Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DocRoe on March 21, 2007, 01:57:19 PM
-
Can we get the 109 Carrier variant please? we need some german planes for the carriers. Here is some info from a site i found.
With a total production run of nearly 35,000 machines, the Bf 109 filled many roles with various air forces. Perhaps the most unique variant of all was the Bf 109T- a shipboard fighter designed to fly from the deck of the never-completed carrier Graf Zeppelin. With a total of only 80 Bf 109T built, this version of the famous Messerschmitt fighter had remarkable longevity, serving from their completion in 1941 until at least 1944. A few possibly survived until 1945.
This variant was originally equipped with an arrestor hook, catapult attachments, and a more robust tailwheel to withstand the rigors of carrier operations. The most obvious physical difference were the extended wingtips. These increased the wingspan from 32’ 4.5" on the standard Bf 109E series to 36’ 4.25" on the "Toni". This longer wing had a spoiler on the top of the wing to help reduce landing speed, as well as longer leading edge slats and ailerons
please consider this and i think people would be drawn to carriers and carriers would be used more often if you added this plane in the game.
Thank you
Doc
-
They never flew off of carriers. Those few that were made (12, I think??) had the gear removed and were forced into service where they were most desperately needed.
Very very few were used in combat. If anything I think most were dumped on training schools, where aircraft were written off rather quickly (training, student pilots, crashes, etc).
-
uggh
Sorry can any move this to " Wishlist "
or is it fine here? i just didnt really think and i thought it might be cool in aircraft section...
-
No German aircraft ever operated off of a carrier. As such, German aircraft should not operate off of CVs in AH.
-
Krusty
"With a total of only 80 Bf 109T built,"
from the paragraph
but still they did go into combat and they made it through most of the war...
and even if you guys added it but without the Ability to take off from a carrier that would be cool.
-
What's the point of that, then? Either way, this is a stupid idea. Its impact on the war was nothing, its probability of being encountered by Allied pilots was zilch, and I really don't think eighty were produced, either. This is even a weaker a case than that of the Dornier 335 or Lockheed F-80.
-
alright... but does anyone know any planes to add to carriers?
-
It is functionally already in the game, sans CV gear. It was a modified Bf109E.
-
At least seven were built as T-1 with carrier equipment. The other 63 were built as T-2 without carrier equipment and the T-1 "upgraded" to this standard. They were used operationally with JG77 and JG5 in Norway.
With the single T-0 built (converted E-1) this sums up to 71 aircraft of the T-series. All were built/converted by Fieseler, Kassel.
The enlarged wing should have some effect on the flying characteristics, a little better maneuverablity with slightly reduced speed (compared to the E-7/N it was based on).
-
The Helldiver.
-
Well, consider that about 80 or so Ta 152s were made, but only 12 ever got to the front line.
The 109Ts were flying when the 109Fs came out. By the time the Gs came around they were retired, bumped down to training duties. They also probably didn't perform much like the 109Gs they were training pilots to fly, so they most likely went unused much of the time.
That's my guess as to how they survived -- lack of use. They're basically 109E-7s. Even the latest of the front line jabo 109Es were pulled in 1942.
-
Originally posted by DocRoe
alright... but does anyone know any planes to add to carriers?
A6M3 Zero
B6N2 "Jill"
D4Y2 "Judy"
F6F-3 Hellcat
Firefly Mk I
Fulmar Mk I
SBD2C Helldiver
Seafire Mk III
Skua Mk I
Swordfish Mk I
TBD Devastator
Iffy:
B7A2 "Grace"
-
Uh-oh, my reflex action just kicked in... must resist... saying.... it....... AGH!
"Judy Judy Judy!!"
-
what about the F2A Brewster Buffalo?
-
Originally posted by DocRoe
what about the F2A Brewster Buffalo?
Ah, that would go into the "Iffy" category like the B7A2. Had the gear, but never flew off of CV.
-
huh?i was just looking at a picture of one on a carrier and one with its nose into the carrier lol
here lemme find it.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F2A1_Thach_Saratoga.jpg
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g10000/g12906.jpg
just look em up...
and although i hear pilots called them " flying coffins" itd still be cool to have one in game :)
-
Let me rephrase, they never flew of a CV during WWII and into combat.
