isn't dependent on the projectile velocity for damage.
12:50 _"Sh*t, my prop stopped working."_ _"Umm ... You'll need that, bub."_ 😄😆😅😂🤣 20:30 GENERATIONS: I actually like to think the MiG-15s and F-86s are the first of the 2nd gen jet fighters, including the MiG-17 and FJ-3/4. First-gen were straight-wing (excepting the Me-262). WINCHESTER: That was probably a problem with the MiG-15, as it only held enough cannon rounds for roughly 10 seconds of continuous fire. The F-15 held enough .50cal for 20-30 sec of continuous fire. 31:30 _"Technically, we've killed less..."_ True, but more mission kills, I think. 55:30 (Kortana) _"We did better with Gen 2/3 than with Gen 4."_ I think the people living in Caen would *STRONGLY* disagree!
Yay! Candair Sabres = Best Sabres! Great choice for the gen1 interceptors, though didn't perform quite as well as I had expected. It seems they were just TOO fast. Fun fact: In the 1971 India/Pakistan war, Pakistani Canadair sabres absolutely cleaned house on the IAF, racking up a 6-1 kill ratio.
@@Chad.Friesen And foolishly we didn't go with the 4.5th gen fighters that could actually defend our soveriginty of the northwest passage and fly from our far north airbases and were designed for arctic weather, the Saab Gripen E but went with the 5th gen but massively short-legged F35 instead. Why do politicians make our military decisions for us??
The B-17 was made to hold up against flak from 88mm AAA, and there are records of Fortresses coming home with multiple hits. Given the way that missiles often detonate in proximity to their target, as opposed to actually hitting it, I'm not convinced that the damage model is actually all that far off.
Stories of the B-17's ability to bring 'em back alive are just that ... stories. In truth, the B-24 and B-17 aircraft and crews had nearly identical survival rates in combat. The mythical ability of B-17s to survive flak was due to the much greater non-critical wing area of the B-17s. Their wings were in actuality no more sturdy than those of the Liberator, it's just that there was so much more wing surface to hit, that wasn't critical. Many of the holes seen in the Flying Fortresses' wings would have totally missed the Liberators' wings. A hit on the main spar of either bomber would blow off the wing and bring either down. There was just much more wing to be hit that wasn't critical on the '17.
@@xenaguy01 that kind of misses my point, though. I'm saying that WWII bombers (American ones, at least...I'm less familiar with British and German bombers) often had flak burst near or even inside the plane and they kept flying, so I'm not surprised that DCS bombers were coded in such a way that AAMs don't reliably take them down, especially radar-guided models that detonate near the plane. Especially considering that many, if not most, DCS modules are modelled on the popular conception of the plane, as opposed to real, documented performance.
True first generation jets should be Gloster Meteor, Messerschmitt 262 Schwalbe, Heinkel 162 Salamander, Arado 234 Blitz, De Havilland Vampire. Shame there isn't the B24 Liberator in game.
I wonder how the A-10 would fare. It’s not the fastest, but it load out and the gun should make quick work of the bombers. It’s maneuverability should also help with the fighters.
In the Huey I typically take one squad of each on every flight. In the Gazelle I usually take Recon now, originally I would take SOF but found the Recon to be more useful in most use cases.
Dive down on the bombers. Don't come around behind them! Get a few thousand feet above the formation, then pick one plane and dive down and kill it. you don't present them much a target and kinetically, you have the advantage slicing through their formations.
the main issue with the second generation is it's ability to get to hight and rapid Winchester. I am really curious as to how a saber mk.6 would perform this with its additional 2500lbs of thrust. would that additional thrust allow for more RTB with more sorties which in turn brings more munitions into the fight? just a thought.
So why is the English electric lighting over looked, it could super cruise at mach 1.3 and pretty much just point its nose to the sky and clime rapidly.
I always feel valued as a viewer here. It's a very odd sensation and I don't know how to respond appropriately. An alert crouch will now be maintained for the rest of the video.
