Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: VonMessa on September 18, 2009, 01:15:35 PM
-
(The accuracy of the following statement is questionable as what I am about to describe happened in a PRE-coffee, early morning, before work sortie)
I could have sworn I received a pilot wound in an LVT this morning.
It was AWESOME. (unless I'm the only one that has noticed this, if not, it's about time)
:noid
-
I think it CAN happen as PW is listed on the Damage List in gv's. But I've never seen it either! What happened to the driver's position? Was there any blood?
-
I've had a pilot wound in an M8 once. there was blood. Surprised me.
-
I got one once. It is pretty bizarre...
-
Bizarre, indeed :noid
It was 0530 hrs EDT.
I just thought I needed some coffee. :D
-
No blood in a jeep.
-
have had one several times....... and now that once again theyve catered to the "Im not good enough so I need the rules changed" crowd..... I expect to get them in WW more often
-
and now that once again theyve catered to the "Im not good enough so I need the rules changed" crowd.
In with way? You mean, adjusting the turret rotation speed to it's real-world historical and documented value?
-
have had one several times....... and now that once again theyve catered to the "Im not good enough so I need the rules changed" crowd..... I expect to get them in WW more often
What exactly did they change for you anyway?
I'm not aware of any rules changing.
-
making the turret rotation speed more accurate has very little to do with real world accuracy............ once again theres a very distinct line between "real world" and "game" just like there is no recorded instance in "real world" of a tank shooting a plane with its main gun........ planes didnt very often strafe to death WW or osti or any sizeable gun battery in the real world........ so it becomes a point of real world accuracy in modeling inhibits game world playability
-
making the turret rotation speed more accurate has very little to do with real world accuracy............
ok.. what if HTC introduces anothe early war plane... the He-111 or a D.520 for example. And for sake of playability and because it's "a game", it's getting a top speed 30% above it's documented historical value?
-
No blood in a jeep.
That's only because you haven't gone wheeling with me, yet. It's not a good wheeling trip 'til you're covered in mud, blood and beer. :devil
-
making the turret rotation speed more accurate has very little to do with real world accuracy............ once again theres a very distinct line between "real world" and "game" just like there is no recorded instance in "real world" of a tank shooting a plane with its main gun........ planes didnt very often strafe to death WW or osti or any sizeable gun battery in the real world........ so it becomes a point of real world accuracy in modeling inhibits game world playability
fixing the turret rotation to what it was historically documented as, does not in anyway inhibits the game play. Those that have tried to claim otherwise have yet to provide any fact to back up the assertion that it has a negative impact on the game play.
ack-ack
-
ok.. what if HTC introduces anothe early war plane... the He-111 or a D.520 for example. And for sake of playability and because it's "a game", it's getting a top speed 30% above it's documented historical value?
so then your contention would be that there is nothing intentionally done in AH that is not historically accurate to enhance gameplay?
fixing the turret rotation to what it was historically documented as does not in anyway inhibits the game play. Those that have tried to claim otherwise have yet to provide any fact to back up the assertion that it has a negative impact on the game play.
ack-ack
now takes 2 guys from even a 90° difference in approach 1 bullet to easily disable a WW........ without even being well coordinated ...... major difference in gameplay
the point is GVs have a hard enough time as it is dealing with the eggtards (point out for Lusche: also not nearly realistic "historically accurate")........ without having to also not be able to defend themselves from strafers (for lusche also NON realistic "historically accurate")
-
Correct me if Im wrong. But didnt some German "eggtard" record something like 500 tank kills on the Russian front?
-
Correct me if Im wrong. But didnt some German "eggtard" record something like 500 tank kills on the Russian front?
A: yes youre wrong
B: not saying egging a GV never happened...... just that it was not as common a practice as in a game
-
Because exposed gunners sitting on top of an open turret shouldn't be hurt by 6 50. cals blowing at them.
The turret speed change is a great one, made even better by unsyncing the IL2 37mms. Completely balanced and long needed changes IMO.
