HT add 2 new mannables

[Helm]

I vote no.




Helm ...out

[mike254]

The auto-guns on the CVs are what are so terrible at killing you at unrealistic distances, behind hills, and what have you. I agree this needs to be fixed. The manned 5 inch guns rarely get you unless you "ask for it".

This is a little off topic but... I agree something needs to be done about the 5 inchers on the CV and the ones on strats that can magically shoot you through mountains. But I don't agree that the 5 inch guns, mannable or auto, "rarely get you unless you 'ask for it". I have been killed countless times when the CV is 10K+ away from me and i know it happens to other people all the time. I don't think i am asking for it if i am that far away. I remember once when the CV was so close to the base that the manned guns were vulching people off the runway.

And it is important to stop "lancstukas" from bombing your CV, but unimportant to protect land-based fields?

Last time I checked land bases cant be sunk and a lankstuka can't take down a whole field, especially if hes divebombing. A CV doesn't have a VH to up whirbs and osties to kill said lankstuka. If he bombs the VH, easy target for any plane that ups. Also, If by some miracle the lancstuka takes down the whole field, you only have to wait 15 minutes before it pops back up, and that's if it killed everything all at once. That goes for anything that takes down a whole field. The hangars could be all down but if one hangar went down 12 minutes before the rest, you only wait 3 minutes. I don't think a 5 incher would help stop a high alt bombing mission at all. Sure you could kill lancstukas easily with it... but so can the auto guns, mannable guns, whirbs, osties, and fighters. Another reason why we need them on CV's is because if a CV goes down, you have to wait 15 minutes before you can up a plane, and then when it does come back, It is probably 100+ miles away from any action, so you have to wait an hour for it to go back where it was. You don't have that problem with airfields. 

As I alluded to earlier, 9 out of 10 times this happens around a CV, it is an auto-gun that gets you.

That's because if your out of icon range the person in the manned gun isn't gunna shoot at you. As soon as you get in icon range they start shooting, and I have been killed many times from manned guns on the CV as well as auto guns that hit you when you are well out of icon range. If you were trying to capture a field, the town is close enough to the field so that the 5 incher would be picking off everything at town. The goon would never make it. You would have to have 1 or 2 people risk going through all the auto ack,the puffy ack, whirbs or osties to get to the guns and destroy them, which means 9 times out of 10 those 2 people would be dead.  That's if they even made it to the base. If they didn't you would have to send 2 more etc.. It would end up ruining gameplay.

Nothing you can grab will be anything but giving a horde a free kill if the runway is covered and their are no guns up. There won't BE any guns up if bombers with a modicum of alt can destroy the VH, and anything else they want at will, which currently, they pretty much can.

If there are no guns up in the first place how is that an argument to why we need them, because obviously they would be useless? 

[whels]

My point really...this is aces high, not Puff Ack Online.

HT just named it that, it does not mean or meant for it have been
strictly planes otherwise he wouldnt have GVs.   

I kill enough planes with Osti/wirb/M16,  i want the Anti tank gun, the 37mm
we got now is barely able to get a T34, and Tigers just laugh hehe .

and as for the 5" guns on CVs, rarely does a manned 5" kill beyoud the 5k vis range.
if u die way out there, it was  AI puffy not mannable.

[BnZ]

This is a little off topic but... I agree something needs to be done about the 5 inchers on the CV and the ones on strats that can magically shoot you through mountains. But I don't agree that the 5 inch guns, mannable or auto, "rarely get you unless you 'ask for it". I have been killed countless times when the CV is 10K+ away from me and i know it happens to other people all the time. I don't think i am asking for it if i am that far away. I remember once when the CV was so close to the base that the manned guns were vulching people off the runway.

In my experience, hitting a maneuvering aircraft outside 3K with a manned 5 incher is random chance.

If that CV was that close to the shore, it should have been DEAD to the shore bat.

