HE 162 Volksjager

[Butcher]

You now know Tank-Ace.

look at the panzer 3 forum he becomes delusional that a king tiger cannot be destroyed for the sake of whatever comes up in his head. i think he just finds a reason to argue or troll.

[fullmetalbullet]

There is no hard and fast rule. But generally we want planes to have seen service.

HiTech

nothing about seeing combat. nor did he say there was a hard and fast rule. so really its what ever HTC wants to add. so nit picking over if it saw combat or engaged in combat against another aircraft or land target(infantry tanks trucks etc etc) really is pointless. now i believe arguing over what takes priority is something you guys can discuss all day. not really gonna change someones opinion.

In my opinion all aircraft that entered into service during WW2 (and by service i mean out of Prototype stage no Do-335 and Ho-229 only aircraft that were ordered and were delivered to said countries military) but F7F tigercat Re-2005 He-162 Meteor. and countless other aircraft. and just because someone flames a post that has one of those aircraft in it isnt really going to change my opinion.

[Tank-Ace]

I just feel that hunting buzz bombs isn't quite combat. I'm not saying it isn't close, or that it isn't dangerous, I'm not saying that at all. But I am saying that in terms of 'how much action did this plane see', a kill on a manned enemy aircraft that is doing his best to kill you at the same time you are trying to kill him is worth anywhere between 5 and 30 "kills" on buzz bombs that are neither aimed at you, nor a threat to you.

To me, in terms of "how much action did this plane see", being pushed into service for a few frantic, desperate, harried months while you're fighting tooth and nail to keep your country from going under, and are under daily threat is worth close to a years worth of duty where you will not die unless you pull the trigger first, or simmilarly screw up.


The fact is that the Meteor pilots would not have died if they hadn't pulled the trigger. That means up untill the very second their mussles contracted, they could have lived, and whether they lived or died was entirely dependent on if they pulled the trigger.


The Germans shooting the buzz bombs did not directly result in the death of any Meteor pilot, unless a buzz bomb killed one on the ground. They set up the situation in which those meteor pilots would make the call wether or not to pull the trigger.


The only reason they deserve to be considered battle casualties is because it was their duty to stop the buzz bombs, and they died in the line of duty.



And RRAM, the line grows sketchy in areas. Now you can fire your weapon 'in anger' when you're not even on the same continent as your enemies. We have the capability to kill our enemies on the opposite side of the globe, and from total safety.



Really depends on the situation. Personally, I would say that if its your own personal choice as to wether you take the hit, as in the case of the Hermann, or pulled the trigger in the case of the frigate using chaffe, and whether you live or die is dependent on whether you act, its not combat. It might be your duty to take the hit, or pull the trigger, but up till the moment YOU act, you aren't under threat.

If a decision is made for you, its out of your hands whether you take the hit or not, or whether the chaff is deployed, or if the weapon is currently aimed at you (important note, since we now have weapons that can change targets mid-flight), then its combat.

look at the panzer 3 forum he becomes delusional that a king tiger cannot be destroyed for the sake of whatever comes up in his head. i think he just finds a reason to argue or troll.

Thats a damn lie and I can prove it. I gave a scenario that we started out discussing, and then you changed the number of Tiger II's involved from at least 24 and dropped it back to a platoon or two.

Shall I go grab the quotes, or are you going to cut the **** Butch?

[Butcher]

Thats a damn lie and I can prove it. I gave a scenario that we started out discussing, and then you changed the number of Tiger II's involved from at least 24 and dropped it back to a platoon or two.

Shall I go grab the quotes, or are you going to cut the **** Butch?

Quote from: Tank-Ace on June 19, 2012, 04:27:48 PM

You lowered the origional number, you idiot. I started out by repeating some of the more outrageous BS I've heard (Read the quote in my last post, 2nd to last section). In that quote, the "number" given was "dozens". This means at LEAST 24, that being 2 dozen. 24 being about 2 companies of Tiger II's. Hence, "dozens" means at least 2 companies.

Quite litterally, you just pulled the part about a platoon out of your arse.

*EDIT* just saw the part of your post yesterday about IS-2's and T-34's destroying Tiger II's. Karnak also said those T-34's destroyed the Tiger II's at close range.

So, you are ignoring both:


Yep you simply pulled the number out of your butt, two companies do I hear a regiment next?

Here's my comment:
Fact is IS-2 man handled a platoon of Tiger IIs, just as Karnak said a T-34 whipped the Tiger II in an Ambush - as I said before the German's LACKED any gunnery later in the war, which concludes to me this document is pretty authentic, most likely the Russians caught the Tiger II's off guard and won a shoot out.

