Could AC-130 Gunships Bomb 1944 Germany With Impunity? (WarGames 52) | DCS

[@darrellseike3185]

I would absolutely LOVE a Doolittle Raid scenario mission!

[@chrisstopher2277]

I belive they did a Doolittle raid with C130s before.

[@grimreapers]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYK1i6CJpqaqfpI

[@Aichi1138]

Is that for the sound of the engines, the guns, or the wails of the doomed below?

[@michaelsmilder8827]

I grew up in Dayton Ohio and they did a flyover of 75% of the still flying B-25B Mitchell's. Growing up next to the Air Force Base I saw some cool airplanes fly over but nothing was as crazy as sitting in my living room and the entire house started shaking from the B 25s. They flew over low in formation one of the coolest things I've ever seen

[@edj2022]

Im a C-130 crew chief and have flown around on them alot over the years. They don't climb fast when loaded heavy. They don't fly fast at all and don't spend much time over 22k feet. For those of you who got your wings shot off, that section of the wing that went missing is where the ailerons are. So those planes would not have survived. Since B-17s had between 10 and 13 of the .50cal guns depending on the year, you would have been better off with fighter escorts on this mission since your AC-130s can only fire to the left and (at least in real life) can only attack ground targets. This was still a cool video.

[@ToastGamingNCrew]

as a mechanic this video hurts me deeply. the bank angle warning won't shut up because they're about 40 degrees past the bank angle limit of the aircraft which is like 30 degrees

[@robertokeefe2357]

No wonder they had to be evacuated .as low as possible at night using night vision

[@chriscahill1005]

For some reason I figured our modern planes like these would of had a higher flight ceiling than WW2 German fighters

[@marcoslaureano5562]

I keep telling people that just because your kit is from 2022-2023 does NOT mean it would have done well at war in 1940-something. It turns out that recency-bias when it comes to ANY and EVERYTHING is a real thing.

[@FrenchSurfPants]

Exceeded max weight by a LOT too. Enjoy pulling those splice panels!

[@ROTNReaper]

I've rode in a C-130 before, and what I learned is bring ear plugs

[@ev06863]

Gotta love those midnight combat landings in Afghanistan! Ears ringing and dizzy from the altitude change.

[@jaxompol224]

been most the way around the world on a fat Albert. sleep on the plane party on the ground.

[@jukefasho]

Lol and a cushion if your sitting on nets

[@guantanamoebay13]

WHAT? SING BEER DRUGS?!

[@frankbarnwell____]

I worked with a guy whom was a c130j crew chief, smoked, drank and a triathlete.

[@jimhayes2786]

Usually great videos but your postulate that C130s can fly higher than B17s is completely absurd. B17s had 4 supercharged engines that worked well up to altitude. Loaded a C130 can only fly to 26k while a B17 (B model) can get to 37k. Typical runs were made between 25 and 30k. Edit: Yes later models of the herc can fly higher including the ac variant. The point was Cap kept saying the b17 couldn’t fly that high, which was false and also was the premise of the video. Thank you internet nerds for pointing out the detail error.

[@haakonsteinsvaag]

This deserves more upvotes.

[@tauncfester3022]

The big issue here was not using the C-130 to it's strengths and being impatient.

[@tjh44961]

Yeah, I'm afraid that you blew your B-17 information on this one.

[@tjh44961]

The OP.

[@craigw3033]

I've taken a C-130H1 to FL350. Of course it was light.

[@deadmanschest4322]

attacking German planes acted like they were attacking historic bombers, with AA guns all over the hull, making unnecessary flybys and losing a lot of time. Since the AC-130 got no AA guns at all and couldn't outrun in speed or height the BF-109 (at least model E-3 and later), the attacking fighters could slow down and stay behind the AC 130 air group, take their time for easy hits and destroy the AC-130 air group within very few minutes. AC-130 would do a far worse job than any allied WW2 Bomber with AA armament.

[@cosmosyn2514]

This. The B-17 may not have goddamn cannons but at least it had guns that were good for its enemies, and more importantly, the B-17 had good coverage of guns. The AC-130 is like if you taped a claymore (sword or bomb, you choose lol) to the side of a chihuaha, and the B-17 is like if you put a bunch of tiny daggers on a pomeranian, yes, the chihuaha does have a better weapon, but it would be unwieldy and only effective at one angle, the pomeranian, however, while not armed with as lethal of a weapon, has completely adequate protection covering all angles.