Last time I checked land bases cant be sunk and a lankstuka can't take down a whole field, especially if hes divebombing. A CV doesn't have a VH to up whirbs and osties to kill said lankstuka. If he bombs the VH, easy target for any plane that ups. Also, If by some miracle the lancstuka takes down the whole field, you only have to wait 15 minutes before it pops back up, and that's if it killed everything all at once. That goes for anything that takes down a whole field. The hangars could be all down but if one hangar went down 12 minutes before the rest, you only wait 3 minutes. I don't think a 5 incher would help stop a high alt bombing mission at all. Sure you could kill lancstukas easily with it... but so can the auto guns, mannable guns, whirbs, osties, and fighters. Another reason why we need them on CV's is because if a CV goes down, you have to wait 15 minutes before you can up a plane, and then when it does come back, It is probably 100+ miles away from any action, so you have to wait an hour for it to go back where it was. You don't have that problem with airfields. 

Fields currently have little defense against anyone bringing heavies 10K or above, as opposed to Lanc Stukas. A pair of 88s might kill them, or force them to go higher, where they would have a chance of missing at least.

If you were trying to capture a field, the town is close enough to the field so that the 5 incher would be picking off everything at town. The goon would never make it.

I think towns also need mannable guns.





[/quote]
 You would have to have 1 or 2 people risk going through all the auto ack,the puffy ack, whirbs or osties to get to the guns and destroy them, which means 9 times out of 10 those 2 people would be dead.  That's if they even made it to the base. If they didn't you would have to send 2 more etc.. It would end up ruining gameplay.
[/quote]

I can't see them being harder to take out than a VH.

If there are no guns up in the first place how is that an argument to why we need them, because obviously they would be useless? 

There are no guns up because the field guns go out when you look at them and because the single VH is easy to take out, as it has no defense against heavy bombers above 10K. Especially V-Bases.

[mike254]

In my experience, hitting a maneuvering aircraft outside 3K with a manned 5 incher is random chance.

You might wan't to work on your aim a bit.  It's really not that hard to hit an aircraft 3K away in a 5 incher.

If that CV was that close to the shore, it should have been DEAD to the shore bat.

Well that would have happened if the 5 incher didn't take the shore battery down first.

I think towns also need mannable guns.

I just said how having them at the base would be a bad idea because it would ruin missions to capture a base and now you want them in the town? I can see how a big mission might be able to capture a base even with 5 inchers on base, but a smaller mission wouldn't work. It's already hard enough to get people to join a mission. At least thats how it is on rooks (unless it's Dredger) and bish ( unless it's ghi orJoker). If you had 5 inchers in town also, even larger missions would fail most of the time. This is probably the worst idea I have heard since the unperked n00k.

I can't see them being harder to take out than a VH.

As it is right now it isn't too hard to take down a VH, then again the VH doesn't shoot back with 88mm shells.  You try going straight at an 88mm gun and taking it out before it takes you out, especially if theres 2 on the field, or in this case, since you want them in the town as well, 3 or 4 would be shooting at you.

There are no guns up because the field guns go out when you look at them and because the single VH is easy to take out, as it has no defense against heavy bombers above 10K. Especially V-Bases.

If you went to the TA and learned some ACM, then maybe you could stop the fighters from taking down the ack or VH.  Problem solved

Oh, and don't tell me high alt bombers are gunna take down the ack... because they won't.

[sldered]

Sounds good to me, 

[JHerne]

Obviously, we all have perceptions of what this game should be, include, not include, etc...

I support a B-29 as a non-nuke, perk bomber, provided we have aircraft that can counter it, like a 262, J1N1 Irving, Ki-45 Nick, Me-410, etc...
one or some of these aircraft would have to be non-perk to enable players to counter the perked aircraft.

I support an He-111 for historical scenarios, Battle of Britain, etc. But to try and convince me it'll be used with ANY success in the late-war MA is a joke. It'll do fine in the early war arena, where we have a max of 20-30 players at any given time.

Historically, pilots didn't take off from any base they pleased and furball whenever they felt like it. That's not the way it worked, so we are limited to our reality in-game. While we can't control doctrinal reality, we can control historical reality. Airfield defense was a science, much the same way fleet defense was a science to the USN. This involved GVs like the M15 and M16, fixed and mobile 37mm and 40mm mounts, even .50 cals on single and twin mounts for close-in defense. It involved overlapping fields of fire, 'kill zones' and radar guided command and control with VT proximity fusing on the Allied side. But...

