Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BennyBeaver on March 08, 2007, 12:56:29 PM
-
the b29 a famous bomber...the enola gay...atom bombs...the super bomber
why dont we have it? its a very important role in WWII! Along with the sherman...that piece of crap...why dont we have it either!!!!!
-
No No and No. If we get a B29, we hear the, "Let's get a nuclear bomb!" threads. If we get a nuke we won't only lose our frame rates, yet miles and miles of terrain will just get nuked out of existance. It will mainly turn into a nuclear war than a game. The sherman? No, we don't need a weak tank added to the play-list.
-
they were important roles during WWII and for the nukes no way!
-
The only thing people see important about a sherman or the B29 is the firepower.
-
Originally posted by BennyBeaver
the b29 a famous bomber...the enola gay...atom bombs...the super bomber
why dont we have it? its a very important role in WWII! Along with the sherman...that piece of crap...why dont we have it either!!!!!
OMG. PLEASE read through the 48,463,731 threads about b29 before posting about it AGAIN
TY
-S
-
I concur, bring the B29 to Aces High! YEAHYA!
-
Originally posted by nirvana
I concur, bring the B29 to Aces High! YEAHYA!
*_* Well...[Dreaming]
Bishop: About to drop!
Wingman: Roger that...let er rip
[Bomb falling]
Rook: I hear something!
Another Rook: Yea, so do I
[Bomb Hits]
BA BA BAM
Rook:200: OMFG...I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT!
-
:rofl
Yes to B-29..but no n00ks:noid
heck doesn't the B-29 hold like 40 normal bombs:O
-
Originally posted by Wes14
:rofl
Yes to B-29..but no n00ks:noid
heck doesn't the B-29 hold like 40 normal bombs:O
Wes...do you know the regular ord loadout of b29?
Id assume it would be...500 lbs like b17 but with being able to carry so many bombs...It bring me to them having 1000 lbs as their regular ord loadout
YES...I know they were not used much for regular bombing but...
-
nope i dont know the normal bomb load out for the B-29 im just guessing cause it seems alot bigger then the bombers we got:noid
-
Typical loadout for many B-29 mission in the Pacific was 10,000 pounds of ord per plane. Maximum Ord loadout was 20,000 pounds of ord per plane.
Problems with B-29:
* This means, 1 flight of B-29's could take out HQ.
* B-29's had a ceiling of 33-35,000 feet in altitude.... not many planes here could intercept them up there.
* B-29 "I wanna noook" threads would become a daily whine.
* Haven't seen hard numbers yet, but a loaded B-29 weighs twice what loaded B-17's, B-24's, and Lancs do..... not sure if there is enough RUNWAY to get the B-29 off the ground in the arenas as things stand now. That would mean redoing all the maps.
* Been stated numerous times for anyone able to use Search function in forums to see that the idea of a B-29 has been given a negative many times in the past.
Unless looking to add a perkable plane to the game, like the A-26B and A-26C Invaders
Invader thread link (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198001)
then any bombers added to the game should try to fill out the plane sets for the Germans, Japanese, Russians, Italians, and British before adding yet another American plane to the plane set.
As to Sherman. The T-34 in-game is pretty close to the abilities of a Sherman already. No .50 cal for AA use about the biggest difference, and maybe reload times.
There are better options to add to the game in the way of GV's. A multi-use
option, something that could bring puffy ack to the players' control to engage bombers at altitude, add artillery to the game for indirect fire, and engage GV's at long range; maybe in the form of a German 88mm FlaK36 gun, might add more diversity?
Flak36 thread Link (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198029&highlight=Flak)
But, these have been discussed before.... a few times......every month.......
-
I still remember when the B-29 threads were a daily hazard. Goodness I'm glad it's reduced a bit.
-
Originally posted by Denholm
The only thing people see important about a sherman or the B29 is the firepower.
Er... Sherman firepower? Panzer IVGs have 80mm of frontal armor, the M3 75mm won't kill that at typical ranges we see in game.
-
Well, I heard somewhere that the sherman had a 80, or 95MM AP gun. Yet somehow that didn't hurt the tigers.
-
no Shermans we need a Panther or This (http://www.thepmw.com/phorum/download.php/21,7429/JSU-152%20(5).JPG)
that would kill a tiger:noid
-
Wrap up that link in [img ] and [/img ] tags and you're ready to roll. As for the firepower on that tank, that's questionable.
-
couldnt get that pic in the img code
but here ya go:D (hope its big enough)
(http://www.thetankmaster.com/images/AFV/PART1/isu-152-01.jpg)
-
fyi the JSU-152 sports a 152 mm Howitzer cannon..i think they used AP shells as well:D
-
I can understand that being field-artillery, but a tank? No way, doesn't look as if that turret can turn.
