Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: oakranger on August 30, 2009, 02:57:21 AM
-
Perk the The Flakpanzer IV "Wirbelwind"
-
Nope
Fix it, don't perk it.
-
Perk the The Flakpanzer IV "Wirbelwind"
Why?
-
The fix would solve most of the problems, I don't know it down to a science but I do know it would see a large decrease in volume of fire-power and a slower turret traverse speed. I'll let someone like Lusche fill in the technical data.
-
Why?
+1
-
No need to perk them, just kill them.
-
If you knew how to stay 2k away from a WW they wouldn't be a problem. It's always the same thing " Hey look this noob 51 is running to the field, (30 seconds earlier someone called out WW on the field), LET ME CHASE HIM!!!!. Another 30 seconds later, &&$&#^ STUPID RUNSTANG ACK DRAGGER PERK THE WIRBLE!!!!!!!!!!.....
I have yet to have been shot down by any WW or Osti that I haven't set myself up to be shot down by.
-
Why?
Have you ever been near one?
-
Have you ever been near one?
why would you go near one.... That's a better question.
-
why would you go near one.... That's a better question.
So, if someone is taking your field and the VH is dead, there are 5 wirble winds in the town. Let them take the field? What if there are GV's IB to a base, and wirble winds around as well. Don't kill the GV's and let them march onto the field?
-
why would you go near one.... That's a better question.
Ah, I wasn't aware that I was in a perfect man's presence. Excuse me.
-
No drop a bomb on its head from out of the guns effective range.
-
Slap it with a punkin from a 25H
-
Ah, I wasn't aware that I was in a perfect man's presence. Excuse me.
No far from perfect, I just know that if I'm within 1.5k of a WW something is coming off my plane sooner or later.
-
I don't normally like dropping bombs above 1K out. The next common situation: ords out.
-
No far from perfect, I just know that if I'm within 1.5k of a WW something is coming off my plane sooner or later.
You can do it from 3K out if you have the right gunsight and know how to do it.
-
No far from perfect, I just know that if I'm within 1.5k of a WW something is coming off my plane sooner or later.
Exactly. Don't you think that something is wrong with the Wirblewind model when this is the case?
-
Exactly. Don't you think that something is wrong with the Wirblewind model when this is the case?
The range isn't what the problem is, it's the turret rotation speed and the high ROF with no reload. And I've never been hit farther than 1.5k, not saying it isn't possible but never happened to me. I just try to get alt and drop a bomb from as high as possible, or try to toss a pumpkin his way if ords are out.
-
Right. I never asked for it to be perked, OP did, but I've made thread after thread about fixing it.
-
Right. I never asked for it to be perked, OP did, but I've made thread after thread about fixing it.
And I'm agreeing with you on it being fixed, I see no reason for it to be perked. It can easily be killed and If you stay out of its range you don't need to worry about getting knocked out of the sky.
-
The first response when it hit the game was perk it, if a V-base starts flashing it's almost guaranteed you'll see 5 WW's sitting on the base. For some odd reason I do see the OSt a little more nowadays. Even if the WW is fixed, it'll still be used, but not as much I don't think. Also, the WW's ENY needs to get lowered. Maybe to 10 or 15.
-
And I'm agreeing with you on it being fixed, I see no reason for it to be perked. It can easily be killed and If you stay out of its range you don't need to worry about getting knocked out of the sky.
Fair enough. If it were fixed to a more reasonable state, there definitely would be no reason to perk it because it provides a different option to the Osty.
-
The first response when it hit the game was perk it, if a V-base starts flashing it's almost guaranteed you'll see 5 WW's sitting on the base. For some odd reason I do see the OSt a little more nowadays. Even if the WW is fixed, it'll still be used, but not as much I don't think. Also, the WW's ENY needs to get lowered. Maybe to 10 or 15.
The Osty can reach out and tap incoming bombers up to 4k or so (I can't do it, but others can). The ww will only hit out to 1.5k. If you have incoming bombers coming to a vbase, an osty is actually more useful. I think that's one of the reasons you see them more, as people realize this.
I would be more than happy to see the WW have its rate of turret traversal, and rate of fire made more realistic. Notice the magazines on the 20mm guns, and yet when does the firing ever pause to let the gun reload?