-
oh, but it still could take off of a carrier, did take off carriers, did go into combat lol just because it didnt take off carrier, then go into combat doesnt mean it shouldnt be in game... maybe there was no combat to be had lol
-
"That's my guess as to how they survived -- lack of use."
They were stationed in Norway. No info how much they saw combat, though.
-C+
-
Originally posted by DocRoe
oh, but it still could take off of a carrier, did take off carriers, did go into combat lol just because it didnt take off carrier, then go into combat doesnt mean it shouldnt be in game... maybe there was no combat to be had lol
No, I am not saying it shouldn't be in the game. I am saying it is iffy that it should be carrier enabled in the game. It was quite rare so I am not sure how needed it is though.
-
I for one would love to see a German carrier plane.
The Question I have is what capability do the 109T have? It may have been a 109E varient but it would have weighed more and had more drag.
I say if it can be done by AH (relatively easily) and it saw combat in WW2 then let's have it. It would make a nice target in carrier ops.
-
Kanrak, you forgot the Hurricat ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Kanrak, you forgot the Hurricat ;)
That was the catapult-launched, 1-way, convoy defender. You might be thinking of the Sea Hurricane.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
I for one would love to see a German carrier plane.
I say if it can be done by AH (relatively easily) and it saw combat in WW2 then let's have it.
They did not see combat.
I suppose we should include the carrier-equipped P-38, eh. One was made, and it worked just fine (though storing it was another story). And the P-38 fitted to carry two torpedoes, also ... After all, the P-38 saw combat, so logically we should include them, right?
Your "logic" stinks. It's like talking to a lawyer or a "Jehova's Witness."
-
Benny, the 109Ts did see combat. In a limitd capacity. Just not from CVs. Germany had no carriers in WW2. I agree with you, though. We shouldn't see them added to AH.
-
Any Me-109T that saw combat was not equipped for taking off of carriers, as Denniss pointed out, so no carrier-equipped Messerschmitt saw combat. Moreover, no carrier-based German fighter saw combat. You can look for loopholes all day, but the carrier Me-109 never saw combat, just as the carrier P-38 never saw combat. A carrier 109 makes as much sense as the carrier P-38.
An argument for a non-carrier-equipped 109T makes ever so slighly more sense, but it's still pretty stupid. Though they may have seen combat, it was such limited numbers and was no better than the Emil. So, why?
-
Hey, I said I agree with you! I'm not arguing! I was just clarifying :)
-
lol w/e..but agree that buff would be good?
-
A carrier enabled 109T would be great for what-if scenarios and campaigns. The plane existed and was flown operationally. How many were made is irrelevant. That the carrier was never finished is irrelevant. This is a game.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
That was the catapult-launched, 1-way, convoy defender. You might be thinking of the Sea Hurricane.
Well, both actually. The Hurricat could be launched from another ship in the TG for instance. That would be cool ;)
Since many sea Hurricanes were basically Mk I's and Mk IIC's, the work for HTC would be minimal, - but what a pain, damned HurriC's frrom a CV!
The Hurricats also bring one to MAC's (Merchant Aircraft Carriers), which had a remarkably fine career. Those might open the doors to different TG's, - small TG's with a MAC? Basically, they were intended to defend from FW's and Subs, and one day there will be subs in AH....
-
Originally posted by Karnak
A6M3 Zero
B6N2 "Jill"
D4Y2 "Judy"
F6F-3 Hellcat
Firefly Mk I
Fulmar Mk I
SBD2C Helldiver
Seafire Mk III
Skua Mk I
Swordfish Mk I
TBD Devastator
Iffy:
B7A2 "Grace"
Very good list. The Firefly and Helldiver are "needed" for sure :)
-
Originally posted by DocRoe
alright... but does anyone know any planes to add to carriers?
Clipped Seafire L III with a Merlin 55M.
-
Excellent List, HT, Pryo make it so please.
Or we will spawn endless threads about B-25's, B-29's Nooks, you name it.
We CAN make your life hell. Or you can give us a bone, a couple of bones. Small ones.
Choice is yours. :)
-
DocRoe - nothing to stop you landing any of the 109s on a carrier in the game. At least then you will get a feel for half the experience of something that never happened.
