trouble killing the new M4

[DREDIOCK]

Its too unrealistically, not to mention absurdly easy to kill tanks from gunfire alone anyway. (other then from fire from another tank, and mainly because of the ability to zoom the view) Any deviation from that is a major plus in my book.

There is an old military saying that "the best way to kill a tank is with another tank"

And THAT is the way it should be. Not by flying around with zoom pulled into near microscopic view which RL pilots didnt have

[Bronk]

Its too unrealistically, not to mention absurdly easy to kill tanks from gunfire alone anyway. (other then from fire from another tank, and mainly because of the ability to zoom the view) Any deviation from that is a major plus in my book.

There is an old military saying that "the best way to kill a tank is with another tank"

And THAT is the way it should be. Not by flying around with zoom pulled into near microscopic view which RL pilots didnt have

 A closer representation of normal vission perception is the default gun zoom. But it leaves you with out any perfial vision.

There is no way to display real vesion in computer graphics, The resolution of a monitor is just not capable of displaying objects as they apear in real life.

[321BAR]

I gotta admit, i just had an M4 sherman75 take 1 ping in the turret on an angle (understandable since the M4 turret had a good thickness of circular armor) and another 3 "hit" rounds from my tiger in the side without dieing. Although this is unrealistic in my mind, maybe an idea of how the 88mm game physics is represented could help? did i hit the tank and just punch through the sherman or did something else occur? (btw, i killed many shermans afterwards in another engagement with a tiger from approx a mile out on a mountain shooting down so i know it isnt the M4)

[gyrene81]

There is something hinky goin on...shot an M4 from less than 1k with a Panzer AP round on the front just under the turret...no effect...it returns fire and gets a 1 shot kill on me...that was after I got 2 other kills on M4s from much further out.   

[Lusche]

Its too unrealistically, not to mention absurdly easy to kill tanks from gunfire alone anyway. (other then from fire from another tank, and mainly because of the ability to zoom the view) Any deviation from that is a major plus in my book.

There is an old military saying that "the best way to kill a tank is with another tank"

And THAT is the way it should be. Not by flying around with zoom pulled into near microscopic view which RL pilots didnt have

If you take a look at the Hurri IID stats for every tour, it doesn't really seem to be "absurdly easy" to kill tanks. Even the Panzer get's a k/D of 1 vs the Hurri, against Firefly, T-34s and Tigers it's more like 0.3. In other words: Out of three to four encounters, only 1 time the plane wins - against tanks that can't really defend themselves. And that's not including the countless times the Hurri D spends all it'S ammo and then just flies home. While the 40mm cannons can penetrate the armor (see below for details), most players do have serious problems to apply that firepower. And part of that reason may be having pulled the zoom to max, which increases the danger of augering.

The British fielded only one airborne gun in the anti-tank role: the Vickers Class S. This was designed around the naval 40x158R AA case, with special armour-piercing loadings. As such, it was much less powerful than the Army's 2 pdr anti-tank gun, but the attack speed of the aircraft helped to provide a penetration quoted as 50-55mm (range and striking angle not specified)

The NS-37, unusually for the USSR, used a short-recoil mechanism and was belt-fed. It was a particularly slim weapon, with a compact mechanism, suitable for fitting between the banks of a liquid-cooled vee-engine to fire through the hollow propeller hub. The powerful 37x195 ammunition is quoted as penetrating 48mm / 500m / 90 degrees, enough to pose a threat to the side or rear armour of virtually any tank

The Panzer IV has a turret top armor of 20mm and a hull top armor of 15mm only.
The T-34 has a hull top armor of 20-30mm
The M4A3 has a turret top armor of 25 and hull top armor of 19mm
The Tiger has has hull & turret top armor of 25mm

[DREDIOCK]

Quote from: hitech on February 27, 2005, 04:18:09 PM

 A closer representation of normal vission perception is the default gun zoom. But it leaves you with out any perfial vision.

There is no way to display real vesion in computer graphics, The resolution of a monitor is just not capable of displaying objects as they apear in real life.

And to a certain extent I agree with that. Hitech is completely correct
But obviously you dont know what "peripheral vision" is.

Peripheral vision is a part of vision that occurs outside the very center of gaze. There is a broad set of non-central points in the field of view that is included in the notion of peripheral vision. "Far peripheral" vision exists at the edges of the field of view, "mid-peripheral" vision exists in the middle of the field of view, and "near-peripheral", sometimes referred to as "para-central" vision, exists adjacent to the center of gaze



But on the other hand. RL vision doesnt include a microscope view either. Particularly when your traveling at 1-300+ mph over a stationary target
and the "default zoom" here isnt microscope view which reduces peripheral vision even further

The zoom when zoomed in all the way. Overcompensates too much

[ghi]

Its too unrealistically, not to mention absurdly easy to kill tanks from gunfire alone anyway.