They may be working toward this reloading pause in wirbles. Have you guys noticed that since the last update, the ack guns on a base now fire in bursts, rather than continually? Maybe they're testing this out using the auto-acks, and the wirbles will see this change next.
-
I have yet to have been shot down by any WW or Osti that I haven't set myself up to be shot down by.
Why would you set yourself up to be shot down? :confused:
-
seth,
The problem with imposing a mandatory pause in fire is that there's a large number of other aircraft that would need to be remodeled to do the same (I think the Ju-88 comes to mind). A far, FAR better option would be to only allow one pair of the guns to fire at a time, which is the only way the historical WWs could manage sustained fire (with the idle pair being reloaded).
And I agree, the traverse and elevation speed REALLY needs to be addressed.
-
Fix it or perk it. I have been kill a few time as far as 2 k. times i go in on one that is firing in one direction then turn more than 90 dergee in sec and get me.
-
Perk the bullets for the wirble!
-
Perk it to 1,000 points, then geld it by 1/2 ROF and lethality, then make it slower, make it easier to kill, and give it terrible sights.
The goshdang things keep shooting at me yasee. Its almost getting impossable to kill helpless planes on the runway to pad my score :huh Or just as bad, its forcing me to carry ords to kill them. Thus preventing me further from killing helpless planes on the runway. :uhoh
This has been another Bi-weekly Waaa thread about WWs/IL2s/Bombs brought to you by the members of Aces High Flight sim. Now a word from our sponsor.
-
Well just looking at this month stats for the AA vehicles...WW is king, by far.
Vehicle
Wirbelwind: Kills:36693 Deaths:18751 K/D Ratio:1.96
Ostiewind: Kills:4234 Deaths:3598 K/D Ratio:1.18
M-16 Kills:723 Deaths:1383 K/D Ratio:0.52
- The WW has 8 times the kills of the OW
- The WW has 50 times the kills of the M-16
- A total of 2101 different players have used the WW
- A total of 689 different players have used the OW
- A total of 289 different players have used the M-16
- For this tour the WW has the 8th highest K/D ratio (Top 7 all perk planes or tanks)
(All information is from tour 115 Late War)
Just though this info might be interesting for some to see.
-
If the Wirbelwind is changed to be within its historic capabilities, then the same has to be done for the 37mm Il-2.
-
No need to perk the WW.
It's all a matter of control. The WW is way too easy to destroy with a run-of-the-mill panzer or T34.
If the VH is down? Defend it better.
Ord down? Defend it better.. or, get 5 guys to supply the field to get them back up.
As far as bombing them, if you can't hit a parked target from 3k alt, practice enough so you can.
Anybody who gets shot down by a WW flew too close to them.
Don't do that.
-
As far as bombing them, if you can't hit a parked target from 3k alt, practice enough so you can.
Nailed three parked spread out on the pad at a V-base with a single 1000lb'er once. :D
-
If the Wirbelwind is changed to be within its historic capabilities, then the same has to be done for the 37mm Il-2.
I can live with that. What is with the 37mm on the Il-2?
-
Why not randomize the bullets in the Whirble like they did w/ the Ostiwind?
Don't tell me i'm the only one that remembers how deadly the Osti USED to be?
In fact, I was somewhat surprised when HTC didn't randomize the WWs bullets from the get-go.
-
Why not randomize the bullets in the Whirble like they did w/ the Ostiwind?
Don't tell me i'm the only one that remembers how deadly the Osti USED to be?
In fact, I was somewhat surprised when HTC didn't randomize the WWs bullets from the get-go.
Please, God.. somebody confirm that they already ARE randomized...
I really hate to think my aim sucks that bad in the WW.
-
I can live with that. What is with the 37mm on the Il-2?
The cannons were not synchronized, so firing more than a couple shells at a time would cause so much lopsided recoil as to make holding your aim impossible. Firing more than a couple shells at a time also lead to frequent jamming, so much so that the 23mm cannon was preferred. We don't need jamming in AH, but unsynchronizing the 37mm cannons so that recoil spoils aim when you simply hold the trigger down would be good.
-
OH, yea they need to do something about the 37mm. Getting two of three hits a sec from a Il-2 and die didn't seemed right.
-
No drop a bomb on its head from out of the guns effective range.
Because I always carry a bomb with me...
IMHO it NEEDS to be perked. For one, the ostwind never gets used anymore, not to mention the M-16.
