Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Citabria on April 28, 2000, 11:38:00 PM

Title: tank hardness
Post by: Citabria on April 28, 2000, 11:38:00 PM
these lightweight panzers cant be killed with direct hits from 500Lb bombs and 1000lb bombs sometimes dont kill them either

(I'm talking about direct hits on tank where theres no bomb crater cuz you deadeye the tank and see a little hit flash)


and even when its not dropped on the tanks head the tank can be in the center of the bomb crater and not die.


it just seems excessive
Title: tank hardness
Post by: moose on April 29, 2000, 03:35:00 AM
hmm  i have no troubles killing tanks  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

I use the  f4u 1c and about 10 well aimed rounds can kill it or at least put out the motor.

Bombing is very difficult because mostly the tanks are moving and i have tried bombing them with  b26 but the  slightest error gives a crater and no direct hit.

But a direct hit should kill the tank offcourse.
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Westy on April 29, 2000, 09:20:00 AM
The PAnzer DOES taking a beating and keeps on living.

 But. most often straffing will kill the engine, rockets or other hits will disable the turret and what ends up happening is there is an iron carcass sittig there unable to do anything but attracte the attention of the enemy for repeated attacks  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
 Happened to me in the Panzer twice yesterday. I figure after I lost the engine, the turret and then a track - all in under 5 minutes of bening attacked - that I provided good target practice for about 10 more minutes for the Bishops at A26.

 -Westy

-Westy
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Kieren on April 29, 2000, 10:18:00 AM
Westy Westy- ( (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))

You are kind to not have run screaming from a sure death!
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Westy on April 29, 2000, 10:26:00 AM
I thought it dishonorable to leave after being disabled.  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)  An '.ef' is the equivalent of an Alt F4, in my eyes, under those circumstances.

So I alloowed them to rip asunder my virtual body  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

  - (new handle, some day soon I think)

Title: tank hardness
Post by: Ghosth on April 29, 2000, 12:02:00 PM
I have to agree with Westy. Would dearly love to see tanks have to "Bail" and give someone a kill before .ef can happen.

Title: tank hardness
Post by: SC-GreyBeard on May 01, 2000, 02:07:00 AM
I agree,,,
all too often I've pinged a panzer, (from mine,) only to have him bail and avoid a kill...

seems awfully lame..
I've sat in a stranded tank waiting for up to 15 minutes to get finished off.




------------------
GreyBeard, Squadron Leader
Commander, "E" Flight, Aces High
Senior Staff Council
"The Skeleton Crew"
"Fly with Honor"[/i]
"Keepin' the Faith"
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Badger on May 01, 2000, 07:29:00 AM
With all due respect, I disagree.  It is not a correct battle drill to sit in a disabled tank waiting to die.

Sherman crews were trained religiously to "abandon" a NS (non-serviceable) tank.  NS was clarified to mean turret blockage or master weapon failure in either the advance or defense, or being rendered immobile if in the advance only.  If one was in a defensive position, being immobilized but still being able to provide effective fire support, meant staying with the vehicle.  If the vehicle could be driven out of the enemy's line of fire to the "fitter" group, than that was deemed appropriate, unless the crew had an immediate combat replacement.  In that case, they would abandon the tank in-place and mount the new vehicle.  The only cardinal sin ever drummed into me was NOT to abandon a fully serviceable tank

A lot of people think the analogy should be like the Captain going down with his ship, which is rubbish.  Trained crews are hard to replace, whereas equipment can be ferried up from the rear by the echelon squadron.

By the way, my old friend Gunner Harry, 1st Hussars (6th Cdn Armored Regt) 1941-68, actually did abandon a Sherman in-place with no damage whatsoever.  He was driving along a road in France shortly after June 11th, 1944 (the Black Day of the 1st Hussars), where they lost most of the Regiment to an SS Panzer division counter attack, therefore he had no wingman.  It was a narrow, barely two lane type thing and all of a sudden, a Tiger (he says) pulled across in front of them broadside at about 600 yards.  His Crew Commander hollered "shot action" (meaning load AP), "shell action" was HE and screamed into the intercom "no traverse - 600 Tank- front" (meaning select the tank target at 600 yards to your front).  The Loader/Op shoved an AP round up the breach and hollered "loaded".  Gunner Harry bore sighted (it filled the sighting scope) with a response "600 Tank - ON !! (meaning he was ready).  At this point, the Panzer begin to traverse its turret around 90 degrees towards them.  The CC yelled "Fire" and Gunner Harry yelled back "Firing Now" (don't want the Loader/Op to lose his hand behind breach, so the gunner always indicates he's firing) and he hammered his foot down on the electrical solenoid switch for the master weapon.  He said the round hit mid turret on the Panzer and angled off straight up in the air.  The CC repeated the fire order drill once again.  A second round deflected straight up in the air also.  The Panzer continued what appeared to be a manual slow traverse.  A third Sherman AP round was let loose and this one hit near rear deck, deflecting into the woods, but still no damage and the Panzer's turret was almost on them.  So, Gunner Harry's CC hollered, that's enough for us and told them to "bail".  Gunner Harry went out through the CC's cupola, following the CC as they dove off the Sherman and ran into the woods, falling into the grass.  He said that maybe 15 seconds later there was a bang and when he lifted his head out of the grass, his Sherman was "brewing up".  They ran through the woods and walked back to squadron HQ where they were issued a new Sherman that had come off the boats from England.  They never got into trouble for ditching that tank, but he did say he was some "p*&&%$" because he lost all his kit in the tank they abandoned, including his brandy snifter.    (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

