Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Fencer51 on September 12, 2009, 08:01:05 AM
-
Can a "standard" IL2 take out tanks ?
-
yes 9GIAP used to do it on a regular basis, T34/M4 are a pain in the **** tho.
-
Can a "standard" IL2 take out tanks ?
Panzer easily, Sherman is more difficult. Tiger very difficult, T35 almost impossible.
-
Panzer easily, Sherman is more difficult. Tiger very difficult, T35 almost impossible.
In fact, it is impossible to take out a T35 with an IL2 in Aces High. (Sorry, couldn't resist! :devil )
-
In fact, it is impossible to take out a T35 with an IL2 in Aces High. (Sorry, couldn't resist! :devil )
:rofl
-
I assume we're talking about strafing attacks, and excluding bombs and rockets.
My experience is that the 23mm requires good aim and an understanding of the weak points of the target. If you're unskilled (like me) you have a good chance of disabling a tank, e.g. Panzer, but a low chance of destroying one outright.
With the 37mm, I can kill a Panzer firing at any point, just aim and hold down the trigger.
---------------
The 23mm Il-2 should have a greater ordnance capacity than the 37mm version. The big gun pods reduced the number of hardpoints on the wings, but in AH they're the same.
-
I'm going to start doing some experimenting.
The VYa-23mm cannon with AP is rated to punch thru 25mm steel armor at 400 meters. I have a thread/post around heres somewheres showing where that thin armor is on our game tanks.
The VYa had a ROF of 550 to 650 RPM compared to the NS-37s 400 RPMs. The 23mm cannon fired a 198 grn projectile 905 m/s and could punch thru 25mm plate at 400 meters. It had a ROF of 550 to 650 rpm.
The NS-37 shot a 760 grn AP shell at 880 fps and was rated to penetrate 50mm of armor at 200 meters. It had a ROF of 400 rpm.
OK? Want my advice? Set the convergence of your 23mm IL2 to 300, or even 250, "certainly no more then 400", and use the ROF as your biggest ally. Get in close and hose the weak sections of a tank from a high vertical angle, "best to almost be looking straight down".
In an IL2 that means leaving ords off and no more then 1/2 fuel. And even there you have to be careful you dont end up bug splat.
Heres a general reference of the weak areas of our tanks armor. The Panzer-4 has a very thin rear section of hull armor.
P-4
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/pz4f-target.jpg)
T-34
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/t3485-target.jpg)
Sherman M4
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/pz4f-target.jpg)
Tiger
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/tiger1-targetcopy.jpg)
Hope I helped. :salute
-
Panzer easily, Sherman is more difficult. Tiger very difficult, T35 almost impossible.
T-35 what a land yacht that thing is ....I'd like to see a drag race between a t-35 and a Matilda :rofl
...and yes i know you meant T-34 :)
With the Il-2 guns (23mm) I have never killed any tank out right. I have crippled a few and got a kill when they towered out. But actually killing them ...NO
Helm ...out
-
Rich you should color the weak parts highlight instead of just greying them over grey schematic. :)
-
Rich you should color the weak parts highlight instead of just greying them over grey schematic. :)
Ya, I tried. For some reason PS wouldnt apply color to those particular schematics. So I did the next best thing. I just know general areas of armor weakness anyways and not detailed locations. At 250 mph, shooting 37mms, its target enough and good enough for Govt. work.
Well I upped an IL2 and went up against T-34s twice after posting the above. Both times I damaged them enough to get credit for the kill. Both times I was unable to finish them off, tho the first one I would have been able had there been no other friendlys attacking. The ROF feels very strange and the 23mm cannons feel like they are slung lower on the airframe. On the first T-34, I filmed it and will post when I get the time, I got good EOT coming down almost straight on it and shooting the rear hull top/engine.
If and when i go back to the 23mm, and I take back what I earlier said, Im going to set convergance to 400 and no closer. The 37mm guns have left me spoiled in that Im used to killing tanks very close and with very few rounds. With the VYa 23mms you have to use the extra ammo/higher ROF for good effect. So Im going to start shooting from farther out.
The 23mms are good all around weapons. They no doubt deserve a larger following then what they have now after the 37mm NS-37s have been introduced.