All the statements of "just don't go near them" are just dumb... Sooner or later, you are going to run into them, and when that happens, there is nothing you can do except pray hes a bad shot. I love all the dweebs sitting in their whirbles in the middle of a furball, just waiting to pick their unsuspecting victim off who is in a fight. Nothing makes me want to log off more than that. Happened to me all day yesterday, and I have no desire to get back on today.
Well just looking at this month stats for the AA vehicles...WW is king, by far.
Vehicle
Wirbelwind: Kills:36693 Deaths:18751 K/D Ratio:1.96
Ostiewind: Kills:4234 Deaths:3598 K/D Ratio:1.18
M-16 Kills:723 Deaths:1383 K/D Ratio:0.52
- The WW has 8 times the kills of the OW
- The WW has 50 times the kills of the M-16
- A total of 2101 different players have used the WW
- A total of 689 different players have used the OW
- A total of 289 different players have used the M-16
- For this tour the WW has the 8th highest K/D ratio (Top 7 all perk planes or tanks)
(All information is from tour 115 Late War)
Just though this info might be interesting for some to see.
That says it all.
-
Doesn't the Wirble chew through towns faster than the Ostiwind?
-
Doesn't the Wirble chew through towns faster than the Ostiwind?
Yes, faster then bombers can or any other GVs.
-
How did this turn into another "perk the IL2" thread?
Can you tell me?
Its the same IL2 for each side and every player. Frankly this Tank crowd in AH has to many drama Queens and preemadonnas.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/Tigerwhinecopy.jpg)
-
I post a thread about this when it first came out and learned from many that it is easier to take the turret out from a direct direct dive, rather than coming in from the sides, but it is much easier to defeat by not getting near it ...... :O
:salute
-
Yes, faster then bombers can or any other GVs.
wrong...LVT4 kills town faster than anything :rock
-
BTW, 23mm IL2 kills tanks in one pass too.
-
The cannons were not synchronized, so firing more than a couple shells at a time would cause so much lopsided recoil as to make holding your aim impossible. Firing more than a couple shells at a time also lead to frequent jamming, so much so that the 23mm cannon was preferred. We don't need jamming in AH, but unsynchronizing the 37mm cannons so that recoil spoils aim when you simply hold the trigger down would be good.
hitech quite clearly stated already what it will never happens, especially for "selected" "uber" aircraft/vehicles, didnt he? Not so long ago, in fact.
-
wrong...LVT4 kills town faster than anything :rock
I would have to disagree with you ........you cant tell me three LVT4'z can take a Town faster than three Whirbels or Osti'z for that matter...
-
Don't tell me i'm the only one that remembers how deadly the Osti USED to be?
Nope, I remember when the Ostie used to be the primary GV used in the game because it would kill anything in a couple of shots, including the Panzer. I also fondly remember the whines of panzer drivers crying how an Ostie killed them with a couple of shots.
ack-ack
-
How did this turn into another "perk the IL2" thread?
The only posts in this thread that mention perking the IL2 have come from you. Just sayin' :rofl
ack-ack
-
I would have to disagree with you ........you cant tell me three LVT4'z can take a Town faster than three Whirbels or Osti'z for that matter...
LVT 4 has a rate of fire like an M8. But the HE round of a tank. 2 shots and buildings go boom. Not to mention secondary effect from large shell weakening the surounding buildings or knocking out soft guns.
M8 ABOUT 6 or 7 shots per building
Wirble about 18 or so per
Osti I think (been a long time) is the same as the M8
-
Perk the The Flakpanzer IV "Wirbelwind"
Perk waystin!
-
Am i late to the party?
-
Am i late to the party?
Nope, still active till AH dose something with the WW. Getting shot down 2-3 k above them is a bit to try to destroy them.
-
Nope, still active till AH dose something with the WW. Getting shot down 2-3 k above them is a bit to try to destroy them.
Kills outside of 1.5k are near impossible, outside of 1.7k totally impossible. This is fact I know with hundreds of Wirbelwind kills per tour under my belt.
:salute
-
Nope, still active till AH dose something with the WW. Getting shot down 2-3 k above them is a bit to try to destroy them.
Stretching the truth a bit aren't you? Beyond d1.5, the WW is rather ineffective.
ack-ack
-
3k feet of altitude is 1k yards of distance
So yes, you can be shot down 3K above a Wirbelwind ;)
Just saying...