-
Because exposed gunners sitting on top of an open turret shouldn't be hurt by 6 50. cals blowing at them.
NO because if youre going for historical accuracy then nobody would be blowing 6 50. cals at them........
in case you arent aware... a WW cannot travel at 350mph and has a zero roll rate
-
NO because if youre going for historical accuracy then nobody would be blowing 6 50. cals at them........
:rofl
-
making the turret rotation speed more accurate has very little to do with real world accuracy............ once again theres a very distinct line between "real world" and "game" just like there is no recorded instance in "real world" of a tank shooting a plane with its main gun........ planes didnt very often strafe to death WW or osti or any sizeable gun battery in the real world ........ so it becomes a point of real world accuracy in modeling inhibits game world playability
Are you aware of just how many ground attack sorties were flown against the Germans in 1944 and 1945? Are you aware of the millions of rounds of 50 BMG ammunition fired on strafing runs in that period? Are you aware of just how many German vehicle columns were repeatedly and mercilessly strafed in that period?
In order to conduct successful ground operations you must either conduct them where your enemy has no air assets, or you must attain at least local air superiority.
If you do not wish to be strafed, do not get caught in the open where there is no cover from air attack, and where you have no air cover of your own.
-
Are you aware of just how many ground attack sorties were flown against the Germans in 1944 and 1945? Are you aware of the millions of rounds of 50 BMG ammunition fired on strafing runs in that period? Are you aware of just how many German vehicle columns were repeatedly and mercilessly strafed in that period?
In order to conduct successful ground operations you must either conduct them where your enemy has no air assets, or you must attain at least local air superiority.
If you do not wish to be strafed, do not get caught in the open where there is no cover from air attack, and where you have no air cover of your own.
Ill answer these for you since your tone seems to infer you cannot......
Are you aware that this is a game and accuracy vs playability is a line that is often way crossed to the playability side? in many cases it is such (leaves that historically accurate argument out the window)
Are you aware how many times a 50 plane horde was sent to an airbase NOE and had all hangers down leaving them with only a handful of WW to defend [both a base and a town]? NEVER (leaves that historically accurate argument out the window)
I put those brackets in the last one for you to clearly see another example.......... where in "historical accuracy" was a town needed to be destoyed and ten troops dropped to capture territory?
so you see this is not ............as HITECH himself has said many times and will gladly say again IM sure........ a reproduction of history....... nor is it intended to be
this is a game that has trademarks of WWII equipment.......... and while I would agree that accuracy is nice in some aspects......... its not the end all way to be
lest we forget this is a game and none of our actions and behaviours in the game historically reflect
I will also in going give you one more for the historically accurate crowd......... next time you die......... logoff and dont come back..... after all you want EVERYTHING historically accurate
-
I will also in going give you one more for the historically accurate crowd......... next time you die......... logoff and dont come back..... after all you want EVERYTHING historically accurate
No. I just want plane & gv perfomance as accurately modeled as possible. And to answer an earlier question, just because some things still may nit be perfect, that's no reason to for further going for that kind of accuracy :)
-
Batch.... do you play xbox alot?
-
now takes 2 guys from even a 90° difference in approach 1 bullet to easily disable a WW........ without even being well coordinated ...... major difference in gameplay
Drive a M16 then, turns and aims faster.
just like there is no recorded instance in "real world" of a tank shooting a plane with its main gun........ planes didnt very often strafe to death WW or osti or any sizeable gun battery in the real world........ so it becomes a point of real world accuracy in modeling inhibits game world playability
I believe it was either Spitfires, Thunderbolts, and Warm beer by Michael Cain or Thunderbolt! by Robert Johnson that spoke of a strafing mission against some German tanks and spoke of the tanks firing their main guns at the strafing planes.
Of course, it might be neither of them, as I do not have the passage in front of me.