With the Il-2 guns (23mm) I have never killed any tank out right. I have crippled a few and got a kill when they towered out. But actually killing them ...NO
I could kill Panzers and Shermans all day long in them. I'd bet they are capable of killing any tank "outright".
-
Image > Mode > RGB color. Sounds like those pics are in indexed/grayscale mode.
-
I like taking the 23mms for base defense. I can fight offf planes, and while ther's 10 other guys with the big guns, I can mop up M3's, airplanes, M16's, and light armor. Ost/Wirb/Panzers if needed.
-
With the Il-2 guns (23mm) I have never killed any tank out right. I have crippled a few and got a kill when they towered out. But actually killing them ...NO
Only tank I was never able to kill outright pre-37mm was the Tiger. I think I killed a T-34 exactly once, and only because for some reason he decided not to start moving, giving me 3-4 passes. Shermans were more challenging than Panzers, but both could be done in one pass (top down, of course).
I still regularly use the 23mm version when there are air cons about, and reserve the 37mm for pure GV assaults or where I have a reasonble expectation of local friendly air superiority.
-
In fact, it is impossible to take out a T35 with an IL2 in Aces High. (Sorry, couldn't resist! :devil )
Maybe one day... :lol
With the Il-2 guns (23mm) I have never killed any tank out right.
I killed hundreds of them, before I switched over to the Hurri IID as my main tank buster, because it could kill the Tiger & T-34 where the Il-2 could not.
But then came the Wirbel...
-
The VYa had a ROF of 550 to 650 RPM compared to the NS-37s 400 RPMs. The 23mm cannon fired a 198 grn projectile 905 m/s and could punch thru 25mm plate at 400 meters. It had a ROF of 550 to 650 rpm.
Rich46yo
Surely you mean grams, not grains, another common weight measure in small calibers.
If that isn't a typo you need to check your facts and resources, some .308 rounds are 200 grains!
Strip
-
Great Guys, thanks alot.
What's your opinion on the Fw 190F-8 against vehicles?
-
Great Guys, thanks alot.
What's your opinion on the Fw 190F-8 against vehicles?
The PB-1 rockets can kill any vehicle... but getting a hit is difficult. You need a lot of practice for that.
-
The PB-1 rockets can kill any vehicle... but getting a hit is difficult. You need a lot of practice for that.
Spot a GV, line up a low level run front rear to front, fly near the ground about 200ft, salvo 3 rockets off at D400-600 as soon as the tank goes under your gunsight, 85% of the time you'll score a hit unless you alter anything at the last minute. I'll film a F8 run on a GV a little later.
-
190F-8 vs GV's:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ymojmnjmygj (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ymojmnjmygj)
Ahhh, shux, does this film no longer work because it's from an earlier version of AH?
-
Spot a GV, line up a low level run front rear to front, fly near the ground about 200ft, salvo 3 rockets off at D400-600 as soon as the tank goes under your gunsight, 85% of the time you'll score a hit unless you alter anything at the last minute. I'll film a F8 run on a GV a little later.
It'S still much more difficult method than using the guns of a Il-2 or Hurri D.
-
i actual life the most effective weapon of the IL2 was probably the PTAB bomblet, an early version of cluster bomb. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/PTAB-main.jpg)
The IL2 carried a couple hundred internally and decimated tank columns with them. Heres a pic of a Yak-9B dropping them from its internal bay (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/yak9-PTAB.jpg)
Boy imagine the howling we'd get from the LowRiders if we started tossing them out. The PTAB was rated for up to a 70mm penetration of top armor that often was only 25mm max.
A pic of IL2 ammo (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/IL2-ammo.jpg)
And last a tank drivers worst nightmare (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/il-2-37mmfire.jpg)
-
190F-8 vs GV's:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ymojmnjmygj (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ymojmnjmygj)
Ahhh, shux, does this film no longer work because it's from an earlier version of AH?
It works just fine Gav...impressive rocket work! :salute
-
My film viewer crashes whenever I try to view it. I'm glad it works for you.
-
The IL-2 with eather set of AP cannons wouldnt be jack-squat if the same principles were applied to it like all the other attack aircraft (no external view). It isnt any more of an aircraft that deserves external view than the 110x or Mossi.
There is no negative, no risk in taking the IL-2 up. None. Oh, and the ENY of the IL-2???
