Author Topic: Post WWII (Read 2461 times)

whgates3 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 05, 2002, 06:55:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
You didn't just suggest the B-29. You suggested the Sabe, Shooting Star and MiG jets. They did not blow anything up in WW2.

P-80 blew up a lot of top fighter/test pilots during WWII, most notably Richard Bong & it flew a few operational missions, but saw no combat...

Ike 2K# · « **Reply #16 on:** December 05, 2002, 09:24:57 PM »

can we have nuke weapons in A.H. bomb arsenal????

Fancy · « **Reply #17 on:** December 05, 2002, 09:40:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ike 2K#
can we have nuke weapons in A.H. bomb arsenal????

Look, you're sort of new here. Don't you think it'd be a good idea to just sit back and get a feel for the place before you get up on the soapbox. In plain english: LURK MORE.

Now that I've got that out of the way, why don't you try to bring an argument to light as it's obvious you'll get nowhere with this approach. So, what would A-bombs bring to AH as a GAME[/b]? Enlighten us.

Jester · « **Reply #18 on:** December 06, 2002, 12:12:10 AM »

Besides - you would only get TWO A-Bombs - gonna be a HELL of a fight to see who gets to drop them.

What we REALLY need is the VIETNAM THEATER in AH.
THUDS, PHANTOMS, BUFFS from Land Bases - CRUSADERS, PHANTOMS, INTRUDERS & SCOOTERS from CV's vs. MIG 17s, 19s & 21's and SA-2's.

Lets go DOWNTOWN folks!

Tarmac · « **Reply #19 on:** December 06, 2002, 12:29:24 AM »

Ike, you seem new. I've been lurking on this BB for a while, so I'll fill you in on some things. I'm by no means a BB expert, but I'll give things a shot.

There are people pushing (or whining, depending on your POV) to get the B-29A into AH. Do a BB search if you're interested in reading the thread. The general drift of things also seems to be that an A-bomb would be too unbalancing for the MA. But I agree that the 29 would be cool to see someday.

These are all just BB discussions, meaning there's been no official word or even rumors from HTC (that i know of).

Don't forget that the AH planeset is far from complete, and constantly in development. I don't think HTC would leave the B-29 out, so I hope it's just a matter of when they get around to it. I think there's a lot of higher-priority gameplay stuff out there first.

As for the non-WWII planes... i vote no.

Ike 2K# · « **Reply #20 on:** December 06, 2002, 02:58:42 AM »

RE from andijg

Besides - you would only get TWO A-Bombs - gonna be a HELL of a fight to see who gets to drop them.

What we REALLY need is the VIETNAM THEATER in AH.
THUDS, PHANTOMS, BUFFS from Land Bases - CRUSADERS, PHANTOMS, INTRUDERS & SCOOTERS from CV's vs. MIG 17s, 19s & 21's and SA-2's.

Lets go DOWNTOWN folks!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

my response:

whoa, Korea theater would be more appropriate for AH since engagements for fighters are still close-in fight rather than BVR (beyond visual range) fight. What everyone wants here is like fighting in swords than using machine guns in ground battle.

Ike 2K# · « **Reply #21 on:** December 06, 2002, 04:05:01 AM »

Jester · « **Reply #22 on:** December 06, 2002, 10:28:55 AM »

Ike, if you will re-read your history books you will find most kills made in the Vietnam war was with the AIM-9 Sidewinder. Because of the Lousy weather & limited Technology of the time the Rules of Engagement stated you had to Visually identify a target before you could fire a missle. Doesn't sound much like FALCON 4.0 does it.

NO GUTS, NO GLORY

Vermillion · « **Reply #23 on:** December 06, 2002, 11:33:29 AM »

I figure you can count the number of BVR kills in Vietnam on one hand. And I think one or two of those were fratricide.

You guys have a serious misconception on how effective missles were during the early days. You've been playing Falcon 4.0 WAYYYY too much.

For the entire Vietnam war the percentage of missle hits of correctly fired missles were in the 10%-15% range. And that doesn't count malfunctions of missles that never fired (which was quite common) or missles that were blatently fired out of parameters.

