Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Pannono on March 15, 2008, 07:19:24 PM
-
SU-100 had 100mm gun that could fire 4-6 rounds per min
perk it higher than tiger
hows it sound guys?
-
pretty good,...................................i'll just hide around the corner :aok
-
Yeah maybe if your loader was Superman. 100mm AP Shell is huge and heavy, and the cramped confines of a Assualt gun does not give you much space to work with. You would have to have the shells out of the racks and lined up. So maybe for the 1st minute under ideal conditions you could fire 4 rounds, I'd say more like 2 -3 rounds max.
Helm ...out
-
IS-2 had 122mm gun that had such a huge shell it had to be loaded in 2 seperate parts
2 rpm lol
-
SU-100 had 100mm gun that could fire 4-6 rounds per min
perk it higher than tiger
hows it sound guys?
I wouldn't rule it out. HTC's barely scratched the surface with GV's.
-
(http://klub.chip.pl/krzemek/jagdtiger/jagdtiger02d.jpg)
Asides from its tranny problems, I love to see this.
-
It'd be really cool to see something like that walk to a target shrugging off hits all the way, and only die after trashing a good part of the opposition on its own..
-
SU-100 had 100mm gun that could fire 4-6 rounds per min
perk it higher than tiger
hows it sound guys?
First off <S> Pan.
Secondly, i'll be cowering behind my Spit if they ever put that in the game.
-
Id have to go with Hetzer,M18 or Archer before I wanted the big boys Hetzer and m18 espically one that is small and has a decent gun and the second can hit 55mph with a good gun. Archer would be different, more as a base def. TD but we already have the dual role Firefly with the same gun so its somehwhat represented already.
-
Small like a Hetzer, or big like a SU-100, the turretless TD's would have advantages, and disadvanteges, that would make for funny gameplay. They would have a small, low silohuette (except for perhaps the Jagdtiger) which would make them hard targets, at a distance. The lack of a turret, however, would make them difficult to use in built-up areas' like TT city, or in a densely wooded area. Actually as far as gameplay, they would not be so uber as would first be suspected. As for the Turreted American TD's, they would have the advantage of a turret, but they would have thin armor, so they would have to rely on being quick on the draw, so to speak. TD's would contribute greatly to gameplay, IMHO.
-
Even though I am not a gv'er at all, I'd like to see some additions to the GV set. This is because I am not a gv'er because of lack of variation.
-
its time to put those tank bunkers to some use i never see ppl in em at v bases
-
SU-100 had 100mm gun that could fire 4-6 rounds per min
One round every 10 - 12 seconds? I love it! Better than the gatling-gun tanks we have now, heh...what is the Firefly? One round every 4 sec or so? Anyone time it yet?
-
One round every 10 - 12 seconds? I love it! Better than the gatling-gun tanks we have now, heh...what is the Firefly? One round every 4 sec or so? Anyone time it yet?
Man, I wanna see the Is-2 (Js-2) in some simulator. Not even AHII. I wanna see what it can do. Or see a thing on the Military Channel about it hopefully.
-
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj240/bigjohn1967/369303515_b8ec20f7bd1.jpg)
In the red circle is a hit from a 76mm AP round. Pretty cool huh?
-
We don't really need these types right now as we got the Tiger and Firefly. Would like to see assault gunslike the Stug. Or tank destroyes like M10 and Hetzer.
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj240/bigjohn1967/StuG_III_1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj240/bigjohn1967/M10_destroyer.jpg)
-
M18 would be way more fun then the M10.
It was way faster.
-
Is there any interest in fixing the ground based physics as opposed to adding new vehicles?
-
What tank is that? It almost looks like a Panther but I cant see it well enough to tel.
-
Which one? The one behind the pic of the StugIII is a Panther. The other one that has been hit in the front is a Jagdtiger. It was hit twice in the frontal armor by a 76mm firing AP rounds and no penetration. :O
-
I personally wouldn't mind seeing the Jadgpanzer. It has the gun capable of killing the tiger, L/70 75mm where as the stug doesn't. It also has a very low profile and I believe a gun that traverses side to side better than the stug plus better armor protection.
-
It was hit twice in the frontal armor by a 76mm firing AP rounds and no penetration.
indeed a 76mm couldnt do much against 250mm on the front superstructure. guessing the range was past 1.0-1.5k and the 12.8cm would pack a huge punch to anything we have in game, limited rounds though think it could only carry around 35-40 rounds... that and think bombing a tiger is hard imagine that behemoth rolling around.