-
The IL-2 with eather set of AP cannons wouldnt be jack-squat if the same principles were applied to it like all the other attack aircraft (no external view). It isnt any more of an aircraft that deserves external view than the 110x or Mossi.
There is no negative, no risk in taking the IL-2 up. None. Oh, and the ENY of the IL-2???
:huh
Aside from the fact that the 110 and the version of the Mossie we have were both fighters . . .
Not sure how it computes that the AP effectiveness vs. a ground target has anything to do with external view??
-
smokinloon, when you write like that, even if what you said were true, no one will find you credible.
-
The IL-2 with eather set of AP cannons wouldnt be jack-squat if the same principles were applied to it like all the other attack aircraft (no external view). It isnt any more of an aircraft that deserves external view than the 110x or Mossi.
There is no negative, no risk in taking the IL-2 up. None. Oh, and the ENY of the IL-2???
And the risk of taking up any other cartoon airplane is exactly what ? :lol Boy that was a silly comment.
Mossie and 110 has far,far,far better internal views. BTW the Mossie doesnt have F3 view :huh Maybe you should fly the airplane before making silly statements. The Mossie/110 are also much faster, turn better, climb better, and have far better plane vs plane armament.
Whats wrong boo-boo? Your wittle tiger get all blowed up?
-
The IL-2 with eather set of AP cannons wouldnt be jack-squat if the same principles were applied to it like all the other attack aircraft (no external view).
Penetration and external view are connected to each other in which way?
-
The IL-2 with eather set of AP cannons wouldnt be jack-squat if the same principles were applied to it like all the other attack aircraft (no external view). It isnt any more of an aircraft that deserves external view than the 110x or Mossi.
There is no negative, no risk in taking the IL-2 up. None. Oh, and the ENY of the IL-2???
So please explain how external view increases cannon power?
Ohh and just a little info. I (and I'm sure lusche) can take out just about any GV in game with a hurri IId. Which by the way has no external view, much much smaller clip and a lower velocity cannon.
Boy.. if only the hurr IId had external some of us could really clean up. :noid
-
that Vicker S shell is certainly huge tho :)
-
Penetration and external view are connected to each other in which way?
The direct connection of the F3 view and armor penetration is nil. Obviously.
The actual attack run on a gv with the IL-2 wouldnt be any different. It is the concept that an IL-2 can use the F3 view to find the gv's MUCH more easily than with the internal view, and dodge incoming fighters MUCH more easily with external view vs without F3 external view. Hence, its effectiveness while solo (or in groups) is quite elevated vs if it were restricted like the other like aircraft in its class (true class, not as percieved by HTC). It should be almost suicide to operate an IL-2 without fighter cover.
As for the Mossi, 110x, etc, and IL-2 comparison, someone explain to me why, based on how the planes are built and the way they are used that different perameters need be applied with regards to the F3 view. I've yet to hear anyone plead a case based on hard facts and not "but they view is worse" in the IL-2. The Il-2 is not more of a "bomber" than the 110 or Mossi is, the delivery method is the same.
I've stated my case many tiimes in other F3 view threeads. Apply it universally and there can be no arguement: if the aircraft has a rear turret of any sort (high and/or low), AND level bombing capability then give it the external view ability. The trade off with the IL-2's lack of view is its extra armor protection for the pilot. I dont ever recall getting a PW in an IL-2.
-
And the risk of taking up any other cartoon airplane is exactly what ? :lol Boy that was a silly comment.
Mossie and 110 has far,far,far better internal views. BTW the Mossie doesnt have F3 view :huh Maybe you should fly the airplane before making silly statements. The Mossie/110 are also much faster, turn better, climb better, and have far better plane vs plane armament.
Whats wrong boo-boo? Your wittle tiger get all blowed up?
You need to pull your foot out of your mouth. 'tis your comments that are "silly".
Like I said, the arguements you've just made are all for making the IL-2 more user friendly and steer away from logical transgretion of applying like parameters to like aircraft. An aircraft's turn rate (btw, the IL-2 will out turn both the Mossi and 110), speed, climb rate, internal view, etc, should have zero effect on how the external view is applied. Shall we apply teh IL-2 list of attributes vs teh Mossi/110x (armor, turn rate, AP cannon, AP rockets, etc) and counter-weigh your arugements?