Great vid but I have to call it out because I am tired of its constantly being mixed up. First generation jets are exactly that, the first jets. There are essentially only 3 first generation fighter jets. Gen 1 - ME262, YP80, Meteor Gen 2 - F86/MiG15 Gen 3 - F4, F5 Gen 4 - F14,15,16,18 Gen 5 - F22
Crazy question but have you ever considered turning the formula on it's head? Run an equivalent value of interceptors vs the threat, ie: 500 million dollars of warbirds, gen 1, gen 2/3 and gen 4 vs whatever the threat is.
Cap, Could you sexy humans do a recreation of the 1969 US Navy EC-121 Shootdown by a North Korean Mig-21? Pretty crazy little-known event that easily could of been the end of North Korea. Keep up the wonderful videos, Ive probably watched 90% of your entire library at this point.
Questions with the up-front caveat that I am unfamiliar with the extent of what is modeled/available in DCS: Were the SUU-16 / SUU-23/A 20mm gun pods or rocket pods on the Phantoms considered for your Gen 2/3 scenario? My thought was that the low speed and size of the B-17 combined with the excess of payload budget for the F-4 and cost-effectiveness of 20mm/dumbfire rockets in this scenario would potentially offset the air-to-air accuracy issues historically associated with those weapon systems. Also, was the F-8 Crusader considered for the Gen 2/3 scenario?
Maybe nex time use a10s they are not fighter jets, but they have loads of weapons, and are good at low speed manouvres
Enjoy: ua-cam.com/video/6ZRFK1Ekqz0/v-deo.html
@@grimreapers lol F-80's!
@Grim Reapers here's another use for the b-1b other than as a air superiority. I don't know if you guys can actually do this but it's an idea.....
ua-cam.com/video/GQyKArUAMRY/v-deo.html
They'd never make it to the bombers in time to intercept them. Even if they did, they're so slow that they'd be sitting ducks.
I would suggest some AC-130s
From a ww2 radar operator herself being interviewed. They picked up the bombers as soon as they took off from French bases anywhere near the coast. Then watched the bombers form up before they started across the Channel.
Roger, but remember, those distances were tiny. The channel is 20 miles wide in places.
@@grimreapers: chain Home. The Humongous Long wave radar towers could detect bombers out to 100Nmi/ 190km
And could tell the range to 1 km and even calculate the speed/ arrival time/ intended target using maths and track on the ground in places like Bletchley park.
Not bad for a box of vaccuum tubes and switches that goes beep boop clunk.
But you’re right the ones on night fighters and even submarine hunters could only see out to 20km for bombers 35km for ships.
Note that this was just the Allies. The Germans didn't have anywhere near that range
@elitebuster2012 the Germans solved that problem by having fighters airborne patrolling the likely approach paths. They'd vector these towards the radar contacts and scramble additional fighters as they closed. Usually the scrambled 109's and 190's had about 20-30 minutes to get to 30,000ft. That gives the 109's 30 min and the 190's about 45-60 min to intercept the bombers before the need to RTB and refuel.
I really love this series. Kortana really does good work.
Cap - love these scenarios where you're testing out different gens of technology against a common scenario. But the deliberate aerial collisions ("Fox 4"s) take away a lot from the experience for me. Everyone's different, but it'd be great to see a scenario where the pilots get a bonus for surviving, or a penalty for colliding. I know it happens sometimes by accident, but there were so many midairs in this battle, and it really messed with the totals. Plus it's dramatic seeing people trying to survive all that fire, and then suddenly turns silly when they commit suicide :)
Roger, will ensure no more Kamikazis.
@@grimreapers Thank you sir!
Kortana fan here, she has the best voice you guys . . . great mission, ya`ll keep getting better and better. "really tho" I`m a fan of you all.
I absolutely love this kind of video that GR does where different eras of technology are tested against each other.
