I feel a disturbance in the force, like a discussion about weapon fuzing and effects is taking place… AND I MUST LAY DOWN KNOWLEDGE

So fuzing and weapons effects are… complicated at best. What you think makes sense doesn’t always, and what we normally see in video games is in some ways more realistic, and less realistic than what we think, at the same time.

First off, Tanks and bombs. They don’t mix particularly well, and by that I mean to get your desired weapons effects. 500 pound bombs are in general not very effective against tanks. Your average lightly armored BMP or BTR, hell yeah it will annihilate that but a full blown MBT not so much. The crew inside will probly be very unhappy if not unconscious but you will likely not perform catastrophic (K kill in weaponeering terms) damage to a tank with a direct hit from say a GBU-12 or Mk-82 500 lb weapon.

The reasons for this are many, but the greatest reason is the tank is armored, and even though you have a 500 pound slug hitting it at a decent clip, if you instantaneously fuze it, it explodes on contact with no penetration and all the blast and frag will essentially go off away from the tank. The bomb just does not have enough explosive for an HE/frag effect to significantly penetrate the tank.
If you delay fuze it then you are running into the other problem with 500lb GP weapons, they are just not designed for that. and you may put a hole in the tank, IF you hit it at the right impact angle and it doesnt just broach off. Your standard Mk-82 has no penetration cap or capability (or GBU-38 for that matter) and a GBU-12 is even worse because of that soft seeker kit on the front. So even with a hit that manages to penetrate you are more than likely looking at either a broken up bomb body or a dud fuze.

Now will this disable/damage the tank/concuss or kill the crew inside/ make them hate their lives? probly all or at least some of the above, however a catastrophic kill that we see in DCS almost every time we get a hit with a bomb on a tank is highly unlikely with a 500 lb weapon.

What ultimately this is getting at is that if you realistically want to kill MBT’s with bombs, upgrade yourself to a 1-2000 lb weapon. These do have enough of a warhead and weight that they can start to send fragments through the top armor of the tank, and are heavy enough and will have enough velocity on impact that as long as you get a decent (high) impact angle they will most definitely annihilate the tank without destroying the fuze inside or breaking up on impact.

And the ultimate conclusion is if you want to kill tanks use weapons designed for it IE Mavericks with shaped charge warheads designed to penetrate armor/ other specific anti-tank weapons.

As to bouncing, weapons broach all the time after embedding in the dirt just depends on their impact angle and velocity.

Nose/Tail fuzing determines which fuze wire is pulled when the bomb releases. You can install an impact fuze in the front of the bomb (classic M904/5 fuze from vietnam) or an inertial fuze in the tail. With retarded bombs you pull both so that the noze fuze arms and the tail fuzing simply pulls the retard mechanism. With LGB’s you can pull one or the other because sometimes you have a different fuze in the front than in the back so you can then choose the fuzing. JDAM’s have programmable fuzes so you generally just pull N/T as a back up on those. If you have a straight up dumb bomb you can pull fuzing depending on either a specific attack (low altitude, low impact angle likely go with the inertial fuze, high altitude high impact angle go with the impact fuze) Or both just as a backup. All depends on the target, the weapon and what you are trying to achieve.


I always felt that most games have handled armored vehicles as “kills” simply to avoid having to get into mechanics involving mobility kills or crew kills or mission kills. Easier to blow it up than have the crew bail out and stumble around in shock. In game terms, the effect is the same: the vehicle ceases to be active in the scenario.

It is worth noting that in ODS, F-111s equipped with LGBs took out a lot of armored vehicles, though it’s debatable how tough we consider a T-54/55 to be compared to a modernized T-90. By the same token, a 500lb slug of steel by itself, being dropped from 30,000ft, is going to put a hole in something… Provided one can accurately place it where it needs to go. Said steel slug is probably quite a bit sturdier than a cast iron casing of a typical bomb warhead, too.

1 Like

F-111’s did do that in ODS… with 2000 Lb GBU-24’s :slight_smile:


When I think of the staggering amount of violence needed to straight-up murder a modern MBT, I feel so very very ashamed using maverick missiles at trucks lol.