-
No. I just want plane & gv perfomance as accurately modeled as possible. And to answer an earlier question, just because some things still may nit be perfect, that's no reason to for further going for that kind of accuracy :)
like I said I dont argue the fact of historical modeling thats fine............ but you cant model players
and until you can then some things need to be left inaccurate to account for it.......... once again let me remind you it is a GAME
-
Drive a M16 then, turns and aims faster.
I believe it was either Spitfires, Thunderbolts, and Warm beer by Michael Cain or Thunderbolt! by Robert Johnson that spoke of a strafing mission against some German tanks and spoke of the tanks firing their main guns at the strafing planes.
Of course, it might be neither of them, as I do not have the passage in front of me.
Havent read either of those books....... but I would assume that neither lied and said there was actually a hit
-
Correct me if Im wrong. But didnt some German "eggtard" record something like 500 tank kills on the Russian front?
<cough>
Shame we don't have the same model of the Sturzkampfflugzeug that he did :cry
<cough>
-
Correct me if Im wrong. But didnt some German "eggtard" record something like 500 tank kills on the Russian front?
You are correct. Hans Rudel destroyed 519 Soviet tanks, 800 vehicles, 150 artillery guns, 2 cruisers, battleship, 70 landing craft, 4 armored trains, bridges, and shot down 9 Soviet aircraft. Not bad for an 'eggtard'
A: yes youre wrong
B: not saying egging a GV never happened...... just that it was not as common a practice as in a game
When one pilot does it in real life 1,319 times, I would venture a very safe guess that it was far more common than you think it was. Rudel was only one man, and if you total the number of sorties flown and number of ground vehicles destroyed by ground attack aircraft on the Eastern Front, you'll clearly see that it was pretty much an every day occurance and one of the major type of sorties flown on that front.
ack-ack
-
Correct me if Im wrong. But didnt some German "eggtard" record something like 500 tank kills on the Russian front?
A: yes youre wrong
B: not saying egging a GV never happened...... just that it was not as common a practice as in a game
Yes Tralfz you are wrong, that German eggtard didn't record 500 kills he recorded about 2000 kills over a total of 2,530 mission. This German eggtard being none other than Hans-Ulrich Rudel. The most decorated serviceman of the war.
And Batch if one man alone flew 2,530 missions, I would dare say YOU are also wrong saying that it wasn't common practice. I know for a fact that early in the war the Stuka played a huge roll on the eastern front.
-
Because exposed gunners sitting on top of an open turret shouldn't be hurt by 6 50. cals blowing at them.
The turret speed change is a great one, made even better by unsyncing the IL2 37mms. Completely balanced and long needed changes IMO.
Exactly, the changes made were needed, not only for historical accuracy but also for the game play.
ack-ack
-
DAMN U ACK ACK!!!! beat me too it lmao :O
-
Something tells me Batch could care less about historical accuracy. He just
wants a forum to wah wah about his wirblewind. I do especially like his comment
that fifties would not be fired at antiaicraft positions. My sister in law's Dad was
drafted by the Luftwaffe in 1943. In 1944 he was assigned to a 20mm gun battery
just west of Cherbourg. On June 6th his section was strafed by a P-38 Lightning
while guarding an empty field. He still carries 27 pieces of shrapnel from that attack.
Hans said that the other gun in the section drew fire from the 38 by firing at it
first. Interestingly enough, he was assigned to a flakvierling 38 4 barreled 20mm....
look at all familiar?
(http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/f/flak-winter.jpg)
(http://img.vojsko.net/images/861773Flakvierling-38-20mm.jpg)
-
interesting that 2 of you would within minutes post what hans rudel did and neither of you had anywhere near the others number............ I would say both of you are historically inaccurate and need to be remodeled
either of which...... both being wrong....... take that number times (if using even a conservative number 20% of estimated total players) 1000 players........ can you name me 1000 historically accurate people who eggtarded?............ and then try to name me 1 with accuracy?
-
Ill answer these for you since your tone seems to infer you cannot......
