Author Topic: Add BF109T Carrier model? (Read 2913 times)

Viking · « **Reply #75 on:** March 23, 2007, 01:49:59 PM »

I don't need medication, but perhaps you do. Your obsession with me is disturbing.

Bronk · « **Reply #76 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:02:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
I dare you to quote one such comment from this thread. You can’t, because it is not true.
I dare you to quote that claim. You can’t because it is not true.

Covers both quite nicely.

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
More significance in real life WWII? Yes. More significance in the MA? No … with the possible exception of the B-29 if it’s not perked.

Because the 109T perf would probably fall in between the E/F model.
And those 2 are SOOOO overused now. I'm sure all the seafire dweebs will be flocking to the T.

Still irrelevant because the damn thing never did so in a combat environment.

Bronk

Karnak · « **Reply #77 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:05:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
No they served as 109T-2, and they retained the longer wings and the strengthened landing gear. The hook, catapult gear and some instrumentation were removed.

If Pyro et al insists on historical combat configuration by removing the hook and catapult gear a 109T-2 will still be welcome for scenarios. I find it silly that you people “refuse” to add this plane since I have flown 109F’s and 109G’s off carriers in campaigns. ALL the planes Karnak listed will be hangar queens; ALL the important MA planes have already been modeled. The only … ONLY … purpose these planes will have in the game is in historical and dynamic scenarios and campaigns, and in dynamic campaigns a German carrier has popped up several times.

The obvious insinuation is that the Bf109T would be used more than these. Particularly considering that some of them are bonafide uber-planes and would certainly not be "hangar-queens".

Bronk · « **Reply #78 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:07:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
I don't need medication, but perhaps you do. Your obsession with me is disturbing.

Ooooo the I know you are but what am I retort.

Did ya pick that up at your last PTS group session?

Or was it a hold over from your 3 grade education?

Inquiring minds want to know.

You have no originality and are a huge bore.

That on top of being a pompous self important know-it-all.

Bronk

Viking · « **Reply #79 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:08:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Covers both quite nicely.

Because the 109T perf would probably fall in between the E/F model.
And those 2 are SOOOO overused now. I'm sure all the seafire dweebs will be flocking to the T.

Still irrelevant because the damn thing never did so in a combat environment.

Bronk

The Seafire was not on your list Bronk. Learn to read eh?

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
BS

B-29
P-39
Early KIs
B25
Betty
410
111
ect ect ect

All these had a much more significance compared to the 109T.
That never flew of a CV.

Bronk

Viking · « **Reply #80 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:10:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The obvious insinuation is that the Bf109T would be used more than these. Particularly considering that some of them are bonafide uber-planes and would certainly not be "hangar-queens".

I didn’t insinuate anything. ALL those plane INCLUDING the 109T will be hangar queens. None of them are “bonafide uber-planes”.

Viking · « **Reply #81 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:12:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Ooooo the I know you are but what am I retort.

Did ya pick that up at your last PTS group session?

Or was it a hold over from your 3 grade education?

Inquiring minds want to know.

You have no originality and are a huge bore.

That on top of being a pompous self important know-it-all.

Bronk

QED.

Bronk · « **Reply #82 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:12:56 PM »

Tardling you make sound like people would drop their fav ride for a chance at a 109T.

Thats the point stupid.

The 109T would be a hanger queen period.

Only use it has is in stupid "what if" bs scenarios.

Once again it never saw service as a CV plane.

Boy your thick.

Bronk

Karnak · « **Reply #83 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:14:11 PM »

Consider that you are backing the comments of other's such as:

Quote

Originally posted by DocRoe
please consider this and i think people would be drawn to carriers and carriers would be used more often if you added this plane in the game.

The Bf109T would see less than 1000 kills/tour. That would do nothing noticable to boost CV use.

Bronk · « **Reply #84 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:16:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
QED.

Correct, it has been determined you're a pompous self important know-it-all.

Glad you agree.

Bronk

Viking · « **Reply #85 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:20:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Tardling you make sound like people would drop their fav ride for a chance at a 109T.

Only in your demented mind Bronk, and perhaps Karnak’s.

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Only use it has is in stupid "what if" bs scenarios.

So now you also attack the SEA people who sacrifice precious time and energy making this game better? How nice. You really should seek help Bronk.

Viking · « **Reply #86 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:26:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Consider that you are backing the comments of other's such as:

The Bf109T would see less than 1000 kills/tour. That would do nothing noticable to boost CV use.

Where did I “back” that comment or any other in this thread for that matter? DocRoe’s comments will have to stand on their own merit. Read what I post, and unless I explicitly support another poster I will not be held responsible for their opinions. You do far too much “reading between the lines” and what you find there is your own presumptions and bias.

Bronk · « **Reply #87 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:34:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Only in your demented mind Bronk, and perhaps Karnak’s.

I'm not the one jumping up and down. Screaming how useful a hens teeth AC would be. You on the other hand.....

So now you also attack the SEA people who sacrifice precious time and energy making this game better? How nice. You really should seek help Bronk.

Ooooo look a straw man.

Tard
Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth
The people are fine. The events are suspect, open to too much interpretation.

Bronk

Sikboy · « **Reply #88 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:35:24 PM »

I remember when this thread was about the 109T. I'm sad that part of the thread ran its course.

-Sik

Viking · « **Reply #89 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:42:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
I'm not the one jumping up and down. Screaming how useful a hens teeth AC would be. You on the other hand.....

So in your head you picture me as jumping up and down and screaming? Explains a lot. In reality (the real world outside your head) I am sitting quite comfortably in my living room, trying to have a debate about a plane and a game.