[@xXCursedWorgenXx]

just makes it as if AC-130 got back in time and germans thought they were b-17. imagine that small movie: Plane where an Airbus get send through time into WW2

[@carmannt6923]

@@xXCursedWorgenXx There is. It's called Flight World War ll

[@xXCursedWorgenXx]

@@carmannt6923 might be the movie I was talking about just didn't remember the name

[@dripdoge2997]

Imagine what an early config B-36 Covered in 20mm ANM2 guns With a full payload The B-36 was planned for ww2 originally

[@FeatheredDino]

The AC-130 orbits at a relatively low altitude and has no defense against enemy aircraft. So I believe no it certainly couldn't have bombed Germany with impunity.

[@rubiconnn]

It would have gotten spanked by AA.

[@SirHeadly84]

I agree. In thr grand scheme of things, outside of perhaps more modern engines and modern firepower, the plane is similar to the b25. Lots of guns. But it's still a prop plane, and its HUGE. It's a massive target. I think it would have easily still found itself in trouble given that fighters the Germans had were very dangerous . I still firmly believe you would need air superiority for the AC-130 to loiter in 1944. They would get shot down just as easy otherwise.

[@jbauerlu2]

tu-95 would be a better example than a converted transport.

[@BenState]

@@rubiconnn Nope, wasn't until the end of WW2 (after) that the common altitudes rose to 30K ft. Most were able to hit a mx of around 25K.

[@dragonspear2863]

The ac-130 is an angel of death. We would kick some nazi ass. 88s be damned

[@never2late_mtb349]

I used to spend a fair bit of time in the back of the C130. Sadly we often only had part of the ride paid for and had to get out halfway through the flight. Mostly through the side doors near the back ;). I always remember the take offs. The engine revs going wild, then the pilot would drop the brake and we'd all try and lean towards the front. With only personnel in the back they'd take off like a scalded cat. We landed at an airfield in Italy once when the plane picked up some engine trouble. The crew called for a ladder, an 8 inch adjustable spanner and a hammer! Up went the ladder, up went the cowling, some wrenching and hammering. Put it all back and "Try that". Nope? Rinse and repeat until the engine fired into life. "Right lads, everyone back onboard". Always felt a lot happier in the back of a C130 that the back of a civil air liner.

[@ianbelletti6241]

It's common for heavy aircraft to fly circles around the launch airstrip to gain altitude and for everyone to get into formation before heading to the destination.

[@Caseytify]

Try required. That's how they assembled into effective combat boxes. Read about some of LeMay's experiences about early assembly attempts. It wasn't pretty.

[@davidwright2706]

I'd love to see this same mission flown with B52s.

[@Baruch.Spinoza]

The B-52s just stay at 50,000 feet and carpet bomb with impunity

[@djmeyer1972]

Vulcans!

[@Sgt_SealCluber]

@@Baruch.Spinoza B-29s did that very thing to Japan.

[@wilsonrawlin8547]

B-1 Lancers.

[@holysmokes0714]

B2

[@wilsonrawlin8547]

FYSA Gents. My father flew C-130s in Vietnam in the 7th SOS squadron. He dropped several Daisy Cutters (20k bomb) in that time. You could easily carry one in Lieu of the 500 pounder payload. 1st gen MOABs. Also flew in the Son Tay Raid and received a Silver Star and distinguished Flying Cross for that mission.

[@EstorilEm]

I honestly would have gone for speed over altitude if you are going straight in - but if you wanted to use altitude to your advantage, why the hell wouldn’t you just climb over allied territory then proceed inbound?! 🤦‍♂️

[@quickmushroom4735]

they did because the plan didn't work bruh improvising was a big thing in ww2 since the communication and pressure was so bad

[@t.r.4496]

My Uncle was a B17 ball turret gunner and tail gunner. He made 26 sorties over Germany in WW2. He made it back home yet he recalled seeing many of his friends go down. I could hear him talking to himself from time to time asking, Why did I make it? Especially if something important was going on in the family like a family reunion or something.

[@pazsion]

If they had scopes they could of fired sooner They had to wait to shoot and often ended up disabled before being able to defend itself. They weren’t as effective as I would of thought.

[@davidjakiela9553]

One thing people tend to forget is that the soldiers who fought in world war II we're not subject to the levels of violence we have today in TV and movies. We have become desensitized. WWII vets saw things very disturbing that wouldn't affect people today as much. They truly were the greatest generation.

[@cabriskus4700]

@@davidjakiela9553I’m sure if anyone saw someone get their brains blown out infront of them it’ll fuck them up. For example I love horror movies and I’ve seen gore. I was visiting my sister in North Carolina and on the way there we went past a accident with a huge curtain around a car. As we drove past the car I saw a torso completely cut in half. I instantly puked and got into an anxiety attack. Movies and shows don’t give you the raw feelings of seeing someone die in real life

[@ecbst6]

I call Shenanigans. Real C-130's used to wake us up all the damn time in the barracks. They'd spin those suckers up for, like, 18 days before takeoff, it was annoying as hell and they were damn loud for what they are. EDIT: That was at Eglin, by the way, right next door to the 1st SOW.