Why do you want a cv based 109? We've got plenty of capable planes already - I don't see it filling a gap. I'd have to vote no on this one.
Regards.
-
Why would anyone wote "no" on having more content added to the game? :huh
-
Originally posted by Viking
Why would anyone wote "no" on having more content added to the game? :huh
For the same reason we'd vote no for an F-15 or X-Wing Fighter. They aren't part of WWII. Remember, the F-15 or X-Wing would be "more content".
-
Originally posted by Viking
Why would anyone wote "no" on having more content added to the game? :huh
Well if we assume HTC have limited resources ie our subscriptions, then I think if more carrier based planes were to be introduced there are better candidates than a plane that was never used as a carrier based plane - see above lists.
If HTC have more money & time than they know what to do with then fine let's have every plane that ever flew in WW2.
I would vote "no" cos I'd rather see my money spent on something else.
Just my humble opinion.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
For the same reason we'd vote no for an F-15 or X-Wing Fighter. They aren't part of WWII. Remember, the F-15 or X-Wing would be "more content".
F-15 or X-Wing weren’t part of WWII as you say, but the 109T was. Your comparison is silly.
Originally posted by Viking
A carrier enabled 109T would be great for what-if scenarios and campaigns. The plane existed and was flown operationally. How many were made is irrelevant. That the carrier was never finished is irrelevant. This is a game.
Originally posted by Whisky58
Well if we assume HTC have limited resources ie our subscriptions, then I think if more carrier based planes were to be introduced there are better candidates than a plane that was never used as a carrier based plane - see above lists.
If HTC have more money & time than they know what to do with then fine let's have every plane that ever flew in WW2.
I would vote "no" cos I'd rather see my money spent on something else.
Just my humble opinion.
I agree that there are other planes and vehicle that should be added first, but that doesn’t mean the 109T shouldn’t be on the list. There is a finite number of planes used in WWII.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I agree that there are other planes and vehicle that should be added first, but that doesn’t mean the 109T shouldn’t be on the list. There is a finite number of planes used in WWII.
Just out of interest Viking, where would you rank the 109T as a priority in Karnak's list of cv planes we don't have?
-
Near the bottom somwhere.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Near the bottom somwhere.
Bf109T wasn't part of WWII either. It only saw service as a Bf109E-7. All the naval gear was taken out.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Clipped Seafire L III with a Merlin 55M.
That would be nasty :D
-
Originally posted by Whisky58
Just out of interest Viking, where would you rank the 109T as a priority in Karnak's list of cv planes we don't have?
Originally posted by Viking
Near the bottom somwhere.
How about the very bottom, as it never flew off a CV.
Bronk
-
well dude why would you want the f4f? for the same reason i want the 109T DUH!! lol
to fly it and if we cant have it how about the Buffalo? or ANY of the others although i would prefer some British carrier planes, w/e is cool
is there not a sea modified hurricane?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Bf109T wasn't part of WWII either. It only saw service as a Bf109E-7. All the naval gear was taken out.
No they served as 109T-2, and they retained the longer wings and the strengthened landing gear. The hook, catapult gear and some instrumentation were removed.
If Pyro et al insists on historical combat configuration by removing the hook and catapult gear a 109T-2 will still be welcome for scenarios. I find it silly that you people “refuse” to add this plane since I have flown 109F’s and 109G’s off carriers in campaigns. ALL the planes Karnak listed will be hangar queens; ALL the important MA planes have already been modeled. The only … ONLY … purpose these planes will have in the game is in historical and dynamic scenarios and campaigns, and in dynamic campaigns a German carrier has popped up several times.
-
Originally posted by Viking
ALL the important MA planes have already been modeled. The only … ONLY … purpose these planes will have in the game is in historical and dynamic scenarios and campaigns, and in dynamic campaigns a German carrier has popped up several times.
BS
B-29
P-39
Early KIs
B25
Betty
410
111
ect ect ect
All these had a much more significance compared to the 109T.
That never flew of a CV.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Viking
the planes Karnak listed will be hangar queens; ALL the important MA planes have already been modeled.
Try looking up the stats on them before spouting uninformed BS.