Are you aware that this is a game and accuracy vs playability is a line that is often way crossed to the playability side? in many cases it is such (leaves that historically accurate argument out the window)
Are you aware how many times a 50 plane horde was sent to an airbase NOE and had all hangers down leaving them with only a handful of WW to defend [both a base and a town]? NEVER (leaves that historically accurate argument out the window)
I put those brackets in the last one for you to clearly see another example.......... where in "historical accuracy" was a town needed to be destoyed and ten troops dropped to capture territory?
so you see this is not ............as HITECH himself has said many times and will gladly say again IM sure........ a reproduction of history....... nor is it intended to be
this is a game that has trademarks of WWII equipment.......... and while I would agree that accuracy is nice in some aspects......... its not the end all way to be
lest we forget this is a game and none of our actions and behaviours in the game historically reflect
I will also in going give you one more for the historically accurate crowd......... next time you die......... logoff and dont come back..... after all you want EVERYTHING historically accurate
I really do not care whether you like my "tone" or not. Evidently you can't answer any of the questions correctly at all, and that is not surprising.
Capture conditions are a simple mechanism which are there to encourage a fight. They are not at all meant to be even remotely historically accurate.
There were plenty of instances where overwhelming air power was sent in order to maximize the chances of a successful operation. In fact, any time it was possible, and overwhelming force was sent to the battle.
Ever heard of a German operation called Bodenplatte? It was just such an operation, intended to destroy the Allied ability to fight in the air. There was most certainly a horde sent with the intention to deny the Allies the use of their air assets. And yes, it compares directly to destroying the hangars in AH. So, you are indeed quite wrong, such operations did indeed occur in real life. In real life, it was a failure. But had things been only slightly different, it could have been a success.
I'll let you in on a little secret. HTC does not significantly alter plane or vehicle performance in the name of game play. Every vehicle, and every airplane, has handicaps, just like they had in real life. You evidently have not read everything HTC or Dale himself has written. The GAME is a GAME, not a simulation of war. However, the tools of war are as close a simulation as is possible. The concessions they make in modeling are driven by the need for the player to be able to operate the tools of war without excess difficulty or the need for serious training. Those concessions are NOT made in order to make certain tools more competitive.
The truth here is that you just want your advantage back because you want a crutch. You already have an exaggerated rate of fire, but you need a faster traverse rate as well? Okay, fine. How about we give the planes an exaggerated rate of fire since they do not have heavy armor. We'll just hang a 20mm Vulcan cannon in the nose of the P-38 since it is such a large somewhat soft target and easily hit from the ground. That should even things up. After all, you need a couple of historically inaccurate crutches, so why not give them to others?
-
Something tells me Batch could care less about historical accuracy. He just
wants a forum to wah wah about his wirblewind. I do especially like his comment
that fifties would not be fired at antiaicraft positions. My sister in law's Dad was
drafted by the Luftwaffe in 1943. In 1944 he was assigned to a 20mm gun battery
just west of Cherbourg. On June 6th his section was strafed by a P-38 Lightning
while guarding an empty field. He still carries 27 pieces of shrapnel from that attack.
Hans said that the other gun in the section drew fire from the 38 by firing at it
first. Interestingly enough, he was assigned to a flakvierling 38 4 barreled 20mm....
look at all familiar?
(http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/f/flak-winter.jpg)
(http://img.vojsko.net/images/861773Flakvierling-38-20mm.jpg)
I bet it does to Vilkas :salute
-
I really do not care whether you like my "tone" or not. Evidently you can't answer any of the questions correctly at all, and that is not surprising.
Capture conditions are a simple mechanism which are there to encourage a fight. They are not at all meant to be even remotely historically accurate.
There were plenty of instances where overwhelming air power was sent in order to maximize the chances of a successful operation. In fact, any time it was possible, and overwhelming force was sent to the battle.