Cap, thank you for taking the MIG 15 out and showing the cannon shots. It was amazing how the added punch of the cannon was effective but cost in limited ammo stores.
Thank you GRs! God Bless!!
Yup, turns out the anti-bomber plane was better for hitting bombers...
@@grimreapers thank you sir!
As somebody trying (and struggling) to learn the Bf-109, Fly's takeoff roll at 4:18-4:32 was smooooooooooth.
As a suggestion for a repeat experiment to see if the Gen 2/3 jets can do this even more efficiently - try a formation of all MiG-21's armed with 4x R-3R's. You get a very cheap, Mach 2 capable interceptor armed with a cheap missile, plus very fast startup from cold & dark and outstanding climbing ability.
With IFF capability and using Fox 1's only, you can avoid the friendly fire incidents to keep airframe losses minimal. Its fast enough that RTB'ing and re-arming with another 4x R-3R's should be do-able, and the 23mm cannon is good enough for at least another 1-2 bombers in a gun attack.
I'll bet you guys can knock down the entire formation with a lot less than $113 million expended.
Boys(and girl), I have to tell you just how much I enjoy EACH of your fantastic contributions to these missions. On this little praise I have to point out our fearless and hysterical leader. Your skills and your hysterical commentary really make this enjoyable to watch, day after rewarding day. Also an unsung hero, who is clutch in tough moments and always the voice od calm and reason….Matrix. It is a pleasure to watch you fly sir, truly! Thank you all. You make my days!
*****”the voice OF calm and reason”****
The B-17 has enough documented crew lives saved from durability to make the argument that it's the toughest war plane in history. Truly a flying fortress!
AGREE
See my reply to @AllTradesGeorge a few minutes ago.
for an allied WWII inceptor my bet would be the F8F Bearcat, 2200hp and 4 20mm cannons. there's also the F2G super corsair, it had even more grunt with the 3000hp+ wasp major, but only had 4 .50 cals so lacked the punch for this kind of mission.
F7F Tigercat would do well in this scenario too; two Double Wasp engines making 2,100 horsepower each and armed with four 20mm cannons and four .50 caliber machine guns.
The Bearcat was very late for WW2, especially the version 1 B etc with the 20 mm's
Dunno if the Bearcat or Tigercat have been modeled in DCS or not, but these would be cool to see if they are.
XP-72 with four M4s! Or better yet, XP-67 with 6 M4s!
Oh, gonna go with Gen 2 with lots of bulllets!!!!
Me too!
"If you attack from the back, go for the rear." -Cap
Best quote.
I love the name "Leadnose Diesel Fighter" We have to keep using that one, even when the official F4 Phantom comes out.
AGREE
It looks like you started to come around to this way of thinking with the 6 AIM-9Xs instead of -120s, but if you wanted to be less expensive, consider putting 6x 9M, 2x AIM-7 Sparrows and 4x -120Bs on the Hornet. They'll be just as effective but much less expensive, and you wouldn't have to reduce the number of missiles carried.
The last gen of F86 had the so called "all flying tail" that did wonders for avoiding compressibility.
Somehow science fiction has made me believe that interceptors are very fast and nimble because they are very small.
Actual interceptors are fast because they have massive engines over everything else.
I'm not sure where it would fit exactly, but I thought I would see a Messerschmitt ME262 tossed into the fray, for historical airplane geek purposes.
Interestingly, Germany discovered researching B17 wrecks that it took "at least" 20 rounds hitting a B17 to bring them down (wiki).
The Canadian markings. A Canadair Sabre. 19:52 Possibly an Orenda engine, which is relatively powerful.
They were def. the mk.6 Canadair Sabres with the Orenda, they flew so damn fast that Cap could barely get his gunsight on the B-17s long enough to get shots in!
Another great mission from Grim Reapers/Kortana! Keep em coming and while 92.7% more Kortana is nice, there's room there for MORE! Plus, Kortana as a Skydiver herself can probably tell us how fast you get as you plummet!
