Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: thebest1 on August 19, 2004, 08:05:28 PM
-
I think afew of the russian tanks on this websight (and italian) should be in AH http://www.onwar.com/tanks/
oh and does anyone know when the ki-84 comes out?
-
You think too little, and your link has so many popups, one can't even read !
T34 to AH !!!!!
-
Originally posted by Angus
You think too little, and your link has so many popups, one can't even read !
T34 to AH !!!!!
Angus, you need to get a popup stopper.
A neat sight on the T-34, http://www.gjames.com.au/chris/index.html
Scale models in 1/6 and 1/8 scale.
http://www.gjames.com.au/chris/index.html
Another neat site worth looking at, but for the Tiger 1, http://tiger1.info/
-
Angus one must use mozilla to get rid of pop ups.
T34=Nik come and get me!
No way to protect itself from the Air.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
T34=Nik come and get me!
No way to protect itself from the Air.
That is much less of an issue now that there are terrain obstacles and foliage cover coupled with Patch 8's toughening of armored GVs.
The T-34/85 would be the tank I'd use most, if it were not perked. I'd have to play with the T-34/76 before I could decide on it. The T-34/76's gun seems really underpowered.
-
I have Opera, it will do for the popups.
T34 would definately be used. It's roughly 10 miles faster than the Panzer, with equal to better firepower. It's small turret is also nicely shaped and hard to hit.
-
Shermie, baby! Think of it as an equalizer for the US planeset (and Russian one, for that matter) overpowering the German one so badly. :D
-
What does the Sherman have that the Panzer does not?
Unless it's either one of Hobart's amphibs or Brit modded one (longer with a very good AP cannon) I can see nothing.
However, the T34 was a more common tank in WW2 and a very FAST one.
Hell, even the Churchill has a chance, it was modded in so many different ways.
Although slow, there were mortar versions, flamethrower versions, anti mine versions, swamp versions, etc etc, - the first two being the ones useable for AH.
Just wonder what they will bring. My money is on the Sherman, but my wish would be the T34
-
Sherman would be very useful for scenarios and as a higher ENY tank that wouldn't relegate the high number side to using M-8s against Tigers. Instead they'd be in the....er....better position of using Shermans against Tigers.
-
At least the Sherman is a TANK, not a green sardine can on wheels. Kids could throw rocks at M8s and destroy em.
-
I was thinking we could use a dedicated tank destroyer. Something fast with a big gun and relatively lightly armored.
That would add variety and balance and would be cool for using in shoot and scoot ambushes with this new, busy terrain.
But for sheer historical value, I'd say we need the T-34.
Didn't even the 76 routinely eat panzers for breakfast? The larger gun could be the perk model.
The Sherman, while it's got the fact that it was a widely used US vehicle going for it, has little else to recommend it .
-
Sherman's merits are not to be highlighted in AH, such as reliability, flexibility, better track range, and not as loud (rubber belts)
....at least not soon.
The Sherman was OK vs the lighter Panzies in the desert, however dreadfully weak (Armour, profile &gun) in the beginning vs the Heavy German Tanks in Northern France.
I do recall some mods of the Sherman with a lengthened tower (I think) and a high velocity gun that equalled everything there was about in the armour piercing business. Maybe AH will feature an early and late Sherman?
Anyway, there were early and late T-34's as well, and some late ones also carried machine guns.
The Brits received some T34's from the Russians, and promptly declared that there was no finer tanks.
Bear in mind the Speed, 10 mph between aircraft already makes some difference, 10 mph between tanks makes a LOT.
-
Originally posted by Angus
What does the Sherman have that the Panzer does not?
Unless it's either one of Hobart's amphibs or Brit modded one (longer with a very good AP cannon) I can see nothing.
However, the T34 was a more common tank in WW2 and a very FAST one.
Hell, even the Churchill has a chance, it was modded in so many different ways.
Although slow, there were mortar versions, flamethrower versions, anti mine versions, swamp versions, etc etc, - the first two being the ones useable for AH.
Just wonder what they will bring. My money is on the Sherman, but my wish would be the T34
You pretty well managed to miss the point of my post entirely, didn't you?