Ever heard of a German operation called Bodenplatte? It was just such an operation, intended to destroy the Allied ability to fight in the air. There was most certainly a horde sent with the intention to deny the Allies the use of their air assets. And yes, it compares directly to destroying the hangars in AH. So, you are indeed quite wrong, such operations did indeed occur in real life. In real life, it was a failure. But had things been only slightly different, it could have been a success.
I'll let you in on a little secret. HTC does not significantly alter plane or vehicle performance in the name of game play. Every vehicle, and every airplane, has handicaps, just like they had in real life. You evidently have not read everything HTC or Dale himself has written. The GAME is a GAME, not a simulation of war. However, the tools of war are as close a simulation as is possible. The concessions they make in modeling are driven by the need for the player to be able to operate the tools of war without excess difficulty or the need for serious training. Those concessions are NOT made in order to make certain tools more competitive.
The truth here is that you just want your advantage back because you want a crutch. You already have an exaggerated rate of fire, but you need a faster traverse rate as well? Okay, fine. How about we give the planes an exaggerated rate of fire since they do not have heavy armor. We'll just hang a 20mm Vulcan cannon in the nose of the P-38 since it is such a large somewhat soft target and easily hit from the ground. That should even things up. After all, you need a couple of historically inaccurate crutches, so why not give them to others?
you lost your argument in your long winded dribble in the first example you present in regards to hording....... as even you admit it was a failure and never occurred......... no need to read after that
-
interesting that 2 of you would within minutes post what hans rudel did and neither of you had anywhere near the others number............ I would say both of you are historically inaccurate and need to be remodeled
either of which...... both being wrong....... take that number times (if using even a conservative number 20% of estimated total players) 1000 players........ can you name me 1000 historically accurate people who eggtarded?............ and then try to name me 1 with accuracy?
ummm..... heres a list off wiki with the names, ranks, estimate of number of tank kills (doesn't include possible truck, train, and ship kills)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_World_War_II_ground_attack_aces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_World_War_II_ground_attack_aces)
The average number of missions flown is in the thousands and these are only the ones considered aces, not even the grunts of the ground attack.
-
interesting that 2 of you would within minutes post what hans rudel did and neither of you had anywhere near the others number............ I would say both of you are historically inaccurate and need to be remodeled
either of which...... both being wrong....... take that number times (if using even a conservative number 20% of estimated total players) 1000 players........ can you name me 1000 historically accurate people who eggtarded?............ and then try to name me 1 with accuracy?
One of them lists about 1500 specific targets destroyed, including some 1300 vehicles. The other says "near 2000" in general. Not really all that far apart, given one was just posting "off the cuff". The listing of specific targets destroyed by Rudel is quite accurate, unlike any of your statements. The only thing needing to be remodeled due to lack of accuracy here is you. That is quite obvious.
-
you lost your argument in your long winded dribble in the first example you present in regards to hording....... as even you admit it was a failure and never occurred......... no need to read after that
Bodenplatte most certainly did occur, it is a matter of historical recorded fact, and quite famous at that. I never said it did not occur, quite the contrary, I said it did occur. I did say that it failed, because circumstances did not fall in favor of the Germans. Had one or more circumstances of chance gone the other way, it would have been a success. In fact, had they been about 10 minutes early, at least one Allied squadron would have been caught on the runway sitting still.
The only person losing the argument here is you, as every argument you have brought up has been quickly and easily shot down in flames, due to their lack of basis in fact and reality. They don't even hold up under the premise of enhance game play.
-
Bodenplatte most certainly did occur, it is a matter of historical recorded fact, and quite famous at that. I never said it did not occur, quite the contrary, I said it did occur. I did say that it failed, because circumstances did not fall in favor of the Germans. Had one or more circumstances of chance gone the other way, it would have been a success. In fact, had they been about 10 minutes early, at least one Allied squadron would have been caught on the runway sitting still.
The only person losing the argument here is you, as every argument you have brought up has been quickly and easily shot down in flames, due to their lack of basis in fact and reality. They don't even hold up under the premise of enhance game play.
