Author Topic: 50 Cal verse Tank (Read 1795 times)

Toad · « **Reply #60 on:** August 07, 2002, 05:55:08 PM »

Why do tanks instantly spawn 20 miles from their VH, depriving the players of hours of enjoyment driving their slow crawling armor over the beautiful terrains?

Why do tanks run down hill at 100+ mph?

Why does an Osty with a 37mm nearly always kill a tank with 75mm at max range in a nose-to-nose slugout?

Answers:

A. Because this is a game

B. Because the damage model is "off".

C. Because HTC has been so busy doing other more important stuff that they haven't revisited the entire GV issue

D. All of the above.

Karnak · « **Reply #61 on:** August 07, 2002, 07:28:36 PM »

Masherbrum,

The Mollins 6pdr used AP ammo. It was intendedas an anti-armor gun, and it did work quite well against U-Boats and freighters.

However, the armor on German tanks was too thick for it to be much use, and the lighter vehicles could be destroyed with 20mm fire. There was no need for the 57mm gun. It was overkill for many things, nad not good enough for the targets that a new weapon system was needed for.

Vulcan · « **Reply #62 on:** August 07, 2002, 07:42:15 PM »

Funny I see em and do em all the time.

Where in the rules does it say you HAVE to dive at 300mph?

Quote

Originally posted by Shiva
From the attacks I've watched from the target's view, I have never seen an attacker attempting to strafe my tank from a dive angle more than 45°, which from the diagram you reference would give no chance at all to penetrate the top armor, and no data about penetrating the side armor -- but if the side armor is at least as thick as the top armor (pretty well guaranteed), the .50 fire would have no chance to penetrate the armor there.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #63 on:** August 07, 2002, 07:52:01 PM »

This whole thing is running in circles because people are completely convoluting the issue.

There's no sense in arguing that a .50 cal AP round could not penetrate the top of a panzer because it is possible. Those using terms such as "never" and "impossible" need to get out more.

Toad is on the money for the rest of it... with the exception that somehow we are only talking about Panzers. Ostwinds are too well armored in the turret and M-16, M3s and M8s are too well armored period.

None of this really matters much because the game is called Aces High.

Also notice... I've not seen HTC defend their current GV damage model. All I've ever seen from them is a reply to the "its impossible for a .50 to penetrate the top armor of a panzer" posts.

The whole thing is getting downright silly. Nice of some people to really start going on the rampage here.

AKDejaVu

SKurj · « **Reply #64 on:** August 07, 2002, 08:29:52 PM »

keep fighting brady!!

you've got many supporters, even if they aren't as persistent! +)

SKurj

Stranger · « **Reply #65 on:** August 07, 2002, 08:47:35 PM »

Infantry used to put .50s on top of buildings and take out tanks with them because of the lighter armor on top. If they could do so an AC should be able to do the same. Can't remember where I read that but it was more than one source.

0scar · « **Reply #66 on:** August 07, 2002, 10:41:31 PM »

Hmm. just saw special on cable about p47 pilots in ETO and in interviews with combat pilots they commented on destroying Tiger tanks with their 50cals by strafing the fuel trailers the Tigers would pull while in transit to the front lines or by bouncing the 50cal rounds off the roadway and penetrating the belly armor.
These actions I believe mainly took place during Normandy invasion and the months after as far as these pilots actions.

They also spoke of a major operation that was conducted that virtually annialated the Luftwaffe in one day involving nearly 2000 fighter & bombers in an all out attack on Luftwaffe airfields, I think I recall that they destroyed several hundred Luftwaffe aircraft in a single day on the ground mainly and in the air.

Turbot · « **Reply #67 on:** August 07, 2002, 10:54:59 PM »

We all know how it is. As for armor though, Hotseat in Warbirds did a damn fine job that is just a fact - but in all fairness that is a totally different damage model too. AH GV's have never been that strong a selling point, I did a trial some time back and the GV's were even worse (enough to pass on subscribing at that time)

The Gv's we have now are "OK" but perfect - no way! Still though I'd rather see HTC spend time on airplane stuff first.

Wotan · « **Reply #68 on:** August 07, 2002, 11:10:14 PM »

dont drag up the impossible.

no tanks were killed by 50 cals on a building. No tanks were killed by bouncing rounds off the ground.

Those are dead rediculous issues and have nothing to do with this what is being talked about here.

Yes 50 cals can penetrate the top armor but at angles and ranges that make those hits near impossible. But even so thats not what we see in ah. I dont think anyone is saying that 50 cals in general are too strong but they are saying that they way gvs in particular the panzer recieve damage from ranges and angles is "screwy".

No one is calling for ht to stop everything and fix it and we know this a game. GVs are but a side show. But the fella who started this thread asked a pretty good question. The replies should be focussed on answering him.

We see 50 cal planes at lo angles, 20-25 degrees, at ranges in excess of d500 destroying tanks. We see lvts m16s and m3 disabling and destroying tanks at angles that are seem impossible.

Dont confuse whats being talked with your own bias.

at 70 degress and at 300 yrds 50 cals killing tanks would not be much of a concern for me.

Please keep the crazy bullet bouncing stuff out of here.