With regards to my "tiger" tank getting destroyed, I dont care what I get taken out by. The issue is how the IL-2 is far more effective due to the F3 view and how it has been somehow blessed by the HTC fairy. I'm certainly not calling for the MOssi or 110 to gain F3 view, btw.
-
You need to pull your foot out of your mouth. 'tis your comments that are "silly".
Like I said, the arguements you've just made are all for making the IL-2 more user friendly and steer away from logical transgretion of applying like parameters to like aircraft. An aircraft's turn rate (btw, the IL-2 will out turn both the Mossi and 110), speed, climb rate, internal view, etc, should have zero effect on how the external view is applied. Shall we apply teh IL-2 list of attributes vs teh Mossi/110x (armor, turn rate, AP cannon, AP rockets, etc) and counter-weigh your arugements?
With regards to my "tiger" tank getting destroyed, I dont care what I get taken out by. The issue is how the IL-2 is far more effective due to the F3 view and how it has been somehow blessed by the HTC fairy. I'm certainly not calling for the MOssi or 110 to gain F3 view, btw.
OK whats the turn rate for the 3 planes mentioned?
-
The direct connection of the F3 view and armor penetration is nil. Obviously.
The actual attack run on a gv with the IL-2 wouldnt be any different. It is the concept that an IL-2 can use the F3 view to find the gv's MUCH more easily than with the internal view, and dodge incoming fighters MUCH more easily with external view vs without F3 external view. Hence, its effectiveness while solo (or in groups) is quite elevated vs if it were restricted like the other like aircraft in its class (true class, not as percieved by HTC). It should be almost suicide to operate an IL-2 without fighter cover.
As for the Mossi, 110x, etc, and IL-2 comparison, someone explain to me why, based on how the planes are built and the way they are used that different perameters need be applied with regards to the F3 view. I've yet to hear anyone plead a case based on hard facts and not "but they view is worse" in the IL-2. The Il-2 is not more of a "bomber" than the 110 or Mossi is, the delivery method is the same.
I've stated my case many tiimes in other F3 view threeads. Apply it universally and there can be no arguement: if the aircraft has a rear turret of any sort (high and/or low), AND level bombing capability then give it the external view ability. The trade off with the IL-2's lack of view is its extra armor protection for the pilot. I dont ever recall getting a PW in an IL-2.
I reckon Lusche was thrown off by the unnecessary inclusion of "AP" in your curt statement of argument. I do agree the Il2 is negligibly different from the Mossie and 110, and probably the TBM, as far as allowed external views are concerned.
-
OK whats the turn rate for the 3 planes mentioned?
Loony Im talking to you. What are the turn rates?
(btw, the IL-2 will out turn both the Mossi and 110),
You said it not I . The only possible place the IL2 could beat them is in stall fighting, and even there they are no doubt close. Most of all with the 110. But who in their right mind would stall fight an IL2? I dont even stall fight them in a fighter. The speed and climb rates of the IL2 are so terrible you would have to be out of your head to try and turn fight it.
Thats why in the first pass I know if I have a noob or am in trouble. I try not to stall fight cause if I bleed off my energy my IL2 is like a beached whale. Im surprised you have so many problems with IL2s Loon. Maybe you should try flying one to figure out how to beat one.
-
Loony Im talking to you. What are the turn rates?
You said it not I . The only possible place the IL2 could beat them is in stall fighting, and even there they are no doubt close. Most of all with the 110. But who in their right mind would stall fight an IL2? I dont even stall fight them in a fighter. The speed and climb rates of the IL2 are so terrible you would have to be out of your head to try and turn fight it.
Thats why in the first pass I know if I have a noob or am in trouble. I try not to stall fight cause if I bleed off my energy my IL2 is like a beached whale. Im surprised you have so many problems with IL2s Loon. Maybe you should try flying one to figure out how to beat one.
I dont have any trouble shooting down IL-2's. This isnt about "stall fighting" in an IL-2. This is about applying the F3 view with a universal set of parameters (I suggested a rear gunner and level bombing capabilities as a minimum). So far, your arguent still centers around not taking away the F3 view in the IL-2 because of your opinions, not facts. "The IL-2 pilot cant see as well as the Mossi, 110, D3A, SBD, etc,therefore it should have F3 capability". Is it not?
Oh, and turn rates? Have your buddy take up an IL-2 and u take us a Mossi. See who turns tighter. Do the same vs the 110. Heck even make the "fighters" %25 fuel and as light as possible vs a %100 fueled and 37mm armed IL-2.