I want to be perfectly clear here for you to understand...... since youre having problems with comprehension........ and want to post this example as a case where a horde attacked and left a base with only a few WW to defend........ did it happen that way or not......... did they succeed in completely shutting down air operations leaving only a few ground vehicles to defend against a horde or not?
thats a very clear question on whether it occurred or not....... easy enough even for you
-
Since you do not believe in Bodenplatte (ground plate), here's a link to the story, as told by both sides.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200502/ai_n9477885/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200502/ai_n9477885/)
-
Universities in the USA keep a list of "respected" websites that carry factual data. BNET.com...... is not one of them. No offense. You might as well post a link to wiki. Give us the name of a published book............. :huh
Since you do not believe in Bodenplatte (ground plate), here's a link to the story, as told by both sides.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200502/ai_n9477885/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200502/ai_n9477885/)
And no offense but the both of you deserve a week ban for hijacking this thread.
-
I want to be perfectly clear here for you to understand...... since youre having problems with comprehension........ and want to post this example as a case where a horde attacked and left a base with only a few WW to defend........ did it happen that way or not......... did they succeed in completely shutting down air operations leaving only a few ground vehicles to defend against a horde or not?
thats a very clear question on whether it occurred or not....... easy enough even for you
Here's a clear message for you. The Germans sent 800 planes out in a single mission against Allied air fields in January 1945, with the intent of shutting down Allied air fields. Some Allied air fields were caught with their planes on the ground and were wrecked and shut down.
So the answer to your question is yes airfields have been completely shut down by large numbers of enemy planes, leaving them completely unable to field their air assets.
-
interesting that 2 of you would within minutes post what hans rudel did and neither of you had anywhere near the others number............ I would say both of you are historically inaccurate and need to be remodeled
either of which...... both being wrong....... take that number times (if using even a conservative number 20% of estimated total players) 1000 players........ can you name me 1000 historically accurate people who eggtarded?............ and then try to name me 1 with accuracy?
Actually, we were both correct in our numbers. I just posted an abridged version showing some of the 2,000 recorded ground targets he claimed to have destroyed. If you further look at my numbers I posted, the 1,319 was just the number of tanks and other ground vehicles he is recorded as destroying to illustrate the point that bombing tanks and other ground vehicles was very common. The numbers I didn't include were the 500+ recorded destruction of other ground targets such as machine gun emplacements, bunkers, block houses, bridges, etc. that have been attributed to him.
Does it really matter who in the game is accurate or not when attacking ground vehicles? Accuracy doesn't matter at all since it doesn't prove your point at all that it wasn't common in real life. However, the real life facts (backed up by historical records) clearly show that ground attack missions against tanks and other ground vehicles was almost an every day occurance. Just look at any of the combat records of attack units on both the German and Soviet side. Hell, our example of using Hans Rudel proves your argument is incorrect.
ack-ack
-
Universities in the USA keep a list of "respected" websites that carry factual data. BNET.com...... is not one of them. No offense. You might as well post a link to wiki. Give us the name of a published book............. :huh
And no offense but the both of you deserve a week ban for hijacking this thread.
Flight Journal Magazine is a well respected historical aircraft magazine. They published that story originally.
When you make moderator, let me know. I'll cancel my subscription.
No offense.
-
Eat my shorts?
So why don't you link it back to FJM? No, really?
Flight Journal Magazine is a well respected historical aircraft magazine. They published that story originally.
When you make moderator, let me know. I'll cancel my subscription.
No offense.
-
Eat my shorts? (Not what I really said.... You can use your imagination)
So why don't you link it back to FJM? No, really?
Why don't you go find it yourself? No, really?
-
I'm not the blowhard.......... Virgil.
:rofl
And thanks for ruining my shot to be a mod!!! :lol
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
No, you are not. You started with insults.
