Somebody get Kranak a tissue......

[Karnak]

Surviving for five minutes in a C-47 against any fighter is almost entirely reliant on the inadequacy of the fighter pilot.  Tank-Ace's Panther would have also survived against that pilot.

[DrBone1]

Somebody get Tank-Ace a tissue......

I love watching his threads never has it not been comical.

  Sorry to interupt please continue.

[Butcher]

Surviving for five minutes in a C-47 against any fighter is almost entirely reliant on the inadequacy of the fighter pilot.  Tank-Ace's Panther would have also survived against that pilot.

Sometimes parents like their 5 and 6 yr old's fly, or someone on a 2 week trial with absolutely no experience.

[Karnak]

Sometimes parents like their 5 and 6 yr old's fly, or someone on a 2 week trial with absolutely no experience.

Yup, but he was using it as an example of how aircraft are more survivable than tanks.  In a tank he probably wouldn't have even noticed he was attacked by that pilot as the bomb either wouldn't arm or would land a few hundred feet off target.

[Butcher]

Yup, but he was using it as an example of how aircraft are more survivable than tanks.  In a tank he probably wouldn't have even noticed he was attacked by that pilot as the bomb either wouldn't arm or would land a few hundred feet off target.

Aircrafts have ALWAYS had a higher survivable rate then tanks, ever since the first tank and aircraft were built. Aircraft's can climb to 40k to escape an enemy aircraft, where a tank has to rely on Armor protection, some relied on speed.

Only thing that helped protect tanks was mobile anti aircraft artillery, and even the Germans waited far to long to boost production on it especially the wirblwind and ostwind. Tactical Air support wasn't entirely a doctrine at the beginning of war, the Germans put it in practice
of having Artillery, Airstrikes and Tanks all into one cone during an attack, coordination on the attack is what made the blitzkrieg a terrorizing tactic.

Fighters can't always keep a CAP over friendly armor, so in this sense tanks will always be vulnerable - however in aces high I routinely provide cap over friendly V-bases in hopes to catch a few ground pounders looking for easy kills.

[Ack-Ack]

Operation Cobra and Goodwood are two examples showing how vulnerable tanks were to bomber attacks.  Falaise pocket is another good example of what happens to tanks when caught in the open by attacking planes, same when the weather cleared up during the Battle of the Bulge and Allied air power was finally brought in.

Tank-Ace's wish is similar to his wish in the past to make the rear guns on bombers less effective.  He wants to code the game so it's easier for him to kill but not so easy for him to be killed in return.

ack-ack

[Karnak]

Fighters can't always keep a CAP over friendly armor, so in this sense tanks will always be vulnerable - however in aces high I routinely provide cap over friendly V-bases in hopes to catch a few ground pounders looking for easy kills.

I do this as well.  It is one of the reasons I want the icon range for friendly GVs to be reduced to match that of hostile GVs.  I don't like aircraft that cower around Wirbelwinds.

[Tank-Ace]

Tank-Ace's wish is similar to his wish in the past to make the rear guns on bombers less effective.  He wants to code the game so it's easier for him to kill but not so easy for him to be killed in return.

In WHAT way would this allow me to kill anything easier?

[Butcher]

I do this as well.  It is one of the reasons I want the icon range for friendly GVs to be reduced to match that of hostile GVs.  I don't like aircraft that cower around Wirbelwinds.

This is something that just needs to be brought up, its an excellent Idea - I figured this was going to be a bad deal when during the BETA we were messing around in tank town - people were flying 262's "free".

I had a friendly zip around my Wirb and I was picking them off left and right, certainly timid - but again it does have it draw backs - Enemy Planes can cower around enemy Wirbs.

[AirLynx]

TankAce, if you want protection from aircraft, then protect yourself. When I GV, I almost always take a T34 because of it's ability to easily shoot down many aircraft. I've been playing for less than a year and already I've probably gotten nearly 100 G2A kills in that thing. You may not like it because it's not your uber perked Tiger 2 or Panther, but with a little practice, you can shoot down A20s as they climb to alt and Il2s are a joke. Your claim about tanks being helpless against aircraft with bombs is completely unfounded.

[TDeacon]

<snip>
He wants to code the game so it's easier for him to kill but not so easy for him to be killed in return.

ack-ack

And of course, you don't...

I removed the portion of your quote containing irrelevant historical trivia, since this is a game.  The focus of this game has always been on plane-to-plane and tank-to-tank individual performance-driven contests, within an arbitrary framework designed to enable these contests.  It is by no means an accurate historical simulation of anything above those platform-on-platform contests.  

MH

[TDeacon]

TankAce, if you want protection from aircraft, then protect yourself. When I GV, I almost always take a T34 because of it's ability to easily shoot down many aircraft. I've been playing for less than a year and already I've probably gotten nearly 100 G2A kills in that thing. You may not like it because it's not your uber perked Tiger 2 or Panther, but with a little practice, you can shoot down A20s as they climb to alt and Il2s are a joke. Your claim about tanks being helpless against aircraft with bombs is completely unfounded.

The people you shoot down in this way must not be very skilled.  With respect to planes versus GVs in this game, it's very much easy mode for the planes, which is probably why most ground attack players prefer things the way they are (although the recent visibility mods helped a little). 

You are pretend contempt for those who want to use their GV perks for more powerful GVs, but the Tigers are nothing compared to a plane with a bomb.  A bit of hypocracy here on the part of some of the ground attack posters.  Human nature, I guess.   

MH

[Karnak]

The people you shoot down in this way must not be very skilled.  With respect to planes versus GVs in this game, it's very much easy mode for the planes, which is probably why most ground attack players prefer things the way they are (although the recent visibility mods helped a little). 

You are pretend contempt for those who want to use their GV perks for more powerful GVs, but the Tigers are nothing compared to a plane with a bomb.  A bit of hypocracy here on the part of some of the ground attack posters.  Human nature, I guess.   

MH

I don't think there are any ground attack focused players in this thread.  Nice strawman though.

[save]

Agreed , also you should not be able to do voice with friendly ground vehicles when in a plane , they used different radios, unless maybe in a lysander or a storch

The problem I have with the current icon settings is that cowardly aircraft can see their friendly Wirbels 6,000 yards out and run to them while the aircraft they are running from can't see the Wirbel until 600 yards.  Combined arms communications in WWII was not remotely that effective.

The solution, to me, is clear, just limit friendly GV icons in the same way that hostile GV icons are limited to aircraft.

[TDeacon]

I don't think there are any ground attack focused players in this thread.  Nice strawman though.

Sure it is; read the OP again, and look at some of the following comments.  The ground-attack-easy-mode-game versus GV-game difference of opinion is present in many threads, including this one.  It motivates as much forum mis-behavior as does furball versus win-the-war.  

By the way, Karnak, do you GV?  I honestly don't remember, and am too lazy to search. 

MH