Particularly look at the:
B6N2
B7A2 (monster plane compared to any other Japanese or American CV strike aircraft)
D4Y2
Firefly Mk I (quad Hispanos)
SBD2C
Seafire Mk III
-
hey hey no nee dot be mean all lol
Yes i personally agree with adding the T, BUT will only add it if it has a different performance than the E
does it?
Also the Buffalo and Firefly i STRONGLY feel we should add also the TBD
-
Originally posted by DocRoe
alright... but does anyone know any planes to add to carriers?
Judy, Judy, Judy.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Viking
A carrier enabled 109T would be great for what-if scenarios and campaigns. The plane existed and was flown operationally. How many were made is irrelevant. That the carrier was never finished is irrelevant. This is a game.
When it came to our last full blown "what if" event (CAP), we found that all of the early 109s had favorable handling for CV operations. Granted we didn't have hooks, but the 109e and 109f subbed nicely. And the Stuka was a riot! lol.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Try looking up the stats on them before spouting uninformed BS.
Particularly look at the:
B6N2
B7A2 (monster plane compared to any other Japanese or American CV strike aircraft)
D4Y2
Firefly Mk I (quad Hispanos)
SBD2C
Seafire Mk III
Mr. "109T-2 = 109E-7" don't talk to me about spouting BS.
Granted the Judy or Devastator might see a little use if they can haul a lot of ord, but that's the extent of it. While the Firefly does have four cannons it is heavy and can barely manage 300 mph top speed. In reality they will see just as little use in the MA as 90% (or more) of the current plane set.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
BS
B-29
P-39
Early KIs
B25
Betty
410
111
ect ect ect
All these had a much more significance compared to the 109T.
That never flew of a CV.
Bronk
More significance in real life WWII? Yes. More significance in the MA? No … with the possible exception of the B-29 if it’s not perked.
And the 109T did fly off a CV, just not operationally. Operationally it flew off short landing strips on the tiny island of Helgoland and in Norway … where it served until 1944.
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/family/Images/aj2-b-t.jpg)
-
Functionally it was a Bf109E-7 as it saw its extremely limited service. Yes, there are slight differences, but not very many and it certainly wouldn't be competitive. It would, in short, see less use than almost my entire list, barring the TBD Devastator, Fulmar Mk I and Swordfish.
The Firefly would be a quad Hispano aircraft off a CV. That alone would get it use. And 316mph isn't bad for a strike aircraft.
Look at the B7A2. The thing is sick for a CV attack plane.
And don't even pretend the Seafire L.Mk III wouldn't see gobs of use.
The D4Y2 is a CV dive bomber that can break 300mph.
The SB2C doesn't handle well, but it carries a lot of ord for a CV strike craft and has two Hispanos in the wings.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Functionally it was a Bf109E-7
Closer to 190E-7/Z because it had GM-1. Longer wings and GM-1...it would perform best at very high altitudes.
Not a reason to get it added for a long long time, though.
-
Originally posted by Viking
More significance in real life WWII? Yes. More significance in the MA? No … with the possible exception of the B-29 if it’s not perked.
... As if more people would fly the Me-109T than the P-39.
-
Agreement upon every bit that Karnak posted :aok
+ Sea Hurricane with quad Hispanos.
(BTW, I remember people posting against the Hurricane being added to AH (1) on the grounds that it would be a hangar queen)
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
... As if more people would fly the Me-109T than the P-39.
From carriers - I'm quite sure.
-
Originally posted by Angus
(BTW, I remember people posting against the Hurricane being added to AH (1) on the grounds that it would be a hangar queen)
How ironic.
-
Originally posted by Viking
No they served as 109T-2, and they retained the longer wings and the strengthened landing gear. The hook, catapult gear and some instrumentation were removed.
Originally posted by Benny Moore
... As if more people would fly the Me-109T than the P-39.
Originally posted by Viking
From carriers - I'm quite sure.
No longer a CV aircraft so your point is irrelevant.
Bronk
-
We have to agree to disagree yet again.
-
Nothing to agree/disagree about YOU said CV gear was removed. Thus making it a non CV AC.
Feel free to play both sides of proving and disproving yourself.
Its very funny.
Bronk
-
… And as usual you can’t agree to disagree. Simpletons rarely do.