-
3k feet of altitude is 1k yards of distance
So yes, you can be shot down 3K above a Wirbelwind ;)
Just saying...
CC Lusche. If you stay at 4500 feet altitude above a Wirbelwind, you are basically safe.
:salute
-
I'll hop on the "fix it, dont perk it" bandwagon.
Above all, the wirby and the Osty should NOT be able to fire unchecked without a reload. I've forgotten the number of rounds each mag in a Wirblewind or Ostwind could hold, but even with a man on each side reloading a pair of 20mm guns, they are not going to fire contiously due to the over-heating issues. Currently, the wirby is a 3200rd liquid nitrogen cooled piece of hardware.
-
Fix the effect of all small caliber guns in this game . Kind of silly that the guns on a PT boat can harm a heavy cruiser . Won't go into the fact that they can sink it . Then fix the fact that a main gun on a tank can kill an airplane in flight .
-
3k feet of altitude is 1k yards of distance
So yes, you can be shot down 3K above a Wirbelwind ;)
Just saying...
Thank you for the back up. Yes, i have been hit 2-3k and even shot down a few times.
-
Then fix the fact that a main gun on a tank can kill an airplane in flight .
Why? A 75mm should make no impression on a plane?
-
The range isn't what the problem is, it's the turret rotation speed and the high ROF with no reload. And I've never been hit farther than 1.5k, not saying it isn't possible but never happened to me. I just try to get alt and drop a bomb from as high as possible, or try to toss a pumpkin his way if ords are out.
You must not know about Waystin's WhirbelWind.................. .................Ive seen him do some far out shots, sorry if this makes your WW worse Way :cry
-
Why? A 75mm should make no impression on a plane?
I think the algorithm is 2xd20 +4 for Charisma modifyer.
-
Fix the effect of all small caliber guns in this game . Kind of silly that the guns on a PT boat can harm a heavy cruiser . Won't go into the fact that they can sink it . Then fix the fact that a main gun on a tank can kill an airplane in flight .
NO i love shooting them down with that, fix it so you cant shoot an HE round in the way they are going and make a flying plane expolde :aok
-
I think the algorithm is 2xd20 +4 for Charisma modifyer.
:lol
-
Why? A 75mm should make no impression on a plane?
I think it's more the ease with which the gun can HIT a plane.
-
I think it's more the ease with which the gun can HIT a plane.
90% of that ease comes from the way the planes attack the tanks. You have to fly at very close range right into the gun barrel to be hit. And "real" WW2 tank gunners had never the opportunity to practice such a (to them) once-in-a-lifetime opportunity several dozen times per month.
-
The only posts in this thread that mention perking the IL2 have come from you. Just sayin' :rofl
ack-ack
Try reading thru the entire thread.
This time go ahead and move your Lips if thats what it takes.
-
Try reading thru the entire thread.
This time go ahead and move your Lips if thats what it takes.
It's amazing with your intelligence, or lack of, that you've managed to survive to adulthood. Please show which post other than yours that mentions perking the IL2? The only comments from others about the IL2 were a couple of posts saying that the IL2 should reflect its historical rate of fire.
If the Wirbelwind is changed to be within its historic capabilities, then the same has to be done for the 37mm Il-2.
Your comments are the only ones that mention perking the IL2 and then you make another post whining about those supposedly posting about perking the IL2 when in reality, it was only you doing it. So in other words, you were whining about yourself. Anyway, I'm done with you as I don't want your further idiocy getting this thread locked. Have a nice day future Darwin Award winner.
ack-ack
-
It's amazing with your intelligence, or lack of, that you've managed to survive to adulthood. Please show which post other than yours that mentions perking the IL2? The only comments from others about the IL2 were a couple of posts saying that the IL2 should reflect its historical rate of fire.
Your comments are the only ones that mention perking the IL2 and then you make another post whining about those supposedly posting about perking the IL2 when in reality, it was only you doing it. So in other words, you were whining about yourself. Anyway, I'm done with you as I don't want your further idiocy getting this thread locked. Have a nice day future Darwin Award winner.
ack-ack
Oh shaddup. Honestly I dont know why they put up with your trouble making and stupidity.
Now I have the horny little doggie following me around in the forum again humping my ankle.
I tried just ignoring this guy. If only we had ignore feature on it would make it so much easier.