-
artillery would be cool too for base defense, have a couple guns, 2 or 3 guys, shooting tanks, that would be sweet, or even for the AvA for German bases have the 88mm.
http://wnet.suomi.net/kotisivu/harri.kaarre/images/88mm05.JPG
-
Let's add the M1A1 Abrams for no perks, and the M1A2 with perks as well.
-
indeed a 76mm couldnt do much against 250mm on the front superstructure. guessing the range was past 1.0-1.5k and the 12.8cm would pack a huge punch to anything we have in game, limited rounds though think it could only carry around 35-40 rounds... that and think bombing a tiger is hard imagine that behemoth rolling around.
Frontal upper hull armor was 150 mm, frontal lower hull armor was 100 mm, only the superstructure front had 250 mm armor. The lower hull hit may have been a penetrating one but it's not really clearly visible.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jagdtiger_3.jpg for another view
-
SU-100 had 100mm gun that could fire 4-6 rounds per min
perk it higher than tiger
hows it sound guys?
That is one very good reason to never get caught below 5,000 feet... :noid
-
I'd love to see the SU-100.
-
No the lower hit did not penetrate. It is quite deeper than the upper hit though. I used to have a pic of this at a slightly different angle that didn't have the shadow in the lower hit but have lost it.
-
how about a Nashorn
(http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/heer/antitank/nashorn/nashorn.jpg)
it has to be perked its got an 88
-
ACHTUNG, PANZER!!!!!!
-
how about a Nashorn
(http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/heer/antitank/nashorn/nashorn.jpg)
it has to be perked its got an 88
I wouldn't think a Nashorn would be perked, because the armor was thin.
Elefant, on the other hand . . .
-
elefant would be a hell of a target to take out, it had a big gun, good armor protection and it had mobility. Nashorn has the gun but not rlly the protection either way thye would be nice additions
-
elefant would be a hell of a target to take out, it had a big gun, good armor protection and it had mobility. Nashorn has the gun but not rlly the protection either way thye would be nice additions
Mobility...No. Road speed was 20-30 Kph, Cross-country was 8-10 Kph. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz6.htm
-
elefant would be a hell of a target to take out, it had a big gun, good armor protection and it had mobility. Nashorn has the gun but not rlly the protection either way thye would be nice additions
The elephant was a disaster at Kursk and was abandoned rather quickly. The jadgpanzer would be a nice adition for a tank destroyer
-
Frontal upper hull armor was 150 mm, frontal lower hull armor was 100 mm, only the superstructure front had 250 mm armor. The lower hull hit may have been a penetrating one but it's not really clearly visible.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jagdtiger_3.jpg for another view
From everything I have read about the jadgtiger is that is was impervious to any tank round from the front. I don't believe any of them were knocked out from tank on tank action. Most broke down or were abandoned for one reason or another. The picture is from the Aberdeen tank proving grounds and that scar in the front was done when it was being tested for penetration at various angles and distances not on the battlefield. It did not penetrate according to what I have read. The glacial plate where the hole is is considered the lower hull and has 240 mm thick armor. The 128 mm gun wasa a naval gun and could turn a Sherman into vapor over 4500 yards.
-
The elephant was a disaster at Kursk and was abandoned rather quickly. The jadgpanzer would be a nice adition for a tank destroyer
that was becasuse it didnt have a printil or bow gun but in aces high it wouldnt be a problem because we dont have swarms of rusian tank killer squads runing around
-
The Ferdinand - there was no Elefant there - was somewhat successful at Kursk, killing lots of enemy vehicles. But it had severe reliability problems and prone to breakdowns especially from within the entire engine/drivetrain components. It was also very unmanouverable and the terrain was not really suitable for a tank that heavy and slow. Almost all Ferdinands lost at Kursk had to be blown up by their own crews to prevent capture.
-
people have to remember that, it was untested and this was it baptism of fire, just like the tiger, that had many problem, the Ferdinad, looks to be more of a defensive unit, it would be good for V base defense or Airfield town defense. I rate the Ferdinad a 7 for the things that could have happened to it, the jadgpanther would be a great addition to the game.
-
M18 would be way more fun then the M10.
It was way faster.
But the M-10 was produced in far geater numbers and would find a home in all three arenas.