-
it could be used as a tank destroyer,if i remember right
the jag'dpanther i dont beleve had a rotational turret and it was a tank(Destroyer)
-
(http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t301/slayr1/nookie.gif)
-
Originally posted by Denholm
I can understand that being field-artillery, but a tank? No way, doesn't look as if that turret can turn.
It belongs to a family of german tanks called turetless tanks. It was a cheap and quick way of putting big guns on existing chassis.
They were a trade off of mobility, no turnable turret, for firepower, had a big gun.
-
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!#@$#$@@!$$@$@$@ :O :O :O :t :O :O
-
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiiiziziziiziziziizizizizizizizi*bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*
-
Originally posted by Wes14
fyi the JSU-152 sports a 152 mm Howitzer cannon..i think they used AP shells as well:D
They had a whalloping 20 shell capacity. Hope your aim is good!
The Jagdpanther would rape everything we have in game now. The JP's PaK 43 outperforms the Tiger's KwK 36 by a very large margin, and the sloped frontal armor would defeat the Tiger's cannon at common ranges we see GV combat at in game.
If you want a moderatly powerful tank destroy duo, check out the Su-85, M-36 Jackson, and Jagdpanzer IV. If you want to kick it up a notch, then make it the Su-100, M-10 Achilles (maybe with APDS), and the upgunned Jagdpanzer IV/70.
And Vertex, that is a RUSSIAN built ISU-152. Other than that, you are correct. Technically it was an infantry support gun, but the AP shell was so powerful that it could make mincemeat of the Tiger at unheard of ranges; hell at closer ranges the HE shell was so huge that a shot on the turret ring would send the top flying right off.
-
I had no Idea the Russians built these things too, thought it was a German thing only, thanks for the info.
:)
-
Wow, I'm sure the T-34 huggers would love that!
-
Originally posted by VERTEX
I had no Idea the Russians built these things too, thought it was a German thing only, thanks for the info.
:)
No problem mate. They got the idea to do so, if I recall correctly, from seeing the success the Germans were having with the StuG III Ausf. G assault gun in the tank destroyer role. There were several versions of that basic type that the Russians employed.
(http://www.images.alliancze.org/vsu1522a.jpg)
The SU-152, nicknamed "zervoboy" (sp?) at Kursk, which translates to Animal Killer, for how easy it killed Panthers and Tigers, even Elefants. It was based off of the earlier KV series of tanks.
The ISU-152, as pictured above, was based off of the Iosef Stalin series of tanks.
(http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Images/weapons/SU-122-02.jpg)
There is the SU-122, based off the KV series as well. It has, as ya can see, a very short barrelled gun designed for infantry support. Basically put, it sucked at killing tanks because the shells had a very low muzzle velocity.
(http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/sau/isu122.jpg)
The ISU-122 mounted a much more powerful 122mm cannon, and was based off of the Iosef Stalin series as well.
Then you have the Su-85 and Su-100. Both were based off of the T-34 chassis, and were turretless AFVs like the ones pictured above. The difference is that these were dedicated tank destroyers with very powerful cannon. The Su-85 mounted a modified 85mm AA gun, and the Su-100 packed a purpose-built 100mm high velocity anti-tank gun.
(http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/sau/su85.jpg)
Su-85
(http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/images/AberdeenProvingGrounds/20060509_2231_NSengupta_AberdeenProvingGroundss.jpg)
Su-100
Originally posted by Denholm
Wow, I'm sure the T-34 huggers would love that!
Remember, 20 round shell capacity. Unless the devs of this game unfark the optics and give tankers a magnification that is worth a damn, the ISU-152 would be very much useless.
-
Anyone notice these dweebs never READ the post after they make it?
-
Funny how that works, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Denholm
The only thing people see important about a sherman or the B29 is the firepower.
:huh Sherman had firepower?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Maybe if it was dropped from a B-29 :p
Okay, seriously now.... I'll go witht he sheep laden B-29, if we also get to run over bleating sheep on the ground in the Sherman.... Better still, let's hitch about 6 sheep up to the front of the sherman and call "MUSH, ...uhm I mean Baa! you doggies ewe!"
-
Originally posted by Odee
:huh Sherman had firepower?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Maybe if it was dropped from a B-29 :p
Okay, seriously now.... I'll go witht he sheep laden B-29, if we also get to run over bleating sheep on the ground in the Sherman.... Better still, let's hitch about 6 sheep up to the front of the sherman and call "MUSH, ...uhm I mean Baa! you doggies ewe!"