[@plantationsecurity]

Glowie

[@NSResponder]

The AC-130 is not in any way comparable to the B-17, or any WW2 bomber, simply for the fact that it's capable of accurate bombing. Most bombs dropped during WW2 landed over a mile away from their target.

[@lancecougar]

Yep. Analog v computer chip war.

[@toxickilljoy9037]

They were dropped en masse though. What would you choose instead of the AC130, something inaccurate? That’d be a hoot to watch in this setting.

[@JNeavesable]

Radar guided bombing in WWII had pretty good results, fyi, and was pretty accurate.

[@pike100]

I call BS on your assertion that most bombs landed a mile away from the targets. What is your source for this statement? Also, are you talking about the daytime bombing missions performed by the U.S. or the nighttime raids preferred by the British?

[@hanswolfgangmercer]

Those interceptor pilots were flying like there were tail gunners. They ought to have just saddled up and blazed away until they were out of ammo

[@VechsDavion]

That would have been a mobility kill on the windsock.

[@michiganengineer8621]

My dad was a co-pilot of a B-17 (Duffy's Tavern) and as I recall he said they would make a few rather lazy circles over the channel while gaining altitude. And yes, when they worked, those heated flight suits were VERY welcome especially when over 30,000 feet. . I think if you had done the circle routine while on the safe side of the red line, you would have been well over the 109's and 190's when they tried to engage.

[@TehButterflyEffect]

They would circle for quite a long time while waiting for all the other bombers to show up and join the attack group. My grandfather was a bombardier on a B-24.

[@Bull_10RR]

Remember the Germans had radar, and would direct their fighters to the area and altitude which the bombers are at.. Typically 1-1.5km higher to give them altitude advantage.. Good experienced GCI's would try to bring the fighters in with the sun behind them.. Hence the Luftwaffe's reputation for coming out of the sun

[@9999plato]

You can circle over the channel placing your guns outwards to enable them to fire at the incoming fighters while trying to gain altitude.

[@jpgabobo]

Your videos are really getting top quality as of late. Keep up the good work, Really like your honest breakdowns up-front, Still the best DCS content creator, & ED knows this.

[@grimreapers]

awww :)

[@jgischer]

Fun to watch and I love that you did it. And all I could think of when that 109 was sitting in your 6 was that B-17s have tail guns that would make life very uncomfortable for that dude.

[@olemansailor6519]

In real life the B-17's circled over the home base until they had altitude. The books i read stated that it could take as long as 2 hours. A fully loaded B-17 had about 300 feet per minute rate of climb. OMG, Could you imagine the stress of climbing that slow? You should have at least taken a long lazy circle for another couple of thousand feet. LOL

[@kwdriver58]

gosh, if you'd climbed over England to a desired altitude, say.... 18-20k what would you have been at by the time you got to the target area? speed may not have mattered if you got up to 25k. maybe with better or remotely thought out tactics, you could have "operated with impunity"

[@freemandiy]

Dora ceiling is 40k

[@audigex]

The 109 and 190 both have a service ceiling of 35-40k ft. The best bet would have been to climb to 33,000 ft and then accelerate up to top speed, THEN start the run to the target, and hope that it takes time for the fighters to catch you

[@flexinclouds]

This was so enjoyable to watch. Especially the tense formation flying while being strafed🤘

[@Mag_Aoidh]

My dad was in the Air Force between 1955 and 1959 and was a Crew Chief on a C47. He got a chance to fly in one of the first few C130s and he said two things about that flight; it’s the loudest plane he has ever been in and when that pilot pulled back on the stick they went straight up.

[@GryphonArmorer]

The B17 had turbocharged engines and cruised at between 20 & 30 thousand feet. That’s why the crews wore heated suits and used oxygen. Which is also why the P51 had to operate at 30k ft. And... all of that is why the Germans developed rocket powered interceptor aircraft and the Me262 so they could get up to B17’s before they dropped their payload.

[@gomor2]

The AAA is to weak for '44. It should be at least 10,5-cm-Flak 38 and better 12,8-cm-Flak 40.

[@lepompier132]

Even in a simulator, before crossing the red line you should gone up to the altitude by circle in around and once you are at the right altitude you go toward your targets. And one thing you have to keep in mind, B-17 many had a long flight before reaching the coast, that gave them enough time to go higher. And you wanted to go above the flight envelope of the german fighters. You should have taken the time to reach the altitude to go above that flight envelope..

