Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: greystar on December 30, 2009, 09:20:40 AM

Title: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: greystar on December 30, 2009, 09:20:40 AM
AH bowed to presure from fighter jocks to slow the turret on the wirble ,,, why
there was nothin wrong with it ,it gave gvs a chance against the dumb idiots that drop bombs on gvs that land 50 yards away and kills an armourd gv when it shouldnt .

put the wirble back as it was  , pls

while im here ,,,when are we going to get the proper armour value on the gvs ,
ie .M4 is a light tank with upgraded arour .2 shots from panzr should kill it .why does it take more hits than a tiger ?? if AH  leaves it that way then it should cost more perks to drive .
also would like to ask for more gvs in game ,,theres more gv players now than before
so can we have more gvs ? .pnzr mk5 panther ,king tiger, or even any kind of tank from that period ,theres a lot there ,even the jeep had a gun that could take out a tank ?
any ways ,,thats it ive had my twopenny worth ..
some wont agree  some will ,,,,,,,lets see if anyone reads this from  AH ,,,
could be  interesting ,,,,, :salute        :bolt:
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: CAP1 on December 30, 2009, 09:29:56 AM
AH bowed to presure from fighter jocks to slow the turret on the wirble ,,, why
there was nothin wrong with it ,it gave gvs a chance against the dumb idiots that drop bombs on gvs that land 50 yards away and kills an armourd gv when it shouldnt .

put the wirble back as it was  , pls

while im here ,,,when are we going to get the proper armour value on the gvs ,
ie .M4 is a light tank with upgraded arour .2 shots from panzr should kill it .why does it take more hits than a tiger ?? if AH  leaves it that way then it should cost more perks to drive .
also would like to ask for more gvs in game ,,theres more gv players now than before
so can we have more gvs ? .pnzr mk5 panther ,king tiger, or even any kind of tank from that period ,theres a lot there ,even the jeep had a gun that could take out a tank ?
any ways ,,thats it ive had my twopenny worth ..
some wont agree  some will ,,,,,,,lets see if anyone reads this from  AH ,,,
could be  interesting ,,,,, :salute        :bolt:

to the best of my understanding, the turrets were much faster in here, than they were in rl.

the m4 is the firefly. it was upgraded by the british, and i think thicker armor was part of that upgrade.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Tec on December 30, 2009, 09:30:49 AM
AH bowed to presure from fighter jocks to slow the turret on the wirble ,,, why
there was nothin wrong with it ,it gave gvs a chance against the dumb idiots that drop bombs on gvs that land 50 yards away and kills an armourd gv when it shouldnt .

The Wirble and Osti turrets were faster than they were in real life, the traverse speed was reduced to what it should have been.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: greystar on December 30, 2009, 09:36:50 AM
ok if wirble was slowed down to rl ,,can understand ,,,
but the m4 still takeas more hits than it should ,,i can kill a tiger in three hits  m4 takes more damage ,,its just wrong 
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: CAP1 on December 30, 2009, 09:41:37 AM
ok if wirble was slowed down to rl ,,can understand ,,,
but the m4 still takeas more hits than it should ,,i can kill a tiger in three hits  m4 takes more damage ,,its just wrong 

it's the upgraded british version
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: greystar on December 30, 2009, 09:47:44 AM
ok its the british version ,,,its still got less armour than a tiger tank ,,,,,
it has a bigger gun than an american m4 , better armour too ,,,but no way could it stand against a tiger  in armour value ,,its wrong ,,,,,, :(
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: CAP1 on December 30, 2009, 09:54:09 AM
ok its the british version ,,,its still got less armour than a tiger tank ,,,,,
it has a bigger gun than an american m4 , better armour too ,,,but no way could it stand against a tiger  in armour value ,,its wrong ,,,,,, :(


actually, i believe it could. and didn't you say panzer in the first post?

 also, you need to remember. sloped armor, will deflect the rounds. it makes it "appear" thicker to the rounds. take into consideration the distance you're hitting at, if or not, you're using the right rounds, etc.

 

 as for aircraft bombing.....when i'm in a gv, it annoys me too.....but i work around it. i try to kill the aircraft, then go about my business.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: jolly22 on December 30, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
2 shots from panzr should kill it .


