New Allied Tanks, Axis Bombers and Russian Fighters.

[Tank-Ace]

I never said the plane wasn't tough, and I never said 7.92's were useless. I stated that guns such as .30's and 7.92's are useful if aimed right. They just aren't reliable. Its like using a 109F4 without a cannon. Do the rounds do damage? Yes. Will you get far with only the 700-ish rounds you have? No. You might get 2 or 3 kills but in the end there was a reason why other planes have better guns. Armor on planes gets better and thus guns have to get better.

Then quit your whining about the He-111's performance. Its probably more usefull than the B-25C's just you can use it far more often.

Wouldn't matter if you could somehow replace the 7.92's with a FlaK 36 without a loss of performance; if it could only fire foreward, it would still have weaker defensive firepower than the B5N.

As for luck there is no such thing. Random encounters/coincidences are to blame here. The rounds do get sent in different directions but its hardly noticeable. A "lucky chance" isn't really luck, its just that the round has cycled through a random flight path option set and it just happens that you got a round that went where it was supposed to. Mathematics and science have a large part here - its like flipping a coin. 50/50 shot of landing heads or tails, you don't control what it does after you flip it and while its in the air. If it lands on heads and you called tails well it wasn't bad luck - it was just what happened when the force of the flip and the air resistance did when it landed. Like I said, luck is for the weak minded.

Its not a fixed number of set trajectories. Its random; you cannot predict where the next round will be thrown out, and it does not follow a pattern.


You can flip a coin 50 times and get 50 tails. The odds are so small as to be nearly impossible, but it could happen. For any given flip, you have exactly the same odds of getting heads or tails. So, anyone who manages to accomplish that feat would be said to be 'lucky'. That doesn't mean they have good luck in life, and good things just happen to them because the planets happened to align. In that usage, it simply means he beat the odds.


We're not talking 7 years for breaking a mirror, four leaf clover, BS luck. We're talking about winning at roulette letting it ride and winning again, beating the odds, fortuitious and improbable, falling out of a plane and survivng because you landed in 50 feet of soft powdery snow luck.

There is no science or math to that. Its purely random and coincidental. The odds against you falling out of the plane precisely above the spot that would let you survive the impact are litterally incalcuable. By this I mean that we don't know exactly what all went into the guy that managed to survive, and your system likely doesn't have the nessecary computing power to display all the zeros if we could calculate it.


Here, wikipedia actually has it right. Read the very first paragraph in the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck

[skorpx1]

Then quit your whining about the He-111's performance. Its probably more usefull than the B-25C's just you can use it far more often.

Wouldn't matter if you could somehow replace the 7.92's with a FlaK 36 without a loss of performance; if it could only fire foreward, it would still have weaker defensive firepower than the B5N.

Its not a fixed number of set trajectories. Its random; you cannot predict where the next round will be thrown out, and it does not follow a pattern.


You can flip a coin 50 times and get 50 tails. The odds are so small as to be nearly impossible, but it could happen. For any given flip, you have exactly the same odds of getting heads or tails. So, anyone who manages to accomplish that feat would be said to be 'lucky'. That doesn't mean they have good luck in life, and good things just happen to them because the planets happened to align. In that usage, it simply means he beat the odds.


We're not talking 7 years for breaking a mirror, four leaf clover, BS luck. We're talking about winning at roulette letting it ride and winning again, beating the odds, fortuitious and improbable, falling out of a plane and survivng because you landed in 50 feet of soft powdery snow luck.

There is no science or math to that. Its purely random and coincidental. The odds against you falling out of the plane precisely above the spot that would let you survive the impact are litterally incalcuable. By this I mean that we don't know exactly what all went into the guy that managed to survive, and your system likely doesn't have the nessecary computing power to display all the zeros if we could calculate it.


Here, wikipedia actually has it right. Read the very first paragraph in the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck

I never said the bullet had a selected flight path option, I said it was a random flight path option with different sets. And the "falling out of a plane and surviving" thing isn't luck either. Wind resistance, speed, trajectory, point of impact, item of impact, density of item which was landed on and human endurance. Math and science is able to prove these things possible without luck, and with logical reasoning. The odds of that happening are calculable, you just need to know what to do, how to do it and you need to be a math whiz with a high-tech out of this world computer that has the ability to calculate everything to the exact point of which let you live. If one was able to re-create everything but with selective speed (like watching a video) from their point of view and a 3rd person 360 degree point of view you could possibly find everything that went into the equation.