And your comment:
Quote from: Tank-Ace on Yesterday at 09:30:29 PM
A platoon is 4 Tiger II's, a company is 12. So a group of IS-2's came out with a tactical win against two companies of Tiger II's in a long-range shoot out

Now you add two companies? where does this come from? Or simply another delusional statement from you?

Looks like you are the one who randomly pulls numbers out the butt, as I said in the post, please explain where I ever said "platoon, company" or what you refer to as "two dozen".

Stop making up your own details as you go, you are a smart enough kid - My theory was right on the nail and you wanted to continue to argue and lost, now going back to it, Read above^.
I never mentioned Platoon or Company the entire post, you devised "two dozen" or whatever crap you spew out next. You got caught lying and thats the end of it, accept the reality kid.

[Greebo]

HTC put the Meteor in their last player poll, so obviously they think it merits inclusion in the game. Personally I'd rather neither that or the 162 made it into the game though.

[danny76]

Not so Karnak. If the a Meteor collided with a V1 that was aimed at London, screwed up the trajectory and distance measurments, and caused the bomb to hit in Dover, then any casualties in Dover are a direct result of the Meteor pilot's actions.

The Germans didn't take any actions that directly caused the Meteors to go down. If the Meteors hadn't fired their guns at the V1's, they wouldn't have gone down.


If I put a big crate of non-shock-proof TNT in your town, you shoot at it as a means of disposal, and die in the ensuing blast, I didn't directly cause your death, you did by firing at it.


The differences between that and the V1's: The V1s were going to blow up anyway, although still not in a location that posed a threat to the Meteors, and the Meteor pilots had a duty to shoot at the V1's.



The Meteor pilots could have done everything the same, and as long as they didn't fire their guns, they wouldn't have died. Since they pulled the trigger (an action), and they wouldn't have died otherwise, their deaths were in direct respons to them pulling the trigger.

Now again, they had a duty to knock the V1's down, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't their own actions that resulted in their deaths.


Not to say the German's weren't responsible, but only that their actions didn't directly lead to those death's.




Oh its hostile action, but when you preform the action that, if not preformed would have left you safe and sound, you take away the "direct" portion of NATO's discription.


In fact, thats one of the primary reasons I would say we list non-KIA's who died as a result of enemy action (even if not as a DIRECT result of enemy action) as battle-casualties. If they died because of something the enemy did, even if they were the ones that actually caused the death, they deserve recognition for it if it was in the line of duty.

So pilots on both sides crashing as a result of over pushing in a dogfight, that's their own fault and not a combat death? bomb disposal guys working currently in Afghanistan and Iraq, if they get killed then they don't deserve to be recorded as a combat casualty, because they could have just let it be and allow it to kill someone else, the analagy is the same as the meteor pilots attacking or knocking v1's off course.

You are holding onto your failed argument for whatever reason, have you ever been in combat? Nevertheless you are quite obviously a troll, ill informed, and you offend me.

Oh and by the way, if you were to pay Hi Tech some money, for an account for example, it might carry more weight when you wish for something.

[R 105]

 I saw an HE-162 at I believe Wings of Eagles museum in NY. I been to so many Military museums over the years it is hard to keep track. I always liked the looks of it it was an innovative designed and I wonder what another year of development would have done for it. But the war ended and no allied power really went toward the HE-162 type design but worked up fighter with the basic ME-262 fuselage.  The HE-162 is still a pretty cool looking bird ether way.

[Butcher]

HTC put the Meteor in their last player poll, so obviously they think it merits inclusion in the game. Personally I'd rather neither that or the 162 made it into the game though.

Interesting the Meteor lost, I was almost betting the Meteor would of won hands down.

[fullmetalbullet]

Interesting the Meteor lost, I was almost betting the Meteor would of won hands down.

Probrably because people knew it was british and it wouldnt start or its canopy wouldnt close all the way or something would go wrong with it lol jk jk

Been watching to much top gear (the good top gear not the US or aussie version.)

[danny76]

Probrably because people knew it was british and it wouldnt start or its canopy wouldnt close all the way or something would go wrong with it lol jk jk

Been watching to much top gear (the good top gear not the US or aussie version.)

I think you must be confusing British pre 1970, when it was seen as a by-word for quality, and post 1960 to present, where it is seen as a by- word for tat. Pre 1970 Supermarine, Hawker, Humber, Alvis, Imperial Airways, Shorts Co, Bentley, Jaguar, DeHavilland etc
Post 1970 Rover Longbridge, British Rail and Greggs

[haggerty]

For those talking about the V1 and the threat of the explosion when shooting it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A

Skip to 2:43 ish

[Tank-Ace]

*more BS from Butcher*.

Either you're trolling, or you REALLY don't understand how stupid you're being.