The point: The Sherman being less uber than the Tiger and roughly equivilant to the Panzer (a little less uber, actually) sort of makes up for the supposed disparity between the German planeset and the Allies.
Related points:
Nothing needs modeling for the MA - period. Any MA argument of why this or that is a better uber choice is no better than "Give us the B-29!" or "Give us the Uberschturmhumptydoodle Mk 69 300 mm depleted uranium firing hovertank!"
Lots of things need modeling for historical settings ... the Sherman being a really GOOD choice because it was THE prime Allied MBT participant everywhere but the Eastern front. So the "more common tank" argument falls short when it comes to the actual number of events that would benefit from the modeling of the T34 instead of the Sherman. Though I wouldn't mind seeing the 34 modeled as well.
You may also want to research some of the very many mods the Sherman had.
:D
-
Well, my point is that the T34 has something to add to ALL sides of AH, both MA and Special Scenarios, while the Sherman would less so. Early Sherman= good fore some scenarios, but hangar queen in the MA.
However, the mods of it give it a fair chance, for late war Shermans with the high velocity AP gun could nicely punch a hole into a Tiger.
Sherman - T34....hmmm. Well, the new tank just has to be one of them.
-
I'd vote for T-34
This tank is very fast it's gun could make holes in Tigers front armor. It had very good armor design. It was one of the best tanks of WW2. Yes it can be used only at eastern front but...... it defenatly will be extreemly popular at MA for its suprior perfomance over Panzer.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
"Give us the Uberschturmhumptydoodle Mk 69 300 mm depleted uranium firing hovertank!"
LoL this is going to my sig!
-
The Russians received 4252 Shermans (~9% of T-34, T-34/85 production) under Lend/Lease, almost equally split between the 75mm and 76mm models.
Other tanks shipped to Russia:
M3A - 1676
M3A3 - 1386
Valentine - 2394
Cdn Valentine - 1388
Matilda - 1084
Churchull - 301
-
Originally posted by Arlo
"Give us the Uberschturmhumptydoodle Mk 69 300 mm depleted uranium firing hovertank!"
:lol Got to get me one of them!
-
Milo the Russian troops at stalingrad hated the shermans. They complained that they had no good armour and made lunch meat for the German Pnzr Mk III's and IV's.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Russians received 4252 Shermans (~9% of T-34, T-34/85 production) under Lend/Lease, almost equally split between the 75mm and 76mm models.
Other tanks shipped to Russia:
M3A - 1676
M3A3 - 1386
Valentine - 2394
Cdn Valentine - 1388
Matilda - 1084
Churchull - 301
See?! Even the Russians wouldn't take the M-8's.
By the way... I'd use the Sherman if it was introduced, just because I'm contrary like that.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Milo the Russian troops at stalingrad hated the shermans. They complained that they had no good armour and made lunch meat for the German Pnzr Mk III's and IV's.
Ah, but they liked the greater comfort.;) Iirc, the Sherman was given to Guard regts. If it was so bad, why give them to elite units? The Russians could not have been that unhappy with the Sherman since it was used right til the end. Correction awaited. Anyways, sure your are not confusing it with the M-3(grave for 7 brothers)?
Only made the post, to show that the Sherman could be in an EF scenario. That was more Shermans than say the KV-1(3015) and IS-2(3854). (includes '45 production)
-
Clearly the tanks needed most are the Sherman (75mm), Sherman (76mm), T-34/76, T-34/85 and Panther V G. A Firefly Vc wouldn't be bad either.
Personally I'm hoping for a Sherman or T-34. Either of them would be useful in both the MA and CT / scenarios.
-
Shermans were used to support troops. If they ran across tanks they couldnt handle they called in the tank destroyers. Personally I want the sherman next, then a T34 to help even out the sides. But my personal favorite would be the M-18 Hellcat
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
Shermans were used to support troops. If they ran across tanks they couldnt handle they called in the tank destroyers.
In theory maybe, but in practice? No.