-
people have to remember that, it was untested and this was it baptism of fire, just like the tiger, that had many problem, the Ferdinad, looks to be more of a defensive unit, it would be good for V base defense or Airfield town defense. I rate the Ferdinad a 7 for the things that could have happened to it, the jadgpanther would be a great addition to the game.
The Ferdinand had the same gun as the Tiger with the Porsche chassis that was originally suppose to be the Tigers chassis. It was rather big with a high profile. German doctrine was to have a tank destroyer with the same gun package
as the main battle tank in that class. ie
Tiger-Ferdinand
Panzer-Stug
However this changed a bit when tank destroyers started to be equipped with larger guns,
Jadg Panther had the new high velocity 88 that the King Tiger had
Jadg Panzer had the L/70 75mm that the Panther had
Jadg Tiger had a 128mm naval gun
The Ferdinand played such a small part in German tank warfare that others would be a more obvious choice. These tanks im my opinion wouldn't be good for base defense from the stand point that you had to face what you were firing at. More than 1 target would pose a problem from first locating the target than traversing the tank and then jumping into the gunner position to adjust the gun site on the target and if the target is moving fast it may be out of the gun barrel traverse
before you were able to fire starting this process all over again. The only way I see the turretless tank destroyer playing a part would be in the ambush role that would require very little movement.
-
The Ferdinand had the same gun as the Tiger with the Porsche chassis that was originally suppose to be the Tigers chassis. It was rather big with a high profile. German doctrine was to have a tank destroyer with the same gun package
as the main battle tank in that class. ie
Tiger-Ferdinand
Panzer-Stug
However this changed a bit when tank destroyers started to be equipped with larger guns,
Jadg Panther had the new high velocity 88 that the King Tiger had
Jadg Panzer had the L/70 75mm that the Panther had
Jadg Tiger had a 128mm naval gun
The Ferdinand played such a small part in German tank warfare that others would be a more obvious choice. These tanks im my opinion wouldn't be good for base defense from the stand point that you had to face what you were firing at. More than 1 target would pose a problem from first locating the target than traversing the tank and then jumping into the gunner position to adjust the gun site on the target and if the target is moving fast it may be out of the gun barrel traverse
before you were able to fire starting this process all over again. The only way I see the turretless tank destroyer playing a part would be in the ambush role that would require very little movement.
The only thing I would correct is that the Ferdinand DID NOT have the same gun as the Tiger. The Tiger had an L/56 88mm derived from the Flak 18/36. The 88mm. in the Ferdinand (and the Nashorn, as well) was also an 88mm, but it was the L/71 Pak 43, which had a higher muzzle velocity and even more penetration and range than the Tiger E's L/56 weapon.
The Tiger II (King Tiger, Royal Tiger) had the Pak 43.
In AH terms, I don't know how the Long 88mm Pak 43 would work in terms of gameplay. It would outrange any other GV gun in the game, able to make one-shot kills' out to at least 3k, even on heavily armored or hard-to-kill target's such as the Tiger or T-34. I don't think in that situation, the trouble's of jumping back and forth between gun and driver would be much of a problem. It would most likely draw out fighter-bombers' to take them out, because contending GV's would not be able to get close enough to effectively engage the Tank Destroyer's. They could really enhance gameplay.
-
Or it could make a nice target for deployable artillery...
-
just saying, ADD M18!!!
-
...or for an allied tank destroyer.
-
The only thing I would correct is that the Ferdinand DID NOT have the same gun as the Tiger. The Tiger had an L/56 88mm derived from the Flak 18/36. The 88mm. in the Ferdinand (and the Nashorn, as well) was also an 88mm, but it was the L/71 Pak 43, which had a higher muzzle velocity and even more penetration and range than the Tiger E's L/56 weapon.
The Tiger II (King Tiger, Royal Tiger) had the Pak 43.
In AH terms, I don't know how the Long 88mm Pak 43 would work in terms of gameplay. It would outrange any other GV gun in the game, able to make one-shot kills' out to at least 3k, even on heavily armored or hard-to-kill target's such as the Tiger or T-34. I don't think in that situation, the trouble's of jumping back and forth between gun and driver would be much of a problem. It would most likely draw out fighter-bombers' to take them out, because contending GV's would not be able to get close enough to effectively engage the Tank Destroyer's. They could really enhance gameplay.
I stand corrected in regards to the Tiger having the same gun, it did not.