Tank poll

[Karnak]

Karnak once again you ignore the problem of acquisition . You are enclosed in a turret with a field of view of about 8 degrees . How do you  find it ?

I am not ignoring that, I am describing a specific circumstance that has actually happened to me in the game in which no acquisition step was needed.  You acquire it when, through no effort of your own, it flies into your gunsight.  I don't know how I can make it any clearer.  You're pretending that when it does that you magically still can't see it.

[hlbly]

I am not ignoring that, I am describing a specific circumstance that has actually happened to me in the game in which no acquisition step was needed.  You acquire it when, through no effort of your own, it flies into your gunsight.  I don't know how I can make it any clearer.  You're pretending that when it does that you magically still can't see it.

Karnak did you do this before or after the new sights came in ? I think the field of view is right now . I am pretending nothing . You were engaging ground targets and an La7  flew into your view is that right ? If that is the case your field of view was too large . The only reference I can find about this is in relation to games . The only reference anyone else can find the source mentions it being used against Kamikaze attacks against Soviet tanks "alot" . Total combat loss against Soviets in 1945 was 10 aircraft . Was every loss of AC by Japanese Kamikaze attacks against one battalion . Karnak I have seen you when asking for sources . You have pretty high standards of what you will accept . Mine are  not so high but come on . You also said you fired 3 rounds at a C-47 . So you also have tracked a plane in AH2 from gunners position ?

[Butcher]

OK hlbly, lets reverse the argument, can you show absolute proof with source that tanks did NOT fire on aircraft?

You have an actual tanker here who said it would be quite possible.

[Wiley]

Well, that seems to be the crux of the argument.  I get what you guys are saying about the telepathic commander/gunner link, and I agree.

However, as I said before, I've gone all the way from acquisition to making the shot from the gunner site.  It was pure luck that I was oriented the right way, but it did happen exactly like that.

The reason it happens for us in game is repetition, and the fact that we don't care about expending a round frivolously.  We take more shots in this game in a week than a lot of people in the war took in their entire careers.  That's IMO why it didn't happen much if at all in real life.  They weren't going to expend a round on a low percentage shot.

Wiley.

[Ack-Ack]

The fix I think is to move the sight about 20 degrees in deflection and 20 in elevation when you switch to gunner from TC .


He says they used them against Kamikaze . What Kamikaze attacks ? Kamikaze pilots had a hard time hitting ships because of poor training . This I don't know about but I find it a little hard to believe any Kamikaze attacks were launched against tanks .

He was just mentioning that the M2 .50 cal on the Sherman was effective against kamikazi attacks, not that he or his 6th Guards were fighting Japanese.  He served in the 6th Guards which was on the Eastern Front.  As for kamikazi attacks againsts tanks, yes that is true.  During the last months of the war, Japanese pilots serving in Manchuria and pilots of the Manchukuo Imperial Air Force were trained to use kamikazi attacks against tanks and employed such tactics against the Soviets though not to much success.


ack-ack

[Karnak]

Karnak did you do this before or after the new sights came in ? I think the field of view is right now .

Before, but it is irrelevant.  I never moved the turret or gun at all to kill the La-7.  I did not see him in any other view.  I did not track him or lead him at all.  I was firing at an enemy tank when the La-7 put himself in the way.  All I had to do was wait for the right moment and pull the trigger, the entire time of which he was centered, by his own actions, in my gunsight.

[hlbly]

OK hlbly, lets reverse the argument, can you show absolute proof with source that tanks did NOT fire on aircraft?

You have an actual tanker here who said it would be quite possible.

A negative can not be proven . When ever a claim is made about anything in here it is up to the person making the claim to prove it . With a reliable source .     
           So you think a tank is the only thing with a turret that can't track a plane ? Take a look at the M2 Bradley . I have actually been a TC in one . Your actual tanker also has a fantasy about using main guns against Kamikazes .

[hlbly]

Before, but it is irrelevant.  I never moved the turret or gun at all to kill the La-7.  I did not see him in any other view.  I did not track him or lead him at all.  I was firing at an enemy tank when the La-7 put himself in the way.  All I had to do was wait for the right moment and pull the trigger, the entire time of which he was centered, by his own actions, in my gunsight.

Irrelevant ? If field of view is way too large how do you figure it is irrelevant ? You were firing at a tank and plane flew into your view . Would not happen if you had realistic sight picture .

[Butcher]

A negative can not be proven . When ever a claim is made about anything in here it is up to the person making the claim to prove it . With a reliable source .     
           So you think a tank is the only thing with a turret that can't track a plane ? Take a look at the M2 Bradley . I have actually been a TC in one . Your actual tanker also has a fantasy about using main guns against Kamikazes .