[@tobyw9573]

The late physicist Freeman Dyson relates a WWII story about a study of Lancasters which showed they could fly 50 mph faster (and higher?) if the AA turrets were removed which would save more Lancasters than having the AA in place. The mod was rejected because bomber crews were more afraid of being disarmed.

[@rodericklenz5030]

It wasn't a study. Dyson was 19, saw some mail planes heading east going a bit faster and did some maths on a napkin. In reality, unarmed lancasters used for mail delivery were only 15-20mph faster when heading west (i.e. heading home), far from fast enough to avoid German fighters. But even if they were 50mph faster, it was still nowhere near fast enough to evade German interceptors of the time, and shortly after he made the proposal the first German jet fighters were flying, which put an absolute nail in the coffin of Dyson's poorly concieved idea. Further to that, according to Luftwaffe records collected after the war, half of all their interceptions failed BECAUSE of the Lancaster's gunners. So yeah, it was a terrible idea from a man who is honestly most famous for his consistently terrible ideas and flights of fancy and track record of being wrong on a lot of things (by his own begruding admission). He still contributed to a lot of very important science when inspired by or working in collaboration with others. But left to his own devices he was quite a mess.

[@lith7ium993]

Damage model my ass, you guys should not just have lost the tips of your wings, but all your control surfaces, flaps and pretty much all of the lift generated by the wing. There were some really nasty strafings by the Krauts in the first attack, most, if not all planes should have been severely damaged.

[@bobkile9734]

Hits wooden pole with wingtip: no problems Brushes bush with landing gear: DESTRUCTION AND BIG EXPLOSION!!!!!

[@rotaryenginepete]

Having worked on and flown AC130 gunships for several years, there was never a gunship equipped with 20mm, 30mm, and 105mm. The only combos that ever happened were 20/40/105, 25/40/105, and 30/105. In reality, that's all you get to choose from. And only the last two were capable of pylon mounted bombs.

[@droberts1593]

Pretty cool combat, but if the Allies get the fantasy upgrade with the AC-130's, I think it would be cool to see another go if they were being intercepted by Me 262s (if the modelling for those is available to you).

[@timbaskett6299]

It would be interesting to fly this mission with Tu-95s! I got to fly in a C-130E from the Wyoming National Guard from Boise Idaho to Anchorage Alaska in 1988. That was an adventure, especially when you're 14!!

[@jedironin380]

Reapers: I would love to see this same mission flown with the B-29 Superfortress! I recently toured "FIFI" the only flying B-29 left. Many B-29 crews were awarded ACE medals due to their high kill ratio against enemy fighter planes. Their .50 cal. guns could be linked together to all fire on the same target, or used on every angle for air defense. Plus the large bomb load!

[@cliffjumper8731]

Isn't FIFI one of two? The other ones called Doc ain't it?

[@colinthompson2335]

From the intro I thought height, and speed at height, was to be the main bomber protection? So why load them up with ordnance so they couldn’t reach 30,000+ feet?

[@gatling216]

The most scared I've ever been in a plane was being in the belly of a loaded C130 doing a combat landing. The damn thing just falls out of the sky.

[@Caliban_Cam]

8:56 “I dont have damage” *hits a hill and blows up* 23:24 “HA HA HA HAAA suck my face!’😂😂😂

[@mrlodwick]

55 years old, and I wait like a puppy for this Cap.

[@grimreapers]

Your inner 5-year-old.

[@gruntopolouski5919]

You know the c-130 model that’s a flying broadcast station, with the extra antennae on the vertical tail? They used to be based half a mile from my home, so the c-130 was the most frequently seen military plane around here. Very loud, even from the ground!

[@Eo_Tunun]

Umm… Have you not heard that the U.S. bombers had turbochargers? In aviation, these mainly serve to compensate the effects of altitude. The thing with bombers aft that era just is that they are pretty slow and not too manoeuverable in general (Although I have read stories of Shorts Stirlings doing aerobatics and a lucky H.P. Halifax out-turning a fighter) and flying in close formations where anything else than flying constantly straight and level brought you into danger of collisions.

[@dutchbiker4825]

You really buttered up that runway on return Cap. Noice flying!

[@topshelfmusicgroup5899]

I would love an official module at some point, would be a fun middle ground between something like an Apache and the A-10

[@joshschneider9766]

Turbo jet powered Hercules could be a cool what if spin off/fantasy warfare scenario. This was a really cool comparison. The Hercules is basically an uprated b17 and I would never have thought of that.