Another example of early missle effectiveness is the Arab-Israeli Six day war (same period as Vietnam). Over 75% of all air to air kills were achieved with guns.

Hawklore · « **Reply #24 on:** December 06, 2002, 11:41:59 AM »

Closest you can get to a B-29 without adding to the US armarment...

is the PE-8 it can carry a nuke..

bigUC · « **Reply #25 on:** December 06, 2002, 11:55:29 AM »

How about a Civil War arena? We could observe each other from ballons...

AtmkRstr · « **Reply #26 on:** December 06, 2002, 12:13:11 PM »

No.

The B-29 would be ok as a high cost perk bomber. Nukes would be ok for an insanely high cost, ie an average of one or two nukes used in the MA per week or so, so that the average player is inside the MA on average once per month when a Nuke is used. That would price it in the order of 10,000 perks.

Shiva · « **Reply #27 on:** December 06, 2002, 12:27:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Andijg
Ike, if you will re-read your history books you will find most kills made in the Vietnam war was with the AIM-9 Sidewinder. Because of the Lousy weather & limited Technology of the time the Rules of Engagement stated you had to Visually identify a target before you could fire a missle. Doesn't sound much like FALCON 4.0 does it.

You are aware that many of the US fighters of the early Vietnam period only had a gun if an external gun pod was mounted, because "guided missiles made guns obsolete", aren't you? When the aircraft don't carry guns, of course most kills are going to be made with a missile. And the engagement requirements of the Sparrow ensured that the Sidewinder would be a more effective dogfighting weapon.

Airscrew · « **Reply #28 on:** December 06, 2002, 01:01:03 PM »

Don't remember all the details,....but....

366TFW "Gunfighters" so named because they mounted 20mm (i think) gun pods on their F4C Phantoms because fights were too close for missles. Can't remember either but I think the F4D came with 20mm under the nose for the same reason.

Found some stuff...
The 366th TFW moved to Da Nang AB and regained the 390th FS in October 1966. While at Da Nang, pilots noted they were missing opportunities to shoot down enemy MiGs because the F-4C lacked a cannon and its missiles were ineffective at short ranges. So wing maintainers mounted an external 20-millimeter Gatling gun pod on the F-4Cs, and in less than a month the wing’s pilots had scored four MiG kills. The gun pod innovation and the MiG kills that followed earned the wing the nickname it carries today, the “Gunfighters.” During this period, the wing earned a Presidential Unit Citation for shooting down 11 enemy aircraft in a three-month period.

AirScrew

Jester · « **Reply #29 on:** December 06, 2002, 01:06:55 PM »

Shiva, the F-4 Phantom was about the only Fighter A/C that didn't have a gun (unless gun pod mounted). Several of the bombers didn't.

THOSE THAT DID:
F-8 Crusader - 4x20mm
F-105 THUD - 20mm Vulcan (Internal)
F-100 Super Sabre - 4x20mm
F-5 Freedom Fighter - 2x20mm
A-4 Skyhawk - 2x20mm
A-1 Skyraider - 4x20mm
B-52 Buff - 4x.50 cal mg's (in tail)
A-3 Skywarrior - 2x20mm (in tail)
MIG-17 3x23mm
MIG-19 3x30mm

THOSE THAT DIDN'T:
F-4 Phantom (Till the AF "E" Model came out)
A-6 Intruder
A-5 Vigilante
MIG-21

As for why most of the kills were made by missiles, especially the Sidwinder, you have to take in Vermillion's reasonings, plus the factors I mentioned together.

Another reason, at least as far as the Navy is concerened, is when a majority of the fleets fighters were Crusaders (with Guns) there weren't that many MIG's around. By the time the fleet had switched over to the Phantom (no gun) all they had to shoot was missiles.
Last reason, the Navy prefered the Sidewinder to the Sparrow as it was more reliable. The Air Force prefered the Sparrow which at the time had a very low reliability rate. Eventually they also switched to the Sidewinder which is why most kills in Vietnam (linked with the above reasons) were with that missile.