It was more deadly than a Tiger in the Pacific.
Perhaps you should look up the Sherman Firefly, or the M4 76s.
-
Pershing anyone?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Pershing anyone?
Bronk
erection inspiring
-
LMAO, thats the best shades name yet, WTG furball.. It's amazing that you can actually catch fish with no bait on the hook:lol :lol :lol
-
wth why not, we have plenty of useless stuff right now, why not some more???? p39's,,teh, b29, nukies wtvr, gloster meteor, yeh yeh yeh..
no really what ever you guys think.:aok
-
Originally posted by wstpt10
It was more deadly than a Tiger in the Pacific.
Perhaps you should look up the Sherman Firefly, or the M4 76s.
:rofl :rofl You goober! They didn't have Tiger's in the Pacific, they had those tin can Jap things. :rolleyes:
Now the Pershing'd be sweet, give nobody has modeled it yet in an online game... :aok
-
(http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/313/turtletankkm8.th.png) (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=turtletankkm8.png)
-
Originally posted by 1Boner
(http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/313/turtletankkm8.th.png) (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=turtletankkm8.png)
WTF!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
-
Originally posted by spikes
WTF!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Must be invisible ether ink in his message :lol :noid
-
Originally posted by Odee
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wstpt10
It was more deadly than a Tiger in the Pacific.
Perhaps you should look up the Sherman Firefly, or the M4 76s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:rofl :rofl You goober! They didn't have Tiger's in the Pacific, they had those tin can Jap things. :rolleyes:
He was saying, that the Sherman's strength relative to the Japanese "tin cans" in th PTO was the equivalent of the Tiger's strength relative to allied armor in the ETO.
-
Originally posted by Odee
:rofl :rofl You goober! They didn't have Tiger's in the Pacific, they had those tin can Jap things. :rolleyes:
Now the Pershing'd be sweet, give nobody has modeled it yet in an online game... :aok
:huh
Let me rephrase what I said. The Sherman's armor and cannon made it, in the Pacific Theater, a more deadly tank (against other tanks) than the Tiger was in Europe and North Africa.
They were called Ha Gos and Chi Has. Plus a few others.
-
The only thing that made the Sherman Tank deadly to anything else in any theater was sheer numbers. It was the armored version of a Chinese human wave attack. A Sherman destroyed in battle could be replaced in a day or three. Sherman crews were expendable cannon fodder not unlike Russian tanks drivers and infantry.
It all came down to a war of production numbers and attrition.
Even when better tanks were available, the Sherman was still the one mass produced.
-
Not true.
In the PTO, the M3 75mm cannon was so powerful that it could blow a hole clean through Japanese tanks, in and out. The AP ammo was so devistating that often HE were used by preferance. At El Alamein it outclassed (numerically) most German tanks deployed. Versions with wet stowage (denoted by a (W) after the model and ammendment code) and a 76.2mm cannon were on par with the Panzer IVHs we have in game right now. The M4A3E8 76(w) with wide tracks, wet stowage, and a 76.2mm gun was every bit as good as the T-34/85.
The British version with the 17 pounder AT gun could kill Tigers with ease out to 2,000 meters, and that is with standard APC ammo.
-
OMG...why can't we just say..We want sherman!....
-
Originally posted by spikes
OMG...why can't we just say..We want sherman!....
why cant we just say "WE WANT B29:furious "
:rofl
-
Originally posted by 68slayr
(http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t301/slayr1/nookie.gif)
:rofl Hey! :D
-
lol Mash...where do you get the pic...where is it hosted?
-
Originally posted by Wes14
why cant we just say "WE WANT B29:furious "
:rofl
in.
-
in?
-
in=agreed..i think
-
Originally posted by Wes14
in=agreed..i think
oh...I see
I in
:cool:
-
Yep :cool: nuke please, i wanna blow up Spy's new map:rofl
-
in = hell yes
-
:rolleyes:
-
In = "I got into the thread, even though I had nothing to add, before the thread was locked by a mod as flamebait or because it has generally been done to death and needs to be locked."
In this case, perhaps the "in" called out by wstpt was premature, as it doesn't seem this one's going to be locked.
-
OUT.
(http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/sign0202.gif) (http://www.thesmilies.com)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
In = "I got into the thread, even though I had nothing to add, before the thread was locked by a mod as flamebait or because it has generally been done to death and needs to be locked."
In this case, perhaps the "in" called out by wstpt was premature, as it doesn't seem this one's going to be locked.
Means "I agree" in the WW2OL forums... Guess we're just special.
-
Originally posted by spikes
OMG...why can't we just say..We want sherman!....
mu baaaaa!