-
Why? A 75mm should make no impression on a plane?
Wow I wouldn't believe you said this had I not read it for myself . Exactly how do you think they should be able to HIT a flying plane ? If they could don't you think that an AA round would be part of standard load for MBT ? Do you think that a tank main gun can even track one ? Do you think that the optics are designed to do this ? The question is not if the round could damage a plane it is could it even come close ? Almost as ridiculous as the 4.2 inch AA rounds developed for mortars . Yes the chain in the round and the blast could have an effect . It is just not probable that they could be made to intentionally share the same air space .
-
90% of that ease comes from the way the planes attack the tanks. You have to fly at very close range right into the gun barrel to be hit. And "real" WW2 tank gunners had never the opportunity to practice such a (to them) once-in-a-lifetime opportunity several dozen times per month.
Once again you ignore the optics and the ability to track . How do you propose that you acquire the target ? Next ask me how I know this .(hint real life experience)
-
The other side to the argument is pretty convincing though. Sure, it never happened in WW2, but how often did a plane fly on the deck directly staring down the barrel of a turret trying to suicide strafe the tank? I doubt that happened in WW2 either. Surely tanks were strafed, but I'm sure a much higher degree of caution was taken. Both scenarios are highly unlikely in reality, but make for some fun matchups in the game IMO.
-
The other side to the argument is pretty convincing though. Sure, it never happened in WW2, but how often did a plane fly on the deck directly staring down the barrel of a turret trying to suicide strafe the tank? I doubt that happened in WW2 either. Surely tanks were strafed, but I'm sure a much higher degree of caution was taken. Both scenarios are highly unlikely in reality, but make for some fun matchups in the game IMO.
Grizz my friend I don't care what angle is used where attack comes from . The optics and Traverse and elevation systems on tanks cant do it . You cant acquire and you can't track an A/C . This is not theoretical knowledge on my part .
-
Grizz my friend I don't care what angle is used where attack comes from . The optics and Traverse and elevation systems on tanks cant do it . You cant acquire and you can't track an A/C . This is not theoretical knowledge on my part .
Fair point. I obviously have no first hand experience, but wouldn't the entire turret aiming system have to be redone to be more realistic, become more complicated, and less fun? I don't think controlling a tank turret with a joystick is 'realistic' but I like the compromise for gameplay.
-
Wow I wouldn't believe you said this had I not read it for myself . Exactly how do you think they should be able to HIT a flying plane ? If they could don't you think that an AA round would be part of standard load for MBT ? Do you think that a tank main gun can even track one ? Do you think that the optics are designed to do this ? The question is not if the round could damage a plane it is could it even come close ? Almost as ridiculous as the 4.2 inch AA rounds developed for mortars . Yes the chain in the round and the blast could have an effect . It is just not probable that they could be made to intentionally share the same air space .
Once again you ignore the optics and the ability to track . How do you propose that you acquire the target ? Next ask me how I know this .(hint real life experience)
Grizz my friend I don't care what angle is used where attack comes from . The optics and Traverse and elevation systems on tanks cant do it . You cant acquire and you can't track an A/C . This is not theoretical knowledge on my part .
Granted.. in WW2 they rarely, rarely had a chance to shoot at a plane attacking them with the main gun.. But, who knows, they may have. In the jungles of the PTO, the Japanese soldiers were instructed to blindly fire their guns straight up into the air through the canopy of trees with the hopes of hitting enemy aircraft buzzing overhead. One confirmed case of this actually working is documented in the book ''The Jolly Rogers" by Tom Blackburn :salute
Point is, a tank hurls projectiles through the air. Airplanes occupy air. Airspace is limited and it is quite possible that 2 masses will attempt to occupy this same space at the same time. A long time ago Newton said this is a no-no and, to this day, people are still failing to disprove this law.
I believe the targeting algorithm is TLAR ( That looks about right )
Some people are better at it than others... just as some people are better at attacking bombers than others.. Takes practice and learning. As does the method of attacking GVs. I've been towered by main guns, just as I have towered others. ( Still love putting a SB shell through a flight of tree hugging Lancs a few years back.. :D )
Unless you want to change the code to say that large calibre shells fired from GVs or Shore batteries have no effect on aircraft, I don't see a way around it. And, even then, that doesn't sound realistic. If your plane is trying to occupy the same space as a 75mm chunk of steel, the collision should register.
