Just loaded.
You never conducted a coordinated attack on an enemy’s life? That’s a good thing.
Then you will never understand what combat is & what it does on the psyche. Technology is not to be relied on to remove all aspects of combat. The US has made this very clear in many documentation, studies & current doctrine.
Dogfighting will remain an inevitability now & into the future. You have no right to dictate what is useless or not in this specialized form of combat.
Yes but not for the reasons you listed
You already know why, I can test fly it and all it does is add some ordnance?
I don’t “give up forever”… I still play the game just not random battles. Once I’ve got the relevant modifications there’s no point to playing game modes I’ve had 16,000 hours in over 12 years and gotten bored of.
Well that’s just a whole lotta pointless opinions… Yes I’ve paid money for things I know I’ll enjoy… that’s kinda how life works for the most part. Also, anyone can develop games… I think you attacking people who actually help improve the game is kind of silly when you claim to want the game to be better.
Well, I hope you get back in the game one day.
Well, regardless of it does not perform better.
So let me know when you find out why it’s not better than the Su-27S in game though it is technically lighter & more aerodynamic carrying smaller & lighter R-77s as opposed to large & heavy R-27ERs of the previous Su-27S.
In the meantime, I will play actual game battles in it the way the developer has designed it to be played.
This is entirely wrong.
Vietnam was an unconventional war. The US lost because its conventional approach which dragged on to the point of withdraw. This is the same for the Soviets in Afghanistan.
The North Vietnamese fought asymmetrical warfare that employed guerilla tactics, covert small units & ambush tactics. They did this on the ground and in the air.
The US does not gain knowledge by solely winning wars, It by spilt blood. Same for the RuF they are only adapting.
The whataboutism is about what pilots do under pressure. I am not a pilot, I have no basis to speak for their training and actions.
You should also go by that you don’t know what pilots will do in combat situations. I certainly know you and I have zero relevant knowledge of what pilots will do given specific scenarios.
In the game, I certainly can. In real life, I definitely cannot and have to rely on physics, theory, precedence, and practicality to form my opinion.
In game, using extreme AoA (cobra) is rarely helpful. However, since most are bad at controlling their closure rate, having the Su-27 bleed so much speed makes it very easy to get kills with it, despite being the size of a barn.
In real life scenarios, I do not see the Cobra being useful outside of desperate scenarios. Considering that fighter aircraft often do not fly on their own, the cobra would see even less relevant use.
Because it’s not easy switching back & forth in controls while preparing a fire solution at the same time with 16 others spamming missiles.
You know spamming missiles in condensed furballs & flying Mach 1.20 on the deck is not a real thing right?
There is not a cobra button to combat the fictional performances in game.
Condensed furballs with 16 dudes flying circles around each other is not the way 4th generation aerial combat goes down, I hope you are aware…
That is some WWI biplane & lesser extent WWII battles that WT is still modelled after.
The game will get more realistic now there are ARH. So do not be discouraged.
I am excited going to play now.
The U.S. was unable to use nuclear weapons upon which it built its doctrine at the time. Everything was to be a bomber, everything would be fought with nukes. The use of conventional weapons was not emphasized, yet Vietnam needed to be fought with conventional weapons. The ground war was unconventional, yes, but that’s not what I’m referring to with “conventional war”. It is, from the Air Force perspective, a conventional war, it has always been referred to as such since only conventional weapons were used.
Congratulations, you have found the problem with using it in real life scenarios, this is exactly why I criticize it as such. While not on the same scale as War Thunder, the problem still exists in this way, even with just 2 opposing aircraft.
OMG this is terrible. Who told you this?
You know that would defeat the entire purpose of assisting the Republic of Vietnam (SVA) in the first place, right?
You think the USSR & US lost in Afghanistan because they were unable to use nuclear weapons? Lmfao.
You think we should have used nuclear weapons in Korea too? Our poor allies.
You can use a macro with the current control schema to easily set this up.
Press the switch controll type key to cycle through the mouse, realistic, sim controlls.
Or
On key press > switch to sim controlls
On key release > switch to mouse controls.
I have it set much better than you my guy.
There is not a one button solution dude. You are wasting my time now.
Then don’t create conversation you have no interest in discussing.
If you have a preffered setup, that’s your thing and you could share it if you so wish.
But if you are just going to berate and belittle because you think you are superior then there is nothing to be gained by further conversation.