-
M4A2 75mm and 76mm Main gun
M4A3 75mm, 76mm, and 105mm Main gun
M4A2 15-76mm (0.59-2.99in) armour**
M4A3 15-100mm (0.59-3.94in) armour**
M4A2 Max road speed 46.4km/h (29mph)*
M4A3 Max road speed 47km/h (29mph)*
T-34/76 76.2mm Main gun
T-34/76 18-60mm (0.71-2.36in) armour**
T34/76 Max road speed 55km/h (34mph)*
* These are not off road numbers so the tank will be slower
** Didn't use degrees of deflection
Just thought some statistic's in this thread would be nice. I will be happy with either.
-
Milo im not finished read my book yet so i dont know, but early in the book it mentioned the Tank Brigades hated them out on the open Steppe. The panzer would just park themselves and has a field day on the Sherman's because there Guns couldn't do damage at long range, unlike the German guns. Then also the Fact Stalin was being an Idiot and letting his troops retreat also made it worse. in City fighting in Sure the Shermie was much more useful.
Yes from what i know karnak, all sides did this starting with the Germans. Panzer Division were based on the idea of Supporting infantry in a Lighting war. I really dont know all thatm uch about Russian tanks in Infantry Support, but i would guess it is for Infantry Support.
Sherman's Called in Tank Destroyer's when they Met Tigers and that Kinda Stuff.
-
From Karnak:
"Clearly the tanks needed most are the Sherman (75mm), Sherman (76mm), T-34/76, T-34/85 and Panther V G. A Firefly Vc wouldn't be bad either.
Personally I'm hoping for a Sherman or T-34. Either of them would be useful in both the MA and CT / scenarios."
Couldn't agree more. I'd pick the 34 first, just for it's speed basically.
-
My understanding was that the T34 benefited mainly from its suspension and drive system. (despite some thinking that angling the armour was so critical)
At Kursk the T34's often mixed it with the Panzers and Panthers by getting in amongst them at short range and literally out manouvering them whilst maintianing pretty accurate fire. The T34's 76mm did not have the range of the Panther or the ability to to penetrate it at its range limits.
At Bagration the T34's broad tracks were able to cross the Pripet Marshes on rolling roads out flanking the Panzer armies big time.
Latterly they were in big trouble against the Tiger II's however even tho many T34's were then touting the 85mm.
To show the T34 to its most adavantagious AH would need to better link terrain type to GV manouverability. It could go where other tanks could not and could go anywhere else faster and with more manouverability.
-
Originally posted by Baine
I was thinking we could use a dedicated tank destroyer. Something fast with a big gun and relatively lightly armored.
That would add variety and balance and would be cool for using in shoot and scoot ambushes with this new, busy terrain.
But for sheer historical value, I'd say we need the T-34.
Didn't even the 76 routinely eat panzers for breakfast? The larger gun could be the perk model.
The Sherman, while it's got the fact that it was a widely used US vehicle going for it, has little else to recommend it .
TD with 90mm.. .. yeah, that's the ticket.....
-
My two votes would be:
- T-34/85 - Roughly comparable to the PzIV, though significantly faster (faster than Shermans too).
- IS-II - Comparable to the Panther and Tiger with even better HE.
However, I'd still be happy with a T-34/76. Can't beat the speed of that tank. M4/76s have a good AT cannon and good frontal hull armor, but the Sherman's top speed is nothing to brag about. However, turret speed on a Sherman is hellaciously fast, which could be the deciding factor at point-blank range.
Hell, put all four of them in ;)
leonid
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Angus one must use mozilla to get rid of pop ups.
T34=Nik come and get me!
No way to protect itself from the Air.
You are out of your mind.... Mozilla is one of the largest culprits for pop-ups... yeesh :eek:
-
Originally posted by Odee
You are out of your mind.... Mozilla is one of the largest culprits for pop-ups... yeesh :eek:
i've been using it for 3 months. last time i saw a pop up was the last time i used explorer.
-
The 76MM gun on Shermans could not easily take out Tigers or Panthers.
Another tidbit on this, is it is the same gun used on on the M10 and M18. but the tank units did not get the APCR round that made it more effective, those went to only the tank destroyer units(at least early on).
It was better then the Short 75, and great agaist the Panzer 3 and 4 but would still fail to penatrate the frontal armor on a Panther or tiger even at ridiculusly close range.