Lol, well that depends on your weight and drag. The average for a person in belly-to-earth orientation is about 120mph.
Aww. I need, physically NEED, 93% more of the Silken-Voiced Assassin.
I’d love to see the CF-100 Canuck in this, especially in limited visibility situations. It was all weather as compared to the MIGs and Sabres which were day fighters.
i second this
I wonder what an Arrow could do.
If someone hasn't modeled the Clunk yet, they damn well better! I'm pretty sure there's a model for the Avro Arrow already though.
@@exidy-yt both would be cool, the clunk is the first straight-winged jet aircraft to achieve controlled supersonic flight
@@exidy-yt
If they haven’t I know a historian with access to the archives in Ottawa. His specialty is naval history, but he probably knows someone studying the RCAF.
I always love it when Cap gets a friendly fire up his tailpipe... The sheer disappointment in his voice every time... And he holds a grudge too... LOL
Quoting from Len Deighton's "Bomber" (an amazing book, BTW):
"Each of those engines required the manufacturing capacity of forty simple car engines. The man-hours spent constructing each four-motor aeroplane would have built almost a mile of Autobahn. The radar and radio equipment alone equalled a million radio sets. The total of hard aluminium amounted to 5,000 tons, or about eleven million saucepans. In cash, at 1943 prices with profits pared to a minimum, each Lancaster cost £42,000. Crew-training averaged out at £10,000 each at that time more than enough to send the entire crew to Oxford or Cambridge for three years. Add another £13,000 for bombs, fuel, servicing and ground-crew training at bargain prices and each bomber was a public investment of £120,000."
A Spitfire or Mustang cost some £10,000 in 1944, or £370k these days.
Methinks those costs for the warbirds are a bit suspicious. Are they inflation adjusted?
Also, maybe you can factor the crew training costs in there somewhere? Training the pilot would've cost easily as much as the plane (some 10,000 WW2 pounds each). I see a good few pilots wouldn't have survived the warbird mission.
Mig 15 is kind of an international fighter when you think of it. Like Fly said....FW had a similar design then the Russians managed to steal or buy the design of an early Rolls Royce engine and added the 37mm gun from Lend Lease P-39/63 Aira/King Cobras. Also during WW2 Germans got a bit of lead time just like the British did by being able to see the bombers circling over bases to group up before heading out. Maybe add that little warning time into another video for this? Also even with the advent of the chin turret Germans found a head on to be best attack as it could kill or incapacitated the pilots.
Look at all them beautiful B 17s!.....Ohhhh Yurrrr!
I would love to see you use ground attack rockets like Zuni. The Germans used unguided rockets to great effect when they could get in position. Gen 2, 3, 4 aircraft would have no problems getting good firing solutions. Rockets angled slightly up through the back of the formation so they fall back through the formation further on. Fun would be had by all. And they would not go chasing other fighters.
Not going for head on passes was a huge missed opportunity. Hitting the cockpit in head on passes was the most successful tactic used by the luftwaffe.
that first bomb hit scene was epic 😀 shame we didnt get to see damps 20mms on the B17s
The dynamic I love here, is with Gen 2-3, and 4, the required communication levels increase significantly (for obvious anti-FF reasons) - pretty neat, but in reality, I think it would have been the inverse due to the limited data-link/status systems of the Warbirds.
DCS should do something about the defensive gunnery in these bomber formations. IRL they supported each other. Every gunner in each aircraft had his arc of fire to monitor. At the moment the main defensive gunnery comes from the rear only. No waist guns. No ball turret that I can see. No defense at all when you attack head on. A bit weak really.
Part of it is that they don't fire very much. Another part is that they don't always use tracers so it's difficult to tell that they are firing.
