Author Topic: A GV question (Read 2107 times)

BaldEagl · « **Reply #45 on:** February 06, 2007, 09:10:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Care to test this against a hurri 2d vs panzer?
I am more than willing to prove that theory wrong.

Bronk

Sure, I'm game.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #46 on:** February 06, 2007, 10:07:05 AM »

I was under the impression from what little I'd read that the incidents of ground attack planes damaging tanks was normally damage to the engine compartments, causing damage to the fuel delivery system and the occasional fire, not necessarily destroying the tank, but rather causing damage that could not be so easily repaired in the field while under fire. I also got the impression that taking out the support vehicles was a much simpler and more effective way of dealing with tanks, since a tank without gas or ammo is just a lawn ornament.

Anyone who has read more or knows a bit more on the subject care to chime in? I don't know the specifics of armor and penetration capabilities of the various ammo, but it seemed to make a reasonable amount of sense.

BaldEagl · « **Reply #47 on:** February 06, 2007, 10:33:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lusche
This is a misconception. Your vulnerabiltity in a GV is not depending on your current position. Staying in the commanders position does not make you more vulnerable to attack. (Did you note that you never got "Pilot Wound", regardless of being protected by armor or not?)

My experience is different then.

If I stay in the turret in an Osti I will be killed by enemy aircraft gunfire.

If I move into the hull I won't.

Turrets in Panzers and Tigers are safe from enemy gunfire as are hull guns in all three vehicles.

Maybe I'm wrong but this is how the game has played for me and I've spent 100's of hours in GV's.

Lusche · « **Reply #48 on:** February 06, 2007, 10:52:10 AM »

Well, I have about 6000 kills in GVs now and I did experience no difference. I always stay in commanders position when under air attack.
But as any personal experience is subjective, let me cite the man who designed this program:

Quote

Originally posted by ghi
If you are on MG position in Tiger when bomb hits, die eassy.
2 passes of concentrate cannon fire in IL2,on the same track disable the tiger,

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
This is false. It dosn't matter what postion you are in.

HiTech

That statement can be found in this thread

(And if the driver of a GV would be a vulnerable part, you should experience a PW every now and then)

Bronk · « **Reply #49 on:** February 06, 2007, 11:21:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BaldEagl
Sure, I'm game.

pm me a time you want to test this in the da.

EST

Bronk

BaldEagl · « **Reply #50 on:** February 06, 2007, 12:03:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
pm me a time you want to test this in the da.

EST

Bronk

Don't have PM active and don't have account info to change it at work. Will try to set it up when I get home but will be late tonight. I'll try to PM you once i get it set-up.

LTARghst · « **Reply #51 on:** February 06, 2007, 01:03:47 PM »

Personally I think they should do away with assist and give the kill to the one who actually destroy's the plane or GV. Nothing more irritating than chasin down a plane or GV that has no apparant damage kill him and get an assist. HT please do away with assist, they suck.

E25280 · « **Reply #52 on:** February 06, 2007, 10:34:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hubsonfire
I was under the impression from what little I'd read that the incidents of ground attack planes damaging tanks was normally damage to the engine compartments, causing damage to the fuel delivery system and the occasional fire, not necessarily destroying the tank, but rather causing damage that could not be so easily repaired in the field while under fire. I also got the impression that taking out the support vehicles was a much simpler and more effective way of dealing with tanks, since a tank without gas or ammo is just a lawn ornament.

Anyone who has read more or knows a bit more on the subject care to chime in? I don't know the specifics of armor and penetration capabilities of the various ammo, but it seemed to make a reasonable amount of sense.

I think you have covered all the basics. MG fire getting through engine grills, the occasional oddity of the hinges on a hatch getting hit so that hatch falls off and bullets rattle inside, rattling the crew so much they abandon their vehicle (suicide, really) or crash -- not too many ways to actually "kill" a late-war tank directly with MG fire, and all of them flukes or due to crew panic rather than the power of the MGs. (Halftracks, most armored cars, and thin-skined early-war tanks are, of course, a different story.)

You can do as you say and make them run out of gas, and/or jam up roads by killing soft vehicles so the armor can't move. Then the crews would again abandon the vehicles rather than be surrounded by advancing enemy troops.

Bronk · « **Reply #53 on:** February 07, 2007, 09:41:35 PM »

And the verdict is yes you can kill a panzer with a 2d.
No matter what position you hide in.

BaldEagl for being a good sport.
Not to mention a willing target.

Bronk

BaldEagl · « **Reply #54 on:** February 07, 2007, 11:06:48 PM »

I take it all back. Bronk and I tested my theory in the DA tonight and he killed me easily in his second pass. Me inside the hull of a Panzer, Bronk in a Hurri IID.

It had never happened to me before but I'm a believer now. Now I'd like to know if guns less than 20mm would do the same.