Gocad

Just out of curiosity, where have you read or heard this statement?

The F-8 was in the end almost as versatile as the F-4 and used accordingly...it just couldn't carry the same payload. 1.)A well trained GiB won't help much if the driver is quite inexperienced...I know that this setup is used when you start training new pilots, but still, once you at SHTF moment there isn't much he could do. 2.) Don't think of the F8U-3 as an uprated version of the F8U-1/2. It was a whole different aircraft, designed for a totally different purpose. And, despite its projected performance, an inferior aircraft compared to the F-4. That of course my armchair pilot's opinion, but I still think that it's quite valid. Besides, even if, I don't think that it would have been that easy to add a gun or Sidewinders to it once they had realized the need for those.

Lexx, two words: pilot training. And to answer your question, the F8U-3 would have done worse, since it was meant to be used as an interceptor, so its pilots would have had the same problem as the F-4 pilots had in Vietnam....no emphasis on ACM training in their syllabus.

Whatever, the Crusader still owns!!!11!! Besides, I'm well aware that the Crusader was only more successful against the MiGs (according to the kill-loss ratio) simply because their pilots trained ACM due to their (pretty useless) primary gun armament...and I guess that anybody who know a bit about the Crusader would say the same. That would also explain why most of the initial Topgun instructors were Crusader pilots. It's all about training.

Re: iPad ban Israel reverses its iPad ban Like I said above, that was just a question of time. What this has to do with the original subject...well, to be honest, some posters in this thread went a bit over the top with their statements. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes it would be nice if some would actually think about what they want to post instead of just posting it right away. Sure, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but some are so far away from reality that it hurts.

The Gannet replaced the Skyraider in that role.

You don't need a ballistic missile to launch a nuclear warhead at an unfriendly neighbor...

The iPad has been banned for now since it does not comply with Israeli communication standards...and that will most likely be resolved once the iPad is sold outside the US. Why did Israel buy German and not American submarines...well, one reason would be that no American company builds conventional submarines anymore. Why is the Israeli Navy looking at a German design for their new vessels? Because the American design they initially looked at has become too expensive. Does the US-Israeli relations have anything to do with this? Not really, right?

Short version: Don't worry, you're a modder anyway. Btw, I wasn't joking about the post count. It doesn't matter how much you post, but what you post is important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDDDKnNhuE That one is still the best.

Fun fact: Post count is meaningless.

Impressive.

StationID refers to the individual weapon station of an aircraft. StationGroup ID refers to a slot in the loadout section. You shouldn't have more than six of those, since the game can't handle more than that. You can put several individual weapon stations together (as long as they have the same Attachment type), which means you can load several stations at once. Take the Sparrow stations of a F-4B. 4 stations = 4 different StationIDs, but they all share the same StationGroupID.

While I do like flying in the WWII time frame, I do feel it's a bit done to death (the same goes for all modern day flight sims)...and as far as I am concerned I have yet to come across a sim that would as much fun as SWOTL. The CFS series never did it for me really. European Air War came close though... What I don't like about WWII flight sims in general is that they seem omit certain theaters...like the Mediterranean. A SF2 powered WWII sim featuring all major theaters from 1939 to 1945 would be great.

So I wasn't dreaming that there is something wrong with using Alt+N in the SF2 series. One explanation could be that using Alt+N transports you immediately to the objective, meaning no time passes for your flight, so I guess the problem could be that your flight arrives hours before all the other flights are meant to show up. That's just my theory, though. Not sure if that's really the case. It might be useful to raise this question at the TW forums....

I never said that it was good, but it's still not useless.

When it comes to tools of war (vehicles, weapons, etc.) you won't have much of a choice really, you got to live with what you got in your arsenal. And you can pretty much count on that most of your equipment hasn't been designed for the kind of conflict you're about to enter...

Read the first sentence of the first post of the OP: That's what I was getting at when I made the statement about different methods and types of war. I'm sorry to say this, but the initial post simply makes no sense to me. I do think that the OP is trying to compare something here, but I have no idea how that should work given the initial premise here. (Btw, that is not a political statement.)

Comparing the casualty number of wars that are decades and centuries apart isn't that much conclusive, since warfare (tactics, technology, etc.) and the (medical) treatment of wounded is constantly changing. Not to mention that wars themselves are hardly comparable.

Der sogenannte "deutsche Weg" in Sachen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik ist schwer totzukriegen....ich frag mich ohnehin was die Verlegung der PzH bringen soll, gibt doch wahrscheinlich eh nur Theater wenn die das Teil da mal benutzen. Ich finde es auch ziemlich heuchlerisch von einigen Politikern, die nun so tun als hätte sich die Lage in Afghanistan urplötzlich verändert....es ist lediglich die ganze Schönrednerei endgültig von der Realität eingeholt worden ist....wofür die Soldaten im Einsatzland die Zeche zahlen müssen.

No doubt, using the AIM-9B means extra work, but it's one of the rare moments where 'work' actually means 'fun'.

To be honest I thought so too for a long time until I (re)read some comments regarding the importance of the ACM/gunnery training of the Crusader pilots and how it affected their use of the AIM-9: After all, to reach a gunnery position a pilot has to fly through the AIM-9 envelope. That sentence made me think...and change the way how I use the AIM-9B. It felt like I had been enlightened.

I picked Vietnam, but actually it would be more like 1940s to 1960s. I admit it's fun flying a mission with some 4th/5th gen fighter loaded with lots of BVR missiles, but it becomes boring fast. A jet fighter with armed with cannons and maybe a few 'winders in case I want to finish a fight fast is the right thing for me. I wonder what aircraft could fit that description....oh, right.

Nice shooting, but what's with the AIM-9B bashing?

Neat.