-
I dont have any trouble shooting down IL-2's. This isnt about "stall fighting" in an IL-2. This is about applying the F3 view with a universal set of parameters (I suggested a rear gunner and level bombing capabilities as a minimum). So far, your arguent still centers around not taking away the F3 view in the IL-2 because of your opinions, not facts. "The IL-2 pilot cant see as well as the Mossi, 110, D3A, SBD, etc,therefore it should have F3 capability". Is it not?
Oh, and turn rates? Have your buddy take up an IL-2 and u take us a Mossi. See who turns tighter. Do the same vs the 110. Heck even make the "fighters" %25 fuel and as light as possible vs a %100 fueled and 37mm armed IL-2.
That could have been one sentence long. As in , "I dont know the turn rates."
-
This is about applying the F3 view with a universal set of parameters (I suggested a rear gunner and level bombing capabilities as a minimum).
There is a universal set of parameters used -- you just don't like them.
Bomber class = F3 view. IL-2 was a bomber.
Fighter class = no F3 view. 110 and our version of the Mossie were fighters.
I will grant a small amount of ambiguity with the Mossie, as there were versions that were most certainly designed and used exclusively as bombers. Ours isn't one of them, though.
-
That could have been one sentence long. As in , "I dont know the turn rates."
You didnt post your test results. and... you have yet to stand on your opinions regarding the application of the F3 ability. Back up your opinion: The rear view (or over-all pilot view) should determine if an aircraft receives the F3 capability???
Regarding the IL-2 being a "bomber"... Im not going to argue that it was or was not designed as a "bomber", although one of my sources is painting it to be a "close support attack aircraft" **. I will argue that the role it performed in WWII and even more so in AH is that of an attack platform and not of a bomber. It went up into the sky loaded with ords and AP rounds (although in AH I'd be willing to be %90 or more of the IL-2's lift off with no ords) for busting up ground targets via direct engagement, namely static defenses and gv's. The Pe-2, Tu-2, and IL-4 were used in traditional bombing roles in far greater numbers than the IL-2. Typicallly, I wouldnt even have brought that up 'cept the point was made (and rightfully so) regarding the Mossi being designed as a "bomber".
** "The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII", General Editor: Paul Eden, 2004 Aerospace Publishing
-
The actual attack run on a gv with the IL-2 wouldnt be any different. It is the concept that an IL-2 can use the F3 view to find the gv's MUCH more easily than with the internal view, and dodge incoming fighters MUCH more easily with external view vs without F3 external view.
I mainly use two different aircraft to hunt & kill GV's: The Il-2 and the Hurricane IID. One has external view, one not. I have not more difficulties finding enemy GV in the Hurri as I have in the Il-2. I do often use external view for that, but I would be hampered only marginally without it. Once I have roughly determined enemy positions, I rarely use it at all.
Furthermore, I find any form of air combat exceedingly difficult with F3, I never use it in my Il-2 when fighting against or dodging any enemy fughter.
-
You didnt post your test results. and... you have yet to stand on your opinions regarding the application of the F3 ability. Back up your opinion: The rear view (or over-all pilot view) should determine if an aircraft receives the F3 capability???
Slick your the one who brought up its great turning ability. Now your babbling on about F3.
And you cant back anything up. You are simply babbling misdirection. Nice try. So I guess you dont know the turn rates eh?
-
Regarding the IL-2 being a "bomber"... Im not going to argue that it was or was not designed as a "bomber", although one of my sources is painting it to be a "close support attack aircraft" **. I will argue that the role it performed in WWII and even more so in AH is that of an attack platform and not of a bomber. It went up into the sky loaded with ords and AP rounds (although in AH I'd be willing to be %90 or more of the IL-2's lift off with no ords) for busting up ground targets via direct engagement, namely static defenses and gv's. The Pe-2, Tu-2, and IL-4 were used in traditional bombing roles in far greater numbers than the IL-2. Typicallly, I wouldnt even have brought that up 'cept the point was made (and rightfully so) regarding the Mossi being designed as a "bomber".
Um . . . attacking ground targets is a bomber's role. The IL-2 was designed specifically to attack ground targets, i.e. a bomber.
