Tank poll

[Tank-Ace]

If theres a poll, the biggest, bestest, or American option will win.

I think that the only reason the Me410 won was because the Yak-3 had realy similar preformance to the Yak-9, and because people were picturing a 350mph 110G when they clicked on it.

[Butcher]

If theres a poll, the biggest, bestest, or American option will win.

I think that the only reason the Me410 won was because the Yak-3 had realy similar preformance to the Yak-9, and because people were picturing a 350mph 110G when they clicked on it.

Really? Explain how the Me410 won over the Meteor which would mop it all over the sky at any alt?

[titanic3]

Butcher vs Tank-Ace

Round 1326!
BEGIN!

[Butcher]

Butcher vs Tank-Ace

Round 1326!
BEGIN!

Quite a valid question since his logic proves only american or the best planes will win, explain the Meteor losing? I was a bit shocked the 410 won considering it doesn't outclass any of the fighters listed in the poll, only the gun option does.

[Karnak]

Quite a valid question since his logic proves only american or the best planes will win, explain the Meteor losing? I was a bit shocked the 410 won considering it doesn't outclass any of the fighters listed in the poll, only the gun option does.

Name recognition plays a role as well.  Me410 = version 4 of the 110?  Meteor = ???  Yak-3 = Red commie crap.  Beaufighter = ???

[Butcher]

Name recognition plays a role as well.  Me410 = version 4 of the 110?  Meteor = ???  Yak-3 = Red commie crap.  Beaufighter = ???

So then basically 80% have not a clue what they are voting on then, seems reasonable - considering none of it has anything to do with base taking.

[Karnak]

So then basically 80% have not a clue what they are voting on then, seems reasonable - considering none of it has anything to do with base taking.

Pretty much, yes.  We've had prolific posters admit they didn't know the Japanese had any fighter other than the Zero before playing AH.  If I recall correctly, another guy said he thought the Typhoon was a made up fictional airplane at first because he'd never heard of it until seeing it in this game.

I wouldn't say it is 80%, but it is a substantially influential number where the in game polls are concerned.

[Butcher]

Pretty much, yes.  We've had prolific posters admit they didn't know the Japanese had any fighter other than the Zero before playing AH.  If I recall correctly, another guy said he thought the Typhoon was a made up fictional airplane at first because he'd never heard of it until seeing it in this game.

I wouldn't say it is 80%, but it is a substantially influential number where the in game polls are concerned.

I knew most of the planes before I joined AH or Airwarrior rather, not in complete detail and I still don't, but still baffles me some wouldn't take the time to at least look at what they are voting on, only reason I voted on the Me-410 is it was one of the very first wishlist posts I made next to G.55 -
I kind of figured the usual "Ki-43 and beaufighter" would of been added long time ago given how significant they fought in WW2, why they continue to elude being added in game amazes me.

Meteor I was sure to win the voting poll, i can see every 2 weeker screaming "ZOMG JET" without realizing how many perks it would be and few years from now still trying to gather enough for it.
Then again I realized apparently nobody even knows what a Meteor was, given the history channel and such - they would vote on a perked P-51 mustang before a meteor.

[hlbly]

+1

We need some turretless "assault guns", characterized by a larger gun than contemporary tanks, but with limited gun traverse and worse hull-defilade performance (harder to shoot while hiding most of the hull, as is possible with most taniks).  This means better performance at long range, but significant disadvantages at shorter ranges or against aircraft.  These unique characteristics should introduce additional interesting game play elements.  By the above, I am implying that the ENY/perk cost should not be based solely on that of tanks with an equivalent gun/armor, but should be discounted from that ENY/perk cost due to the significant disadvantages of not having a turret.    

Good candidates might include SU100 (T34 hull 3D model spin-off), Jagdpanther (Panther hull 3D model spin-off and King Tiger gun; would need to be perked), and Panzer IV/70 (Improved Jagdpanzer IV with panzer IV hull 3D model spin-off and Panther gun).  The popular Sturmgeschutz III would not be a good candidate, as it's gun is no better than AH "Panzers", has no turret, and requires a Panzer III chassis to be 3D modeled.  

MH

Once again my favorite GV flaw shows it's ugly head . Shooting down a/c with a main gun is utterly gamey . No gun mounting <other than of course purpose built aa tanks> was capable of tracking an aircraft no matter how low or how little deflection . No sight could acquire let alone track an a/c .To those who are going to jump in with the tired arguments, show me one single instance of this happening . No tank crew would be so foolish with main gun rounds , to even try . Never happened ,because it is impossible .
          The lower profile of the turret less TD was it's best advantage . It lacked the flexibility of a turret , but was marginally compensated for it by being harder to spot , better armored , and having less of it exposed to enemy fire than turreted AFV's .

[R 105]

Once again my favorite GV flaw shows it's ugly head . Shooting down a/c with a main gun is utterly gamey . No gun mounting <other than of course purpose built aa tanks> was capable of tracking an aircraft no matter how low or how little deflection . No sight could acquire let alone track an a/c .To those who are going to jump in with the tired arguments, show me one single instance of this happening . No tank crew would be so foolish with main gun rounds , to even try . Never happened ,because it is impossible .
          The lower profile of the turret less TD was it's best advantage . It lacked the flexibility of a turret , but was marginally compensated for it by being harder to spot , better armored , and having less of it exposed to enemy fire than turreted AFV's .

