Tanks rounds shooting down aircraft.

[Ghosth]

Did no one else see the obvious difference between what happened to lyric and what a real WWII tanker saw?

WWII tanker said the germans would approach from straight up, drop their bombs 800 yards up, and be gone, out of range impossible to hit.

All too often people in AH approach tanks in a shallow straight on attack. And if that tanker happens to be looking that way, and lines up it would indeed be in the realm of possibility's to shoot a main gun at a plane, hit and destroy it.

Don't want to be shot by tanks, keep your attack profiles in the vertical!

Don't ask for the game to change to make up for your lack of tactics.

[grizz441]

So what... You havent proven the point of the thread.  not 1 account not 1 miniscule thing. no proof none that a tank ever once shot a plane with its main gun in ww2.

You could go rob a liquor store tonight you have the capability it could happen. proof will be when you do it.

You would make a good scientist.

[Flipperk]

So what... You havent proven the point of the thread.  not 1 account not 1 miniscule thing. no proof none that a tank ever once shot a plane with its main gun in ww2.

You could go rob a liquor store tonight you have the capability it could happen. proof will be when you do it.

You havent proven the point of the thread. not 1 account not 1 miniscule thing. no prood none that a huge spitfire furball ever happened in ww2.

You could go and play AH and shoot spitfires down with spitfires you have the capability it could happen. proof will be when you do it.

 

game set match


The point is that this is NOT A WW2 Simulator, it is a simulator using equipment based on WW2. Tanks in WW2 had the capability to shoot down planes they really did, pilots were smart enough, however, to not go level to the ground and try to HO a tiger in their P-51....see my point? This game was not designed to re-enact WW2, it was designed for the player to choose whatever equipment from WW2 they want to use and go kill someone in a virtual war.

In WW2 there was not a single incident were two group of allied planes ran into each other and had a furball for 4 hours...so based on YOUR philosophy on AH and how this game should be designed...any two planes from the same side (IE: Allies, Axis) should not be able to shoot each other down.

Unfortunately, for you, this is not how the game was designed. Every piece of equipment on this game is capable of killing anything, just because it did not happen in WW2 does NOT mean that it could never happen.

[VonMessa]

So what... You havent proven the point of the thread.  not 1 account not 1 miniscule thing. no proof none that a tank ever once shot a plane with its main gun in ww2.

You could go rob a liquor store tonight you have the capability it could happen. proof will be when you do it.

This thread is AWESOME !   

Fly down the barrel of my tank within the limits of the turret elevation, I'll demonstrate what happens 

I've got crossing shots @ 1.5k down pretty well, also. 

HORRIDO !

[SlapShot]

I don't get the ... prove that it did or didn't happen.

What has to be proven or dis-proven is the actual physics involved.

Before HT would even begin to think about making the wish come true ... it would have to be proven, via physics, that shooting a tank round at a moving airplane and taking that airplane down is not possible.

So prove that firing a round from a fixed position (tank) at an aircraft in flight (moving target) and that aircraft is flying within the allowable vertical and horizontal trajectory of the tank barrel, the plane could not be hit with the right horizontal lead and vertical trajectory.

We are talking the laws of physics here ... not eyewitness accounts ... who gives a rats arse if was seen or not seen. Grizz touched on the ... "So if it wasn't seen then that means it didn't happen" ... to subscribe to that notion is ludicrous at best (and I am not saying that Grizz subscribes to this). That's like ... "If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?" ... according to Megladon logic ... there is no sound.

If shooting a plane down with a tank can't be done, within the laws of physic, then I would agree that something would need to be changed and I have my money on the "it could be done".

[grizz441]

We are talking the laws of physics here ... not eyewitness accounts ... who gives a rats arse if was seen or not seen. Grizz touched on the ... "So if it wasn't seen then that means it didn't happen" ... to subscribe to that notion is ludicrous at best (and I am not saying that Grizz subscribes to this). That's like ... "If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?" ... according to Megladon logic ... there is no sound.

I said that?  

I subscribe to reason, I said this:

I don't see why anyone thinks it's impossible to hit a plane with a tank round.  If you are shooting a projectile into three dimensional space and an airplane is flying through that same space, why can they not meet at the same time?  This sounds like a whine because lyric got unlucky and got blasted out of the sky by an incredible shot.

Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

[Chalenge]

The simple solution would be to remove the icon when peering through the gun sight. 

[SlapShot]

I said that?  

I subscribe to reason, I said this:

 

This ... "So if it wasn't seen then that means it didn't happen" ... was paraphrasing this ... "Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have happened".

Was too lazy to go back and find it.

[SlapShot]

Well you use the term Bollocks from my perspective you say I am not being truthful. I am being truthful & nothing will convince you other wise. So I am done with you on this thread.

Bollicks : Exaggerated truth or blatant lies.

My intent was "exaggerated truth".

 

[grizz441]

This ... "So if it wasn't seen then that means it didn't happen" ... was paraphrasing this ... "Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have happened".

Was too lazy to go back and find it.

The way you paraphrased it made it sound the opposite of my intent though so I had to clarify.    

[SlapShot]

The way you paraphrased it made it sound the opposite of my intent though so I had to clarify.    

 

[Rhah]

This thread is great

Your level of fail is increasing exponentially with every subsequent post you do realize...

siged btw 

[grizz441]

This thread is great

siged btw 

Ah gee whiz, you makin me bluthsh.

[Nemisis]

The only "modelling problem" that I see in addition to the possible *too good* optics (I wouldn't know either way) is how you can instantly move between the gunner position and the cupola.

You don't actually move. All you do is take control over the gunner, the commander, the driver, or the hull gunner.

[Ack-Ack]

You don't actually move. All you do is take control over the gunner, the commander, the driver, or the hull gunner.

I think someone like WMaker that has been playing this game since you were in kindergarten knows that you are actually taking control of the  the driver's position rather than "moving" to it.


ack-ack