Ok so I don't care for GV's much but...

[maxtor]

Originally posted by Mathman
And yet another thread gets spoiled by the "Great Luftwhiner Crisis of 2002/2003".

...and note how it was started.  Toad's remark was rude and uncalled for.  I have seen this pattern before, no doubt will again.

[lazs2]

So deja... should the guy with the turrent gun be able to survive a few hundred .50 rounds bouncing around?   should the crew in an open topped vehicle be able to survive a couple of hundred rounds rattling around inside their cage?

I admitted that I don't care for GV's... I also don't drop or even carry bombs.. so... maybe you can tell me... Is the damage done to GV's by bombs accurate or not?

Or... as some have said.... Like with fluffs.... should we just suspend realism in this case so far as damage modling goes even tho it is not a function of not being ABLE to model the damage so much as simply not modling it to help gameplay?  

And... If this is the case then why not modify the damage model of the CV's to help gameplay and make them about 5 times harder to kill... that would help gameplay.

Or...is your only point that you don't like me bringing it up?
lazs

[Rude]

Originally posted by Toad
Sorry. Just been reading the Book of Proverbs and I'm going to take the advice therein.

Now that is wise:)

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2

Or... as some have said.... Like with fluffs.... should we just suspend realism in this case so far as damage modling goes even tho it is not a function of not being ABLE to model the damage so much as simply not modling it to help gameplay?  

What you fail to realize lazs is that the damage model for the GVs is flawed in the wrong direction. It is much too easy to kill GVs in this game.

All your talk about spraying the turret full of .50cal would work on the HTs and the Flakpanzers sure, and it is possible right now to kill those vehicles with MGs only. But the tanks...the PzIVs and the PzVIs are wayy too easy to kill right now.

So watch out what your wishing for. Because if we would get a correct GV damage model, you would not be able to kill tanks at all, unless you used bombs or rockets and scored pretty much direct hits.

[Widewing]

Let’s face facts; GV MGs do not even come close to reflecting reality. First of all, they are extremely vulnerable to fire from aircraft. If you have ever seen photos of armored vehicles after being strafed by aircraft, many of the turret-mounted MGs are missing, having been carried away by gunfire. No tanker would trade shots with a strafing fighter, simply because death was a near certain result.

In addition, having fired countless numbers of rounds through Browning M2HB .50 caliber MGs, I can tell you that hitting a moving truck at 1000 yards is a challenge, much less hitting an aircraft moving along at 300+ mph. There’s a reason vehicles like the M16 Motor Gun Carriage were developed. Armored vehicles simply cannot defend themselves against air attack.

In this game, GV mounted MGs seem to have laser sights, with ballistic computers. The guns are virtually immune to enemy gunfire, and it the gunner is fully bulletproof.

While a 250 lb bomb may not overturn a tank, it will toss a halftrack around like a toy. We also do not see the stun effect the over-pressure shock wave generates.

Resulting from the massive aerial bombardment preceding the Operation Cobra breakout (France, 1944), Advancing American troops found Mk.V Panthers lying upside down, have suffered near misses by 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombs.

I’ve made repeated strafing runs on M3s (halftrack), with no obvious effect. Yeah, right! 200 hits of .50 cal. API would have left it looking like a sieve. Meanwhile, that single, unprotected, completely exposed .50 cal MG shoots the wing of off my F6F! Gentlemen, it’s way beyond laughable.

I’ve killed 3 fighters with the 7.92mm machinegun on a Panzer Mk.IV! A Zeke, a 190 and a Typhoon!

Ridiculous!

Let’s not ignore PTs either. I’ve dropped a pair of 1k bombs within a boat-length of a PT, with no effect. I didn’t even get an assist when ship guns later killed it. The hydrostatic over-pressure of those bombs detonating would have crushed the plywood hull of the PT like an eggshell.

I’m with Lazs. These “concessions to game play” move well beyond reality, deep into the twilight zone.

My regards,

Widewing

[Hortlund]

Personally I dont see why it should be harder to hit an aircraft using a turret mounted .50 cal than hitting a fighter with a buff mounted .50 cal. What you say about tank gunners applies just as well to buff gunners.

Anyway, the stun effects of a 250 pound bomb stops when it hits the armor of a tank. If you think that the stun effects of a bomb will pass through armor without penetrating that armor first, think again.

Using Operation Cobra as an example of the effects of air weapons on tanks is a bit misleading since the USAF came with something like 1000 heavies and blasted a hole in the German lines. No one can tell exactly what had happened to those tanks. But I agree, a large bomb on 1 000 kg would probably tip a tank.

As for the results of your strafing runs on M3s, by the sound of it you must have missed the HT or you must have failed to hit any important components. Since AH doesnt model the crew or the passengers, thats the reason why you didnt get any results.

To me it sounds as if your major beef would be with the damage model of the .50 cal and nothing else...

[BenDover]

add crew mem........add crew to vehicles!

[Furious]

you should be able to kill the troops while they are sitting in the back of the M3.