 You are correct. No tank in the history of the world ever shot down an aircraft on less it was a total accident and the tank crew never knew it happened . I had an Army MOS of 19D30 (Cavalry Scout) We were cross trained as drivers loader and gunners in the M-48s and M-60 tanks and I had plenty of range time at Ft. Know KY.  Anyone who has ever looked through a main gun sight would understand why you most like would not even see a plane with it much less track and fire at one. This is a sore subject with me in the game and I would like that aspect of tank gunnery gone along with that new transmission.

[caldera]

I vote for a new tank moratorium for at least two years.  We (meaning: me  ) need some new fighters and the updates of all the old models before any more tanks. 

[Karnak]

You are correct. No tank in the history of the world ever shot down an aircraft on less it was a total accident and the tank crew never knew it happened . I had an Army MOS of 19D30 (Cavalry Scout) We were cross trained as drivers loader and gunners in the M-48s and M-60 tanks and I had plenty of range time at Ft. Know KY.  Anyone who has ever looked through a main gun sight would understand why you most like would not even see a plane with it much less track and fire at one. This is a sore subject with me in the game and I would like that aspect of tank gunnery gone along with that new transmission.

Would disallowing the guns to be fired from the commander's view resolve this?

That said, many years ago I did shoot down two aircraft in one Panzer IV H sortie using the gunsight.  The first was an La-7 that flew directly at the barrel, I didn't even have to adjust the aim and there was no tracking needed.  The second was a C-47 at range that was heading mostly at me because I was near the town.  I hit it with the 3rd HE round I fired at it.  While the C-47 kill was a bit gamey, I didn't see anything wrong with the La-7 kill.  He fed himself to the gun.

[hlbly]

You are correct. No tank in the history of the world ever shot down an aircraft on less it was a total accident and the tank crew never knew it happened . I had an Army MOS of 19D30 (Cavalry Scout) We were cross trained as drivers loader and gunners in the M-48s and M-60 tanks and I had plenty of range time at Ft. Know KY.  Anyone who has ever looked through a main gun sight would understand why you most like would not even see a plane with it much less track and fire at one. This is a sore subject with me in the game and I would like that aspect of tank gunnery gone along with that new transmission.

I too was a 19D for the last and best part of my career . Cross trained on M-60 and M-1 . Just as you do I know for a fact that it can not be done . 105 while in Korea for Team Spirit 89 . I had the opportunity to "play" with an M-26 , including a live fire . I have also got to operate <alas no live fire> an M4A3E8 owned by a local private collector . So I have a very limited amount of experience with era equipment . I once tried to give an example of trying to track a swallow or a bat while feeding with a soda straw . The reply I got was it could be done . I was also asked " what you don't think a 76mm projectile will bring down a plane ?".  Well of course it could . If you could hit anything with it . I wonder what they think about how the shell would be fused , or did they think complex timed fuses and proximity fuses were just for fun ? I wonder what they thought about the development of purpose built AA vehicles was all about . Need drives advancement . These AA AFV are around because they are needed . If an MBT could do the job its self we wouldn't have them . I once again challenge anyone to show any proof it was even attempted , let alone succeeded . An AAR , biography , anything ?

[hlbly]

Would disallowing the guns to be fired from the commander's view resolve this?

That said, many years ago I did shoot down two aircraft in one Panzer IV H sortie using the gunsight.  The first was an La-7 that flew directly at the barrel, I didn't even have to adjust the aim and there was no tracking needed.  The second was a C-47 at range that was heading mostly at me because I was near the town.  I hit it with the 3rd HE round I fired at it.  While the C-47 kill was a bit gamey, I didn't see anything wrong with the La-7 kill.  He fed himself to the gun.

Karnak there are several things you need to think about . First off is the field of view for the gun sight of a tank is much much less than in here . So even if you are not dealing with a crossing shot . You simply can not see enough of the sky at any one time to to acquire a target . Even when flying straight at you . You still had to do some tracking . You have to shoot where the target is going to be  not where it is . Karnak I hope I don't sound rude . I respect you and do not want to offend you . Another thing . In here you have one man doing all four job's . This allows a level of coordination that no amount of training and time with a four man will ever begin to match . I guess in these tanks it would mostly be five man  crews . Think of it this way try to find an aircraft ,even one flying straight at you with a telescope . Do not use just your eyes to get you in close then bring the scope up to get it on target do it with one eye closed and the other eye in the scope . I think you will find you need to first find it with just your eyes . Then with the scope up to one eye open the other to get target in view of the scope . Visually trained AA must be an open affair otherwise you would not be able to get the gun sight on target at all . The only fully enclosed AA AFV's must use another form of targeting , usually radar . R105 can you think of anything else ? Go to your local airport and try it on a plane landing .

[Karnak]

Actually, in the case of the La-7 I didn't have to do any tracking at all.  He flew straight down the cross hairs.  I didn't move the gun at all from the position I had it in to use against the tanks I was fighting.  It doesn't matter how small the field of view was unless you're going to claim it is 0 degrees as he literally put himself in my sight and held himself there as he flew at me firing his 20mm cannons.  There was no lead to pull, I just put a 75mm AP round straight through his engine at a range of about 100 yards.

Don't mistake "extremely unlikely" for "impossible" as they are infinitely far apart.  The fact is that in the right circumstances it is possible, but generally requires significant assistance from the pilot of the aircraft.