It was not designed or intended to fight enemy aircraft in an air-superiority role. That is the role of a fighter.
Planes that were designed to do either were called (oddly enough) fighter/bombers. But the IL-2 was certainly not one of these.
Not sure why this is such a hard thing for you to grasp.
-
Isn't external supposed to simulate extra SA from extra eyes?
-
Isn't external supposed to simulate extra SA from extra eyes?
That is how I understand it. Even that simple premise generates discussion, though.
One argument is planes like the 110, which has the same crew configuration as the Il-2, arguably better visibility from the crew positions than the Il-2, have no external view.
Another is planes like the Il-2, SBD, A-20 (in its AH configuration) etc which only have a rear gunner, have perfect 360 visibility just like a B-17 or B-24 with its multitude of positions.
My personal opinion is that planes with a rear gunner should have an option to have certain views attached to the rear gunner position vice having an external view or having to switch positions. For example, the rear view in the A-20 would be from the dorsal turret looking directly to the rear. I actually think this would be more useful in combat than the 360 external.
Anyway, it's nothing I care one way or the other about. I just feel the concession to SA is applied inconsistently with its purpose.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Regarding the killing ability of the NS-37mm cannon on the IL2 here are the facts.
Its fired a 760 gram AP shell at 2887 fps. Now the hunters here can understand I load a 217 grain bullet in my .338 win mag to about that speed. The weight of the 37mm shell in grains is 11,728 grains. It had a ROF of 250 to 260 rpm for each gun, so that equals 500 to 520 for the airplane. So thats 8 to 9 RPS, a 1 second burst shoots 8 to 9. Each round could punch thru 50mm of Tank armor at 200 m. http://www.russianammo.org/37mm.html
Heres one pass i took at a Tiger Tank last night. You cant see the distance icon but when rounds first start firing I'm 200 away. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FpD3xfnq-8 I counted 5 shots thru the thin top armor of the tank. Can you imagine the effect of 5 AP shells, of that size, with all that kinetic energy, fired point blank, zinging around crew areas, ammo storage, engine machinery?
Well the A-10 tank busters 30mm, we currently use, fires a 527 gram DU rounds that penetrates 69mm at 500 m while at 3300 fps. As far as I know it can defeat any top armor of any tank in the world. The simple fact is MBTs have far thinner top plates of armor and always will in order to operate at a reasonable vehicle weight.
Clearly the effectiveness of the NS-37mm cannon, in this game, is modeled correctly. It was, and is, a very effective weapon when used correctly.
You can argue all day about recoil and the effect is has on cartoon planes/vehicles vis-a-vis real ones historically. But how would you change one without changing them all? And what criteria would you use, other then "one particular one is ruining my day"?
-
Um . . . attacking ground targets is a bomber's role. The IL-2 was designed specifically to attack ground targets, i.e. a bomber.
Well screw me what have you been reading?
-
Slick your the one who brought up its great turning ability. Now your babbling on about F3.
And you cant back anything up. You are simply babbling misdirection. Nice try. So I guess you dont know the turn rates eh?
The EF I cant back anything up. How many times to do I have to spell it out my reasoning as to *why* the IL-2 doesnt need nor deserve the F3 capability. My argument against it included multiple listed reasons. I staked my claim and backed it up with reasoning. You staked your claim and back it up with "just because". Turn rates? Again, I've already said my bit and asked you to prove me otherwise and you have yet to step up. Try it and post your results.
Keep swingin', you're missin' by a mile, Francis.
Luche, your statement helps the exact issue I am trying to get across: the IL-23 doesnt **need** the F3 view becuase of all the other features it has. An aircraft's lack of of view doesnt constitute a **need** for the F3 capability. Set a standard and apply it universally.
-
Set a standard and apply it universally.
:noid
There is a universal set of parameters used -- you just don't like them.
Bomber class = F3 view. IL-2 was a bomber.
Fighter class = no F3 view. 110 and our version of the Mossie were fighters.