The answer to your question is that I simply searched for Bodenplatte, and found that article there. It is very easy for anyone to see the article is obviously credited to Flight Journal Magazine, all you have to do is open your eyes and look. It's posted right there on the first page, and every page after.
-
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen9.htm
-
I started with pointing out that you, amongst others, are hijacking what the true, good, meaning of the thread is. Then it just got silly........... :O
It's posted right there on the first page, and every page after.
-
have had one several times....... and now that once again theyve catered to the "Im not good enough so I need the rules changed" crowd..... I expect to get them in WW more often
ACTUALLY Batch is the one who started the Hi-jacking with this statement, then proceeded to get owned in every aspect of his argument.
-
Ah shooooot........ My apologies then Captain Virgil Hilts..... We must find batch, and keel him!!!!
ACTUALLY Batch is the one who started the Hi-jacking with this statement, then proceeded to get owned in every aspect of his argument.
-
lmfao :rofl
-
Ah shooooot........ My apologies then Captain Virgil Hilts..... We must find batch, and keel him!!!!
Hard to do.... he's usually in the tower playing xbox.
-
All this because they slowed down the turret on a WW. How bout you just keep driving and use turning in the GV to help orient your turret faster? Very sad indeed :(
-
ACTUALLY Batch is the one who started the Hi-jacking with this statement, then proceeded to get owned in every aspect of his argument.
actually you need to learn what a hijack is.......... I commented on the OP and made an additional statement that was ATTEMPTED to get owned but got denied on all accounts due to lack of anything but opinion and conjecture.......
I do however note that you havent commented on the OP......... hijacker
-
actually you need to learn what a hijack is.......... I commented on the OP and made an additional statement that was ATTEMPTED to get owned but got denied on all accounts due to lack of anything but opinion and conjecture.......
I do however note that you havent commented on the OP......... hijacker
You didn't comment on the original post so much as you whined about an unrelated change that you didn't like. And you got called on it.
There was no attempt, you were beaten like a rented mule. And it was done with facts and history, there was no conjecture involved. You have not been able to offer any valid dispute of the facts, all you had were weak "game play" whines that do not hold up. Your attempts to invoke comments from HiTech were already completely invalid, since it was HiTech who at least approved the change, if he did not code it himself. The best you have are whines, and poor attempts at denial of facts that are in fact well documented history.
-
You didn't comment on the original post so much as you whined about an unrelated change that you didn't like. And you got called on it.
There was no attempt, you were beaten like a rented mule. And it was done with facts and history, there was no conjecture involved. You have not been able to offer any valid dispute of the facts, all you had were weak "game play" whines that do not hold up. Your attempts to invoke comments from HiTech were already completely invalid, since it was HiTech who at least approved the change, if he did not code it himself. The best you have are whines, and poor attempts at denial of facts that are in fact well documented history.
actually a rented mule is worth more than your petty arguments that you somehow feel are enforced by the amount of words you type........ you have shown no facts nor history in fact the only history you provided proved contrary....... the one scenario you mentioned was a failure and didnt even accomplish the proof you set to set forth........ there was no attempt to invoke any comments from hitech as the word invoke if you understood english means an attempt to get him to say something........ when in fact he already said it...... again your incomprehension of the language I guess............ yes Im sure he was aware of the change at the very least.. that doesnt mean it was for the better... just means he implemented it........ has he never implemented a change that was not for the better? hmmm I guess since there are many updates and changes I would have to say YES he has............you have shown no facts of well documented history..... you have shown an article from a magazine which is NOT as you stated among the highest regarded........ and others have given facts from WIKI which is well known for NONfacts......... the best you have done is taken a simple statement of fact as given by me and expand it into your own whine as a fanboy........ get over yourself and accept reality.......... and go do whatever it is you normally do with rented mules..... cause you certainly cant beat one........
-
GV's are supposed to be at a disadvantage from aircraft... it isnt supposed to be easy hitting a target moving 350mph+ that is moving across your field of view.