It was irrelevant to the premise of the conversation. Its not easy to use supermaneuvrability in game nor is there a one button solution.
Additionally, aircraft overperform in game completely beyond reality. The only thing that is actually held back within the bounds of reality is Supermaneuvrability.
The speeds they are limited & consistent while aircraft like the F-16 can hit 15+ G at above Mach. Not that I disagree with the FM of the F-16…
My point is that the ability to “cobra” is more realistically modelled than the entire flight envelope of the F-16 in WT.
Anything else you would like to add? Being as I am the only thing that summons your interest in the Su-27?
I am explaining to you what the U.S. was training for at the time. You ignoring the practiced doctrine is not my problem. I am not giving excuses for the U.S. not being able to use nukes, their doctrine at that time was terrible and reflected as such during that war.
No? Both nations didn’t even struggle militarily in Afghanistan. Both nations failed to coerce the people there to accept new rule.
The U.S. would have if President Truman did not tell MacArthur no. I’m suprised you didn’t acknowledge this when making this statement.
Are you actually aware of historical events or are you telling me to go read a book so I shut up?
No, you said the US lost because… they were unable to use nuclear weapons.
Conventional warfare is the US’s primary doctrine & strongest suit. Asymmetrical warfare was new to the US when arriving in Vietnam.
A literal picture of Vietnam is shown to you if you google Asymmetric warfare.
Use of nuclear weapons is strategic unconventional warfare by definition. Tactical nuclear weapons are still unconventional weapon systems.
STOP. You have no clue what you are talking about or reading & unable admit err in your reference of history. I am leaving now to enjoy the game.
Which is true, the U.S. trained for a mostly nuclear war. Being forced to use conventional tactics showed how unprepared they were. I don’t see what’s difficult to comprehend about this.
Not during the 60-70s. The focus was on bombers being the deciding factor, fighters were secondary. The approach to Vietnam was to bomb it into submission, in which nearly all campaigns failed, no less to which because of the massive restrictions placed upon targets such as airfields. It took the actions and deception of one Robert Olds to find a loophole to actually destroy the Vietcong Air Force. The whole air campaign outside of Operation Bolo was a disaster. The service branches did not cooperate at all, everything was linear, the approaches were all the same. The U.S. was absolutely not prepared for a conventional war, they promptly changed their focuse after the fact.
Cool. For the ground war. As was stated before. By me. The air war was conventional, fought with conventional weapons.
So are you saying since we used conventional weapons we were in a conventional war? Whoopsies.
Based on what you talk about, this specific conversation is well beyond what you understand and what you think you understand. I will not be gaslit from someone that is not able to comprehend the actual factors behind successes and failures of past military tactics.
By the way, if you want to continue, take this portion of it to DMs since this is not on topic anymore.
You are coping instead of taking the L and learning something new.
The US fought a conventional war in an Asymmetrical conflict & lost. This is true in Afghanistan for the USSR & the US.
It’s how the US won its own independence.
Do you have any idea how many bombs were dropped in Vietnam?
7,662,000 tons
That is a lot of conventional warfare brought upon the NVA. Don’t you think?
Look, you seem like an intelligent cat, & I understand you like conversing with me, I likewise.
However, the more you become prideful in your initial conclusions & unwilling to receive correction, the more you will limit yourself on your ability to learn.
Correct a wise man, & he will still be wise. Only fools despise correction.
Only fools go out of their way to avoid being incorrect.
Now please, we have deviated from the Su-27 once again. Please keep it on my favorite aircraft. @BBCRF has provided some doctrine I knew he had but rarely shares to the general public :).
You have any questions direct them at him please.
How did this turn into a thread on the Vietnam war?
Because some believe that the Su-27 & its supermaneuvrability is not needed & dogfighting is not relevant today.
This is false & why 5th generation air superiority fighters are equipped today.
It is current combat doctrine of the 3 superpowers that dogfighting will be relevant now & in the future. I highlighted previous conflicts which superpowers made the mistake of thinking that technology can remove all aspects of aerial combat.
Vietnam was one of several mentioned as it is the textbook example that the US Airforce highlights themselves as number one reason why dogfighting is certainly not dead & why they practice BFM extensively. Others felt a need to delve into the war itself.
However, topic deviation is a natural phenomenon that eventually happens in any conversation or debate in real life. As long all parties realize deviation has occurred & return to the subject at hand, there is no harm in it.
Thank you for realizing too :)