And for the last time, Luck is for the weak minded and for those who cant explain a turn of events with reasons. Luck is an excuse. Not a reason.

[Tank-Ace]

You're an idiot Skorpx.

You fail to comprehend what I've said, that there is luck, that if there is any element of randomization than there will be luck by the definition of the words luck and random.

You also probably have failed to comprehend that you don't comprehend all those things.

At the smaller levels of particles, we can't predict their motion, or even their location in some cases. Its not that we lack the technology or knowledge, its merely that the motion is truely random, and therefore unpredictable.



However, you will reject this, and blindly claim that science can solve anything. Point is you are wrong with regards to the He-111. Deal with it.

[skorpx1]

You're an idiot Skorpx. Lol. Insults? You call me the kid.

You fail to comprehend what I've said, that there is luck, that if there is any element of randomization than there will be luck by the definition of the words luck and random.

You also probably have failed to comprehend that you don't comprehend all those things.

At the smaller levels of particles, we can't predict their motion, or even their location in some cases. Its not that we lack the technology or knowledge, its merely that the motion is truely random, and therefore unpredictable.



However, you will reject this, and blindly claim that science can solve anything. Point is you are wrong with regards to the He-111. Deal with it.

Coincidences, randomness and luck are 3 different things. Luck is the one that doesn't exist. You use it as an excuse for explaining things beyond your own comprehension. It is possible for one to find out the motion of particles, you just gotta find out where they started, what they've bounced off of, the initial speed, the increases/decreases, the resistances/accelerating elements and such to do it. Sure, the number is probably a million miles long if written in .5 font on a computer but its still possible to find out what it is.

Lets take roulette as an example. You place your bet on the 1st set of 12. The velocity of the ball is 15 FPS clockwise, the wheel is spinning at 10 FPS counterclockwise, you take all the numbers around the table and see what number the ball got sent out on, and then the numbers that are within the 1-12 area. If you calculate all the probabilities you'll find out whether or not you made a good decision on your bet.

Bullets are another example. In real life a .30 cal bullet is effected by wind, windspeed, speed of the bullet itself and all of those good things. You have to factor in all of those and get all of the numbers to find out where it will land and how fast it's going to get the damage done to the plane. A .50 cal would do more damage because its effected less by most of those variables. In return it will do more damage and will go farther than a .30 cal would. The armor also plays a big factor. If a .30 cal goes through 10mm of armor at 1000 yards with about 12mm of penetration power, it'll do damage but not a lot. If a .50 cal does the same but with 20mm of penetration power, it does more damage. From what is placed here and what you could find out you'd notice that all the factors of the bullet have a good area on where the bullet will land upon impact.


The 7.92 guns in game aren't effected by a few of those things but if you crunched the numbers and aimed right, its possible to shoot down a plane with a single bullet. Would it be hard? Yes. Would it be luck? No. You'd just have to hope the random flight path that's been pre-selected is within reasonable distance of the calculations. Are the 7.92's and .30 cals as reliable as a .50 or a 20mm cannon? No. You get a better chance of hitting vital parts with a .50/20mm than you do with a 7.92 or a .30 cal. That's what this was about - Not the He-111 durability or its performance compared to a B-25.

Science can solve anything given its within human capabilities. In the end, its a human who had to design the computer so its got human limits.

I take it you're one who follows a religion?

[Tank-Ace]

*Drivle*

I'm using the word luck in sense that I was unlucky if I was struck by lightning when in proximity to a taller object. Its out of my control, I can't keep myself from being struck by lighting, it was unlikely to happen.

I beat the odds by being struck by lighting 9 times inside of 2 weeks, so was unlucky.

Someone arbitrarily chose to slash my tires, when I was parked next to 3 identicle vehicles, a corvette, and the truck who cut off the guy who slashed my tires on the freeway, so I was unluky.

I won the lottery, so I was lucky, because I beat the odds.



Does 'luck' exist as this stupid mystical force that dictates things beyond our controll? Hell no, and you're brain dead if you think I'm saying it does. But luck DOES exist in the sense that someone is either lucky or unlucky if they beat the odds, depending on if doing so helps or hinders them.