Another thing about the 76 gun shermans is they did not go into action untill late 44 I think.
One advantage the Sherman had that no one has brought up is it had a stabilized gun, and when it was working would allow the sherman to move and shoot at the same time.
Belton y Cooper talks about that in his book Death Traps : The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II
Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891418148/qid=1093989767/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-8552595-9959939?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) (Great book if you want to know how much of a nightmare it was to be a US tanker in Europe.)
The Sherman could hold its own against Panzer 3 and 4s, its gun could kill the both without to much trouble. Its armor was ok against the 50mm gun on the 3. The long 75 on the 4 would kill it the Sherman with ease.
The Sherman had really narrow tracks making it less mobile over mud and snow then even the Tiger. A big problem.
Heck even the 90MM gun on the M36 and M26 tanks, still had some trouble killing Tigers and panthers, the gun on both the Tiger and panther could take out an M36(way further for the M36 since it had light armor) or M26 tank further then the 90MM could take them.
The M26 was close to a Panther in armor and a pretty good tank over all. In the book I reference about they talk about a special version with a really long 90MM gun, look wacky and had to have big springs on the top of the turret to counter the weight, they ended up cutting the front Armor off a Panther and adding it to the front of the M26 to help keep it alive. He includes pictures.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
In theory maybe, but in practice? No.
Curious where you got that impression...as a general rule TD's were used when ever possible vs armoured counter attacks. Normally tank vs tank combat occured during offensive combined arms manuevers. Especially in attacks on urban areas since TD's were especially vulnerable in urban enviornment. US losses from June 6, 1944 to the wars end were horiffic however. Average life expectancy of a US tanker was on par with a luffwable "baby seal". There is one story of a replacement depot sending 17 recovered/repaired tanks forward at daylight and "re-recovering" 15 of them again before 3pm that afternoon. The key element to US success was the 2 "heavy" armoured divisions. Each had roughly 40% more tanks and this enabled them to maintain pressure and attrit the enemy at a rate faster than they could sustain. In effect we thru enough at them to render them combat ineffective in spite of the high cost in tanks and men. Shermans strengths (as mentioned above) were numbers, reliability & recoverability. Individually the tank had little chance vs either a PZIVh or Panther.
I'd agree "Death Traps" really is a great source
-
Why all this talk of 'killing'?
Blow a track off a Panther or Tiger and it is basically out of the fight. It becomes a pillbox that can be finished off at ones pleasure.
-
milo
that is an equalizer for all tanks.
You have to be pretty close for that kind of acuracy, and for a sherman, being that close to a tiger or panther is death, unless he has lots of other targets to worry about. :D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
milo
that is an equalizer for all tanks.
You have to be pretty close for that kind of acuracy, and for a sherman, being that close to a tiger or panther is death, unless he has lots of other targets to worry about. :D
True.;) Point being, many are hung up on 'killing'.
The Tigers and Panthers did have lots of other threats to worry about, like AT weapons.
In NA, British 57mm(6pdr) AT gun 'knocked out' (I think this is a better word than 'kill') 2 Tigers and several other German tanks. This was in Jan 1943 at a distance of 400yd to 800yd. The Brits salvaged one and I believe this is the one at Bovington today.
There is a report of this Tiger in ISBN 0-11-290426-2.
-
humble,
Because in the rapid pace of combat they were not always able to get a tank destroyer in place or always have one available. Combat is not a clean thing. If they had one, of course they'd use it, but I disagree with the cakewalk portrayal that was given. Almost like "Oh look, another Tiger. How frightfully annoying. Kill it with the tank destroyer. Are you free for dinner around 1700?"
Panthers and Tigers did not have their fearful reputation among American vehicle crews becase they were harmless, easy kills for any tank destroyer that was always available.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
humble,
Because in the rapid pace of combat they were not always able to get a tank destroyer in place or always have one available. Combat is not a clean thing. If they had one, of course they'd use it, but I disagree with the cakewalk portrayal that was given. Almost like "Oh look, another Tiger. How frightfully annoying. Kill it with the tank destroyer. Are you free for dinner around 1700?"
