Author Topic: Add BF109T Carrier model? (Read 3087 times)

Bronk · « **Reply #60 on:** March 23, 2007, 11:04:23 AM »

Nothing to agree/disagree about YOU said CV gear was removed. Thus making it a non CV AC.
Feel free to play both sides of proving and disproving yourself.
Its very funny.

Bronk

Viking · « **Reply #61 on:** March 23, 2007, 11:30:24 AM »

… And as usual you can’t agree to disagree. Simpletons rarely do.

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
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.

Karnak · « **Reply #62 on:** March 23, 2007, 11:34:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
… And as usual you can’t agree to disagree. Simpletons rarely do.

Because it was an incredibly rare aircraft, so it would not in fact be very useful in scenarions.

And Pyro et a do insist on historical usage, last I heard.

There are absolutely gobs of aircraft, including other Bf109s, that should have higher priority than the Bf109T.

That is what you are missing and attacking us for.

Bronk · « **Reply #63 on:** March 23, 2007, 11:38:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Because it was an incredibly rare aircraft, so it would not in fact be very useful in scenarions.

And Pyro et a do insist on historical usage, last I heard.

There are absolutely gobs of aircraft, including other Bf109s, that should have higher priority than the Bf109T.

That is what you are missing and attacking us for.

Well said.
And since you started the name calling Gblowz/Viqueen.
We know who the simpleton is.

Bronk

Viking · « **Reply #64 on:** March 23, 2007, 11:51:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Because it was an incredibly rare aircraft, so it would not in fact be very useful in scenarions.

It was more common than the Ta152, and served for almost the entire war. Carrier 109’s have been used numerous times in campaigns.

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
And Pyro et a do insist on historical usage, last I heard.

Yup, and a T-2 will still be welcomed. It will still be a better match for a T-1 than the E or F in campaigns.

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
There are absolutely gobs of aircraft, including other Bf109s, that should have higher priority than the Bf109T.

This we agree on as I’ve already stated numerous times.

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
That is what you are missing and attacking us for.

This is a thread about adding the 109T. You and Bronk are the attackers … attacking the very purpose of this thread. If you want to lobby for other planes start your own thread, like civilized people do.

Viking · « **Reply #65 on:** March 23, 2007, 12:01:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Gblowz/Viqueen.

lol How mature of you. What’s next? Adolescent references to genitalia perhaps?

Bronk · « **Reply #66 on:** March 23, 2007, 12:11:36 PM »

off topic

Someones PTS is kicking in. You started the nastiness.

I stated all be it in a sarcastic way. You want the AC both ways.
CV plane without the CV equipment.

You then start with the derogatory attack remark.

Sad.

On topic
Should the 109t be added ?
Sure, bottom of the list though.

Should it be available off the cv in the MA?
Nope never did so in a combat environment.
B-25 has more right to, than the 109T.

Good for "what if" scenario's?
Probably, but after the "Operation Downfall" scenario fiasco. What ifs are pointless. IMHO

You may continue with your being attacked paranoia/complex.

Bronk

Viking · « **Reply #67 on:** March 23, 2007, 12:17:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
I agree that there are other planes and vehicle that should be added first, but that doesn’t mean the 109T shouldn’t be on the list.

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Should the 109t be added ?
Sure, bottom of the list though.

So despite all your trolling we agree after all.

Bronk · « **Reply #68 on:** March 23, 2007, 12:36:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
So despite all your trolling we agree after all.

I never said it shouldn't, find where I said different.

I was on topic.
Docroe wanted it as a MA cv plane.
That I disagreed with.

You spun it into a luftwhiner persecution conspiracy.

Take your PTS meds, your getting out of hand.

Bronk

Karnak · « **Reply #69 on:** March 23, 2007, 12:37:48 PM »

We are also pointing out the hyperbole being plastered about how it would see gobs of use and such.

The ridiculously dismissive claim that it would see more use than most of my list when the exact opposite was true.

Bronk · « **Reply #70 on:** March 23, 2007, 12:40:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
We are also pointing out the hyperbole being plastered about how it would see gobs of use and such.

The ridiculously dismissive claim that it would see more use than most of my list when the exact opposite was true.

heh note my location.

Bronk

Viking · « **Reply #71 on:** March 23, 2007, 01:23:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
We are also pointing out the hyperbole being plastered about how it would see gobs of use and such.

I dare you to quote one such comment from this thread. You can’t, because it is not true.

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The ridiculously dismissive claim that it would see more use than most of my list when the exact opposite was true.

I dare you to quote that claim. You can’t because it is not true.

Bronk · « **Reply #72 on:** March 23, 2007, 01:35:19 PM »

Hey dip chit.
PTS= post traumatic stress= your mind is wonky

PMS= Pre menstrual syndrome = Womans time of the month.

Lean to read mister I've been war scarred.

Bronk

Edit: for those who missed Mr Iamneverwrong's original post.

Viking · « **Reply #73 on:** March 23, 2007, 01:41:57 PM »

I noticed some time ago. You're kind of slow today.

Bronk · « **Reply #74 on:** March 23, 2007, 01:44:13 PM »

Fast enough to catch your stupidity.

Go take your anxiety meds, they beckon.

Bronk