When the game Warbirds first came out circa '97 or '98 some teams filled the airfields with B17s on the ground to act as air defense. It worked so well and caused so much angst it sparked flame wars between both sides of players and the devs in a flame 3 way
I wonder how the P38 Lightning would do vs the other warbirds?
I was thinking the same.
The P-61 Black Widow might be even more impressive.
The a later design of Focke Wulf Ta 183 was built in Argentina by Kurt Tank, the wings were shoulder mounted.
Yes that was the one I’m talking about
Not knowing DCS, but knowing WW2 aircraft, is there a Tempset or Typhoon model in the game? Would be superb interceptors and give the Dora a run for it's money
I would love to have them in game. Excellent planes.
Kortana is everyone’s favorite, no one can keep up 😂
Is the 262 considered both a warbird and a Gen1? I would have loved to seen it in this vid somewhere.
Technically any "old" military aircraft or even helicopter in civilian ownership is a warbird. So yes the 262, And even saber or mig15 are warbirds.
Me 262 is "Gen 1" because it's still part of the gun-armed, subsonic generation of jet fighters. Sabre and MiG-15 are the top end of Gen 1. The main hallmarks of 2nd gen are supersonic airframes, afterburners and (usually) missile-armed from the beginning of the design.
WW2 carpet bombing - when collateral damage is an added bonus.
You guys should try it again with B-29's and B-52's.
You mentioned it so..... F-16 vs F-86???
You are the most brave of DCS ..
Another great video! Great job.
Realistically speaking, I would wager the bomber crews would have dumped their bombs and scattered. Historically, there was one raid where 37 German jets went up against a formation of 1,221 bombers and 632 escort fighters. The 262s destroyed twelve bombers against the loss of three aircraft. Given the numbers you have here, the bombers would be very hard pressed to be considered combat effective. In later stages of the war, after that attack, it was reasoned that the massed defense didn't work as well with smaller raids, and pilots were trained to dump everything they had, and scatter, only to reform at a predetermined point. The reasoning being that while they did lose their overall massed defense, the jets (which were known to be small in number) would have a harder time picking targets.
Why do you get so much speed and zoom past the bombers when attacking from behind? You then have to turn around and waste a ton of energy. Wouldn't it be better to take your shots and then pull up to bleed off speed and convert it into altitude, letting you dive down again for more shots and repeat? Another thing is that you wait too long before shooting. Guns have a really long range and anything with 20mm+ cannons isn't dependent on the projectile velocity for damage.
33:00 gun pods with the f4's?
I wonder how a pair or two of S-24s would do when fired into the formation
12:50 _"Sh*t, my prop stopped working."_
_"Umm ... You'll need that, bub."_
😄😆😅😂🤣
20:30 GENERATIONS: I actually like to think the MiG-15s and F-86s are the first of the 2nd gen jet fighters, including the MiG-17 and FJ-3/4. First-gen were straight-wing (excepting the Me-262).
WINCHESTER: That was probably a problem with the MiG-15, as it only held enough cannon rounds for roughly 10 seconds of continuous fire. The F-15 held enough .50cal for 20-30 sec of continuous fire.
31:30 _"Technically, we've killed less..."_
True, but more mission kills, I think.
55:30 (Kortana) _"We did better with Gen 2/3 than with Gen 4."_
I think the people living in Caen would *STRONGLY* disagree!
Now do this with B52s!
I am enjoying this series very much.
2nd gen fighter radars didn't even have pulse doppler, so they were only good for tracking high altitude bombers
4:22 reminds me of keystone cops bobbing and weaving up and down cracked me up
Watching cap forget that p factor exists in single engine pistons and not push in right rudder made me giggle a little bit
You can't hit a friggin bomber with a cannon!!!???
11:57 Why did those two bombers decide to kill themselves? That’s a verified W word moment.
oof
Seeing this reminds me of the "Snafu" podcast.
Could that algorithm be tweeked to for example count bullet or cannon strikes on targets? And misses? Could make for some interesting competitions...
Will investigate.