Personally, I bail in AH without any guilt under all of the conditions I described.  The only time I haven't was at Field 30 last night.  I lost the master weapon, but still had MG.  "Thunder" was in another Panzer attacking two Panzers and three M16's.  I was 90 degrees to him, so I stayed in turret and fired MG in front of them.  HT told me MG fire was effective for simulating SMOKE rounds which we don't have, being loaded with only AP and HE.  I tried it and sure enough, he was right.  It created one heck of a great smoke screen in front of "Thunder" and I hope helped him "jockey" so he could get a clear shot at them.  I also laid smoke in front of the bad guys with MG as "Thunder" maintained "fire and movement".  I assume that they see on their FE what I see on mine (at least I hope so), as it does work very well.  Unfortunately, an F4Uc came along, probably saw my neon icon at 6k and decided he wanted an easy kill, so I was toast.

Regards,
Badger


[This message has been edited by Badger (edited 05-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Badger (edited 05-01-2000).]
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Revvin on May 01, 2000, 08:05:00 AM
Its a shame not all vehicle drivers share Westy's views on honour, all too often have I seen Panzer and M16 drivers .ef at the first sign of trouble, its annoying to find a vehicle, make your first pass while being fired on as you fly past the vehicle only to find when you turn and bring your guns to bear they .ef and you lose all the work you put in, your alt, ammo etc. HTC really need to look at this ASAP, pilots in AH can't .ef at the drop of a hat so why can vehicles?

------------------
Revvin
249 Squadron RAF
Tangmere Wing
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Ripsnort on May 01, 2000, 08:11:00 AM
What would fit is if the tanker bails while turret is enabled for firing, then its a kill award. If the turret is damaged, and the tanker bails, then no kill is awarded.

I find that any type of bomb placed near the tank disables "something", and a direct hit kills me everytime.  I'm not sure what bombs have dropped on me, but the direct hits I'm dead.

Cita, I'd be glad  to do some research in the TA with you when we are both online, you can practice dropping 500/1000 and we'll gets some facts and data, this will help  me with the 15th Panzer division and the community for what works, what doesn't.

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 05-01-2000).]
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Mighty1 on May 01, 2000, 08:28:00 AM
The only way I bail is if I am out of ammo or my turrent is disabled.

I feel if I'm going to drive for 1/2 hour I'm not leaving without a fight.

------------------
Mighty1
The New Baby Harp Seals

"Come try to club THIS Seal"
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Revvin on May 01, 2000, 08:33:00 AM
With all due respect Rip why should a pilot put all the work in necessary to damage the turret only to have the vehicle driver bail and the pilot getting no reward for his work? By damaging that turret I have expended alt and ammo and the driver bails leaving me with nothing?!? hardly seems fair from a pilots POV

------------------
Revvin
249 Squadron RAF
Tangmere Wing
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Badger on May 01, 2000, 08:55:00 AM
 
Quote
Originally posted by Revvin:
Its a shame not all vehicle drivers share Westy's views on honour......


Hi Revvin.....

Great to see you over here at AH....

With respect, as Patton once said, "the object of the exercise is NOT to die for your country, but to make the other dumb bastard die for his country".

I fail to see the honor in sitting inside a metal coffin that can't return fire, simply to prove how courageous one is.  Ironically, I was raised and trained in an environment that espoused the values of "duty, honor, courage", but nowhere did it say death by inaction was smart.

I do agree with your point about game "kills" being awarded.  A tank that has been abandoned, or for that matter a plane where a guy ditches, should give the victor his just reward.

Regards,
Badger


Title: tank hardness
Post by: Pongo on May 01, 2000, 09:18:00 AM
But badger...when you guys bailed out of your shermans did the vehicle dissapear?
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Badger on May 01, 2000, 09:31:00 AM
 
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo:
But badger...when you guys bailed out of your shermans did the vehicle dissapear?


