Hitting moving targets with CBU's in the middle of the night
-
This is an area where comparing RL and BMS in terms of simulation and in terms of benefit/risk, could be a deception.
-
Haha !
Flying that low is one of the only solution if you want to stay alive , flying Reds against Israel (ITO , Syrian Side , Su 24) . 300ft is nearly not low enough to avoid to be shot down for them !!! You must avoid to being detected , it’s not an option for them . So , you have to fly VERY low .
that why I was talking about operationnal conditions : it’s not always possible to fly and bomb at 10000ft , and again more to fly at 10000ft , then lineup and bomb (needless to speak of the fact of doing this AT NIGHT ) . Basically , my 1st goal is to survive , then drop my bombs , then survive again …
On the blue side , it’s way much easier to follow fixed procedures , even in campaign . On the Red side … You often have to be quite creative if you want to last more than 2 sorties …
But don’t worry, while I’m doing the penetration at 300ft(generaly 100 or 150 ft , as I’m really afraid of Western SAM and Radar), I pull on the stick when at about 9-10 nm to gain some hundreds feets , just the time for me to aim , shoot and destroy . Then , I flee before the Cavalery comes in
However , I would be very interested to know which tactics were used by the Harriers sqn you were working for . It could inspire me .
Flying low is a way to a quick death…I could take you out with a .50 cal at that altitude. And you have to give the canister time to open…from 300’…it ain’t gonna go well. At all.
Back in the day, they used to rage around at 200’ AGL…they don’t do that anymore - there is FAR too much threat from ground fire (and that includes small arms and not just MANPADs). Things tend to higher altitudes these days…and precision weapons.
-
This is an area where comparing RL and BMS in terms of simulation and in terms of benefit/risk, could be a deception.
This is the only reason I fly BMS…
-
don’t worry, while I’m doing the penetration at 300ft(generaly 100 or 150 ft , as I’m really afraid of Western SAM and Radar), I pull on the stick when at about 9-10 nm to gain some hundreds feets
You may have missed this part ; I don’t bomb at 300ft
Flying low is a way to a quick death
Flying High for the Syrians , against Israel , is guaranteed death . So I prefer taking the risk of flying low .
Benefit/Risk , as Lorik said above . I’ve made my choice . And trust me , it gives you more chance to RTB , than level flight at 20000ft . This is real suicide .
-
This is an area where comparing RL and BMS in terms of simulation and in terms of benefit/risk, could be a deception.
I don’t think so …
I think BMS is good enough to have an idea of tactics employed .
Well , frankly , 20 or 30 years ago , BMS would have its place in every Air Force training centers , along with other kind of simulator used by thoses Airforces .
Easily .
Very easily even …
-
I don’t think so …
I think BMS is good enough to have an idea of tactics employed .
Well , frankly , 20 or 30 years ago , BMS would have its place in every Air Force training centers , along with other kind of simulator used by thoses Airforces .
Easily .
Very easily even …
There isn’t a lot of room for thinking, BMS doesn’t model that area properly, especially in respect to the damage risk for the vector. Moreover, trials in BMS pointed that most efficient BA altitude was 3, 000 regardless of the context. And finally, burst altitude doesn’t work properly regarding the very altitude it’s supposed to work.
-
BMS is really good at modeling RL…probably one of the best desktop sims out there for it. But as with any sim, it’s all a matter of the mindset you bring to it. When I come to it with expectations, those expectations are generally met very well.
-
I was speaking general , Lorik .
I bet you know a simulator called “Edith” , for example . It’s a sim used by French ALAT (meaning Light Aviation for Ground Army) ; ALAT employs helos , and some light planes . The helos drivers trains on sims that have a realism level sometimes far less good than BMS … But they don’t care , because it’s a matter of purpose : In other words , What do you want to train for ?
For example , a true tactical Sim , like EDITH , doesn’t need fancy graphics , it’s not the purpose : BMS is way better than EDITH on that point . But EDITH is better than BMS when it comes to simulate a full scale engagement at all level (from the pilot to the Air Force HQ for example .)
It’s not because things aren’t simulated 100% properly that they aren’t valuable . It depends on what the trainers and the trained are looking for .
In other hand, if your goal is to become a weapon engineer , BMS is probably not (not yet ? ) the best choice to make .
This is the 1st french simulator . The best of its era . The more complete you could dream for …
Now , you are laughing at watching this . But at this time , this thing allowed pilots to fly an become true Aces during WW1… While it’s obvious this sim had … well … some shortcomings …
-
BMS is really good at modeling RL…probably one of the best desktop sims out there for it. But as with any sim, it’s all a matter of the mindset you bring to it. When I come to it with expectations, those expectations are generally met very well.
That was one minute before that
-
I was speaking general , Lorik .
I bet you know a simulator called “Edith” , for example . It’s a sim used by French ALAT (meaning Light Aviation for Ground Army) ; ALAT employs helos , and some light planes . The helos drivers trains on sims that have a realism level sometimes far less good than BMS … But they don’t care , because it’s a matter of purpose : In other words , What do you want to train for ?