[@jamesscott6917]

The gunsight is in the wrong spot in the cockpit, it should be on the left of the pilot’s station. There would be no point in using the box formation in planes that are unarmed for self-defense against a fighter attack, scattered would have been better to make it harder to get them all. If they had defensive armament, then a box formation would be sensible.

[@jamesscott6917]

@@TeenTeenFpv I get the formation flying thing, but different aircraft require different tactics. This is the reason you used the Herky Birds was to highlight the differences. That was my thought process on that.

[@RoadHead62]

That was cool! Might I suggest a 2nd run, but this time, head West to gain altitude, THEN make your run at 35,000ft. Add a refueling if that's an issue. It would be fun to watch 10 pilots coordinate inflight refueling.

[@dnwiebe]

I thought you would have climbed up a big helix on the safe side of the red line until you reached whatever altitude you wanted. You weren't low on fuel, were you? Also, is there a straight C-130 (instead of an AC-130) you could have used? Without all the guns and ammo inside it, it'd be a lot lighter; and it's not as though the guns were really any serious use at the target. If you don't have a vanilla C-130, you could try the AC-130 without any ammunition...

[@freemandiy]

At least in DCS there is no way the Hercules can beat the FW190D with load out. In this session I took the Dora up to 11km without any struggle. This battle took place at 7.5km altitude and as you might have noticed the Hercules already struggled with altitude and speed. The damage model of the Hercules is very limited otherwise we would have slaughtered them in a couple of passes. Besides flaring to distract there is nothing the Hercules can do for selfdefence.

[@dnwiebe]

@@freemandiy I wonder how well the Hercules (well, the Spectre, in this case) is modeled. At its best-rate-of-climb airspeed (I imagine they were flying well over that, wasting energy needlessly on drag rather than using it to climb) it ought to be able to maintain quite a bit of altitude--perhaps more than a supercharged piston plane would be able to--if it wasn't too heavily loaded. You can supercharge your engine, but you can't supercharge that one thin-bladed high-speed prop; the Hercs have four big paddle-bladed props that ought to be a lot better at tossing thin air around. The supercharged piston might still be able to zoom-climb past that altitude, but there probably wouldn't be enough control-surface authority to allow a reliably effective attack, and once you nosed over the top, you'd have no choice but to dive back down to thicker air. Flying at best-rate airspeed (eventually, as you climb, even your best rate sinks to zero, which means you're at your service ceiling, and any airspeed other than best-rate forces a descent) would be boring and would require a little discipline and a lot of patience, but the results might be illuminating.

[@grimreapers]

Yes maybe we should have just used C-130 Live and learn.

[@hookedupoutdoors6299]

Gosh darn, I’m about 10 videos in on a 3 day binge with you all and I must say, I LOVE, absolutely LOVE YOU ALL. Keep up the amazing work my beauties. I’ll be here watching for every vid from now on. Cheers!

[@redssracer4153]

"Our planes will be able to bomb with impunity" That sounds very familiar, now where did I hear that speech before???🤔

[@grimreapers]

ermm

[@paulvamos7319]

Just subscribed to the other channel! 😊 It's not a war crime the first time! 😂 Have you had the Fat Electrician on lately! ❤

[@ViaAvione]

OK, Top Gun: Mav is a must see for all dogfight enthusiasts. I look forward to your analysis?

[@mustavogaia2655]

What would it be the largest naval element a squadron/wing of AC130 could effectively damage. I mean, sending AC130s against a carrier group seems pointless, but against a few ships it could be a viable scenario (albeit out of the aircraft envelope - maybe against ship witout sea=air missiles).

[@Kaelland]

Sounds like you might be talking about sending AC-130s after a flotilla of World War 2 era ships (AA and AAA, but no SAMs). They've done something like that, but only with the guns, no bombs. It didn't go well. I think some semi-precision bombing (attempt aiming but use dumb bombs) would be far more effective than the effectively unaimable guns in that case.

[@mustavogaia2655]

@@Kaelland thanks

[@grimreapers]

Me likey

[@mustavogaia2655]

@@grimreapers Us likey very muchy too. On the serious side, it is a way to see if a AC130 could be use as AAAD element. Apparently some of the Chinese Navy ships would not be destroyers/cruisers, but even smaller than frigates. Maybe a AC130 could work as a faster "patrol boat" even as similar to some subhunting planes did on WII. There is even some talk about resuscitating amphibian planes mainly for transport on the pacific theater.

[@needsanewname414]

Fun fact: the concept of side-firing weapons (that the AC130 would eventually result from) was actually thought up in WWII as a constant way of firing at surfaced submarines.