-
This isn't unusual at all. Ive gotten as many as 7 MG kills in one sortie. Get under a bridge at a base with ords being down. I-L2's come flying in at low angles to get at you under the bridge. 400 to 600 out let loose the MG and boom. :devil In my opinion it's just like hitting a tank at 400 to 600 out.
-
just get behind a hill ( i actually had 2 hills to my fron and right and some trees in back of me), my personal best is 9 kills with mg from a panzer always aim right for the pilot and dont be shy, pull the trigger and walk your runs right into the pilot/engine :), I was having so much fun that I actually never fire my main gun, lol. I think i got 6 or 7 il2 and a couple of fiters.
semp
-
I don't know how to fix it . I am how ever saying it is beyond unrealistic . I think the way to fix it would be the optics .
-
I don't know how to fix it . I am how ever saying it is beyond unrealistic . I think the way to fix it would be the optics .
A better fix would come in at a higher AOA so they can't get the main gun on ya! :x It's as much the attackers fault as the defender. If someone gave you an opportunity to kill them wouldn't you?
DuHasst
-
The cannons were not synchronized, so firing more than a couple shells at a time would cause so much lopsided recoil as to make holding your aim impossible. Firing more than a couple shells at a time also lead to frequent jamming, so much so that the 23mm cannon was preferred. We don't need jamming in AH, but unsynchronizing the 37mm cannons so that recoil spoils aim when you simply hold the trigger down would be good.
I give. What does synchronized firing of the IL-2 have to do with rate of fire of the WW?
-
90% of that ease comes from the way the planes attack the tanks. You have to fly at very close range right into the gun barrel to be hit. And "real" WW2 tank gunners had never the opportunity to practice such a (to them) once-in-a-lifetime opportunity several dozen times per month.
Several dozen times a month? I was thinking more like several dozen times a day...I personally love airplanes that do low level strafing runs at my tank.
-
Wow I wouldn't believe you said this had I not read it for myself . Exactly how do you think they should be able to HIT a flying plane ? If they could don't you think that an AA round would be part of standard load for MBT ? Do you think that a tank main gun can even track one ? Do you think that the optics are designed to do this ? The question is not if the round could damage a plane it is could it even come close ? Almost as ridiculous as the 4.2 inch AA rounds developed for mortars . Yes the chain in the round and the blast could have an effect . It is just not probable that they could be made to intentionally share the same air space .
Have you ever observed how large a target an airplane at 400 yards coming straight down the turret is?
-
The other side to the argument is pretty convincing though. Sure, it never happened in WW2, but how often did a plane fly on the deck directly staring down the barrel of a turret trying to suicide strafe the tank? I doubt that happened in WW2 either. Surely tanks were strafed, but I'm sure a much higher degree of caution was taken. Both scenarios are highly unlikely in reality, but make for some fun matchups in the game IMO.
Incorrect, sir. It DID happen in WWII.
-
Grizz my friend I don't care what angle is used where attack comes from . The optics and Traverse and elevation systems on tanks cant do it . You cant acquire and you can't track an A/C . This is not theoretical knowledge on my part .
So you drove WWII era tanks? May I suggest that the sights were a little more primitive than what we use now.
-
Incorrect, sir. It DID happen in WWII.
Once? Beside the point. It's unrealistic like hlbly is saying but so is planes flying that low on suicide strafing runs. The whole scenario is unrealistic, but my point was, I don't care because it is fun.
-
DC,
You DO realize you can put multiple quotes in one post, right?
-
I don't know how to fix it . I am how ever saying it is beyond unrealistic . I think the way to fix it would be the optics .
So what do you propose?
I have seen it mentioned that the main gun optics incorporated a focussing mechanism. When the target was in focus, you had a pretty accurate distance to target by looking at the sight meter ( much akin, I would surmise, to the distance marks on a camera lens).
So.. the image through the gunsight would have to be blurry until you focussed the sight to remove the blur. Even while not in focus, however, the target would be a blur of some type ( unless well hidden with skin and gound effects ). As long as this blur exists, the gun can be pointed at it. Unless you're talking about extreme ranges, the target won't be transparent.
So.. we've got a gunsight that calibrates distance based on focal point. Oh goody. Now, when I see an aircraft coming at me, I'm going to swing around.. get him in the sight, set my calibration to 400 yards and wait for him to almost be in focus.. fire.. and, suddenly, my AA accuracy has increased exponentially.