Panthers and Tigers did not have their fearful reputation among American vehicle crews becase they were harmless, easy kills for any tank destroyer that was always available.
Never ment to imply that you were wrong....simply clarify what "doctrine" was. Tanks were offensive combined arms weapons. Tank Destroyers were used primarily in a defensive role against enemy armor. Realistically neither had much chance against a tiger or panther. The TD had some advantage of being deployed defensively and using 'shoot & scoot" tactics. A sherman didnt realistically have any chance till they began deploying "jumbo's" as the lead tank in the platoon. The britsh used the firefly as the 3rd tank in the "stick" to provide cover fire. which worked much better. since the allieswere on the offensive the germans not only had the inherent advantage in the tank itself but also picked the terrain. Life as a tanker was short bloody and painful...
-
I'd like to see the M7 / M7b1 priest. That would be a fun one to play around with. Either that or a Hummel.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'd like to see the M7 / M7b1 priest. That would be a fun one to play around with. Either that or a Hummel.
ahhhh Mobile Artillery not so good in a tank battle but just think of the devastation you could inflict on a base that is frantically looking for you while you lob 105 rounds in.:D
Not to say some don't already do that with tanks.
-
Sherman M4A3E8 75.
Faster then a pz IV. Better fire on the move. Great turrent speed.Better armour. Able to get a kill on the Panzer IV. 50 cal AA gun!
Great HE perfomance.
1944 standard Sherman.
T34-85 Best armour of the non perk tanks.
No AA mg. Gun equivelent to Panzer IV gun. Speed on roads best in game. Cross country it shook so bad it was slower. Its running gear bounce numbers were horrendous. It can not do a quick stop and fire. Inferior gun laying to the Panzer and Sherman.
Cool looking.
1944 standard T34.
-
PLEASE please keep in mind this is a "flight sim" not a GV game. Those people should go play WWII online or something.
One shouldn't clog up these boards with such silly notions like more and better GV's than present. HTC has their hands full with much more important issues than GV's {which as I was strongly told "their an afterthought"}
-
Originally posted by MOIL
PLEASE please keep in mind this is a "flight sim" not a GV game. Those people should go play WWII online or something.
One shouldn't clog up these boards with such silly notions like more and better GV's than present. HTC has their hands full with much more important issues than GV's {which as I was strongly told "their an afterthought"}
It's ok, keep venting, we know you're angry :) Having fun in that other sim? Or are you still playing here?
I think the Aircraft:GV ratio speaks for the gv "afterthought".
-
Originally posted by MOIL
PLEASE please keep in mind this is a "flight sim" not a GV game. Those people should go play WWII online or something.
One shouldn't clog up these boards with such silly notions like more and better GV's than present. HTC has their hands full with much more important issues than GV's {which as I was strongly told "their an afterthought"}
if HTC was thinking that way then why they making new GV?
-
Originally posted by simshell
if HTC was thinking that way then why they making new GV?
To give the Luftwaffe a main battle tank to bomb without the guilt association?
Shermie baybee!
"The most versatile of all tanks built for World War II, the M4 Sherman constituted 65 percent of all tank production during the war years. Like the M3, the M4 was developed by engineers from Chrysler and the Army, but this time the tank only had a crew of five and the 75mm cannon was supported by a revolving turret. The Sherman saw action in all theaters of the conflict and, by war's end, was produced in eighteen different models. The Detroit Arsenal produced the most Shermans, totaling 17,750 tanks, roughly 25 percent of all Shermans made. "
http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/tanks/sherman.html
(http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net/Sherman_tank_-_Bomb_D365.jpg)
"BOMB", a Sherman tank that served from D-Day to the end of WWII with the First Canadian Army.[/i]
-
Octavius states:
"It's ok, keep venting, we know you're angry Having fun in that other sim? Or are you still playing here? "
Whoa! I didn't say anything about being "angry", didn't you read the rules for the forums?
I'm not angry nor am I venting, just stating facts for the other faithful readers & posters.
Other sim? I play lots of sims, which one? yes I play here from time to time.