-
Does this mean that if we get a bomber version of the Mosquito, it will have F3 view? Now that would really stir up some controversy. :devil
Notice that the current standard depends on the name you give something, and not on its components or what it is used for. Standards like that tend not to deserve the name "standard." :P
-
Well a picture says a thousand words, "even Loony can understand a picture". Heres the swell view looking out the back of the IL2 (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2304-59-24-26.jpg) It gets a little better looking rear/high, "assuming the cons is there", (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2304-59-30-73.jpg) Here are the side rear views (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2304-58-54-42.jpg) (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2304-59-00-24.jpg)
Heres the rear for the Mossie. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2305-00-36-61.jpg) The High rear (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2305-00-55-18.jpg) The side rear (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2305-01-00-90.jpg) (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2305-01-03-82.jpg)
here are the 110 views. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2305-01-39-28.jpg) (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2305-01-58-89.jpg) (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2305-02-03-67.jpg)
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aceshigh2009-09-2305-02-08-32.jpg)
So thats what were looking at here. Even for Loony, who stakes his claims on Looniness. And since Im not Hitech I can only guess his delivering F3 views is a mix of the airplanes views, airplane type, and/if there is also a gunner in the rear. Since the 110s views to the rear are so good, and since it was also mainly a fighter, he left out F3. But thats a guess. Im not HiTech and neither are any of you.
Its funny but the IL2 is so helpless against skilled fighter sticks I cant really understand the angst :cry it arouses in this game. Even at tank killing there are very few players who rack up big numbers of tanks every month.
-
Rich, I think SWTarget is correct that the Il-2's F3 view has everything to do with its classification as a bomber, and therefore, by implication, nothing to do with the quality of its 6 view.
-
Pretty much what I said when I said Mossie and 110 were used as fighters in the war.
And like any bomber in the game the rear views of the IL2 suck. Take away F3 then just take away the airplane. I'd never fly it.
Its one thing to have poor views in a P-39 which you can fly to Alts and use B&Z to lessen the limitations of the rear view. That and the fact a wingman and the planes agility help to keep SA. And with so much time in the verticle, like with the Hellcat, the rearward obstruction is less of a limiting factor.
On the other hand IL2s are lone hunters hugging the ground waitin or the right moment to pop up and gun a GV. As your friendly Dar increases so does your altitude and agressivness. The Stormbird only shines when there is enough friendlys to make the B&Z of a low IL2 a mistake on the enemies part and it give me the time to set up an attack profile where I cant lose and ll of a sudden 3 to 6 tank go boomb from cannon alone when they give me time to wheel nd come in with all advatage on my side. like yestrerday when TT Island mptied of enemy ons and flak and let the field to an IL2 with full load of cannon as this tiger found out http://s478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aces high/?action=view¤t=TT-Tiger.flv As did the 3 tanks after him.
Had it gone out on vox "Rich is here" and suporting fihters responded, as did flak, I would have had a hrd time pursuing my attack and probaly ended up bug spray. Its a simple weakness as old as war itself. You see an eney make a mistake and then you exploit it without hesitaion.
Id love to get 20 to 30 Soviet set sticks intent on Historically correct Tactical air offensives designed to springholes into enemy for mation and encircle/anihilate Seeeminglyentrenched enemy formations
-
I thought the point of f3 view, was to repersent bombers having 360 degree view around the aircraft, not because of poor rear views, otherwise using them points F4Us should have a f3 view.
the mossie has a better view, but the il2 has a rear gunner.
-
btw... if you're resorting to name calling, just how serious is anyone supposed to take you? My forum ID relates to my favorite guitar players' quick drunk drink (EVH was known to have a bottle of "Smoking Loon" merlot up on stage during the '04 VH tour). So no, it has nothing to do with being "loony". ;) Good pics, btw. So you ARE saying the sub-par rearview of teh IL-2 is why it should have the F3?
Again, I'm not debating that the Mossi and 110 have a better rear view, that isnt the issue. The issue is just as Anaxogoras/Target have pointed out: The **only** thing linking the IL-2 to the F3 view seems to be the bomber classification. I'm vouching for taking each and every aircraft's specific attributes that relate to the exterior view (upper or lower, or both gunners, etc,), and applying universally a standard regardless. I believe the IL-2 not to be a true bomber, ESPECIALLY since its main weapons are the cannons hands down, and when it was designed as a direct fire attack aircraft from the beginning. As I've already stated, one source listed it to be a "close support attack aircraft". I dont have the figures, but were there swarms of IL-2 performing bombing raids on Berlin, or other such target with the 4/100kg bombs? Me thinks even the Soviets knew they were too slow and too exposed to do that (and more-so too valuable as tank killers/close support). The Soviets would send in the faster and more capable *bombers* to do that. Again, the poor rear view of a IL-2 shouldnt constitute the F3 capability. Listing the IL-2 in a certain category (bomber) shouldnt automatically allow it attributes another aircraft with the *same* set of eyes to not have it.
btw... the views you have shown are the worst views the IL-2 has. Is that the best you can do? I know I've manipulated the view in the IL-2 to present far better views that what you've shown. Oh, lemme guess... you've not ever used those views because your in the F3 view most of the time? ;)
-
Thats the point. I dont take you serious and could care less if you take me so.