Why unrealistic ?! Hans Rudel destroyed 519 tanks, mostly using BK37mm tungsten core gunfire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCocpH8maM

[Eagleclaw]

I was fighting an M4 the other day and it could sustain 7 HVAP 75mm hits to the turrent before he blasted me. I also encountered a wirblewind that could take 8 HVAP hits to the turrent and not even smoke. 

[DREDIOCK]

Why unrealistic ?! Hans Rudel destroyed 519 tanks, mostly using BK37mm tungsten core gunfire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCocpH8maM

In 3500 flights And not all were by gun. In fact I see nowhere mentioned that even most were by gun alone.

Even so. that averages out to 1 tank every 7 or so flights (6.7337379 to be Spock like)
And yes I know he got real lucky one day and killed 17

Then you can add that reporting of tanks destroyed by planes on all sides is well known to be both grossly inaccurate and exaggerated

[Lusche]

In 3500 flights And not all were by gun. In fact I see nowhere mentioned that even most were by gun alone.

Even so. that averages out to 1 tank every 7 or so flights (6.7337379 to be Spock like)
And yes I know he got real lucky one day and killed 17

By that logic you can argue all out plane performances. How many air to air kills did the aces get in their whole career? How many kills did they get per sortie?
Yet many players in here do have tens of thousands of kills. I score more than 2 kills per sortie, almost 1000 each month. Even Erich Hartmann had "only" about 0.25 kills per sortie.

You always have to take into account that we have a combat environment totally different from real world.
My own success in Hurri D vs tanks could not had been duplicated in real life - not because for technical reasons (see armor penetration in my earlier post), but because I'm attacking in a very dangerous way that simply would have killed me early (and it did in AH too, but in AH i can take off again and again until I have perfected my skill)

[DREDIOCK]

By that logic you can argue all out plane performances. How many air to air kills did the aces get in their whole career? How many kills did they get per sortie?
Yet many players in here do have tens of thousands of kills. I score more than 2 kills per sortie, almost 1000 each month. Even Erich Hartmann had "only" about 0.25 kills per sortie.

You always have to take into account that we have a combat environment totally different from real world.
My own success in Hurri D vs tanks could not had been duplicated in real life - not because for technical reasons (see armor penetration in my earlier post), but because I'm attacking in a very dangerous way that simply would have killed me early (and it did in AH too, but in AH i can take off again and again until I have perfected my skill)

Ok so you get more practice. Not to mention that here we also fly in a way that would not have been done IRL because if the risk/danger involved.
Not to mention we dont experience the accumulative effects of stress on the body that Those RL pilots would have had to endure. The lack of which also enables us to do things here that simply would not have been done IRL. I could create a rather lengthy list on that alone.

But still I'd be willing ot bet that IRL  even with hours upon hours of practice. they still would not be able to achive the level of success you have here.

And can ya do it regularly in default zoom?

I highly doubt it

[Lusche]

Ok so you get more practice. Not to mention that here we also fly in a way that would not have been done IRL because if the risk/danger involved.
Not to mention we dont experience the accumulative effects of stress on the body that Those RL pilots would have had to endure. The lack of which also enables us to do things here that simply would not have been done IRL. I could create a rather lengthy list on that alone.

But still I'd be willing ot bet that IRL  even with hours upon hours of practice. they still would not be able to achive the level of success you have here.

And can ya do it regularly in default zoom?

I highly doubt it

I only use default zoom, or sometimes a tad above that. I do not zoom in to the maximum. It's increasing the auger risk too much.

[tf15pin]

In addition to increased auger risk when using full zoom I find that it is harder to line up accurate shots on moving targets when you are at full zoom. I liken this to using a rifle with a 10x scope to hit moving targets at 30 yards. It is something that is easier to  do less zoomed in.


If there is anywhere that we should not be able to zoom in so much it would have to be in tank sights. I think the majority of tank sights in the war would be on the order of 4x where the sight picture we get through our sights looks to be something like 10-12x. I think this is why we routinely have tank battles where we are blasting away at 2600 yards and landing hits consistently. These are ranges you would not see tanks engaging at until the modern area of stabilized guns, modern optics, and laser range finders.

In all max zoom hurts planes more than it helps and is something that should be toned down in tanks.

[Bronk]

I only use default zoom, or sometimes a tad above that. I do not zoom in to the maximum. It's increasing the auger risk too much.

Yup if zoomed too much you try to be too accurate.

[OOZ662]

I skipped reading about half the thread, but I've had some serious issues fighting the M4A3(76)W. The armor surrounding the gun barrel seems nigh impenetrable. I went against one in a Tiger at 500 yards, me in a hull-down bunker, him hull-down under a ridge. Three shots in varying places on his mantlet bounced. He bounced four rounds, fifth killed my turret, seventh killed my tank. I dunno, but it seems to me the Sherman would lose the entire turret structure if hit point-blank with a Tiger's AP round.