-
actually a rented mule is worth more than your petty arguments that you somehow feel are enforced by the amount of words you type........ you have shown no facts nor history in fact the only history you provided proved contrary....... the one scenario you mentioned was a failure and didnt even accomplish the proof you set to set forth........ there was no attempt to invoke any comments from hitech as the word invoke if you understood english means an attempt to get him to say something........ when in fact he already said it...... again your incomprehension of the language I guess............ yes Im sure he was aware of the change at the very least.. that doesnt mean it was for the better... just means he implemented it........ has he never implemented a change that was not for the better? hmmm I guess since there are many updates and changes I would have to say YES he has............you have shown no facts of well documented history..... you have shown an article from a magazine which is NOT as you stated among the highest regarded........ and others have given facts from WIKI which is well known for NONfacts......... the best you have done is taken a simple statement of fact as given by me and expand it into your own whine as a fanboy........ get over yourself and accept reality.......... and go do whatever it is you normally do with rented mules..... cause you certainly cant beat one........
Rudel's wartime record and those of his squadron mates and other ground attack squadrons that flew on all sides of the war are not 'inaccurate' facts taken from Wiki. You were wrong about it not being common in real life, we showed you with a particular pilot's wartime record that it was, after all how would he get over 1,300 kills of ground vehicles?
Face it, your argument is nothing more then a whine.
ack-ack
-
Rudel's wartime record and those of his squadron mates and other ground attack squadrons that flew on all sides of the war are not 'inaccurate' facts taken from Wiki. You were wrong about it not being common in real life, we showed you with a particular pilot's wartime record that it was, after all how would he get over 1,300 kills of ground vehicles?
Face it, your argument is nothing more then a whine.
ack-ack
1 question......... where did you get your facts............ answer wiki.......... problem solved
I checked 12 sources the only 1 that had the numbers you posted was wiki..... nuff said
-
1 question......... where did you get your facts............ answer wiki.......... problem solved
I checked 12 sources the only 1 that had the numbers you posted was wiki..... nuff said
Actually, from this book.
Stuka Pilot by Hans Rudel (http://www.amazon.com/Stuka-Pilot-Hans-Ulrich-Rudel-Schiffer/dp/0887402526)
Also used this to get the exact numbers of ground vehicles destroyed since I didn't have access to the book at home.
Achtung Panzer! - Hans Rudel (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen9.htm)
now, are you really trying to tell me that Rudel's wartime record is not true? Are you willing to back that up with contrary proof?
Again, you've been proven wrong in yet another thing.
ack-ack
-
wiki
-
from my experience, pilot wound is for the driver. gunner position unaffected.
-
Sometimes I wonder why a guy in a hole continues to dig...amazing.
-
I don't know, but he's got a shovel the size of a house. And he just keeps on shoveling.
-
wiki
Wrong again. One is from Amazon, the book seller, the other is from a website about German ground attack units. And my link was from find article, which took the article from Flight Journal Magazine, a well respected magazine about historical aircraft and the events they were involved in.
Keep digging.
-
wiki
Im pretty sure the two sites ack ack just posted are nothing close to wiki.
Batch you are pretty much acting like this man right here....
(http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/political-pictures-mahmoud-ahmedinejad-reject-reality.jpg)
-
So, pilot wounds in a gv huh...................
-
Never had one, in any GV. Killed outright or unharmed. Go figure.
-
Neither have I. But with all this new crazy stuff going on, I'd hope one day soon to get shot in the shoulder! :D
Never had one, in any GV. Killed outright or unharmed. Go figure.
:salute
-
One of my first times in a GV, panzer, I received a pilot wound. I was messing around with the arrow keys trying to get a better view out of the little slit. So I moved the seating way forward and said hey now I can see. About that time a spit came in from the front and pinged my tank giving me a pilot wound. It was very very frustrating at the time. Couldn't get back to base since I spawned out. So I just drove around bleeding out. However, I think it's funny now and it gives me a story to tell.