[Kelly[KGN]]

Hi,

an idea about realism and bomb impact close to vehicles.
The typical bombs do not detonate when the tip touches the ground or it's shock wave is going to all directions, it explodes (depending on the ground) more or less in the ground...so the shockwave is a cone upwards. the harder the ground is, the wider the cone.
That's one of the reasons why the Luftwaffe failed badly at dunkirk, the bombs had way less effects than usual because the ground was soft/sand, so a tank, or even inf could survive a nearby hit.
I guess you all remeber the bombs later used in russia with those shaft + a kind of plate as detonator...those bombs have a shock wave going in all directions.

just my 2 cent about bombs, GVs and realism.

[StracCop]

I personally have grown quite fond of GVs.
In fact, I spend 80% of my time in them since the last update.

I get a kick out of those who complain about how hard it it to kill one.  Over the last 2 days I and many of my countrymen spent hours and hours trying to capture 64.  Sometimes we got lucky and had air support.  Othertimes...most of the time...we were bare-arsed naked with tons of read fireflies hovering above our heads.

We were getting bombed, rocketed, machine-gunned, sniped by spawncampers, sniped by prepositioned Mk.IVs and Mk.VI's in a crossfire that was a sight to behold.  We were ambushed as we crested the hill and yes, we were being slaughtered by those B-17 jabo raids.  We were trying to drive, evade and shoot back at Panzers with our main guns and aircraft with our pintle MGs...all the while trying to avoid hitting a tree and dying...and frantically searching for a gear that would allow us to move up those damn hills at more than a drunken snails pace.  Guys were getting killed within a minute or two of having spawned...if wreckage persisted on the map it would have looked like Falaise or the Kuwaiti Highway of Death...times 10.....and you want it to be easier to kill GVs?

Fellas, we were blowing up and dying all over the place.  The craters were so numerous I couldn't see to drive through them.  It was amazing the persistance of these GVs but hey, it was fun as well.  That persistence wore off for some of us but many stuck with it.  If it were any easier to die, nobody would have bothered.

Oh yea, I almost forgot to mention that during this carnage someone would occasionally kill a fighter with a pintle mount MG...occasionally.  It was far more likely that a pilot would compress into the ground trying for that kill shot.

Spend some time in some GVs and you'll quickly come to the conclusion that the ground war is a real war and that Gvs have an amazingly tough time of it.  Make them easier to kill?  LOL  
The opposite should be done.  Make them less vulnerable to aircraft.

Get in one for a while and you'll agree.  Running GVs is a real biatch....er, challenge!

David
"wings flutter while treads trample"

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Personally I dont see why it should be harder to hit an aircraft using a turret mounted .50 cal than hitting a fighter with a buff mounted .50 cal. What you say about tank gunners applies just as well to buff gunners.

Anyway, the stun effects of a 250 pound bomb stops when it hits the armor of a tank. If you think that the stun effects of a bomb will pass through armor without penetrating that armor first, think again.

Using Operation Cobra as an example of the effects of air weapons on tanks is a bit misleading since the USAF came with something like 1000 heavies and blasted a hole in the German lines. No one can tell exactly what had happened to those tanks. But I agree, a large bomb on 1 000 kg would probably tip a tank.

As for the results of your strafing runs on M3s, by the sound of it you must have missed the HT or you must have failed to hit any important components. Since AH doesnt model the crew or the passengers, thats the reason why you didnt get any results.

To me it sounds as if your major beef would be with the damage model of the .50 cal and nothing else...

I think you are confusing mechanical shock with atmospheric over-pressure. A direct hit would transmit dangerous mechanical shock throughout the vehicle. Any portion of one's body in contact with the interior of the tank would provide a conduit for that shock. It may not kill you, but it could possibly break bones. Atmospheric shock is that resulting from a dramatic rise in air pressure. Any people in an open vehicle would suffer the blast of air pressure that can cause serious injury to ear and eyes, not to mention being hit by debris flying about at very high speed. A 250 pound bomb striking a tank may not penetrate the armor, but the crew will be seriously rattled at the very least.

As to Buff guns; Well, ask any B-17 or B-24 gunner to examine our game modeling and you'll get a big laugh from them. Typically, firing at anything beyond 600 yards was a waste of ammunition. I read somewhere that it was estimated that it took 800 rnds of ammo expended for each hit on a German fighter, and as many as 14,000 rnds fired for each plane shot down. In AH, a short squirt from 1,200 yards will slice the wing off of your fighter. Again, it's like they have laser sights and ballistic computers.

Stop and think about this; These guns all have ring and bead sights!!!

Once again, this is all concession to game play. If AH bomber guns were as ineffective as they actually were, no one would fly singles or 3 plane formations of bombers. It would force them to fly in big formations and/or have an escort.... Gee, just like in the real world!

It's not the modeling of the .50 cal. gun, it's the laser accurate sights that bothers me. That, and the fact that you can't kill the gunners.....

My regards,

Widewing

[StracCop]

That, and the fact that you can't kill the gunners.....

My gunner is smart enough to duck back down into the turret and button down when he sees a plane attacking..

David
"wings flutter while treads trample"

[SlapShot]

What do bombers and their gun modeling have to do with GVs and this topic ?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by SlapShot
What do bombers and their gun modeling have to do with GVs and this topic ?

Hortland wrote: "Personally I dont see why it should be harder to hit an aircraft using a turret mounted .50 cal than hitting a fighter with a buff mounted .50 cal. What you say about tank gunners applies just as well to buff gunners."

That's where we drifted to Buff guns...

My regards,

Widewing

[SlapShot]

Ahhh .. thats where you got your foot in the door ...