Now.. that may be complete malarky. Sounds plausible to me, however.
Bottom line.. don't fly down the barrel of a tank.
<edit> After consideration.. how pronounced would the non-focussed blur be? I'm recalling how my macro lens can't pick out details enough to discern a target until the focussing mechanism gets close. How fine are the optics of a tank sight? If they are as sensitive as camera lenses, it may be a challenge to even find a GV in the clutter.
-
DC,
You DO realize you can put multiple quotes in one post, right?
You DO realize I was reading down through the entire list and responding to individual posts as I came to them, right?
-
Dont perk the WW because I want to give my B-38 something to drop my bombs on! :rock
-
Dont perk the WW because I want to give my B-38 something to drop my bombs on! :rock
Perk it or perk your B-38.
-
There was a time when I supported changing the WW's ENY, but never to perk it. I no longer support that since the turret slow down in the recent patches. There is even less of a reason to perk it now. I truly suggest staying away from them Oak.
-
So you drove WWII era tanks? May I suggest that the sights were a little more primitive than what we use now.
Man such sarcasm . My point exactly is they are more crude . We cant do it now . The experimental AA tank round failed miserably to even hit choppers . Not because of round but optics . Now you think it thru and decide what that tells you ,when compared to WW2 optics .Hate to tell you this buddy but yes I have driven WW2 era tanks . The best question to ask is "have you gunned WW2 era tanks" . :aok BTW they were an M-26 Pershing and an M4a3e8 . Got some great pics too ! Only got to gun the Pershing .
-
Incorrect, sir. It DID happen in WWII.
Source !!!!
-
So what do you propose?
I have seen it mentioned that the main gun optics incorporated a focussing mechanism. When the target was in focus, you had a pretty accurate distance to target by looking at the sight meter ( much akin, I would surmise, to the distance marks on a camera lens).
So.. the image through the gunsight would have to be blurry until you focused the sight to remove the blur. Even while not in focus, however, the target would be a blur of some type ( unless well hidden with skin and ground effects ). As long as this blur exists, the gun can be pointed at it. Unless you're talking about extreme ranges, the target won't be transparent.
So.. we've got a gunsight that calibrates distance based on focal point. Oh goody. Now, when I see an aircraft coming at me, I'm going to swing around.. get him in the sight, set my calibration to 400 yards and wait for him to almost be in focus.. fire.. and, suddenly, my AA accuracy has increased exponentially.
Now.. that may be complete malarkey. Sounds plausible to me, however.
Bottom line.. don't fly down the barrel of a tank.
<edit> After consideration.. how pronounced would the unfocused blur be? I'm recalling how my macro lens can't pick out details enough to discern a target until the focussing mechanism gets close. How fine are the optics of a tank sight? If they are as sensitive as camera lenses, it may be a challenge to even find a GV in the clutter.
I am not stupid , I don't fly down the barrel after I learned what they could do in here . OK lets look at what you say about seeing the plane focusing etc . What would happen is TC would say gunner ,target 109 give a direction to of target and how high he wants you to elevate . The gunner swings his sights and would say cannot identify over and over .so it matters not if the plane gets in 400 meters range does it ? If the optics have too limited a field of view and turret is too limited to track target in either traverse or elevation tell me how should you be able to do it ? You all completely ignore acquisition by the gunner . also ww2 tanks used simple lines or triangles to denote range/target size . I think you are thinking of a stereoscopic sighting system all WW2 tanks used monocular sights .
-
... OK lets look at what you say about seeing the plane focusing etc . What would happen is TC would say gunner ,target 109 give a direction to of target and how high he wants you to elevate . The gunner swings his sights and would say cannot identify over and over ...
Well.. here's a case of gameplay vs. reality. You have to allow that a single person can perform all the fire control functions. You don't have the communications step between the positions.
Are you wanting to require that each tank have at least 2 people operating it?
-
Well.. here's a case of gameplay vs. reality. You have to allow that a single person can perform all the fire control functions. You don't have the communications step between the positions.
Are you wanting to require that each tank have at least 2 people operating it?
The point is the optics were incapable of acquiring the target let alone track it . Still waiting for DC to give a source on where a Tank shot down a plane with main gun .
-
A plane in flight?
-
So he says . I guess by the lack of response my point is made .