The primary AA defenses for airfields, especially Allied, were medium-caliber weapons, the British 3in and 3.7in AA gun, and the U.S. 90mm. The Germans used Flak 18s and 36s for airfield defense. These, along with the 3.7in and 90mm AA gun, were superlative dual-purpose anti-tank weapons as well, something we could certainly use on VBs. Eventually, practically all the combatants settled on the 40mm Bofors design, which, technically should be virtually identical in performance to the 40mm we use onboard ships. The 37mm in game, although accurately modeled, suffers from the same slow rate of fire and muzzle velocity that the actual weapons faced.

German 88mm guns have a stigma attached to them, that they are some sort of game-altering wonder weapon. Truth is, although ballistically sound throughout the war, by 1944 the ranging and optics, along with the lack of VT proximity fusing AND trained and experience crews, meant that the 88s were not what they were in 1941 and 42, at least from an anti-aircraft perspective.

What gave these weapons their aura of invincibility was the command and control and tactical doctrine developed for them. 88mm AA guns were established in batteries, 4 guns per battery, and were directed by a remote (several hundred meters) fire control system for ranging and aiming. This fire control system was connected to a radio truck, who in turn communicated with radar installations, forward observers, etc., to pre-determine altitude, direction, course heading, etc...

As a result of this infrastructure, bomber formations were practically pre-ranged and pre-sighted before they appeared over the target.

Flak is, was, and should be, an everyday part of any WW2 combat pilot's life. More Allied bombers of WW2 were lost to flak than to fighters. So why, if flak kills more aircraft than fighters, should we reduce the amount of flak in the game, or not increase the land-based flak from it's current level?

If you're looking for a pure dogfighting, 'the ground doesn't exist' type of game, then I can understand your position. That being said, AH has elements of all aspects of combat, except for playable infantry, so it makes sense to strive for historical accuracy (or let's just say virtual historical realism).

Jeff
(who, by the way, is a military historian (published even), by trade)

[mike254]

Obviously, we all have perceptions of what this game should be, include, not include, etc...

I support a B-29 as a non-nuke, perk bomber, provided we have aircraft that can counter it, like a 262, J1N1 Irving, Ki-45 Nick, Me-410, etc...
one or some of these aircraft would have to be non-perk to enable players to counter the perked aircraft.

I support an He-111 for historical scenarios, Battle of Britain, etc. But to try and convince me it'll be used with ANY success in the late-war MA is a joke. It'll do fine in the early war arena, where we have a max of 20-30 players at any given time.

Historically, pilots didn't take off from any base they pleased and furball whenever they felt like it. That's not the way it worked, so we are limited to our reality in-game. While we can't control doctrinal reality, we can control historical reality. Airfield defense was a science, much the same way fleet defense was a science to the USN. This involved GVs like the M15 and M16, fixed and mobile 37mm and 40mm mounts, even .50 cals on single and twin mounts for close-in defense. It involved overlapping fields of fire, 'kill zones' and radar guided command and control with VT proximity fusing on the Allied side. But...

The primary AA defenses for airfields, especially Allied, were medium-caliber weapons, the British 3in and 3.7in AA gun, and the U.S. 90mm. The Germans used Flak 18s and 36s for airfield defense. These, along with the 3.7in and 90mm AA gun, were superlative dual-purpose anti-tank weapons as well, something we could certainly use on VBs. Eventually, practically all the combatants settled on the 40mm Bofors design, which, technically should be virtually identical in performance to the 40mm we use onboard ships. The 37mm in game, although accurately modeled, suffers from the same slow rate of fire and muzzle velocity that the actual weapons faced.

German 88mm guns have a stigma attached to them, that they are some sort of game-altering wonder weapon. Truth is, although ballistically sound throughout the war, by 1944 the ranging and optics, along with the lack of VT proximity fusing AND trained and experience crews, meant that the 88s were not what they were in 1941 and 42, at least from an anti-aircraft perspective.

What gave these weapons their aura of invincibility was the command and control and tactical doctrine developed for them. 88mm AA guns were established in batteries, 4 guns per battery, and were directed by a remote (several hundred meters) fire control system for ranging and aiming. This fire control system was connected to a radio truck, who in turn communicated with radar installations, forward observers, etc., to pre-determine altitude, direction, course heading, etc...

As a result of this infrastructure, bomber formations were practically pre-ranged and pre-sighted before they appeared over the target.