And you can adjust your gunsight to the single target type.
For gen 2/3 what about the F4 variant that had 3 external 20mm cannon pods?
I think we can only have a single gunpod in game.
I think 3 gun pods are more a warthunder thing than really a thing
The F-80 just missed WW2 however saw combat in Korea!
Will eventually do something with F-80 and F-84, I promise.
@@grimreapers Your the man!😁👍👍👍
The Aim-9E is a rear aspect missile so don't expect it to lock at prop like B-17 head on
It's too bad the P-38J wasn't available to participate in this test. The mix of heavy MG and cannon rounds would have been devastating!
Gloster Meteor was in WW2 and Korea aswell
God... Kortana sounds like such a wet blanket.
How would the cost look if the cost of bomb damage was included for a total cost?
That would be extremely hard to do with assets built into the map. It would easily quadruple the amount of time needed to make and test a mission.
@@KortanaDCS You're right, it really wouldn't be feasible other than giving an assumed average per bomb. Thanks for the reply.
Cortana sounds hot
Yay! Candair Sabres = Best Sabres! Great choice for the gen1 interceptors, though didn't perform quite as well as I had expected. It seems they were just TOO fast. Fun fact: In the 1971 India/Pakistan war, Pakistani Canadair sabres absolutely cleaned house on the IAF, racking up a 6-1 kill ratio.
@@Chad.Friesen And foolishly we didn't go with the 4.5th gen fighters that could actually defend our soveriginty of the northwest passage and fly from our far north airbases and were designed for arctic weather, the Saab Gripen E but went with the 5th gen but massively short-legged F35 instead. Why do politicians make our military decisions for us??
Great video.
I wish you could do this but with b-29s and a slightly higher altitude
Fun video today I like it
Maybe someday.
I think that scenario would have to include the IJ.
I'm surprised that for the third scenario no one picked the Crusader
(small British girl voice) Look mummy... there's an aero plane up in the sky...
Every time I hear a warbird engine, this comes to mind
agreed
With the MACH 1 capable fighters, a Mach 1+ run should shake them up pretty bad
can i make a request?can you make a war simulation between abrams m1a2sep4/abrams x vs chinese or russian 5th gen MTB
The B-17 was made to hold up against flak from 88mm AAA, and there are records of Fortresses coming home with multiple hits. Given the way that missiles often detonate in proximity to their target, as opposed to actually hitting it, I'm not convinced that the damage model is actually all that far off.
Stories of the B-17's ability to bring 'em back alive are just that ... stories. In truth, the B-24 and B-17 aircraft and crews had nearly identical survival rates in combat. The mythical ability of B-17s to survive flak was due to the much greater non-critical wing area of the B-17s. Their wings were in actuality no more sturdy than those of the Liberator, it's just that there was so much more wing surface to hit, that wasn't critical. Many of the holes seen in the Flying Fortresses' wings would have totally missed the Liberators' wings. A hit on the main spar of either bomber would blow off the wing and bring either down. There was just much more wing to be hit that wasn't critical on the '17.
@@xenaguy01 that kind of misses my point, though. I'm saying that WWII bombers (American ones, at least...I'm less familiar with British and German bombers) often had flak burst near or even inside the plane and they kept flying, so I'm not surprised that DCS bombers were coded in such a way that AAMs don't reliably take them down, especially radar-guided models that detonate near the plane. Especially considering that many, if not most, DCS modules are modelled on the popular conception of the plane, as opposed to real, documented performance.
@@AllTradesGeorge
Okay, gotcha.
True first generation jets should be Gloster Meteor, Messerschmitt 262 Schwalbe, Heinkel 162 Salamander, Arado 234 Blitz, De Havilland Vampire. Shame there isn't the B24 Liberator in game.
Interesting indeed!
Can't beat the sound of that 40s Mercedes, felt that in my soul, not sure if it's a good thing or not...