Kweassa · « **Reply #69 on:** August 07, 2002, 11:16:00 PM »

Interesting.

Then why did they get rid of the 'car-bombings'? Is that not theoretically possible?

Or why don't they allow B-26s to get off from carriers? If a B-25 did that historically, we could limit the bomb load and let them off the CV, right?

How come they decide to keep something in favor "possibilty" when they decide to get rid of some other thing in favor of "probability"?

There are a lot more cases of 'realistically possible' or 'technically feasible' issues which the people have suggested to be included in AH, which was met with harsh scorn from the very same people here as they were referred to as "almost impossible in real life", "very slim chance", "unlikely case and not an example of any kind". Talk about being "selective"! "Slim chance", "unlikely case" meant something back then, but it doesn't mean anything now?

....

So what is it we're talking about here? Are the arguments in favor of the MG penetration based on gameplay concession or reality? Or is it both?

One thing for sure, either way, it stinks.

Consider it in the aspect of game play concession: it killed the need and usage for special ground-attack vehicles in the game. It creates an exclusive over usage of certain type of vehicles and planes. The only 'concession' here is but to enable people too lazy to up a proper anti-tank platform to go kill everything else in a MG armed fighter.

Considering it in the aspect of realism: it emphasizes on the "possibility" part only, with no regard to "probability".

....

Unless somebody comes up with something proving a lot of tanks were destroyed by MG strafing, the fact of AH will continue to be BS.

Toad · « **Reply #70 on:** August 07, 2002, 11:51:28 PM »

The penetration/angle model may be off. I don't know. I get the distinct feeling Pyro thinks it is pretty close though.

I know I have to get real close and make several passes to kill a fresh GV with .50's and I rarely live long enough to make 3-4 passes if I try. But that's just my own problem.

Anyway.....

So then how do you feel about 100+ MPH downhill in a tracked vehicle?

"Scotty, Beam me to the spawn point" transporter rooms for GV's that allow a GV to instantly snap back to a spawn point after a death... faster than a fresh killed fighter can even get airborne to start his 5 minute flight back to that same spawn point?

Crewman that stands to his Turret MG as a Jug rolls in with 8 .50's.. and wins that battle with no bodily damage?

Gameplay or reality?

GV's are indeed a problem right now.

If you had to make a choice right now would you prefer to:

1. Take them out. They're too porked and there's no resources to do a major overhaul at this time.

2. Leave them in as they are and accept the problems and get to the overhaul later.

Just curious.

Voss · « **Reply #71 on:** August 08, 2002, 12:01:30 AM »

Last tour I killed one Spitfire Mk. I. This Spit knocked out both tracks, the engine, and disabled the turret and pintle. I had hit him once with the pintle gun. That round hit his engine oil and he augered trying to make it back to base, but only after making at least four more passes on me (and finishing my tank). No, he didn't kill me, and fortunately there wasn't anything else nearby that could shoot at me. I sat in the tank until I got the kill message and then got captured. I was just 200yds from an enemy spawn point, and completely out of luck. He didn't have rockets, he could not attack from the rear (I had backed up to a hill), and he made low angle passes, which explains why I was able to shoot back on his first pass.

The last time I checked the Spit. Mk. I did not have .50 cal MG's. How do you feel about .303's disabling a Panzer IV?

I can tell you it doesn't bother me to have an aircraft kill my Panzer. I've been on the other side of the fence enough to know how easy it is (100 GV's in 4 hours with a Tiffy), but a plane with .303's?

I think the DM should be modified to knock out the pintle gun after some heavy fire, but require more fire to disable the 75mm. I thought I remembered the 75mm sight being killable, but it doesn't happen anymore. It seems to be a random event as to whether the turret or engine takes the damage, as why does the engine die on frontal attacks? Why des the pintle and main turret always die together?

Sure, we can live with it like it is (the Panzer can still be very effective), but it would be nice to have a few more details thrown in at some point down the road.

Yeah, I drive too many Panzers, but I enjoyed killing 242 of them last tour.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #72 on:** August 08, 2002, 12:18:47 AM »

Damn voss.. I can see some argument for .50's damaging a panzer and potentially killing it from the top...

Just can't see it with .303s... no matter how its presented.

AKDejaVu

Stranger · « **Reply #73 on:** August 08, 2002, 12:24:43 AM »

.303s huh? You do have a point there, that shouldn't happen in any world I know of.

Voss · « **Reply #74 on:** August 08, 2002, 12:46:42 AM »

Well, somethings screwey. I tried this in the TA and despite three Spit Mk. 1's attacking there was no damage done.

I'll check my film library to see if I recorded it.

No film.

DJ111 and I tried to strafe Panzers in the TA. The ammo loads are double there (approx.) and neither of us could kill one Panzer with a full load of Bf110 (him) and Tiffy (me). In the MA I can usually take down five panzers with guns only (Tiffy). Of course, they ditch once they are smoking, but I do make them explode occasionally.

IN the TA .303's appear to be useless, though. 50's smoked the tank, but never made it explode. 20mm's same, and 30mm too.

In the MA I have been killed outright by .50 cal fire, and the Spit incident I recounted above I had checked upon immediately following the incident. Something must have been amiss that night.

It's all good.