Tanks rounds shooting down aircraft.

[1701E]

Question, if we now need proof that a 75mm and up shell fired from a tank shot down aircraft or it has to go....can I say I want proof of where we took large masses of land with 10 troops.  Oh, it took us thousands to gain a little land?  Then it should take thousands of troops to take a base, and if we're taking a base on a new island it should take even more (utmost respect for the troops, referring to Normandy).  I have proof we needed thousands of troops (among other things) to take some land, so where's my base capture requiring thousands of people?

As said, we have:
>Correct guns
>Correct flight models
>Correct Turret elevations/rotation speeds
>Correct gun modeling (muzzle velocity, drop, range, etc.)
>Correct bullet penetration
>Correct armor values


So if a 75mm+ round were to be fired with the correct lead how would it not penetrate the thin armor of a plane and shoot it down?  Would it take luck?  Yes.  Would it take patience?  Yes.  Would it take a few tries?  Yes  Would it kill the pilot/plane if fired with the right lead and hit said plane?  Yes.

We will always have things that did not happen in real life because we get more tries.  I sure don't remember hearing of my grandfather getting shot down and appearing in a tower, hell took him getting shot down twice in a few hours to get home!  Should we have to walk back to our tower or wait for rescue...wait you didn't bail?  Best cancel that account.

Not trying to be mean, but clearly you're over-reacting, it may not have happened, it may have happened...who knows, the point is it "could" happen with all the correct data that we have for a fact put into effect.

[Nemisis]

Megalodon, tell me why I need to prove that you would die if I put a cannon shell in your cocpit. Its a matter of the effects of ordanance rather than historical usage or service.


I think that you need to prove this didn't happen because you are asking for something to be removed. If we were asking for tank shells to damage aircraft (say, if HTC never modeled that), we would be the ones that would have to provide the proof.


And I'm not calling you names. Had I said "you are an idiot" instead of "your being an idiot", then I would be calling you names. In this context, I'm saying that your actions or words are simmilar to that of an idiot.

[Ack-Ack]

I dont think tanks should be able to bring down planes and/or Buffs no less with there main gun.

change the coad from tank hitting plane in air to tank not hitting plane in air? Or tank no hitting air objects. some thing to that effect.

With every thing HT knows how to do ..I'm sure it would not be hard.

That would be gamey and nerfing something out of the game because you don't want tanks to shoot you down despite having no historical bases to make such a request.  How long do we have to wait until you prove that there was not one single airplane shot down by a tank's main gun?  We've already proven without out a doubt that it's not only physically possible for it to happen but also tanks did use their main guns to fire at attacking planes.


ack-ack

[Lusche]

I think we should make Hurri IID's AP rounds having NO effect on a Tiger, unless some proves that one was ever killed by a Hurricane IID's guns. 

[Ack-Ack]

I'm pretty sure HT got rid of the Lancasterstuka's didn't he? Why...cause it didn't happen and was bad for game play. same applies here

i think he should coad out the extrem maneuverability of the 262 till its 20k

While the tactic of using the Lancaster as a dive bomber like a Ju88 or Stuka is gamey, it was capable of such diving maneuvers in real life.  One just needs to read about the Corkscrew defensive maneuver to see how agile the Lancaster really was.


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

And I'm not calling you names. Had I said "you are an idiot" instead of "your being an idiot", then I would be calling you names. In this context, I'm saying that your actions or words are simmilar to that of an idiot.

Calling someone an idiot and referring that they are being an idiot or acting like one is the same as calling them an idiot.  There is no need to get this thread locked.


ack-ack

[Wmaker]

Wow, what a silly discussion these last couple pages.

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. As the gunner couldn't peak out to take a looksy and be instantly back in the gunner's seat means that he obviously had a lot less field of view to find the aircraft with his sight to acquire and "accurately" fire at the target. But considering that you have to do everything yourself, adding some kind of "delay" while moving between positions would cause a lot more problems than it would ever fix.

IMO it all works fine the way it is. Unless Hitech sees the need to change the optics in anyway. And even then, people would learn to use the new optics to fire at aircraft like they will learn how to fire at tanks.

[Chalenge]

Obviously you missed a few posts. NO we dont want any delays.

[E25280]

This thread makes me  .

[Wmaker]

Obviously you missed a few posts. NO we dont want any delays.

<sigh> 

[Imowface]

Sorry if it was mentioned,( I didn't feel like reading everything on all 15 pages, but has anyone thought that most tanks main guns back then were Modified AA guns?, ie T-34/85, KV-85, Tiger. So in reality, main guns for tanks shot down planes all the time, they just were not in the tanks, in AH you don't have to worry about shooting at planes, because there isn't always an enemy ground force near by that will see it, in AH there is no ammo shortages, there is no vehicle shortages, so it could be done and real life, and AH gives you the chance to do it without consequences

[Megalodon]

I think we should make Hurri IID's AP rounds having NO effect on a Tiger, unless some proves that one was ever killed by a Hurricane IID's guns. 

"So to the British designs. Vickers-Armstrong together with Rolls-Royce designed a 40mm airborne gun, Vickers “S”. In 1941 it was installed under the wings of the Hurricane who became the Mk IID. On June 2. 1942, three Hurricanes swept past Bir Hacheim in North Africa and attacked a group of German tanks, leaving two in flames. The second attack was less successful, one Hurricane lost, but another tank destroyed. Later on, the British found that the gun could do little or no damage to the Tiger tank, and need a new weapon."
 

[Megalodon]

While the tactic of using the Lancaster as a dive bomber like a Ju88 or Stuka is gamey, it was capable of such diving maneuvers in real life.  One just needs to read about the Corkscrew defensive maneuver to see how agile the Lancaster really was.


ack-ack

 again ... was the Lanc ever used in this fashion? dive bomber?  no.

[Megalodon]

That would be gamey and nerfing something out of the game because you don't want tanks to shoot you down despite having no historical bases to make such a request.  How long do we have to wait until you prove that there was not one single airplane shot down by a tank's main gun?  We've already proven without out a doubt that it's not only physically possible for it to happen but also tanks did use their main guns to fire at attacking planes.


ack-ack

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.

[kvuo75]

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.

i think you already have your answer many pages ago. It didn't have to actually happen -- as others said, we do things that never happened every day.. AH is not a ww2 simulator, it's a combat simulator using ww2 equipment.