Originally posted by Viking
If Pyro et al insists on historical combat configuration by removing the hook and catapult gear a 109T-2 will still be welcome for scenarios. I find it silly that you people “refuse” to add this plane since I have flown 109F’s and 109G’s off carriers in campaigns.
-
Originally posted by Viking
… And as usual you can’t agree to disagree. Simpletons rarely do.
Because it was an incredibly rare aircraft, so it would not in fact be very useful in scenarions.
And Pyro et a do insist on historical usage, last I heard.
There are absolutely gobs of aircraft, including other Bf109s, that should have higher priority than the Bf109T.
That is what you are missing and attacking us for.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Because it was an incredibly rare aircraft, so it would not in fact be very useful in scenarions.
And Pyro et a do insist on historical usage, last I heard.
There are absolutely gobs of aircraft, including other Bf109s, that should have higher priority than the Bf109T.
That is what you are missing and attacking us for.
Well said.
And since you started the name calling Gblowz/Viqueen.
We know who the simpleton is.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Because it was an incredibly rare aircraft, so it would not in fact be very useful in scenarions.
It was more common than the Ta152, and served for almost the entire war. Carrier 109’s have been used numerous times in campaigns.
Originally posted by Karnak
And Pyro et a do insist on historical usage, last I heard.
Yup, and a T-2 will still be welcomed. It will still be a better match for a T-1 than the E or F in campaigns.
Originally posted by Karnak
There are absolutely gobs of aircraft, including other Bf109s, that should have higher priority than the Bf109T.
This we agree on as I’ve already stated numerous times.
Originally posted by Karnak
That is what you are missing and attacking us for.
This is a thread about adding the 109T. You and Bronk are the attackers … attacking the very purpose of this thread. If you want to lobby for other planes start your own thread, like civilized people do.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Gblowz/Viqueen.
lol How mature of you. What’s next? Adolescent references to genitalia perhaps?
-
off topic
Someones PTS is kicking in. You started the nastiness.
I stated all be it in a sarcastic way. You want the AC both ways.
CV plane without the CV equipment.
You then start with the derogatory attack remark.
Sad.
On topic
Should the 109t be added ?
Sure, bottom of the list though.
Should it be available off the cv in the MA?
Nope never did so in a combat environment.
B-25 has more right to, than the 109T.
Good for "what if" scenario's?
Probably, but after the "Operation Downfall" scenario fiasco. What ifs are pointless. IMHO
You may continue with your being attacked paranoia/complex.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Viking
I agree that there are other planes and vehicle that should be added first, but that doesn’t mean the 109T shouldn’t be on the list.
Originally posted by Bronk
Should the 109t be added ?
Sure, bottom of the list though.
So despite all your trolling we agree after all.
-
Originally posted by Viking
So despite all your trolling we agree after all.
I never said it shouldn't, find where I said different.
I was on topic.
Docroe wanted it as a MA cv plane.
That I disagreed with.
You spun it into a luftwhiner persecution conspiracy.
Take your PTS meds, your getting out of hand.
Bronk
-
We are also pointing out the hyperbole being plastered about how it would see gobs of use and such.
The ridiculously dismissive claim that it would see more use than most of my list when the exact opposite was true.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
We are also pointing out the hyperbole being plastered about how it would see gobs of use and such.
The ridiculously dismissive claim that it would see more use than most of my list when the exact opposite was true.
heh note my location.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Karnak
We are also pointing out the hyperbole being plastered about how it would see gobs of use and such.
I dare you to quote one such comment from this thread. You can’t, because it is not true.
Originally posted by Karnak
The ridiculously dismissive claim that it would see more use than most of my list when the exact opposite was true.
I dare you to quote that claim. You can’t because it is not true.
-
Hey dip chit.
PTS= post traumatic stress= your mind is wonky
PMS= Pre menstrual syndrome = Womans time of the month.
Lean to read mister I've been war scarred.
Bronk
Edit: for those who missed Mr Iamneverwrong's original post.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/niceedit.jpg)
-
I noticed some time ago. You're kind of slow today.
-
Fast enough to catch your stupidity.
Go take your anxiety meds, they beckon.
Bronk
-
I don't need medication, but perhaps you do. Your obsession with me is disturbing.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I dare you to quote one such comment from this thread. You can’t, because it is not true.
I dare you to quote that claim. You can’t because it is not true.