Flak is, was, and should be, an everyday part of any WW2 combat pilot's life. More Allied bombers of WW2 were lost to flak than to fighters. So why, if flak kills more aircraft than fighters, should we reduce the amount of flak in the game, or not increase the land-based flak from it's current level?

If you're looking for a pure dogfighting, 'the ground doesn't exist' type of game, then I can understand your position. That being said, AH has elements of all aspects of combat, except for playable infantry, so it makes sense to strive for historical accuracy (or let's just say virtual historical realism).

Jeff
(who, by the way, is a military historian (published even), by trade)

Thats all well and good... but it still doesn't change the fact that it would ruin the fun of fights, and this is a game, not real life soo it shouldn't be added to the game. you sure do know your stuff though. 

[JHerne]

Thanks Mike...

Personally, it would just be another in-game item that I'd have to adapt to.

J

[whels]

if you cant kill AA guns with rockets from farther then 1k away, might wana go to TA and practice.

its way too easy to deack with rockets from out of thier range.  Any plane with rockets, fire 2 rocks =
2 dead 88mm AA gun batts.

[BnZ]

If you went to the TA and learned some ACM,

I am, ummm, passing familiar with ACM. Sure you want to take things in that direction with  me? Things were so civil up until this point... don't make it one of THOSE threads.

[JHerne]

Whels, most people can't!  

The standard AA coverage plan puts a flak battery on each corner, with small-caliber AA (20mm and 40mm) covering them.

Big flak wouldn't have much effect on low-level fighters de-acking a field, they can't train fast enough, and lack proximity fusing. It would be similar to shooting down an a/c with a tank gun.

J

[mike254]

if you cant kill AA guns with rockets from farther then 1k away, might wana go to TA and practice.

its way too easy to deack with rockets from out of thier range.  Any plane with rockets, fire 2 rocks =
2 dead 88mm AA gun batts.

Since when is 1k out of their range? 
Rockets are slower than 88mm rounds which means you die, not the 88mm gun. 

I am, ummm, passing familiar with ACM. Sure you want to take things in that direction with  me? Things were so civil up until this point... don't make it one of THOSE threads.

It wasn't exactly directed at you, because I have know idea if you know ACM. My point was that you don't need 5 inch ack to stop people from taking down the auto ack... that's silliness. It would be just as easy to kill them with a fighter.

[BnZ]

Mike, do you get the point that these 88s with manual fuses will be harder to use than 5 inchers with proxi fuses?

Hurl one at a diving jabo or a couple of planes twisting in a dogfight, etc, most likely it will just whizz harmlessly by or explode prematurely. A practiced man will probably be able to take out a straight and level buffs, thats it.

It wasn't exactly directed at you, because I have know idea if you know ACM. My point was that you don't need 5 inch ack to stop people from taking down the auto ack... that's silliness. It would be just as easy to kill them with a fighter.

I'm thinking more of defense against buffs that have sense enough to get above 10K than defense against fighters here. Especially on GV bases.

People simply don't CAP for buffs with interceptors all that often. With MA fuel burns, time on station is always limited, and it is too tempting go down and attack some fighters rather than wait around just in case some buffs show. Due to the nature of the guns in the formation, it is often easier to get 3 kills against fighters and land than to take down a buff formation too.

BTW,  don't think their should be 88s in the town, just a couple of 37mm field guns. More for quick recon of vehicles than anything else.

[Cthulhu]

88mm guns have a stigma attached to them, that they are some sort of game-altering wonder weapon. Truth is, although ballistically sound throughout the war, by 1944 the ranging and optics, along with the lack of VT proximity fusing AND trained and experience crews, meant that the 88s were not what they were in 1941 and 42, at least from an anti-aircraft perspective.

Jeff
(who, by the way, is a military historian (published even), by trade)

Agreed. To say there was a stigma surrounding the 88's is almost an understatement. The 88mm was inferior to the American 90mm & the British 3.7in guns in range, rate of fire, and effectiveness (no proximity fuse). A wartime study by the Germans estimated that approximately 4000 88mm A-A shells were fired for each allied bomber downed. Four Thousand.

From what I've read, allied troops and reporters unwittingly helped to solidify the near mythic image of the 88 by misidentifying many German weapons encountered as 88's. This, and the ubiquitous term "Tiger Tank" were applied indescriminately to many Pak 40's, Pal 97/38's, Panzer IV's, etc. by our guys on the ground.