-
Your subtle sarcasm in the original post was noted. I do remember your channel 1 tirades - attempting to mock HT's coding ability and AH2 in general, and most of all defending your previous squad's gv style of gameplay. :cool:
-
So noted
Coding ability, No comment
Have fun!
-
Originally posted by MOIL
No comment
I think there's a clue hidden right there. Posting here after having a hissy fit and quitting is kinda like walking around in public continuing a one-sided argument with an imaginary participant with you finally thinking of things you wished you'd thought of on the spur of the moment.
How's life in WWIIOL? Gonna come back here to test the Shermie?
Shermie baby! Woof!
-
T34 with vodka injection system for those sprints between cover
-
lol arlo
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I think there's a clue hidden right there. Posting here after having a hissy fit and quitting is kinda like walking around in public continuing a one-sided argument with an imaginary participant with you finally thinking of things you wished you'd thought of on the spur of the moment.
How's life in WWIIOL? Gonna come back here to test the Shermie?
Shermie baby! Woof!
First off, I never threw a "hissy" fit as you claim. Second, I'm not arguing with anyone {if so please bring this post to my attn}
Third, there's nothing I've said that counters anything I have not already brought to the table. I have not been the one to jump in and bust peoples chops over change or the adding additional planes or vehicles {or lack of} to the game.
I have been preaching the SAME things since day ONE, I have never veared from my comments or ideals.
I have stated since day one my feelings for the game and HTC, I never said I hated/disliked this game, it's community or lack of certain content. I have just like everyone else, expressed my views and concerns and went out of my way to bring new things and ideas to the table.
I'm not going to get into some debate or argument with you Arlo {and others} I could give damn what people think about me or what I post {which is a shame} because I don't think that is very productive. So what If I think HTC's cods is sub-standard, so are a lot of others, big deal.
The only thing that really gets me is the fact, that people like you love to chime in with their 2 cents worth on a topic that you agree with {the Sherman for example} you're right there shaking your pom-pom's, but if it's something else you'll make sure you get right in there and let that person know how stupid or rediculous his idea is. Of course, it would take a whole lot of energy to say something even remotely postive, but that doesn't appear to be your style. Name one time I posted to tell some flyboy he's nutz for wishing there was a certain type of plane he wanted in the game. Go ahead.
-
Well bless your heart then, tank soldier. How many trips around the block talking outloud did this response take?
And .... will you be giving the new Shermie a whirl? Are you as excited as I am? :D
-
Hhhmmmmm, trips around the block, that's rich.
The Sherman, great addition, any & all veh's are a great addition to the line up. Just as new planes and bombers are.
Sure I'd love to give it a "whirl", but the veh itself isn't the issue.
-
What issue you havin' then? :D
-
The fact the ground "game" is not correct. The damage model is not correct. The ground itself {terrain} is nowhere near correct.
Looks different, but that's about it.
Lemme put it too you this way, I know that you know a he11 of a lot more about A/C than I do. I don't put myself anywhere near that catagory. For example, I {and everyone else} knows you enjoy the CT, which is great. Your biggest thing {or as it seems to read} the planes and senarios are "more realistic" and challenging.
Now for a moment, you log in to play and the planes, although all modeled to look differnent you notice that the Spit {pick one} flies
exactly like the F4u-4 and the 190 flies and acts exactly like the TMB.
I will put up a stack of chips to say that you'd be one of the first to say "HEY, what the he11 is this"
Tell me I'm wrong
-
So what the hell plane does the Ostie fly like and how would you fix it? Heh.
-
The Ostwind is not a plane and I didn't say that it needs to be "fixed"
There is however some issues with it getting strafed with .303 rounds and 2 or 3 hits takes it's turret out or better yet the engine or tracks.
The tanks either take a beating to where people are constantly complaining about them or their getting killed {turret out, eng out, track out or blown up} by a couple of .50cal rounds.
I don't mean to rain on anyones parade, but this didn't happen in WWII. If theres anyone group that spent an ungodly amount of time in GV's it was us.
I still read the horror posts to this day about a tank hitting an M8 5 times and nothing, then the M8 swings his turret around, shoots once at the Pnzr, then blamo. The Pnzr either looses his turret or worse, blows up. I know, we've done it. Didn't like it, but what's one spose to do?