Covers both quite nicely.
Originally posted by Viking
More significance in real life WWII? Yes. More significance in the MA? No … with the possible exception of the B-29 if it’s not perked.
Because the 109T perf would probably fall in between the E/F model.
And those 2 are SOOOO overused now. I'm sure all the seafire dweebs will be flocking to the T.
Still irrelevant because the damn thing never did so in a combat environment.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Viking
No they served as 109T-2, and they retained the longer wings and the strengthened landing gear. The hook, catapult gear and some instrumentation were removed.
If Pyro et al insists on historical combat configuration by removing the hook and catapult gear a 109T-2 will still be welcome for scenarios. I find it silly that you people “refuse” to add this plane since I have flown 109F’s and 109G’s off carriers in campaigns. ALL the planes Karnak listed will be hangar queens; ALL the important MA planes have already been modeled. The only … ONLY … purpose these planes will have in the game is in historical and dynamic scenarios and campaigns, and in dynamic campaigns a German carrier has popped up several times.
The obvious insinuation is that the Bf109T would be used more than these. Particularly considering that some of them are bonafide uber-planes and would certainly not be "hangar-queens".
-
Originally posted by Viking
I don't need medication, but perhaps you do. Your obsession with me is disturbing.
Ooooo the I know you are but what am I retort.
Did ya pick that up at your last PTS group session?
Or was it a hold over from your 3 grade education?
Inquiring minds want to know.
You have no originality and are a huge bore.
That on top of being a pompous self important know-it-all.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Covers both quite nicely.
Because the 109T perf would probably fall in between the E/F model.
And those 2 are SOOOO overused now. I'm sure all the seafire dweebs will be flocking to the T.
Still irrelevant because the damn thing never did so in a combat environment.
Bronk
The Seafire was not on your list Bronk. Learn to read eh?
Originally posted by Bronk
BS
B-29
P-39
Early KIs
B25
Betty
410
111
ect ect ect
All these had a much more significance compared to the 109T.
That never flew of a CV.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The obvious insinuation is that the Bf109T would be used more than these. Particularly considering that some of them are bonafide uber-planes and would certainly not be "hangar-queens".
I didn’t insinuate anything. ALL those plane INCLUDING the 109T will be hangar queens. None of them are “bonafide uber-planes”.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Ooooo the I know you are but what am I retort.
Did ya pick that up at your last PTS group session?
Or was it a hold over from your 3 grade education?
Inquiring minds want to know.
You have no originality and are a huge bore.
That on top of being a pompous self important know-it-all.
Bronk
QED.
-
Tardling you make sound like people would drop their fav ride for a chance at a 109T.
Thats the point stupid.
The 109T would be a hanger queen period.
Only use it has is in stupid "what if" bs scenarios.
Once again it never saw service as a CV plane.
Boy your thick.
Bronk
-
Consider that you are backing the comments of other's such as:
Originally posted by DocRoe
please consider this and i think people would be drawn to carriers and carriers would be used more often if you added this plane in the game.
The Bf109T would see less than 1000 kills/tour. That would do nothing noticable to boost CV use.
-
Originally posted by Viking
QED.
Correct, it has been determined you're a pompous self important know-it-all.
Glad you agree.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Tardling you make sound like people would drop their fav ride for a chance at a 109T.
Only in your demented mind Bronk, and perhaps Karnak’s.
Originally posted by Bronk
Only use it has is in stupid "what if" bs scenarios.
So now you also attack the SEA people who sacrifice precious time and energy making this game better? How nice. You really should seek help Bronk.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Consider that you are backing the comments of other's such as:
The Bf109T would see less than 1000 kills/tour. That would do nothing noticable to boost CV use.
Where did I “back” that comment or any other in this thread for that matter? DocRoe’s comments will have to stand on their own merit. Read what I post, and unless I explicitly support another poster I will not be held responsible for their opinions. You do far too much “reading between the lines” and what you find there is your own presumptions and bias.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Only in your demented mind Bronk, and perhaps Karnak’s.
I'm not the one jumping up and down. Screaming how useful a hens teeth AC would be. You on the other hand.....
So now you also attack the SEA people who sacrifice precious time and energy making this game better? How nice. You really should seek help Bronk.
Ooooo look a straw man.
