Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: aerosaber on May 03, 2006, 05:13:09 PM
-
M4A3 Sherman IV or M24 Chaffee ....your choice
-
it's been asked for before, its been said that the sherman is junk, i still want one though :D
-
Originally posted by moneyguy
it's been asked for before, its been said that the sherman is junk, i still want one though :D
We also need a British entry...so kill two birds with one stone & put in the firefly.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
We also need a British entry...so kill two birds with one stone & put in the firefly.
Yes. Nuff said. :aok
-
The first time i played i was wonderin where the sherman was. If they dont want to put it because its weak then y do we hav the p40, and its p40b and e not even the n.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
The first time i played i was wonderin where the sherman was. If they dont want to put it because its weak then y do we hav the p40, and its p40b and e not even the n.
Cuz the P40B was flown flown by 1337 Flying Tigers and the P40's are great for scenario's especially for Stanlin's thingy.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
The first time i played i was wonderin where the sherman was. If they dont want to put it because its weak then y do we hav the p40, and its p40b and e not even the n.
First, the tank is no weaker than the PzkwIV or T-34/76 IMHO. Second, even if you believe it to be weak, that is not the reason it isn't in the game. Aces High is at its core a flying game. Vehicles have been gradually added on as an extra added bonus. As such, I suppose we should be pleased with our selection of tanks given the gaps in plane sets that still exist. But, this is a wishlist, after all . . . so we wish for more.
-
Don't we all:D
We need the British Crusader Tank:aok
-
The reason I think it hasnt been added is because it has a 90 MM turret. No other tank could stand-up to it, not even the T-34. (Unless of course that 90 MM takes longer to load)
-
i want the pershin
-
So..what did we use to kill panzers or tigers, back in WWII?
-
Originally posted by MotleyCH
So..what did we use to kill panzers or tigers, back in WWII?
Overwhelming numbers........and tank destroyers.
-
It took a couple of shermans to kill a panzer. I would like to see it anyway(give it a flame thrower). It would make ah a more complete ww2 experience with more gvs. I figured they would add a sherman before the jeep but o well. Its fun to drive but i really dont think it serves any good purpose unless we had some user controlled troops fightin on the ground. Im pretty sure in a year or two we will have everything we could ask for in Aces high.
-
Originally posted by MotleyCH
So..what did we use to kill panzers or tigers, back in WWII?
planes with bombs :D
-
And rockets, dont forget the rockets!
(http://militarygallery.com/dbimages/large/NT040.jpg)
Thats how we got Wittman (most likely, still some contraversy)
-
Notice the Panthers in the drawing.....(thats what I want) :D
-
i want the wirblewind
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
Im pretty sure in a year or two we will have everything we could ask for in Aces high.
are you joking
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
Overwhelming numbers........and tank destroyers.
Artillery, Infantry, Air Superiority, theirs broke down, ours had supplies . . .
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
(give it a flame thrower)
I don't think so, you know how much RAM that would consume? Geez, that would kill your frame rate before you even get it out of your turret 5 feet!:eek:
-
Originally posted by Treize69
And rockets, dont forget the rockets!
(http://militarygallery.com/dbimages/large/NT040.jpg)
Thats how we got Wittman (most likely, still some contraversy)
Did a search on this not too terribly long ago. From everything I have seen, it was NOT a rocket that killed Wittman. It was a SHERMAN FIREFLY. Which is exactly why we need it.;)
-
They need to do somethin about the frame rate. The fact that it doesnt allow certain weapons(flame throwers) kinda sucks. It limits the game from reachin its full potential. Things like land mines and other weapons that would make a good edition to the game(no atomic bombs) could never happen.
-
It depends which group says it. If you ask Tankers, it was a Firefly. If you ask Flyboys or the Germans, it was most likely Typhoons. I've seen mainstream publications (Tiger Ace!, WWII Magazine, etc) that can't agree on it. All agree on when and where he died, but both sides also have documentary evidence (combat reports, etc) to support their side. Well never know for sure.
I know when I went through Tank training, and we'd get talking about WWII and Korea during downtime, somone would always bring up the Fireflys killing Wittman.
But talk to any RAF vets or aviation historians, and they swear it was a rocket firing RCAF Typhoon.
That said, bring on the Firefly. And the Pershing. And the Cromwell, and the Churchill, and the Chaffee, and the Easy-8, and the Wirbelwind, and the Panther, and the IS-2, and the OH MY GOD I NEED A LIFE!!!
sorry :D
-
Originally posted by Treize69
OH MY GOD I NEED A LIFE!!!
sorry :D
the suspence is killing me:aok
-
Originally posted by Treize69
It depends which group says it. If you ask Tankers, it was a Firefly. If you ask Flyboys or the Germans, it was most likely Typhoons. I've seen mainstream publications (Tiger Ace!, WWII Magazine, etc) that can't agree on it. All agree on when and where he died, but both sides also have documentary evidence (combat reports, etc) to support their side. Well never know for sure.