For example , a true tactical Sim , like EDITH , doesn’t need fancy graphics , it’s not the purpose : BMS is way better than EDITH on that point . But EDITH is better than BMS when it comes to simulate a full scale engagement at all level (from the pilot to the Air Force HQ for example .)
It’s not because things aren’t simulated 100% properly that they aren’t valuable . It depends on what the trainers and the trained are looking for .
In other hand, if your goal is to become a weapon engineer , BMS is probably not (not yet ? ) the best choice to make .
This is the 1st french simulator . The best of its era . The more complete you could dream for …
Now , you are laughing at watching this . But at this time , this thing allowed pilots to fly an become true Aces during WW1… While it’s obvious this sim had … well … some shortcomings …
So, speaking in general, yes, and in that area, no? Some of these days we have to agree that we agree just to agree, I guess.
-
Haha!
Dear Lorik !
Nope .
You told that because of some flaws/unaccuracies with CBU’s modelling , we can’t consider that the sim was realistic enough to compare with RL tactics .
I answered that I was talking about the whole sim , in general . Meaning in my mind that I tought that , taken as a whole thing, FBMS was realistic enough . That’s why I wrote “In general” , Lorik .But probably I didn’t express myself well enough . I think I need some more English lessons
In general means what it means . In french , I would have say smg like : “En gros/globalement " or " de façon générale , ce simu est assez bon pour avoir une idée des diverses tactiques employées” (If u could translate this for me for people who read us , that would be kind , Lorik ) .
Some of these days we have to agree that we agree just to agree, I guess.
So , I maintain what I stated , and still disagree with you on that point
If you were true , there wouldn’t be any simulator of any kind , because no simulator can be 100% true to life … 100 % true to life means RL . Below 100% ( even 10%) : It’s simulation .
Have you looked and understood the meaning of the link I sent to you ?
You don’t seem to consider that people are aware that what they do in a sim isn’t exactly the RL procedures, tactics , etc …
I think you are wrong : they are .
-
Then we disagree to agree. Life will go on.
-
Then disagree to agree
Not even .
We have different point of views . That’s all .
Just please remember that all armies in the world are using simulators (not 100% true to life) , and they spent billions on it : They consider it’s realistic enough .
Remember that in every countries , millions and millions of ppl pass the driving exam , for example . They spent hours on driving sims(not 100% true to life too) , and they spent also billions of money on it : Same .
I could write hundreds of examples .That’s the difference between you and me : I consider that a level of let’s say 50 % of realism in a sim , is already an enormous performance . Armies and drivers all over the world seems to think the same .
You seem to consider that to be valuable , a sim must be 100% realistic . On that point , we’ll always disagree .
The only way to be 100% realistic is to really do the thing .
But I agree that life goes on .
-
Please, let’s not feed that misunderstanding. It’s coming to a point you are putting words in my mouth. This is not constructive anymore.
-
All right Lorik .
But you are heavily mistaken if you think I am the kind of man who needs/want to put words in someone mouth .
It’s really not in my habits . I tell what I think , and let ppl think what they want to . I don’t want you to agree with me or anybody else , that’s all .
to be honest (and it’s a mark of respect , coming from me) , I really don’t care if people agree or not with me .
But , heh ! it’s a flight sim forum , and we’re here to discuss . I always think interesting to know what other think .
But I still have the right to defend what I think .
-
Back on topic: Youtube comments in French, a typical BMS versus real life exchange with a BMS dev seasoned in both areas.
EDIT: before it becomes a topic, my “Lorik’s theaters” don’t contain this mod anymore, I rather expect from IA what they’re supposed to do in vanilla, and from humans what they’re fancy.
-
True Lorik , that’s the point(and yes , it’s back on the topic) . Noone here answered the real question : At what altitude should we drop ?
All we know (for now ) is :
: Above 300 ft (Stevie : WAY-WAY too LOW!!)+ not above 10000ft + me ( “pull on the stick to gain some hundreds feets”). In the sim , it gives me about 1000ft
+You, Lorik, stated 3000ft wasn’t good either (because of the way CBU’s are modelled) . Everybody were ok for all thoses statements .
So : Which alt ? The question hasn’t been answered yet .
When I asked Stevie what tactics he saw used in RL with its Harrier Sqn , he didn’t answered me .
I(we ?) still dunno .
If I remember well , in the old F4 , you were quite easily blasted by your own bombs if you weren’t careful . It never happened to me in BMS …
-
There we go again. Ready previous posts carefully. I didn’t say that. The answer is there and in Dee-Jay’s comment on Youtube: not used IRL like that, or not at all. Actually even not for static targets anymore for ethical reasons.
-
….
I don’t know why you still think someone has smg after you …No one ever said you were wrong . Never .
The only thing I dared to say is : “I think BMS is good enough to have an idea of tactics employed , in general” . That’s all .
It’s this answer that you didn’t love ; nothing else …
You answered :"
There isn’t a lot of room for thinking etc …
That’s the only thing that made the thread derail a bit .
Note that I wasn’t even very affirmative . Note I only said" to have an idea" .
Then , Stevie said smg like " I thought BMS is quite good to model RL" .
And that’s all .
-
If you have other questions on the same topic mvanderlubbe, there we are.