If you know were to aim you won't have to worry about it!
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Saurdaukar on December 30, 2009, 10:20:32 AM
Whats a "GV?"
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: whels on December 30, 2009, 10:35:06 AM
The M4 we have has only upgraded gun, it has the same thin armor as the
regular Sherman.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: E25280 on December 30, 2009, 10:39:44 AM
ok its the british version ,,,its still got less armour than a tiger tank ,,,,,
it has a bigger gun than an american m4 , better armour too ,,,but no way could it stand against a tiger  in armour value ,,its wrong ,,,,,, :(
Umm . . . the M4 in game doesn't hold a candle to the Tiger in armor value.

I've seen a lot of whining about the M4s armor since it came out, and yet my experience in the game is that they are no harder to kill than a panzer with hits anywhere but the front of the turret.  I think this is where most AH GVers get messed up.  The front mantlet is the weak spot on the panzer, but is the strongest spot on the M4.


By the way, the OP says the M4 is a light tank? :huh  The M4 is a medium by WWII standards.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: jolly22 on December 30, 2009, 10:41:16 AM
I still say, if you know where to hit a tank........ You won't have to worry about it,,,,,,,, End of discussion.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: jolly22 on December 30, 2009, 10:41:50 AM
3 hits in the side panel to a tiger from an M8 can kill it.... I've done it
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Tilt on December 30, 2009, 10:48:18 AM
IMO more uber (Panther/kingtiger) tanks when the IL2m3 gets 2.5-1.5 PTAB's.............
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Rich46yo on December 30, 2009, 01:54:47 PM
The WWs were Death Stars as they were, "and I enjoyed them as much as anyone". But still, out of respect to historical fairness, their turrets had to be slowed down.

I dont even think it affected them much. You have to have more SA now but they are still extremely effective.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Spikes on December 30, 2009, 02:24:26 PM
it's the upgraded british version
I think they only thing different was the gun...I think the hull was the same as the M4A3...
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: CAP1 on December 30, 2009, 02:29:32 PM
I think they only thing different was the gun...I think the hull was the same as the M4A3...

aahh.,....

i thought i had remembered someone in game telling me the armor was harder too......but as i'm rarely in gv's i could also be mistaken.

i know with me, it can be an m3, and i'll have a hell of a time lklling it.  :rofl :banana: :headscratch:
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: waystin2 on December 30, 2009, 02:44:41 PM
I think they only thing different was the gun...I think the hull was the same as the M4A3...

You are correct.  Although I have seen mention of the hull being lengthened in the Firefly...still trying to get info on that.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Chalenge on December 30, 2009, 03:18:44 PM
The firefly had no armor advantage over a typical Sherman.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Bronk on December 30, 2009, 03:39:18 PM
AH bowed to presure from fighter jocks to slow the turret on the wirble ,,, why
there was nothin wrong with it ,it gave gvs a chance against the dumb idiots that drop bombs on gvs that land 50 yards away and kills an armourd gv when it shouldnt .

put the wirble back as it was  , pls

Wait till HT gets around to fixing the WW sustained rate of fire. :neener:
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Guppy35 on December 30, 2009, 03:57:41 PM
You are correct.  Although I have seen mention of the hull being lengthened in the Firefly...still trying to get info on that.


It was the M4A2 version.  Slightly longer due to a different engine if memory serves.  It did have the turret modified with a different loader hatch and compartment behind the turret to go with the larger 17 pounder gun.

And yes they were effective against Tigers.  Just ask Michael Wittmann
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Chalenge on December 30, 2009, 04:04:33 PM
The hull was no different. The turret had to be modified to handle changes to the gun mounting because the recoil damping shocks were moved lateral to the gun instead of behind (or the gun would not have fit the turret) and the escape hatch for the turret was added and the radio operator removed and the radio moved up to where the loader could handle it (which is where the added section of the turret comes in). The 17 pounder was the most effective tank killing round in the war but the tank itself was no harder to kill than a standard Sherman (which by the way had the reputation of catching fire upon the first hit by panzer or tiger either one).

No I dont believe for a minute that a Firefly had the optics to hit another tank at 5k but I do think the Tiger and Panzer could hit at 3k and did.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: AWwrgwy on December 30, 2009, 07:35:19 PM
...(which by the way had the reputation of catching fire upon the first hit by panzer or tiger either one).


From all I've read, the Sherman had no more propensity to catch fire than any other tank.  The Germans learned that tanks that burned could not be repaired and put back into service so they kept shooting until they did burn.


wrongway
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: waystin2 on December 31, 2009, 10:39:50 AM
Wait till HT gets around to fixing the WW sustained rate of fire. :neener:

Or the IL-2's lack of flight disruption due to unsychronized cannons. :neener:
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Bronk on December 31, 2009, 11:42:46 AM
Or the IL-2's lack of flight disruption due to unsychronized cannons. :neener:


http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274113.0.html

A new patch is available now via the autoupdater or from the link in the news section on our homepage.