And of course when this is stated or brought to the powers to be's attention, the whole board jumps in to make sure we are aware that the GV's are 2nd and 3rd rate and are an afterthought. So I say Okie Dokie
-
I'm not really clear why this is being discussed, since GVs aren't the real focus of AH.
-
Eh ... people like to complain about the darnedest things.
That Shermie's gonna be cool.
I don't wanna hear these bad vibes.
Woof.
-
Originally posted by Engine
I'm not really clear why this is being discussed, since GVs aren't the real focus of AH.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Show some pic's of that new bomber........wOOt!!!!
-
Originally posted by MOIL
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Show some pic's of that new bomber........wOOt!!!!
If you're here out of some sort of perverse martyr thang, let me assure you that you're probably just gonna get buried in an unmarked grave and forgotten once you stop making noises. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Eh ... people like to complain about the darnedest things.
That Shermie's gonna be cool.
I don't wanna hear these bad vibes.
Woof.
It sure will !!!!
Tank on
P.S.
Sometimes people don't wanna hear you're bad vibes either, but I'm off the radar, what do I know.
-
Originally posted by MOIL
It sure will !!!!
Tank on
P.S.
Sometimes people don't wanna hear you're bad vibes either, but I'm off the radar, what do I know.
Are we still mad that we got made fun of for asking for more aaa vehicles to be put at the top of HiTech's priority list? :D
-
Not at all
HTC knows what's best for the game and the community.
I never, repeat never, said AA veh's should take some sort of top priority. I believe I stated "liked to see" just like your line up of the next logical A/C that should be modeled. {in other words, like to see}
Yes you did say the Sherman should be modeled next and it was in the same thread I agreed.
Pay attn now!
-
Originally posted by MOIL
Pay attn now!
Ah ... so you're here for the attention! They don't give you enough attention over there? You missed the abuse? Well I got news for ya, tankgirl. I may just hafta treat you nicer until you resort to whipping yer ownself. So there! :lol
-
Attention over there ?
Over where?
Oh, and now it's name calling time I see "tankgirl" that's a good one.
From looking at the # of posts you've made, you're saying "I'M" looking for attn :lol
Again, that's rich
-
Over here, apparently. Remember ... your first post in this thread that's about a new MBT being worked on for AHII was you insinuwhining that HTC didn't spend enough time developing it's GV set. It had to be a lonely plea for attention. It sure wasn't an attempt to impress us with your brilliance.
Before you dropped off the radar the longest conversation you and I had was me making fun of you for wanting another aaa vehicle modeled when the MBTs had disparity. That and me making fun of you, in general, for acting like Aces High was designed with modeling an equal or greater number of ground vehicles to aircraft as to cater to the 12 players in the game that do nothing but sit in a gv everytime they log on in mind. Hell .. there's bound to be a dozen or so players that do nothing but putter around in PT boats. Let's come up with a list of 25 or 30 motorboats that HT needs to seriously consider modeling for the sake of the game.
Shermie ... T34 .... a Japanese tank (which the M-8 could probably whip) and we're actually pretty well set GV-wise. Maybe ... maybe ... go ahead and whip out a German troop carrier (though a German skin for the M-3 would suffice just as well).
But there'll still be a few other players that think the uberschturmhumptydoodle MK69 depleted uranium firing hovertank despirately needs modeling because:
A: They saw a drawing of it once and it looked cool.
and
B: A flightsim without tons of GVs is just a flightsim, dammit!
:D
-
Again, as usual well stated.
HTC knows what's best for it's community, now looking back on my previous post/posts, it is completely moronic to want to include more diversity in the ground war dept. After all this is a WWII combat flight simulation and not a WWII combat ground war simulation. I stand corrected, thanks for helping me see the light.
-
Originally posted by MOIL
PLEASE please keep in mind this is a "flight sim" not a GV game. Those people should go play WWII online or something.
Originally posted by http://www.hitechcreations.com
Welcome to the internet's premier WWII combat expirience!