Actually Pongo, that's a terrific point...

There should probably be smoking hulks left lying all over the battlefield.  They would make excellent "hull and turret downs" in an otherwise barren landscape.

As I commented to Revvin, a kill should be awarded to the victor regardless.  My point was purely about this perverted concept of somehow sitting in your tank to die with honor, instead of bailing to fight another day.

I think the problem here is we're speaking of two different issues.  One is about the Aces High "game" for scoring points, the other is about the reality of combat.

Regards,
Badger

Title: tank hardness
Post by: Ripsnort on May 01, 2000, 10:06:00 AM
Revvin,
I'd consider it the same as someone in an A/C that has had  his guns disabled, but is able to fly home after leaving the area.  Except Tanks have no alternative like a Runstand does, so at least give him an alternative...stay and fight, or, if you have no guns, give him the option of 'fleeing' like A/C do.
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Revvin on May 01, 2000, 10:53:00 AM
Perhaps I did not explain properly when I mentioned 'honour' of course in RL as you rightly point out Badger there is no honour in dying for no reason, in that example you gave I'd rather bail than die with honour, only a Klingon would respect that   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

What I meant by my comment was that Westy has honour for the 'game' ie he knows it only a game, not life or death but honours his assailant by letting the guy kill him and get rewarded with the kill instead of .esquealing and stealing the pilots chance of finishing him for the kill. You never know that pilot might auger into the ground next to you trying to make a second pass in which case you can both have a bloody good laugh over it   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) With Aces High being flat rate its not costing the likes of Westy to sit there and await his death unless of course there is nobody around to finsih him and then nobody would expect him to sit there for 4 hours in the vain hope somebody might see him   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

Of course with the current system Westy would have to wait for the pilot to kill him to give that pilot the kill but what would be better is if as soon as the driver .ef'ed then the pilot would get the kill. Or perhaps you would rather bail and run across the terrain and let the pilot straffe you and kill you outright?   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Perhaps we could have jeeps and other halftracks that could pick up stranded airmen and drivers who have bailed and take them home safe, perhaps have a radius in which if the airman/driver bails and there is not a friendly airfield within 2 miles or whatever distance you feel fair then unless he gets picked up he's counted as being captured by the enemy and the kill given to the pilot that shot him down.

Rip>  
Quote
Except Tanks have no alternative like a Runstand does
Yes but you chose the tank, by choosing that ride you chose how you would navigate the map. If I had a mustang then sure I wouldturn for home if my guns were disabled and try and land safely, however it was my undercarriage and flaps etc shot to bit and I crashed trying to land that Mustang then I would expect to give the kill to the pilot that did the damage in the same way that if he shot my wing off inflight I would also expect him to get the kill when I bailed.

  (http://freespace.virgin.net/revvin.revvin/249_Banner1.jpg)  

------------------
Revvin
249 Squadron RAF
Tangmere Wing

[This message has been edited by Revvin (edited 05-01-2000).]
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Greg 'wmutt' Cook on May 01, 2000, 12:56:00 PM
I think we do need a bail option for tanks, if not at an airfield or vehicle base.  Face it, it is a mission kill at the least.  
BTW, I think the damage that a panzer takes at the moment is about right.  .50cal's would have to be at very close range to damage even a Mk IV.  and I have had the odd turret or track hit from .50's.  The F4u-C Apache gunship however makes very short work of them   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

------------------
Greg 'wmutt' Cook
332nd Flying Mongrels

[This message has been edited by Greg 'wmutt' Cook (edited 05-01-2000).]
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Ripsnort on May 01, 2000, 01:14:00 PM
One more thing about tanks...has  anyone ever actually driven one back to the depot for "full points" award? In other words, one only gets 1/3 credit everytime he takes a tank out for any points they accumulate.  *if* these we're on the scoring website, it would read "Captured" on every mission for  me, I don't want to take another 25 min. to RTB. I've never returned a tank to base and haven't met anyone who has, takes too long.  Every mission a tanker has usually ends in two methods: Capture or death.

Tanks are already at a disadvantage, if anything, they need more of an adavantage or they will be history in 6 months or less.



[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 05-01-2000).]
Title: tank hardness
Post by: Mighty1 on May 01, 2000, 01:24:00 PM
Another thing about tanks and RTBing..The only place I've been able to "Land" a tank was on the runway.. everywhere else says I ditched.

Why would I drive all the way back just to see I ditched?


------------------
Mighty1
The New Baby Harp Seals

"Come try to club THIS Seal"