[@elephantwalkersmith1533]

Why on earth didn’t y’all climb to 30 angels before the red line? You can corkscrew climb … also cut the payload in half, and you would have gotten all the Charlie one thirties to the target, instead of half of the planes.

[@Jagdtyger2A]

The Allied use of Turboprop bombers would have caused a response of German accelerated Me-262 production and use, So you should have put up at least a couple of those ahainst the bombers

[@mpeugeot]

Should have just leveled up to the C17. ;) Alternatively, it would have been fun to see C-2 Greyhounds or A-6E Intruders run the same mission.

[@skyhorseprice6591]

A-6 hellyea Roger that!

[@DougthebearRichards]

@@skyhorseprice6591 A-6 yes, but compare those with the Canberra, or even the Mosquito..... then again, throw in the ultimate: A wing of Buccaneers going in at wavetop height ready to drop their knickers to put off any pursuing fighters.

[@evancrum6811]

My grandfather flew a B-17 in late 44-45. Can't imagine how cold and still the flak and more

[@vanguard9067]

Imagine how this happened during the war with 1000+ planes flying in formation.

[@EvErLoyaLEagLE]

I like that you're using "Ace Combat: Assault Horizon" soundtrack, "Blue on Blue". ACH was the only Ace Combat game I ever fully played

[@MarkloopRAF]

Interesting start to your video. My Grandads Lancasters squadron flew more daylight raids from June 1944 than it did night raids. Just interesting you chose 1944!!

[@grimreapers]

The versions of the WWII planes we have operated in game operated in 1944.

[@anthonylovell2271]

@@grimreapers Also by August 1944 Germany would have been in full retreat, most of the 88's would have been redeployed and fighter cover minimal, it's an easy almost undefended target.

[@ShionWinkler]

Love these videos, how ever Germany did have high altitude fighters, arguably late war and not many were made. Fw 190D-9: Engine: Junkers Jumo 213 of 2,240 hp with methanol-water injection. Maximum speed: 426 mph. Range: 520 miles. Ceiling: 40,000 ft.

[@freemandiy]

Exactly, the Dora was never deployed in significant numbers. I think it has been about 150 at all. So no match for those bomber formations. From what I saw in DCS is that 11km altitude is no problem.

[@grimreapers]

yes, they were... problematic.

[@Aenonar]

@@freemandiy A "small" amount of about 1800

[@freemandiy]

@@Aenonar correct, I mixed it up with the ta-152. But even 1800 was no match for Allied Force

[@honkhonk8009]

would be a better comparison to use B-52s. Takeoff from england, have absolutely no issues going to Germany, dropping off 999999 tomahawks, not giving a shit about GPS cus tomahawks actually dont need GPS cus they reference terrain data with downloaded terrain maps to gauge position, and blowup hitler.

[@russshipman2727]

Awesome to see the one flying on 3 engines

[@stephenwalker7353]

While watching this, I came up with a bizarre idea. First thought is to call it “Circling The Wagons,” in which the AC-130s attempt to fend off attacking aircraft by flying clockwise circles at a high angle so the ground attack guns are nearly level with the horizon. Not a good idea by any stretch, and probably ranges from difficult to impossible to actually do, in real life, yet if we could practice and perfect this technique it would open up an entirely new way to use these amazing aircraft. Continuing this thought experiment, one other problem would be to manage decent anti aircraft coverage would require a minimum of 4.

[@theymusthatetesla3186]

Try it again, with RATO bottles....get up to 20K (bottles unused, obv!) and then light the bottles and go straight up!!

[@grimreapers]

nice

[@Ken_Koonz]

In slick J's, we do formation climbs at 2.5 FPA and 180 kts. Might be a little easier than the 10 FPA you were doing.

[@totalnerd5674]

Idea for a future wargame video: Iran currently claims to have 24 F14s in serviceable condition (although the real number is probably lower). Could these used with other aircraft pose a threat to current US 4th generation aircraft (like F18, F15 and so on)? F35 and F22 should be in a separate simulation, as stealth in DCS isn't perfectly modeled and would probably dominate.

[@carloscastillo8286]

F 14 and f 15 are the same gen the went into service 1974 1976. F 14 was retired due to budget constraints.

[@grimreapers]

Will try

[@totalnerd5674]

@@TeenTeenFpv Fair enough.

[@MrLogo73]

Why not make a video game, where you can take the iranian side with both symmetric and asymmetric warfare?

[@totalnerd5674]

@@MrLogo73 I don't have the capacity to make games, although that is an interesting idea. But if I were to make a video game, it would probably be like a modern naval strategy game.