I know when I went through Tank training, and we'd get talking about WWII and Korea during downtime, somone would always bring up the Fireflys killing Wittman.
But talk to any RAF vets or aviation historians, and they swear it was a rocket firing RCAF Typhoon.
From Answer.com (used only because-well, just because) Bold mine:
Wittmann was killed in action less than two months after Villers-Bocage, on August 8. Participating in Operation Totalise, his tank was destroyed near the town of Cintheaux. The exact means of his death are in dispute. What is known is that his tank was hit by two shots to the right rear flank which tore the turret from the vehicle.
One explanation has been that Wittmann was killed following a skirmish in which the rear of his company was ambushed by tanks of the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry. The shots are claimed to have come from a single Sherman Firefly commanded by Sgt. Gordon and gunned by Trooper Joe Ekins, of the 3rd Platoon, A Squadron, part of the 33rd Armoured Brigade at around 1240 hours.
Other units in the area also claimed that the hit was theirs, specifically Major Radley-Walters of the Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment of 4th Canadian Armoured Division, as well as the 2nd Polish Armoured Regiment of the 1st Polish Armoured Division.
The most recent book to study the subject is No Holding Back by Brian Reid, which provides a detailed topographical map of the engagement, and is benefited by extensive review of Allied and German records (the book is about Operation Totalise but devotes an entire appendix to the subject of Wittman's demise). Reid concludes that there are even odds between the Canadians and the British as far as Wittmann's death.
There has previously been much speculation (for example, in After the Battle magazine) that a high-explosive (RP-3) rocket from a RAF Hawker Typhoon aircraft dealt the fatal blow to Wittmann's Tiger. Reid has discredited the Typhoon theory by close examination of 2nd Tactical Air Force logs, concluding "no tanks were claimed destroyed or damaged in the forward areas by immediate support aircraft and ... the only tanks claimed were by Typhoons on armed reconnaissance missions in areas away from the actual battle. Therefore Wittman and his crew almost assuredly did not fall victim to an attack from the air." (p. 429) German records also seem to confirm this; Reid mentions that Kurt Meyer, Wittman's commanding officer, "made a point of remarking on the Allies' failure to use their tactical fighters on the morning of 8 August." (p.426)
There are a LOT of discussions on other BBs about this, and people quote all kinds of books I have no time to read nor money to buy. The person who put forth the theory that it was a typhoon rocket was named Varin, and he made his assertion after seeing the wreck in 1945 (months after the fact). Almost everyone agrees his assessment has been discredited.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
That said, bring on the Firefly. And the Pershing. And the Cromwell, and the Churchill, and the Chaffee, and the Easy-8, and the Wirbelwind, and the Panther, and the IS-2, and the OH MY GOD I NEED A LIFE!!!
sorry :D
I still say if you develop a large stable of tanks, give every map a good tank town. Tank warfare is vastly improved in this iteration of AH but a good tankers area with smallish airbases that have only say dive bombers and second tier planes would be a nice addition to the map to give the ground hugging coterie a place to call home.
Sakai
-
I'd love to see the Chaffee or Firefly, however I'm STILL waiting for my Wirbelwind.
(http://membres.lycos.fr/fass3d/rnl/Wirbelwind.jpg)
-
How much does it cost to produce a new vehicle/plane? Couldn't HTC allow someone to sponsor a development? Just a thought...
-
Ya mean a Sherman that looks like a budweiser can? Hell, same thickness of armour.
-
We dont no stinkin Sherman. We need one of these!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/KTM520guy/Clobbersaurus.jpg)
-
what about the Cromwell or Comet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell_tank
-
German Elefant tank destroyer (perked of course)
(http://www.hot.ee/relvaleht/tank-10.jpg)
German Jagdpanther :)
(http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/jagdpanthergcw_10.jpg)
Brit Matilda II
(http://apma.org.au/membersmodels/gary_watkins/watkins136.jpg)
-
We n33d mo G3rm@n l33t tankzes! :aok
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Brit Matilda II
(http://apma.org.au/membersmodels/gary_watkins/watkins136.jpg)
I think that is a Crusader tank, not a Matilda.
-
Originally posted by E25280
I think that is a Crusader tank, not a Matilda.
i think what you think is right
-
american and brit tanks. AYE!