I wonder how the A-10 would fare. It’s not the fastest, but it load out and the gun should make quick work of the bombers. It’s maneuverability should also help with the fighters.
ua-cam.com/video/6ZRFK1Ekqz0/v-deo.html
a P-38L should out-perform a Fw-190 for bomber interception. No idea if DCS has them available though.
About 5000ft/min climb too.
You should do this but with SAM sites
In the Huey I typically take one squad of each on every flight. In the Gazelle I usually take Recon now, originally I would take SOF but found the Recon to be more useful in most use cases.
First choice: P-47
Second choice: F-86
Third choice: Mig
Forth choice: F-16
Only 6 missiles? F18 or 15 are the only choice
Dive down on the bombers. Don't come around behind them! Get a few thousand feet above the formation, then pick one plane and dive down and kill it. you don't present them much a target and kinetically, you have the advantage slicing through their formations.
Everyone loves Kortana
Please can someone teach Cap to shoot a gun hehe … love you really honest!
Question, would a SAM network be capable of shooting down a ww2 bomber force and if so would it be more efficient than fighters?
Enjoy: ua-cam.com/video/fRy5WVZeT6k/v-deo.html
Love these 60's jets for some reason, Sabre next. Like Johnny Quest.
Loved Jonny Quest! ❤😮
Bird is the word kissed an Irish....lol
i hope to see someday a battle between attack submarine of us vs china and russia.tnx
I would have liked to have seen Montana 😅 (from Hunt for Red October)
You need to place a new list of “kills”, mission kills is for bombers that are too damaged and return to base.
the main issue with the second generation is it's ability to get to hight and rapid Winchester. I am really curious as to how a saber mk.6 would perform this with its additional 2500lbs of thrust. would that additional thrust allow for more RTB with more sorties which in turn brings more munitions into the fight?
just a thought.
So why is the English electric lighting over looked, it could super cruise at mach 1.3 and pretty much just point its nose to the sky and clime rapidly.
I always feel valued as a viewer here. It's a very odd sensation and I don't know how to respond appropriately. An alert crouch will now be maintained for the rest of the video.
Alert crouch is acceptable, also works the thigh muscles.
Next B-52s and Tu-95s?
Great vid but I have to call it out because I am tired of its constantly being mixed up. First generation jets are exactly that, the first jets. There are essentially only 3 first generation fighter jets.
Gen 1 - ME262, YP80, Meteor
Gen 2 - F86/MiG15
Gen 3 - F4, F5
Gen 4 - F14,15,16,18
Gen 5 - F22
I think because of my positive participation I should be on the payroll. I suck at math but what is 0+0 ?
3:15 There's no F2G available in DCS?
Neg
@@grimreapers :-( ok I just looked it up. The list is surprisingly sparse! No P-38 or any Japanese aircraft. So much for Pacific theater simulations
Crazy question but have you ever considered turning the formula on it's head? Run an equivalent value of interceptors vs the threat, ie: 500 million dollars of warbirds, gen 1, gen 2/3 and gen 4 vs whatever the threat is.
Cool
How about repelling/supporting naval invasions of different generations?
Cap, Could you sexy humans do a recreation of the 1969 US Navy EC-121 Shootdown by a North Korean Mig-21? Pretty crazy little-known event that easily could of been the end of North Korea.
Keep up the wonderful videos, Ive probably watched 90% of your entire library at this point.
Questions with the up-front caveat that I am unfamiliar with the extent of what is modeled/available in DCS: Were the SUU-16 / SUU-23/A 20mm gun pods or rocket pods on the Phantoms considered for your Gen 2/3 scenario? My thought was that the low speed and size of the B-17 combined with the excess of payload budget for the F-4 and cost-effectiveness of 20mm/dumbfire rockets in this scenario would potentially offset the air-to-air accuracy issues historically associated with those weapon systems. Also, was the F-8 Crusader considered for the Gen 2/3 scenario?
Now that! was a bombing run