[@rogeraylstock3641]

Needed some P-47s as fighter cover! Good show.

[@woooster17]

All very realistic.. apart from the actual dying part. Salute to all the genuine hero’s who flew for our freedoms..

[@KentRodgman]

As a base brat that lived on the end of the runway in CFB Trenton for 7 years, there is a special place in my heart for watching C-130's fly around. Accurate? debatable. Very cool? yes, yes it is.

[@Bespelled22]

The plane is a tank to be sure but it would have been too low and slow. You’d be better off converting something like a C-141

[@SlavicCelery]

...it's got a higher ceiling than the B-24, is faster and has a higher rate of climb. There were over 18k B-24s. I don't know what you're smoking. If it was setup for bombing, the C-130 is a better plane than anything available as a prop bomber in WW2. It's cruising speed is faster than the cruising speeds of the B-17 and B-24. Absolute altitude doesn't matter as much if you're in and out of the bombing zone in a fraction of the time.

[@guillaumevalli5031]

it may not be fast action but surprinsingly serene to watch and enjoy all of it.

[@gregorymceaddy8884]

How about initiating JATO pods around 10,000 ft in the climb ..?

[@grimreapers]

cool

[@chrisstopher2277]

15:11 this is what brings me back. I love the sarcasm.

[@sulyokpeter3941]

Very very nice video :D Can you do the same with B52 bombers? I wanna see maybe they can do it without any losses or damage with maximum payload. Laser guided bombs allowed. However maximum altitude allowed only 25 000 feet. But not more. B52 can fly much higher but lets make it fun. I know B52 maybe not in the game and have a jet engine but I would give it a try.

[@jedironin380]

Just make sure you have the earlier models with the tail gunners! Otherwise it would be a turkey shoot for the enemy fighters, like this one was. If the fighter pilots had just slowed down, they could have riddled the C-130's at their leisure.

[@Class1CarKnocker]

Man when Cap started screaming as they were shooting him in the tail I was weeeeeeaaaak! Hilarious guys!! 👍🏾👍🏾

[@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81]

I don't understand: the AC-130s are effectively defenseless, aside from the left. Why would the Doras not simply get on one's tail about 100m back, and just tear the AC-130 to shreds with a few quick bursts? Why all this evasive maneuvering and firing from long distances?

[@chrisstopher2277]

Didn’t realize the Germans weren’t AI.

[@b-chroniumproductions3177]

the AC-130s don't seem to have much of a damage model either...

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

lol, fun video! Still, it's a prop driven plane, so Me-109s, also prop driven, can catch up with it... However... 1944... No Me-262 and 163... That would be even more interesting... Oh, and AAA...

[@benmodel5745]

TU-95s would be cool as well, if they are in game

[@grimreapers]

rgr

[@TotallyNotRedneckYall]

I live near Dyess AFB in Texas, I get to see these big ass planes flying around all the time. Pretty sure I've even seen them destroying my town in simulated attacks, but I've never been able to ask a pilot about it.

[@patrickforni6788]

If you want to learn how it was to fly in a b17 in in 1940 read or listing to that 📕 Combat Crew The Story of 25 Combat Missions Over Europe From the Daily Journal of a B-17 Gunner by John Comer Narrated by Patrick Lawlor

[@ssgsorrels]

If y'all had a single escort fighter y'all wouldn't have even taken a single hit, lol. Great video!

[@djzoodude]

B-17s actually did very well at high altitude. They had turbo-superchargers to force more air into their engines and regularly bombed from 25,000 to 30,000 feet. The B-17 had a service ceiling just over 39,000 feet, which is 10,000 feet higher than the service ceiling of the C-130. In fact, the world record for highest altitude achieved in a piston engined plane, of over 43,000 feet, was in a B-17. So the premise of the video is just flat wrong. The C-130's only actual advantage over the B-17 is speed, it's about 100 mph faster.

[@atomicsnarl]

C-130 service ceiling empty is 33,000ft and has been up to over 41,000ft. With a full 42,000 lb payload, the service ceiling is only 23,000 ft. The B-17 had a working payload of 4000 to 8000 lbs (sometimes more) depending on the mission which also affected the service ceiling.

[@freemandiy]

43.000ft would be even more than the 190D predecessor could fly at (40.350ft FW 152)

[@djzoodude]

@@freemandiy That was the altitude record, normal operating altitude was 25-30 thousand feet. Either way, it was a capable aircraft at high altitude, and could fly higher than the C-130.

[@thefatefulforce8887]

Classic Grim Reapers. I know this is an older vid but I love the energy.

