F3 view and the il2

[WWhiskey]

Lets not stop there then.

Lets get rid of rear facing guns as well like on the Ar-234-B since no such aircraft existed.

Ar 234B

The RLM had already seen the promise of the design and in July had asked Arado to supply two prototypes of a Schnellbomber ("fast bomber") version as the Ar 234B. Since the aircraft was very slender and entirely filled with fuel tanks, there was no room for an internal bomb bay and the bombload had to be carried on external racks. The added weight and drag of a full bombload reduced the speed, so two 20 mm MG 151 cannons were added in a remotely controlled tail mounting to give some measure of defence. Since the cockpit was directly in front of the fuselage, the pilot had no direct view to the rear, so the guns were aimed through a periscope, derived from the type used on German World War II tanks, mounted on the cockpit roof. The system was generally considered useless, and many pilots had the guns removed to save weight.

In addition, a handful of B-2 airframes were adapted for the night-fighting role. These aircraft were fitted with FuG 218 "Neptun" longwave radar and carried a forward-firing dual-gun 20 mm cannon pack on the fuselage hardpoint. A second crewmember, who operated the radar systems, was accommodated in a very cramped compartment behind the cockpit.

[Lusche]

WWhiskey, when you bring such quotes, you should also states the sources.

And I can assure you, Lyric has digged deep into the sources, not just Wikipedia

[JUGgler]

Juggler, your vision of what the game should be has very little to do with how the game is.  Your arguments seem to gravitate to "Change the game to suit my playing style", as apposed to "change my playing style to fit the game".  I do not like the horde much myself so I choose not to play that way.  There are lots of guys that are not in the horde.  Why aren't you fighting them.  Is it because they are hard to find, or is it just that some are lazy and want this perfect thing, this nirvana of flying where everyone would be the same, doing what you deem suitable for gameplaye

I am not intent on picking on you Jug, but you have got to find your own fun here.  Standing on a pulpit screaming, "That's not the way this game should be played", won't get you the fight you desire.  As in everything in life, your happiness is your responsibility.

Actually I'm having a blast. The game IMO is morphing more into "war type" play where as folks are grabbing bases and moving on. My thoughts are not brought on by dissatisfaction, they are brought on by the changes in play.  Whenever the TT maps are on I reside there. Whenever the other maps are on the "sustained action" is very rare and mostly is either "horde green or horde red". With the "base grabbing strategies wouldn't it be good to try and balance an attack mentality with some defence mentality? I honestly am stunned that most folks don't want a bit more opposition, All of my ideas have 2 commonalities in them


#1- Find a way to encourage defense of a base, ie: more peeps find it "reasonable" to risk upping and challenge the attacking horde.

#2- Discourage the indecisive, meaning IF the attack is to take the base then "smash it to bits" and take it. If the goal is to rack up cherry scalps and vulches then "motivate" these folks to stand off a bit which will encourage more folks to up and fight the fight that "both" participants enjoy! The cherrytards like to have overwhelming advantage, folks like me want just a tad of speed and a couple hundred feet alt before we get piled on.

I happen to think both of these are doable and would enhance the game for all 3 styles of play.


If I and others like me have a bit of space we will continue to up indefinitely thereby giving the cherryfesters more targets to kill for a longer period of time, now what is wrong with that?


The horde gets so overwhelming so quickly now a days that it discourages many who would normaly up to challenge the horde, from doing so.

If you take a close look at my "play style" you will find that my style produces many many scalps for other folks, which improves their fun and experience! Folks with my style just want a couple hundred mph and 1000 feet or so away from the base before we are piled on, this would equal more fun for us




 



JUGgler

[WWhiskey]

WWhiskey, when you bring such quotes, you should also states the sources.

And I can assure you, Lyric has digged deep into the sources, not just Wikipedia

and I have seen the pictures but did not care to look any farther than the first source I found, and while I do not trust Wiki  for anything political,  I have no reason to assume they would be wrong about historical data that has no agenda other than to present information.
 I did look it up years ago and posted a thread about it in this forum, with other than wiki sources and to say it must not be true because you  found something in a place you object to is like saying the sun didn't shine today just because you refused to go out and look!