And yes, I am a religious man. Do I take it you've lost your way?

[DMGOD]

lol 2 guys that don't even play the game are arguing over planes to add to the game     

[Ack-Ack]

lol 2 guys that don't even play the game are arguing over planes to add to the game     

And the funny thing is when it comes to planes, both don't know squat. 

ack-ack

[SmokinLoon]

The He-111 is easy prey for anything with a few .50 cals or even a single cannon. The .303's suck in game and only do major damage if you manage to hit a vital part of the plane. I know that it takes a good 700-900 rounds from a Spit1/Hurri1 to take down a Ju-88. I'd imagine the He-111 would be slightly less or the same.

However I do think the B-25 is a bit better in attack terms. The load out is better but not by much and it can be loaded up with a bombsite or multiple .50 cals instead.

The .30 caliber MG's in AH do not "suck", in comparison to the 200 or 30mm cannon armed with HE then yes they are at a disadvantage but when fired accurately enough they do the same thing to a wing as .50 cals.  Remember they have about 3 times the rate of fire as are cause aout 1/3rd the damage.  The issue is at what range the .30 cals are being fired at vs the .50 cals.  And no it certainly does not take 700-900 rounds of .30 cal to bring down a Ju88, maybe if you miss alot but otherwise no it doesn't.

If you're comparing the B25H vs the He111, then yes the B25 will win in a direct attack roll thanks to massed .50 cals and the 75mm cannon.  But if you're comparing the B25C vs the He111 then I do believe the He111 would have the edge thanks to a heavier bomb loading.  Until the He111 is put in to AH we wont know how it handles but it wouldnt be too difficult to beat the B25, it is one of the worst handling bombers in AH. 

[Babalonian]

I think, tank-wise, an IS-2 or the STuG series would make for some good times.  Aircraft wise my hat is tipped to the ruskies, albeit not many will be more popular than current aircraft already in the game, they are lacking quite a bit.

[Tank-Ace]

I think, tank-wise, an IS-2 or the STuG series would make for some good times.

If you want something with heavy firepower for the Russians, Su-100 is about the only way to go. The IS-2 would have penetration simmilar to the 88 L/56, one-shot anything this side of a Tiger II when it penetrates, and fire the most effective HE shell of any tank-mounted weapon in the game.

However, it very well might fire less than 3 rounds in a minute.

[BFOOT1]

Well on a side note this argument kept myself entertained for a fraction of my college geography class. 

[Spikes]

Ban hammer round 2!

[Butcher]

IS-2 can knock out most tanks including the Tiger and Panther without having to actually penetrate the armor. I.e few cases the turret was enough to become disabled from it.

But as Tank-Ace stated, Su-100 was a tank hunter, IS-2 was simply a breakthrough tank - i.e not designed to attack tanks, but rather fortifications so swarms of T-34s can kill tigers.

Su-100 was put together since the Su-85 was lacking against Tigers/Panthers, the IS-2 was considered for the same gun as the Su-100, however Russians simply didn't need more tank killers since very FEW panthers/tigers existed.

I never really liked the StuG, it was designed as an early break through tank then pressed into anti tank roles to fill gaps in the Panzer Divisions, something it was not designed for, but rather it was effective early/midwar.
I always had an interest in the JagdPanzer, midwar versions had a 75mm L/48 while late war had the 75mm L/70, as if the Germans need another Tank killer added in game, much rather see other countries.

[B3YT]

ok as some one who loves flying the hurricane 1 it takes only a short 1.5 - 2 sec burst to bring down a JU88 . .303 should only ever be used at distances below 250yrds with all guns set to hit at the same point.  target areas are , engine block , cockpit , wing roots and tail section. For B24's  you aim for the inner wing section where the fuel tank is.  2 sec burst and it's a candle.  the .303 is a buzz saw at less than 250 yrds.

[Tank-Ace]

IS-2 can knock out most tanks including the Tiger and Panther without having to actually penetrate the armor. I.e few cases the turret was enough to become disabled from it.

Too bad that the spalling from the crappy LW armor isn't modeled, and the potential in real life is entirely irrelevent without a fairly major overhaul of the system.


KV-2 might actually be a useful addition then, as would the SU-152.