[@Akendesuu]

would love to see this done again but with IL-76 (if there's any) would love to see those twin 23mm tail gunners lighting up the skies

[@hiddentruth1982]

I have to say that went better than I thought as the ac-130 isn't made to be fast or fly high.

[@toyrunner87]

Would be awesome if you could do B17s but with mini guns replacing the .50 cals.

[@m1t2a1]

Circle over base while forming up and gaining altitude before you leave.

[@Echo4Sierra4160]

Well no seeing as the AC-130 isn't a bomber.

[@robertmosher7418]

Why didn't you stay in your own airspace until you gained 40,000 feet? Why did you fly into air space where you knew the German interceptor aircraft could attack you from above?

[@AudieHolland]

*CLICKBAIT* I thought you were going to bomb Berlin Also, if the German fighters were flown by human players, the moment they realized you don't have any gunturrets at the back, they would simply have started flying at your speed, hitting you with impunity. As it is the AI fighters still behave as if they're trying to dodge (non-existent) defensive fire.

[@wheeljork]

Hans: Dieter, what is that horrible thing raining death down upon us? Have we died and gone to hell? Dieter: I don't know Hans, attack it for the f*rher!

[@MissKarenB]

I realize this was for fun, but bad tactics are bad tactics, reduce the bomb load a bit and you don't lose aircraft on takeoff (you had heavier aircraft w/heavier loads taking off on a runway built for WW2 bombers where even overloaded B-17's would crash on takeoff), orbit until your formation has formed then climb and head towards your target.. Plus with just a short hop across the channel there should have been plenty of allied air cover for the entire mission. There should have been no losses except for AA. The C130 is not a Bomber, it's a transport and/or Gunship. As a Gunship all its fire power is facing one direction and that means the Hurcs were sitting ducks (can we say turkey shoot?), unescorted they're lucky they even reached the target. WW2 bombers (as slow and as lumbering as they were) could fire in any direction and sorta defend themselves, your Hurcs couldn't. The Germans learned real quick not to attack an American bomber formation from the rear, between the tail guns, the upper & lower ball turrets and the low closing speed, attacking a tight formation from behind was a death wish. Too many guns could be brought to bare. With your Hurcs, don't attack from the left and it's a freebie. You pull up close, match speeds, sit right behind the formation and fire away at leisure (how to become an ace in one easy lesson (by the way, flares are to distract heat seeking missiles and are pretty much useless against machine guns or German 88's)). One other thing (your combat box), formation bombing, unless you want to fly into someone else's bombs, the lead aircraft is always the lowest with everyone else slightly higher. And by the way, at that time, the higher the altitude, the less accurate the bombing (no smart bombs back then). It was a fun video though. LOL

[@matthewcauthorn3948]

Most of the shoot downs from the B17s were from the Ball gunner or the top turret gun. They had a computer aided gun site for range. You needed to get the right sighting pip on the tip of the fighter right wing and left pip on the tip of the left wing, then pull the trigger. Worked better than any of the free floating machine guns at putting bullets in the same space as the fighter.

[@miza6]

Did they ever use “scatter” guns or anything that shot a wider field?

[@garhull11]

"leave us alone" AA technique implemented in C130s during raids in the belgian coast :-)

[@chrisdooley1184]

First time ever seeing this simulator and Christ it was exciting to watch lol. I didn’t expect to be on the edge of my seat full of adrenaline at 2:00am but here we are😂

[@towmotornoises]

I was an aircraft electrician on AC-130s for six years and I love everything about this

[@roberticvs]

17:25 Does the game simulate fuel efficiency vis-a-vis using wind vortices off the edges of wings, similar to how geese fly in formation?

[@grimreapers]

hmm unlikely

[@michaelinraleigh]

I'm surprised you didn't stall spin on final with the combination of high bank angle/AOA low speed. No wing tips (less lift) probably missing/damaged flaps (less lift) Not sure how your fighter break approach would have gone in real life.

[@jdickson1234]

Lost wing tips! Great for going faster I guess. Less bombs and weight. But far less responsive when landing. Love the channel. Fascinating.

[@kgee2111]

Cap’s enthusiasm is somewhat charming. 😊

[@jedirevan1582]

If you want to make a scenario how about having a bunch of maps from WWII Europe and using bombers and fighters for missions. The more targets you take out the the easier the next mission is, and D-Day is where it starts to get fun.

[@monsterofvalhalla3397]

Some great formation flying on everyones parts.. great job

[@Michael-rg7mx]

Can you load the back full of those incendiary of the time? Light it up like Hamburg!

[@stuartholden2772]

May not be quick GR like f16s, but by heck a beautiful sight, of all those C-130's.