Field Ack???

[g00b]

Could be law of averages but yesterday I got hit twice by 88's in about 10 seconds. I was probably 8 miles away from the base and about 10k alt. 1st hit removed my aileron, I started gentle evasives, then *pop*, back in the tower. grrrr. I fully support adding more manned guns to an airfield, one condition, when you kill a manned gun, you get the kill on the person in it.

g00b

[outbreak]

LTAR are a bunch of GV maniacs lol if u attack their field take out VH first or its your own Funeral. Only way to get rid of em is to bomb them like fleas.

[Sable]

Does the puffy ack have a max range or altitude that it shoots to?  Does it become less effective with the distance to the target?

[fartwinkle]

Originally posted by Sable
Does the puffy ack have a max range or altitude that it shoots to?  Does it become less effective with the distance to the target?

I would imagine so but it has got me before when I was way up there.

[MOIL]

Originally posted by palef
There's not enough ack on fields IMHO. Pierre Closterman once lost 3 wingmen in Tempests in a single pass on an airfield. Airfield strikes were an incredibly dangerous mission. I'd like to see 88mm, 40mm, 37mm, quad 20mm, quad .50 cal, and dual 7.62mm mounts all over the base.

Ahh,  someone with a bit of WW2 knowlage, nice;)

I know, I know, I've said it a million times, but here goes again.
In WW2 more A/C were shot down by AA fire than another fighter A/C

Attacking airfields and cities should be (IMO) a very dangerous activity.

All airfields and cities should have multiple gun platforms avail ready to man.
A few 88's, 40mm Bofors platforms, 20mm AA guns and maybe a few .50cals for good measure.
Moble AA platforms should consist of what we have currently, along with the Wirbelwind, towable AA and deployable AA platforms.

This is NOT intended to stop fighters from furballing or stop people from having a good dog fight but rather make the attacking force think twice about strolling into a field and killing everything in site with little effort.

Most of the time in WW2 (notice I didn't say ALL the time) fighters and attack A/C were met with heavy AA fire if they stumbled onto areas of strategic importance.

Now I'm sure many are going to state "I hate being picked off by some dweeb in an AA gun when I'm in a good dog fight"
Then I would need to ask, why are you "dog fighting" so close to an enemy field??
The motto is, come to "our countries" field, be expected to be shot at. It's pretty simple really.

Think about it this way, you're flying along over the water minding your own business. You happen to spot an enemy CV, you make the decision to dive in and strafe it with your guns.
What usually happens 99% of the time??  You are met with intense AA fire and prob go down in flames before reaching the ship.
IMO, fields and cities should be the same way, but again this is just my opinion.

[Delirium]

I agree, airfields need ALOT more ack... vulching is one of the biggest reason for the lack of fights.

Have I vulched? You betcha, tho I usually limit myself to vulching bombers and La7s, mostly due to fustration with the La7 over-use.

[stegor]

The auto ack is what makes this a game and not a sim

.....hmmmm I'd rather substitute "auto ack" with a "a large bunch of  (relatively new) players"

[DipStick]

Originally posted by Sable
Does the puffy ack have a max range or altitude that it shoots to?  Does it become less effective with the distance to the target?

Far as I can tell no. It seems to hit from 5 miles away through mountains.