Author Topic: CV ack VS Sturmi group (Read 187 times)

Krusher · « **on:** November 27, 2002, 12:34:50 PM »

Whine on........................... ............................. ..........

Last night a group of 8 Sturmis dove on a CV.
All but one of the Sturmis were killed quickly, some with one ping.

Is the ack too strong or the sturmi armor to thin?

It just didnt seem right to lose 7 of the toughest planes to ack.

Whine off.......................... ............................. ...........

Drano · « **Reply #1 on:** November 27, 2002, 03:13:43 PM »

Fuggin Rats. hehe:D

Drano

Imp · « **Reply #2 on:** November 27, 2002, 03:14:59 PM »

Overall the Sturmi is pretty tough but some parts are not.

As for the ack well no comments

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #3 on:** November 27, 2002, 03:35:56 PM »

If you get someone decent on the 5" guns... nothing stands a chance.

AKDejaVu

Krusher · « **Reply #4 on:** December 03, 2002, 02:07:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Drano

Fuggin Rats. hehe:D

Drano

RATS gotta RAV (random act of violence)

hazed- · « **Reply #5 on:** December 03, 2002, 04:55:48 PM »

2 problems here:

one is as akdeja said , if there was a manned 5" gun then it is simply too easy to destroy aircraft like fighters.
Theres no need to even hit the aircraft as there is a huge area to aim for and with the proximity explosions you can hardly miss.

the second is the 190a8 'sturmi' (if im correct in thinking this is the aircraft you are refering to?) in AH isnt actually the sturmbock at all. What we have is a standard 190a8 with the option to add the sturmbock 30mm cannon loadout.

The sturmbock had armour of almost twice the thickness of the standard 190a8 including 30mm thick plexiglass on the sides of the cockpit and also 440lb more weight(with resulting performance loss).Extra armour around amunition boxes and an extra thick radiator ring armour.
If we had this on our 190 it would be much stronger/more durable but by no means able to withstand large calibre (40mm+)anti aircraft fire.There really isnt an aircraft that could even todays aircraft can be downed by 40mm.

I can understand the frustration but if it was any easier to kill the CV it would really be pointless to have in AH.
As we cant have a realistically sized carrier fleet , amounting to tens (if not hundreds in some cases!) of ships the only option open to HTC is to raise the durability of the ship and add a fierce AA defence.

seabat · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2002, 05:53:55 PM »

It was IL 2's.

frank3 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 06, 2002, 11:08:48 AM »

I've always known the ack on a cv is to strong...

Krusher · « **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2002, 01:37:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hazed-
I can understand the frustration but if it was any easier to kill the CV it would really be pointless to have in AH.

as mentioned by seabat it was the IL2.

And I really didnt care if we sunk it or not.

The thing was more of us should have survived the attack.

Krusher · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2002, 01:12:37 PM »

whine on-------

the more I fly the sturmi the less I like its toughness.

after flying the IL2 for over a week (niemen practice) I have noticed it really dosnt seem to take much damage at all. The tail falls off if you throw a rock at it. The wings are not much better.

whine off-------

hazed- · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2002, 01:25:32 PM »

ahhh the IL2?

well it does seem to be a bit weak for a legendarily 'tough' plane.

Although again when you talk fleet ack you are talking 40mm so it wouldnt or shouldnt survive being hit.

attacking a carrier with iL2s really wasnt the done thing in WW2 though was it? if it wasnt done in WW2 theres probably a good reason.....ie the il2 was too slow for the job?

again though like i said HTC is in a bit of a corner with CV. Its just not close enough to a real fleet in terms of size so they have to 'up' the gun lethality.We have had it weaker but the fleets died in droves so it was increased to help them survive a little longer.

maybe they should reduce it again but allow fleets to respawn a few miles from where they died some 30 mins later?

could solve the problem for both camps.Those that wasnt realistic chances of attacking it and those that dont want to wait 4 hours for another CV.

Krusher · « **Reply #11 on:** December 10, 2002, 08:51:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hazed-

again though like i said HTC is in a bit of a corner with CV. Its just not close enough to a real fleet in terms of size so they have to 'up' the gun lethality.We have had it weaker but the fleets died in droves so it was increased to help them survive a little longer.

maybe they should reduce it again but allow fleets to respawn a few miles from where they died some 30 mins later?

could solve the problem for both camps.Those that wasnt realistic chances of attacking it and those that dont want to wait 4 hours for another CV.

I am not really too concerned about the CV setup. I am wondering why the sturmi is so easy to kill.

After 30 + flights in the last few days I have noticed that ACK and enemy planes tend to knock the tail off (with what looks to me to be) almost without effort.

I am not a FM or DM or even a WWII aviation expert but..... I have seen (pictures) and read many accounts of IL2's taking an amazing amount of damage before structural failure.