I read the first sentence in your post. In the future I wont even read that.
I'd say thats pretty straight forward.
-
Thats the point. I dont take you serious and could care less if you take me so.
I read the first sentence in your post. In the future I wont even read that.
I'd say thats pretty straight forward.
Funny thing is... well... you keep diggin a hole and have explained nothing but the status quo and "just because" the rear view is worse in teh IL-2 is should receive the F3 view. So, you stand on the premise that a sub-par rear view = F3 capability. Thing is, you cant vouch for that universally, can you? Likewise, I can vouch for the opposite end of that specturm and be gainfully supported. Let us know when you need a ladder to get out.
-
That is how I understand it. Even that simple premise generates discussion, though.
One argument is planes like the 110, which has the same crew configuration as the Il-2, arguably better visibility from the crew positions than the Il-2, have no external view.
Another is planes like the Il-2, SBD, A-20 (in its AH configuration) etc which only have a rear gunner, have perfect 360 visibility just like a B-17 or B-24 with its multitude of positions.
My personal opinion is that planes with a rear gunner should have an option to have certain views attached to the rear gunner position vice having an external view or having to switch positions. For example, the rear view in the A-20 would be from the dorsal turret looking directly to the rear. I actually think this would be more useful in combat than the 360 external.
Anyway, it's nothing I care one way or the other about. I just feel the concession to SA is applied inconsistently with its purpose.
Been thinking exactly the same thing and totally agree. I think all the "rear hemisphere" views could be attached to the "rear gun position" aswell. This might pose a problem with joined gunners but I'm pretty sure HT would find a workaround code-wise. If the plane has more than two pairs of eyes it should IMO have an F3-view.
-
Been thinking exactly the same thing and totally agree. I think all the "rear hemisphere" views could be attached to the "rear gun position" aswell. This might pose a problem with joined gunners but I'm pretty sure HT would find a workaround code-wise. If the plane has more than two pairs of eyes it should IMO have an F3-view.
I suggested the same in another thread some months ago. The easy work around is to let the player move his 6 view past the headrest in aircraft that had a tail gunner.
-
The issue is just as Anaxogoras/Target have pointed out: The **only** thing linking the IL-2 to the F3 view seems to be the bomber classification. I'm vouching for taking each and every aircraft's specific attributes that relate to the exterior view (upper or lower, or both gunners, etc,), and applying universally a standard regardless. I believe the IL-2 not to be a true bomber, ESPECIALLY since its main weapons are the cannons hands down, and when it was designed as a direct fire attack aircraft from the beginning. As I've already stated, one source listed it to be a "close support attack aircraft". I dont have the figures, but were there swarms of IL-2 performing bombing raids on Berlin, or other such target with the 4/100kg bombs? Me thinks even the Soviets knew they were too slow and too exposed to do that (and more-so too valuable as tank killers/close support). The Soviets would send in the faster and more capable *bombers* to do that. Again, the poor rear view of a IL-2 shouldnt constitute the F3 capability. Listing the IL-2 in a certain category (bomber) shouldnt automatically allow it attributes another aircraft with the *same* set of eyes to not have it.
Just because it wasn't used for strategic bombing a la the B-17 does not negate the fact that the IL-2 is a ground-attack aircraft and therefore a tactical bomber. To use another example, the Stuka was also a "close support attack aircraft", and was a bomber, and in AH, is listed as such.
Many fighters were given hard points and carried ord and were used in an attack roll -- but even planes that excelled at this (such as the Corsair) were either designed to be fighters first or, at the least, dual-role aircraft from the very beginning. This was not true of the IL-2 or Stuka or JU-88 -- all were designed specifically to attack ground targets -- in a tactical bomber roll.
The categorization as a bomber is correct.