Tard
Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth
The people are fine. The events are suspect, open to too much interpretation.
Bronk
-
I remember when this thread was about the 109T. I'm sad that part of the thread ran its course.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Bronk
I'm not the one jumping up and down. Screaming how useful a hens teeth AC would be. You on the other hand.....
So in your head you picture me as jumping up and down and screaming? Explains a lot. In reality (the real world outside your head) I am sitting quite comfortably in my living room, trying to have a debate about a plane and a game.
-
I'm not. It was stupid in the first place, and watching Bronk beat up on "Viking" is amusing, much like seeing a bird torment a not-too-bright housecat by always staying just out of reach.
-
Originally posted by Viking
So in your head you picture me as jumping up and down and screaming? Explains a lot. In reality (the real world outside your head) I am sitting quite comfortably in my living room, trying to have a debate about a plane and a game.
1.Well just look at your avitard says a lot also. "I'M VIQUEEN LOOK AT ME" kinda thing.
2.I was too till you started with the derogatory remarks.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
I'm not. It was stupid in the first place, and watching Bronk beat up on "Viking" is amusing, much like seeing a bird torment a not-too-bright housecat by always staying just out of reach.
Another stalker.
-
Originally posted by Viking
:noid
Nuff said.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
2.I was too till you started with the derogatory remarks.
I assume you were referring to this:
Originally posted by Viking
I am sitting quite comfortably in my living room, trying to have a debate about a plane and a game.
So … in reality it is you who are jumping up and down and screaming. Lol! Somehow I find that very funny.
-
Viking war helms did not bear horns.
-
Originally posted by Viking
So … in reality it is you who are jumping up and down and screaming. Lol! Somehow I find that very funny.
You logic is astounding.:rolleyes: Simp
I'm pointing out how i was fine going point for point.
Until you lit the flame.
I'm quite capable of doing that also.
Bronk
-
More than capable I'd say. You're quite the troll sir.
-
Hello pot, this is kettle. You are black.
:D
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
They did not see combat.
Well, strange. The first ever shot down B-17 in European theatre was downed by a 109 T.
Sorry, if you are just making guesses, please do not. The 109 Ts saw plenty operational use.
-
Plenty compared to the Ta152? Yes.
Plenty compared to, say, a J2M3? Not even close.
Or even the Spitfire Mk XII, which was built in similar numbers to the Bf109T, once again, not even close.
-
Originally posted by Grendel
Well, strange. The first ever shot down B-17 in European theatre was downed by a 109 T.
Sorry, if you are just making guesses, please do not. The 109 Ts saw plenty operational use.
And what cv was that off of?
Bronk
-
The CV was KM Helgoland.
-
I repeat, carrier-based Me-109s did not see combat. Carrier-equipped 109s did not, either.
-
id say why not add it?
why is the yak T in game? why is the ki 67? why does there have to be like 5 different variants of p47?
they're all debatable
-
Cuz there are already 6 109 variants. Only other AC with that many is the spit.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by DocRoe
id say why not add it?
why is the yak T in game? why is the ki 67? why does there have to be like 5 different variants of p47?
they're all debatable
You're comparing the famous apples and oranges. None of the ships you call "debatable" saw anywhere nearly as little combat use (which is none) as a carrier-equipped Me-109. Only the Ta-152 comes even close - and I would, in fact, argue against its inclusion if it were not already in.
There are four different models of P-47 because it was the most produced American fighter, with about fifteen thousand made. I think that puts it in fourth place for total fighter production in history, after the Me-109, Spitfire, and FW-190.
-
I think there were more Yaks than P-47s. Maybe more Yaks than Spitfires even.
-
Yaks? 30.000 out of memory. The Il-2 and the La series also had enormous production numbers.
Spitfire 20.000, Hurricane some 13.000, 109 some 35.000 with the post war models (avia and hispano).
The USSR sheer numbers are funny, for AFAIK in only one year is the air more draining on the LW on the eastern front than the western/southern one, - 1943. LOL, now I'll have to find that source again...
-
Originally posted by DocRoe
id say why not add it?
why is the yak T in game? why is the ki 67? why does there have to be like 5 different variants of p47?
they're all debatable
The Yak-9T is in the game because Hammerguns are sexy.
-Sik