*Engage in air, land or sea combat
No longer advertised as just a plain plane game, now it's advertised as a cocktail of air, land, and sea combat.
Originally posted by MOIL
1. There is however some issues with it getting strafed with .303 rounds and 2 or 3 hits takes it's turret out or better yet the engine or tracks.
2. The tanks either take a beating to where people are constantly complaining about them or their getting killed {turret out, eng out, track out or blown up} by a couple of .50cal rounds.
1. The ostie is open toped. That means the gunery crew and turret equipment is fully exposed to aircraft. Hell a rock thrown at the right angle could literaly knock out a crew member in the turret.
2. It's been fixed, even hazookas have a difficult time penetrating the armour.
2b. A track could be thrown out if a bullet knocked a pin out of place.
-
BenDover states:
"1. The ostie is open toped. That means the gunery crew and turret equipment is fully exposed to aircraft. Hell a rock thrown at the right angle could literaly knock out a crew member in the turret.
2. It's been fixed, even hazookas have a difficult time penetrating the armour.
2b. A track could be thrown out if a bullet knocked a pin out of place"
I know the Ostwind is an open topped turret AA veh. I probably know more about the Ostwind and it's brothers the Mobelwagen & Wirbelwind than enyone in here.
I'll agree, the crew is somewhat exposed, but rounds have to be fired at an angle to strike the crew. It is, of course possable to hit the gun barrel at certain angles which in turn might damage it.
Tracks being takin' out by a .50cal or .303 round is stretching it a bit. This typically did not happen in WWII.
The biggest threat to this type of veh was other tanks, ATG's and bombs/rockets. Also the reloading crew was extremely vulnerable to small to medium arms fire.
Piece of info:
Wirbelwind and Ostwind were successors to the Flakpanzer IV Mobelwagen (armed with 37mm Flak 43 L/89) - "interim solution" produced before the introduction of real Flakpanzer. In July of 1944, prototype of Ostwind (Eastwind) - an air defense armored vehicle build on Panzer IV's proven chassis was produced. Its design was very similar to that of Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind (Whirlwind) which prototype was build in May of 1944 and was to become the first true Flakpanzer. Both vehicles were build on retired or battle damaged Panzer IV (mainly Ausf F/G) chassis/components returned from the front for major repairs. The concept of Wirbelwind was that of Karl Wilhelm Krause, an officer of 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitler Jugend", who in summer of 1944, proposed to mount four barrelled 20mm Flak 38 L/112.5 gun on PzKpfw IV's chassis.
Wirbelwind and Ostwind were fitted with very similar (especially designed) open-top (Wirbelwind's turret had 9 side panels and Ostwind's had 6 side panels) turrets mounted in the place of standard turrets. Ostwind's turret was nicknamed Keksdose - cookie tin. Main difference was that Wirbelwind was armed with quadruple 20mm Flak 38 L/112.5 guns while Ostwind was armed with single 37mm Flak 43 L/89 gun (both could be used against ground targets as well). 20mm Flak proved to be less effective than 37mm Flak and was eventually replaced by it. Both were produced by Ostbau Works in Sagan, Silesia in limited numbers due to the material shortages and the fact that Ostbau Works moved to facilities of Deutsche Eisenwerke in Teplitz and Duisburg due to danger of being overrun by the Soviets. Overall from May to November of 1944, only 87(105) Wirbelwinds were made, contrary to only 44(43) Ostwinds produced from July 1944 to March of 1945. Both vehicles were issued to Flugabwehrzug (AA platoons) units of Panzer Divisions. There were never enough of them to equip frontline units, which were in the need for adequate mobile AA defense. Both proved to be very effective against low flying aircraft. The interesting fact is that prototype Ostwindwas combat tested by 1st Waffen SS Panzer Division "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" during the Ardennes Offensive (December 16 to 22 of 1944) and returned to factory undamaged
-
And, by cod, AH really does need more aaa stationwagons and patrol motorboats ... more than anything else ... or at least as many as there are plane models. It's just not fair. (hehe)
The Shermie is gonna be a cool addition. I anticipate a "Battle of the Bulge" scenario or CT setup as a result. :aok
-
Cool idea