1 Like

K killing things, which is what we do and have done in just about all combat flightsims since the beginning, is really really hard. Like even with JDAM’s and LGB’s you would be surprised how difficult it is to K kill, IE catastrophically destroy to the point where it can’t be repaired or reutilized, a vehicle or structure.

Its easy in flight sims because of binary nature and its easier to program, but it also leads to this weirdness as we get more realistic with weapons and systems in our aircraft that either under or overperform because there is no endstate that is not a K kill.


That was a nice nugget @klarsnow! Thanks!

Don’t forget fun! Lest we forget, a sim is still a game, even if made to realistic standards. It’s not fun to drop a Mk82 and have it hit 1ft away from a tank only to have no impact or effect whatsoever to the tank. It costs computing resources to have an effect other than dead or alive, especially when we consider that for a flight sim, these vehicles may be deployed en masse with little consideration for being anything more than targets.

Of course, bringing this up now makes one wonder if using aircraft like F-35s laden with SDBs would truly be effective at CAS against a modernized enemy. Anti-tank weapons have lagged behind quite a bit in the past two decades. I’m still not going to sit and wait in a MBT while someone puts a 250lb bomb on my doorstep, but we put way too much faith in the ability of technology to turn rare, exceptional cases into everyday occurrences.


Exactly…and sometimes lost on us. I honestly don’t care if the BIT page isn’t 100% accurate, or if a HUD symbol isn’t perfect. It is even the reason why I actually enjoy Carenado products even though they have lots of systems errors…it is good enough for me to “feel” like I’m doing whatever fictional role I’m doing. To wit - I’ve spent almost eight hours a day for the past four days working on this…


Wait – you’re saying we shouldn’t get bent out of shape if there’s 51,000 rivets instead of 51,003?!


New career goal.


I’m gonna need a time machine. Or…a locksmith, a couple trucks full of LOX and anhydrous ammonia, and someone to distract the guards at Wright-Patt…

1 Like

Oh I’m aware, but I would argue that as things get more realistic you can start to have fun in different ways :slight_smile:

Maybe instead of blowing up a column of tanks you start weaponeering buildings. You’d be amazed what you can do to various buildings in real life and the different effects you can achieve just by varying your impact angle and fuzing.
Not too worried bout the f-35 in COIN CAS, SDBs are actually surprisingly good penetrators (better than any variant of mk82) although you ain’t hitting anything moving with it.


All this talk about bombs is con-fuse-ing

. Here all night folks.


Ugh, you shouldn’t.



LMFAO! :laughing:

Try the veal!

1 Like

Prob with X-15 is you need to be air dropped for best results and sim records historically in that area are pretty poor.
I did fly it a lot in one of my old sims but I can’t recall what it was called now. It had the SR-71, the space shuttle, the X-15, even the X-1 if IIRC. To get around the 15’s limited fuel so I could take off from a runway and still get into the stratosphere, there was a bug/cheat where since the game let you switch planes at any time (so you would suddenly have your F-15 become a space shuttle or something) it would give you full fuel at that time. So fly in the X-15 until you run out of gas, switch to an SR-71, fly for 5 seconds, switch back to X-15…full gas!

The problem was the plane didn’t have RCS, just control surfaces, and once the air was too thin the plane would invariably lose control and tumble on all 3 axes. Yeah, it was enough to make you hurl if you’re the type that can get sick looking at a monitor.



There was also X-15 featured in one mission of Birds of Prey.

1 Like


Navigation System Update

A very important aspect of creating a realistic navigation systems is accounting for magnetic variation. Over the past week, the team has been implementing this. We now have a Magnetic Azimuth Detector (MAD)and Magnetic Variation implemented as part of the Mission Computer (MC) 1 code. Note that the MAD is actually a separate system that provides data to the Air Data Computer (ADC), which in turns sends the data to the MC. For the two Mission Computers, we are essentially creating them virtually. This allows us more accuracy, particularly in regards to failures.

This will now allow proper magnetic heading differences (true heading vs magnetic heading and will be available on the HSI.

Realistic magnetic and true heading computations for DG/SLAVE/COMP INS are also in progress.

This is all in parallel to getting the INS Waypoint systems up and running, a crucial item of the Early Access release.

Matt “Wags” Wagner
Eagle Dynamics, Senior Producer