Seems you don't read other comments, I was using a Russian website and translating it - as you quoted the russians did NOT fight the Japanese, is akak lying now too? Read below:

He was just mentioning that the M2 .50 cal on the Sherman was effective against kamikazi attacks, not that he or his 6th Guards were fighting Japanese.  He served in the 6th Guards which was on the Eastern Front.  As for kamikazi attacks againsts tanks, yes that is true.  During the last months of the war, Japanese pilots serving in Manchuria and pilots of the Manchukuo Imperial Air Force were trained to use kamikazi attacks against tanks and employed such tactics against the Soviets though not to much success.


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

A negative can not be proven . When ever a claim is made about anything in here it is up to the person making the claim to prove it . With a reliable source .     
           So you think a tank is the only thing with a turret that can't track a plane ? Take a look at the M2 Bradley . I have actually been a TC in one . Your actual tanker also has a fantasy about using main guns against Kamikazes .

Dimitriy Loza doesn't mention firing his main gun at kamikazi planes, he mentioned that the M2 .50 cal machine gun was very effective against them.  His experience was on the Eastern Front and the part I posted reflects that.

ack-ack

[Karnak]

Irrelevant ? If field of view is way too large how do you figure it is irrelevant ? You were firing at a tank and plane flew into your view . Would not happen if you had realistic sight picture .

He flew down the middle of the sight.  I don't care if the field of view was .0001 degrees he still would have been seen.

How are you not understanding this?

Planes are not magically invisible in a tank's gunsight.

I DID NOT MOVE THE TURRET AT ALL IN ORDER TO HIT THE PLANE WHICH PLACED ITSELF DEAD CENTER IN MY GUNSIGHT!

[WWhiskey]

Ok new scenario ,I'm sitting 500 yards off the end of a runway staring down the gunsight 

Can we all agree that any of us can hit a plane sitting on the runway?
If that plane starts rolling towards me can I still hit it?
Once it lifts off flying strait at me still, how long will it be before I can not hit it?
And last but not least why?

[hlbly]

He flew down the middle of the sight.  I don't care if the field of view was .0001 degrees he still would have been seen.

How are you not understanding this?

Planes are not magically invisible in a tank's gunsight.

I DID NOT MOVE THE TURRET AT ALL IN ORDER TO HIT THE PLANE WHICH PLACED ITSELF DEAD CENTER IN MY GUNSIGHT!

Okay let's get this straight . You were engaging a tank correct ? While you are aimed directly at a tank an La7 comes into view so into view you dont need to adjust to kill it ?

[Karnak]

Okay let's get this straight . You were engaging a tank correct ?

Yes.

Then there was suddenly an La-7 blocking my view of the tank.  The La-7 got larger and larger as it flew towards me with its guns spitting 20mm rounds at me.  My crosshairs were centered on his propeller hub.  At a range of about 100 yards I pulled the trigger and sent the 75mm AP round that had been intended to go down range to the tank straight through the La-7's engine.  If it had been reality it probably would have exited the La-7 somewhere near the rudder and elevators.

The larger field of view played no role as the La-7 placed himself exactly in my crosshairs without me having to adjust the aim at all.  If the field of view had been smaller I simply wouldn't have seen him as early, but given his approach profile it would not have changed the outcome a single bit.

You see, when you say things like "Would not happen if you had realistic sight picture." you are flat out wrong.  The larger field of view would make it more likely to be able to aim at an aircraft and would certainly make leading one a lot easier, but the difference is not between "would not happen" and "might happen"  it is between "x% chance of happening" and "y fraction of x% chance of happening". 

[hlbly]

Yes.

Then there was suddenly an La-7 blocking my view of the tank.  The La-7 got larger and larger as it flew towards me with its guns spitting 20mm rounds at me.  My crosshairs were centered on his propeller hub.  At a range of about 100 yards I pulled the trigger and sent the 75mm AP round that had been intended to go down range to the tank straight through the La-7's engine.  If it had been reality it probably would have exited the La-7 somewhere near the rudder and elevators.

The larger field of view played no role as the La-7 placed himself exactly in my crosshairs without me having to adjust the aim at all.  If the field of view had been smaller I simply wouldn't have seen him as early, but given his approach profile it would not have changed the outcome a single bit.

You see, when you say things like "Would not happen if you had realistic sight picture." you are flat out wrong.  The larger field of view would make it more likely to be able to aim at an aircraft and would certainly make leading one a lot easier, but the difference is not between "would not happen" and "might happen"  it is between "x% chance of happening" and "y fraction of x% chance of happening".  

So the La7 was taxiing then ?