« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: B-29 vs. Ta152  (Read 1882 times)

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2004, 07:16:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
And, since when a bomber stands much of a chance against an interceptor?


Since AH got formations of buffs with uber converging undispersing sniper lazer cannon.
Logged
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2004, 09:43:26 AM »
Oh PLEASE.. defensive guns from bombers are utter CRAP since AH2 came out. You may be right about AH, but AH is no longer up and running. AH2 is so bad that you literally can NOT hit fighters at dead six at co-speed cruising along at d400. The rounds literally won't hit. Many have reported this.
Logged

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2004, 10:13:05 AM »
Quote
Even the Japanese could catch it a number of times.

B-29's operated at much lower altitudes over Japan because of the jetstream.  This made interception by Japanese fighters more feasable.

ra
Logged

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2004, 11:20:55 AM »
Keep in mind that the 355mph speed is the B-29's maximum speed at it's best altitude.  It cruised much lower.  I'd guess between 250mph and 300mph.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline hawker238

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1563
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2004, 12:05:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Keep in mind that the 355mph speed is the B-29's maximum speed at it's best altitude.  It cruised much lower.  I'd guess between 250mph and 300mph.


How many people actually cruise in this game?


I would still like to see it added.  With a decently high perk value, it would be both a gamble and a fortress to fly.  Sure, its fast, large, and well armed, but 90% of higher alt fighters are going to make at least one pass at it.  These suckers will be risky.
Logged

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2004, 12:26:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Oh PLEASE.. defensive guns from bombers are utter CRAP since AH2 came out. You may be right about AH, but AH is no longer up and running. AH2 is so bad that you literally can NOT hit fighters at dead six at co-speed cruising along at d400. The rounds literally won't hit. Many have reported this.


I've been "no pinged" twice in last 24 hours. Once by a B-26 on an "8 to 2" high to low pass and the second time "HO" against a 17 formation...figured with the hi closure and slight offset...was a 11 to one low to high at 400ias (my speed) I was OK...anyway didnt get shot up...literally boom in tower.
Logged

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2004, 12:59:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hawker238
How many people actually cruise in this game?

I wasn't talking about in game.  I was talking about it's historical usage.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Overlag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3888
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2004, 06:13:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Oh PLEASE.. defensive guns from bombers are utter CRAP since AH2 came out. You may be right about AH, but AH is no longer up and running. AH2 is so bad that you literally can NOT hit fighters at dead six at co-speed cruising along at d400. The rounds literally won't hit. Many have reported this.


they've "fixed" that now

try it ;)
Logged
Adam Webb - 71st (Eagle) Squadron RAF Wing B
This post has a Krusty rating of 37

Offline spitfiremkv

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1135
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2004, 01:28:42 PM »
can you say -SieveFortress? :)
Logged

Offline jetb123

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1807
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2004, 04:10:55 AM »
B-29 is a waste of space. We got the lanc thats big enough. If anything we need some diffrent countries bombers. B-29 would be stupid just be a big server lag ball terorozing the skies of ah.
Logged

Offline 2Hawks

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 530
      • http://daniel.clanbaker.com
REally?
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2004, 04:21:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Sure it should, as an expensive perk bomber.


You mean I might actually have somehting to spend my bomber perks on?! WOW!!
Logged

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2004, 04:52:46 PM »
Quote
Oh PLEASE.. defensive guns from bombers are utter CRAP since AH2 came out. You may be right about AH, but AH is no longer up and running. AH2 is so bad that you literally can NOT hit fighters at dead six at co-speed cruising along at d400. The rounds literally won't hit. Many have reported this.


 That's the way it should be.
Logged

Offline Overlag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3888
B-29 vs. Ta152
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2004, 07:17:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
That's the way it should be.


errm no

flying up a tail gun in WWII was a sure way of ending your war effort.
Logged
Adam Webb - 71st (Eagle) Squadron RAF Wing B
This post has a Krusty rating of 37
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »