Re arange order of rocket firing

[AWwrgwy]

He's talking about R4Ms, which had quite a bit less drag then the WGr's. They also raped buff formations. In one of the few properly conducted missions for the Me-262, around 20-30 262's upped to intercept a B-17 formation. All were armed with the 24 rocket R4M racks. They lined up behind them at around 700-1000m, and opened up. The buffs were slaughtered.

Personally, I'd love to have R4M's. But they wouldn't be used often, seeing as they were mostly used on the already elusive jet, but I'm fairly sure that the 190 had a setup for them.

Ewww....Wiki:

Only a small number of aircraft were fitted with the R4M, mostly Messerschmitt Me 262s and the ground attack version of the Fw 190s, which mounted them on small wooden racks under the wings.

The weapon had excellent results. French ace Pierre Clostermann notes in his book The Big Show that in March 1945, six R4M-armed Me 262s flying out of the Oberammergau flight test center and led by Luftwaffe General Gordon Gollob claimed to have shot down fourteen B-17s in a mission. In April 1945, R4M-equipped Me 262s claimed to have shot down thirty B-17s for the loss of three aircraft. The Luftwaffe found the R4M missiles to have similar trajectory to the 30 mm MK 108 cannon in flight, therefore the standard Revi 16B gunsight was utilized effectively.

So, the rockets on the Fw190-F8.....


wrongway

[Motherland]

He's talking about R4Ms, which had quite a bit less drag then the WGr's. They also raped buff formations. In one of the few properly conducted missions for the Me-262, around 20-30 262's upped to intercept a B-17 formation. All were armed with the 24 rocket R4M racks. They lined up behind them at around 700-1000m, and opened up. The buffs were slaughtered.

Personally, I'd love to have R4M's. But they wouldn't be used often, seeing as they were mostly used on the already elusive jet, but I'm fairly sure that the 190 had a setup for them.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about WGr's, as we don't have R4M's in game.
Also, source on that story? From what I understand, having 30 262's operational was not a small feat, let alone having 30 airborne at the same time.

So, the rockets on the Fw190-F8.....


wrongway

The Panzerblitz rockets on the Fw 190F-8, though developed from the R4M, are not the same thing.

Personally, I'd love to have R4M's. But they wouldn't be used often, seeing as they were mostly used on the already elusive jet, but I'm fairly sure that the 190 had a setup for them.

IIRC the Dora and maybe the A-9 were able to be fitted with R4M rockets, however I'm not sure that this was ever used on these aircraft operationally. I'd love to have R4M's, though.

[Nemisis]

So you're saying that we should move the rockets from their historical position (the ROCKET RAILS) to fit your newbieness?

Aw, crap. Who let you in here?


First off I am not newb unless you count that span where my computer was crap and wouldn't play the game or my new account when my originol when got screwed up. Second I am not suggesting we change there positions, I am suggesting that we have is so they fire L1, L2, L3, R1, R2, R3 (from the outside in) in such a way as to allow the planes with rockets mounted in clusters to fire off 3 in a shot gun like spread.

[RTHolmes]

1. Rockets fire in a historical manner, for the reason given above
2. Shotgun pellets dont leave the barrel neatly arranged in order from left to right
3. Wanting rockets to fire in a way which makes pretty patterns is a newbie request
4. Aw, crap. Who let you in here?

[The Fugitive]

1. Rockets fire in a historical manner, for the reason given above
2. Shotgun pellets dont leave the barrel neatly arranged in order from left to right
3. Wanting rockets to fire in a way which makes pretty patterns is a newbie request
4. Aw, crap. Who let you in here?

   great post !

[Masherbrum]

1. Rockets fire in a historical manner, for the reason given above
2. Shotgun pellets dont leave the barrel neatly arranged in order from left to right
3. Wanting rockets to fire in a way which makes pretty patterns is a newbie request
4. Aw, crap. Who let you in here?

 

[Nemisis]

4. Aw, crap. Who let you in here?

Is trying to derail my B-29 thread. No that is not newb, it is awesome. Sorry, but a B-29 won't unbalance the game anymore than the 262 does.

[Spikes]

Is trying to derail my B-29 thread. No that is not newb, it is awesome. Sorry, but a B-29 won't unbalance the game anymore than the 262 does.

262 doesn't unbalance the game, the B-29 will.

[salun]

I just think that .....

Clearly thinking is not your strong point.

[trigger2]

Clearly thinking is not your strong point.

...woah...
Never thought I'd agree with someone who only has 36 posts!!! <S>

Nemisis, my apologies for shooting down crappy ideas, you, sir, just seem to be chalk full of them.

You CAN fire rockets in a spread, it's called /.salvo 6
If you learn to actually AIM your ordy, well, nevermind, we all know that's above and beyond your ability.

1. Rockets fire in a historical manner, for the reason given above
2. Shotgun pellets dont leave the barrel neatly arranged in order from left to right
3. Wanting rockets to fire in a way which makes pretty patterns is a newbie request
4. Aw, crap. Who let you in here?

 

[Nemisis]

262 doesn't unbalance the game, the B-29 will.

  A near uncatchable fighter armed with 4 30MM CANNONS doesn't unbalance the game but a high perked bomber, a BOMBER, that means as near a STATIONARY TARGET as you will get for an airplane, will?

Never mind. This isn't the place.

Clearly thinking is not your strong point.

(disappointed back and forth head shake) *sighs* Well, I don't agree, and infact I think you are quite obviously lying. However I guess it may appear that way to someone who probably puts getting shadows in the cockpit ahead of a new plane.

However I shall let you have the last word. I take my leave of you gentlemen.

[Masherbrum]

A near uncatchable fighter armed with 4 30MM CANNONS doesn't unbalance the game but a high perked bomber, a BOMBER, that means as near a STATIONARY TARGET as you will get for an airplane, will?

Never mind. This isn't the place. (disappointed back and forth head shake) *sighs* Well, I don't agree, and infact I think you are quite obviously lying. However I guess it may appear that way to someone who probably puts getting shadows in the cockpit ahead of a new plane.

However I shall let you have the last word. I take my leave of you gentlemen.

What?   

Lanc:  Maximum Speed: 280 mph (240 kn, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
B-17:  Maximum Speed: 287 mph (249 kn, 462 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 182 mph (158 kn, 293 km/h)
B-26:  Maximum Speed: 290 mph (250 kn, 470 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 215 mph (187 kn, 346 km/h)
B-29:  Maximum Speed: 357 mph (310 kn, 574 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 220 mph (190 kn, 350 km/h)

Factor in a single B-29 with the Standard 20,000lb payload and the ability of a Formation should set in.   I hope we NEVER get this in the game. 

[trigger2]

What?   

Lanc:  Maximum Speed: 280 mph (240 kn, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
B-17:  Maximum Speed: 287 mph (249 kn, 462 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 182 mph (158 kn, 293 km/h)
B-26:  Maximum Speed: 290 mph (250 kn, 470 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 215 mph (187 kn, 346 km/h)
B-29:  Maximum Speed: 357 mph (310 kn, 574 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 220 mph (190 kn, 350 km/h)

Factor in a single B-29 with the Standard 20,000lb payload and the ability of a Formation should set in.   I hope we NEVER get this in the game. 

You forget the fact that with the B-29, with its high alt and high speeds, it would pretty much FORCE any attacker into the twin .50s and the 20mm, making them mince meat...

[druski85]

Is trying to derail my B-29 thread. No that is not newb, it is awesome. Sorry, but a B-29 won't unbalance the game anymore than the 262 does.

It takes considerable talent to hijack one's own thread.   

If we are going to change anything about rockets, please make them be selected before bombs when tabbing through secondary weapons.      (If this has already been implemented I apologize...haven't been on since the upgrade)

[Nemisis]

What?   

Lanc:  Maximum Speed: 280 mph (240 kn, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
B-17:  Maximum Speed: 287 mph (249 kn, 462 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 182 mph (158 kn, 293 km/h)
B-26:  Maximum Speed: 290 mph (250 kn, 470 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 215 mph (187 kn, 346 km/h)
B-29:  Maximum Speed: 357 mph (310 kn, 574 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 220 mph (190 kn, 350 km/h)

Factor in a single B-29 with the Standard 20,000lb payload and the ability of a Formation should set in.   I hope we NEVER get this in the game. 

 I meant the bomber won't be manuvering. When was the last time you saw a lanc swerve to avoid you on it's final run. Or pretty much at all for that matter. The B-17 may be more likely, and the B-26 I would give a 40% chance of manuvering.

I doubt the B-29 would be manuvering to avoid you. That means you have a very easy shot. And yes, it could force most of our planes to attack from the rear. Which is why I will fly the best plane for the situation I am in. I'm sorry but a spit isn't going to be the best for all situations, nor will any of the F4U's. That is why we have multiple fighters.