Author Topic: Hurricane IIc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yeeeeeesssss! (Read 2126 times)

DingHao2 · « **Reply #75 on:** August 13, 2001, 04:41:00 PM »

I try to clear up what i meant and I get squeaking and moaning. Ok. The comparison to the Hurricane in WWII and Vietnam? It was faster and newer planes (think F-4 and G-10: both faster and newer planes at the time they saw action) vs. older, slower, and more maneuverable planes (think MiG-17 and Hurricane IIC). And the NVAF was quite effective for the amount of training they recieved--not much. And the Phantom II's just had to get visual confirmation of the target, then zoom away and fire their Sparrows @ standoff range @ the same radar contact. But they didn't. They were forced into low and slow dogfighting. So the old slower planes (MiG-17, Hurricane IIC) dictated the fight against the newer, faster planes (F-4, G-10). If a Phantom II couldn't dictate the fight, then how is a G-10 ALWAYS going to do the same? It guzzles fuel. It's got a pathetic ammo loadout. It's got less effective ordinance than most HO and B&Z planes (and don't try to dumb down the effectiveness of those Hispanos).
And I do want the Ta-152 perk price lowered or eliminated, since it only starts to show up @ 30k+ (and it still isn't going to pull more than 5.5 G's. And if u don't think u'll win against one @ 30k, then why'd u climb up there anyway, if u think he'll kill u? Why do I think the RAF doesn't need another fighter? They already got the 2nd most popular bird. They need effort put into the roles that aren't covered.

The bottom line:
Always try to force your adversaries to fight on YOUR terms, not on his terms.

Please don't squeak and moan: I'm expressing my opinion, just as the RAF fans express their opinions why they want the Spit Mk. XIV/Mk. 9LF.
Thank you very much.

Rude · « **Reply #76 on:** August 13, 2001, 04:42:00 PM »

Guys that criticize....what fun!

Kieran · « **Reply #77 on:** August 13, 2001, 05:02:00 PM »

Ding, your Phantom/MiG analogy just doesn't compare. I perfectly understand what you are saying, but perfectly disagree.

This is the MA, not Viet Nam. MA pilots can choose to leave the fight if the odds get tough, more so than pilots could in VN. What's more, your assumption that just because (in your opinion) the Phantom couldn't cope with the MiG's it would be the same with the Hurri is just inconclusive at best.

The faster plane dictates the fight because the faster plane can leave. If you try to run, the faster plane will catch you.

dic·tate (dktt, dk-tt)
v. dic·tat·ed, dic·tat·ing, dic·tates
v. tr.

1. To say or read aloud to be recorded or written by another: dictate a letter.

2.

a) To prescribe with authority; impose: dictated the rules of the game.
b) to control or command: “Foreign leaders were... dictated by their own circumstances, bound by the universal imperatives of politics” Doris Kearns Goodwin).

Urchin · « **Reply #78 on:** August 13, 2001, 05:11:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran:

Wow. What I have said is that a Mustang or a G10 can dictate the fight. A well-flown G10 or Mustang owns the Spit. *Let me clarify this point for you* The Spit cannot catch the G10 or Mustang as they extend, ready to return when the advantage is theirs! It isn't a draw.

Focus on the whole picture, not just the little pieces.

And when they return to bounce the Spit again, the same thing happens. I.E. a Draw. Unless the G10 or P51D is going to follow the Spitfire home when it goes to land, a good spitfire pilot should never be shot down by a 109G10 or a P51 . To take a quote from you, I understand what you are saying perfectly, I just perfectly disagree ;-).

Thats also why I think the Hurri will be dogmeat in the MA. Both the Niki and the Spit can outrun it, and the Spit and maybe the Niki can outturn it. Hence, the poor hurricane will have nothing to do if a Spit bounces it.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Urchin ]

DingHao2 · « **Reply #79 on:** August 13, 2001, 05:17:00 PM »

We'll just see who's right in v1.08. We'll just see.

voulez · « **Reply #80 on:** August 13, 2001, 06:29:00 PM »

I personally don`t see what all the fuss is about...I HO in practically *every* plane i fly-& usually get shot down doing it.....(g)
...but *any* new plane to play with in AH is very welcome in my book.
...Now ...Where`s my Mossie??...

DingHao2 · « **Reply #81 on:** August 13, 2001, 09:20:00 PM »

As I said before...We will see who's really right...We will see...

Kieran · « **Reply #82 on:** August 13, 2001, 09:29:00 PM »

Oh, if you mean there will be whines about HO'ing Hurricanes, I agree.

We don't have the planes yet, and the whining is already here.

DingHao2 · « **Reply #83 on:** August 14, 2001, 04:21:00 PM »

Again: w/ the arrival of 1.08, we shall see...

Thud · « **Reply #84 on:** August 20, 2001, 07:29:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ding_Hao:
[QB]I try to clear up what i meant and I get squeaking and moaning. Ok. The comparison to the Hurricane in WWII and Vietnam? It was faster and newer planes (think F-4 and G-10: both faster and newer planes at the time they saw action) vs. older, slower, and more maneuverable planes (think MiG-17 and Hurricane IIC). And the NVAF was quite effective for the amount of training they recieved--not much. And the Phantom II's just had to get visual confirmation of the target, then zoom away and fire their Sparrows @ standoff range @ the same radar contact. But they didn't. They were forced into low and slow dogfighting. So the old slower planes (MiG-17, Hurricane IIC) dictated the fight against the newer, faster planes (F-4, G-10). If a Phantom II couldn't dictate the fight, then how is a G-10 ALWAYS going to do the same? QB]

Oh my, the cliches and lack of facts:

- On the training statement, regarding dogfighting the NVAF had an overwelming advantage, the MIG drivers were taught dogfighting skills to some extent. The US pilots only learned intercept skills, don't forget that the initial role of the phantom was to intercept USSR bombers in a nuclear war and its pilots were trained for just that. So in fact the vietnamese had the training advantage, no wonder they were quite effective in relation to their training, LOL.

- On the statement that the F4's were forced into low, slow fights: Early in the war many US pilots tried to turn with the MIG's because its instinctive, unless you have been taught proper energy fighting. When the US pilots started to use the phantom's power in the vertical and its accelleration the MiG's never had a chance. Even without cannons the energy tactic always worked when properly executed. Basic knowledge: unless used with total ignorance the faster, more powerful fighter always dictates the fight. Especially when the speed/power margin is so blatant as in the F-4/MiG-17 match-up.

Than on the Hurri (S! Finally), in the desert war the Hurri II had a very diffcult time against the 109-F's because usually it could not get its four guns to bear on the enemy. Same will be the case in AH. Even in Hist. scenarios it will take a lot of skill to survive in the hurri.

Thud out

Kieran · « **Reply #85 on:** August 20, 2001, 04:23:00 PM »

Quote

Basic knowledge: unless used with total ignorance the faster, more powerful fighter always dictates the fight.

Amen, Brother.

Pei · « **Reply #86 on:** August 20, 2001, 05:06:00 PM »

<yawn>
nice hurricane by the way

streakeagle · « **Reply #87 on:** August 20, 2001, 07:35:00 PM »

Survivable or not, the Hurricane is a welcome addition in my eyes: another new plane with its own distinctive traits. I have never liked them much. I always found Spitfires more pleasing to the eye with higher performance to boot. But, they are as important, if not more, than the Spitfire in the British air war efforts in WWII. Anybody who screamed for the Il-2 should be supporting those happy to see the Hurricane based on its historical significance and potential entertainment value in scenarios and arenas.

Kieran · « **Reply #88 on:** August 20, 2001, 07:40:00 PM »

Amen, Brother!