BTW sorry for the hijack and +1 for no F-3 in the IL-2  I am glad they did away with it, next should be the b-25 h,, but thats not fair so no f-3 for any planes with fixed forward guns +1

[Zoney]

<S> Juggler.  A measured response, a civil conversation.

[lyric1]

Only if the 234 has the periscope mirror 

Well lets just get rid of the guns then shall we. 

[lyric1]

No Ar-234-B had rear facing guns none zip nada not one. Now the AR-234-C that is another issue none at squadron strength though & never got beyond testing & never was used in combat & also after two test models the rear guns were also removed from future C models as they could never make it work.

Now Ar-234-B's  with forward facing guns Yes that did happen for a grand total of 5 aircraft. First test aircraft was destroyed & the two man crew were killed. 3 more were made for night fighters & did see combat & were at squadron strength although no luck at all shooting down any enemy aircraft. The squadron stopped using this version as the pilots were terrified that chunks of bombers they shot would fly back & hit the Plexiglas nose & injure/kill the pilot & they were waiting for the C model to replace the aircraft they had. One AR-234-B pilot based in Italy decided to borrow a forward facing gun pod & engaged A Spitfire in a dog fight but never scored any kills. The aircraft was crashed in a landing accident & that was the last of forward facing guns on an AR-234-B.

C model also had forward facing guns & again a non issue.

[lyric1]

WWhiskey, when you bring such quotes, you should also states the sources.

And I can assure you, Lyric has digged deep into the sources, not just Wikipedia

Thank you & more info on the way some time this weekend on this topic.

[lyric1]

and I have seen the pictures but did not care to look any farther than the first source I found, and while I do not trust Wiki  for anything political,  I have no reason to assume they would be wrong about historical data that has no agenda other than to present information.
 I did look it up years ago and posted a thread about it in this forum, with other than wiki sources and to say it must not be true because you  found something in a place you object to is like saying the sun didn't shine today just because you refused to go out and look!

BTW sorry for the hijack and +1 for no F-3 in the IL-2  I am glad they did away with it, next should be the b-25 h,, but thats not fair so no f-3 for any planes with fixed forward guns +1

C model rear guns.

First proto type C model with rear guns.






Next version C model with rear guns.





Actual guns from C model.







Mounting platform for guns actually inside the second C model.



Night fighter B model only known picture.







Some info on the borrowed gun pod.

[WWhiskey]

So I was right and wrong!  better than,, you should just shut up since you obviously don't know what you are talking about!   thanks!

[Beefcake]

My question is why are we even worrying about the Ar234's guns? The 234 is already a perked plane with a pretty moderate cost, it has a powerful but limited bomb load and it's only real asset is it's shear speed. I can count on one hand the amount of people that can actually fly and get A2A kills with the thing, so why all the fuss over the guns?

Think of it as a hybrid, the I-16 has a hybrid gun package so I don't see why a perked aircraft that had the ability to carry the guns should have them removed. To be honest I hope when HTC re-does the Ar234 that they'll add the forward gun packages along with movable tail guns via the para scope.

[Delirium]

I can't believe this discussion is still going on, even after a couple weeks.

[gldnbb]

Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars 

The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it 



JUGgler

Killing fighter hangars, IN MY CONTEXT,  is to control the skies and take the base.  Not Vulche.  Putting Il2 in its historic place (attack) is proper.  And yes it is a heavy aircraft (fly it in Il-2 to see what I mean)  and should never be used for base defense furballing.

[gldnbb]

Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars 

The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it 



JUGgler

Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars 

The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it 



JUGgler

Killing fighter hangars, IN MY CONTEXT,  is to control the skies and take the base.  Not Vulche.  Putting Il2 in its historic place (attack) is proper.  And yes it is a heavy aircraft (fly it in Il-2 to see what I mean)  and should never be used for base defense furballing.

[gldnbb]

Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars 

The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it 



JUGgler

Killing fighter hangars, IN MY CONTEXT,  is to control the skies and take the base.  Not Vulche.  Putting Il2 in its historic place (attack) is proper.  And yes it is a heavy aircraft (fly it in Il-2 to see what I mean)  and should never be used for base defense furballing.