This is the origional comment that started the whole discussion of IS-2 vs Tiger II's:

It always cracks me up when people go around saying how IS-2's knocked out dozens of Tiger II's at over 2000yds, since its both impossible from the front, and so improbable as to be almost impossible.

Notice it says nothing about 3-4 Tiger II's. Also notice how, by the definition of dozen and the plurality of the word "dozens", that the comment means a minimum of 2 dozen, perhaps more. In other words, at least 24 tanks, 2 companies of Tiger II's minus the command units.


And I really don't care where you changed the discussion to about 3-4 Tiger II's vs an unspecified number of IS-2's (and I never did see you specify how many IS-2's would be beating on these Tiger II's, it could be more than 500 for all the numbers you've posted). Complain all you like about how I'm not giving a quote showing YOU saying 2 dozen, but the fact remains that your wrong about be changing the numbers. And beyond that, its irrelevent to the origional comment.


So Butch, cut the crap here, as I'm really getting a bit tired of your provably false slander. Grow a pair and admit you're wrong, or shut up and quit with the little childish comments.

[titanic3]

So Butch, cut the crap here, as I'm really getting a bit tired of your provably false slander. Grow a pair and admit you're wrong, or shut up and quit with the little childish comments.

I'm not even gonna say it. 

[Tank-Ace]

So pilots on both sides crashing as a result of over pushing in a dogfight, that's their own fault and not a combat death?

I'd say they're in combat, as they are actively engaging an enemy that is attempting to kill them, not shooting at an unpiloted bomb that isn't aimed at them.

bomb disposal guys working currently in Afghanistan and Iraq, if they get killed then they don't deserve to be recorded as a combat casualty, because they could have just let it be and allow it to kill someone else, the analagy is the same as the meteor pilots attacking or knocking v1's off course.

Are they disarming some 20 something year old ordnance from when Russia was fighting the Mujahdeen, or are they disarming some ordnance thats been wired up recently and placed with the intent to do harm to US forces in Afghanistan? Is the bomb out in the middle of the desert and posing no threat to anyone, or in the city and posing a threat to civilians and military personel. Did he try and defuse it, or did it blow up as he approached or was preparing to detonate it under a controled circumstance?


All of that matters. If it was intended for the russians, and no enemy tried to detonate it against the US soldiers, then you'd have to be an idiot to list it as a killed in combat. If its in the desert, and he just decides to disarm it for whatever reason and cuts the wrong wire, as opposed to blowing it up when it poses no threat to anyone, its not killed in combat.


If an enemy blew it up, then of course its a combat death. If it poses a threat to people, or might cause colateral damage, and he tries to disarm it, its still a combat death.

You are holding onto your failed argument for whatever reason, have you ever been in combat? Nevertheless you are quite obviously a troll, ill informed, and you offend me.

Oh and by the way, if you were to pay Hi Tech some money, for an account for example, it might carry more weight when you wish for something.

With all due respect, I really don't care that much if I've offended you. I don't know you, and you're getting pissed because I don't feel that any death in any way related to an enemy automatically counts as combat. I personally don't think that firing at a bomb not even aimed at you, and that poses ZERO threat to you as is counts as combat.

Was it in the line of duty? Yes. Should the pilots be recognized for it? Yes. Was it combat? Really, I don't feel it is.


If theres a block of C4 with a cable attached to the pin on the firing device, and the cable is attached to my house, its directly my fault I'm dead if I'm stupid enough to pull the string, not directly the fault of whoever attached the C-4 to my house. He's carrying the blame, but it wasn't directly his fault. Not saying the Brits in the meteors were stupid for going after the Buzz bombs, but its a simmilar situation: I'm under potential threat, just like the meteor pilots, I'm not under actual threat (you could play football with a brick of C4 and it wouldn't go off), just like the meteor pilots, and my actions directly determine if I live or die, also like the meteor pilots.



Not all deaths result from combat, even if an enemy is involved. What if an enemy craps in a river, and a soldier drinks from it. He later comes down sick from drinking contaminated river water, and dies. Should he be listed as killed in combat? He wouldn't have died if the enemy hadn't defecated in the river. He didn't know he would die from drinking the water, and so there wasn't any choice made to sacrafice himself. That means the enemy is directly responsible for killing him, right?

So should he be listed as KIA?


What if an enemy puts a bunch of tacks on the road to interfere with trafic. A soldier goes out to help clear the road, and punctures his hand while picking up the tacks. He gets a staff infection and dies. He wouldn't have died if the enemy hadn't put the tacks on the road, so was he killed in combat?

Should he be listed as KIA?



Theres a difference between direct and indirect action, and that difference matters. Sometimes it can grow VERY sketchy, but the difference still matters.

[morfiend]