Version 2.15 Patch 1
======================

Fixed a bug that caused assists not to register.

Fixed a bug that caused films from the previous version to crash the film viewer.

Fixed a bug that caused the ship wakes to disappear when certain graphics settings were disabled.

Made a cosmetic change to the wakes so they don't shimmer and leave a hard edge.

Fixed a bug that caused the P-47N and P-47D-40 to not load all their rockets.

Added a Rockets label to the first loadout column of the PT boat in the hangar.

Il-2 37mm cannons are no longer synced together.

They are unsyched now . Where have you been. :neener:
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: waystin2 on December 31, 2009, 12:12:05 PM
I know this.  I posted the thread that started the wheels turning.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,263890.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,263890.0.html)  


Now they need to incorporate the massive disruption in flight, site picture, and accuracy that comes with the unsynched guns.

Where have you been? :neener:

 :salute

Way
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Bronk on December 31, 2009, 01:16:01 PM
I know this.  I posted the thread that started the wheels turning.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,263890.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,263890.0.html)  


Now they need to incorporate the massive disruption in flight, site picture, and accuracy that comes with the unsynched guns.

Where have you been? :neener:

 :salute

Way

Hmm guns set at 650... target set to 650... results..
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/ahss1.jpg)

Yup no dispersion there. :rolleyes: :neener:
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Saurdaukar on December 31, 2009, 01:54:32 PM
Whats the command to bring that target thingy up?
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Bronk on December 31, 2009, 01:55:48 PM
.target xxx   Xs being distance.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: BaldEagl on December 31, 2009, 02:06:53 PM
even the jeep had a gun that could take out a tank ?

The Jeep we have now can kill a Panzer from the back.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Sol75 on December 31, 2009, 02:12:11 PM
Best solution to killing GVs is a 1000lb bomb.

Sol
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: waystin2 on December 31, 2009, 02:35:39 PM
Hmm guns set at 650... target set to 650... results..
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/ahss1.jpg)

Yup no dispersion there. :rolleyes: :neener:
Seriously.  Does anybody actually shoot at 650 in the IL-2?  The actual Soviet pilots preferred the 23mm package because flight disruption was so severe with the 37mm.  Completely unable to fire more than 3-4 rounds tops.  It should twist and turn the plane like crazy.  Whether Hitech decides to go with it or not.  Who knows...
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: humble on December 31, 2009, 03:26:47 PM
The misconception in the strength of the shermans armor is related to the relative weakness of its gun and the impact on tactics. The low velocity gun tube forced the sherman crews to maneuver for close range kills. This not only exposed them to fire from enemy tanks and assault guns but played heavily into Rommel's preferred tactic of deploying anti tank guns forward of his armor. Normal successful engagement ranges for an M4 armed with the standard 75mm gun tube (M3L40) were 500M or less. Later versions equipped with the T23 turret (76mm gun tube) were able to engage not only PzIV's but also PZV/VI GV's on much more favorable (although not even) terms. The 46 degree slope on the shermans frontal armor was nearly identical to the T-34 and panther's. Significantly more shermans were lost to AT guns and infantry deployed AT weapons/mines then enemy tanks/TD's. If we view the german loss rates during the battle of the bulge we can see statistically very heavy losses completely absent US air power against units badly outnumbered and widely considered inferior and poorly equipped. US M10 equipped TD battalions (not to mention the M-36 equipped ones) repeatedly decimated German columns equipped with both Panther & Tiger tanks. While the M4 as originally configured is clearly inferior to all 1944 German AFV's the loss rate was as much a function of attack as anything else.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: Bronk on December 31, 2009, 04:15:57 PM
Seriously.  Does anybody actually shoot at 650 in the IL-2?  The actual Soviet pilots preferred the 23mm package because flight disruption was so severe with the 37mm.  Completely unable to fire more than 3-4 rounds tops.  It should twist and turn the plane like crazy.  Whether Hitech decides to go with it or not.  Who knows...
Sooo how many Il-2 have you flown?

But seriously The Il-2 should fire a very short burst because of the non synch. Just as the ww RoF should be cut in 1/2 after a certain amount of time fired... unless a pause for reload.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: CAP1 on December 31, 2009, 04:26:24 PM
Sooo how many Il-2 have you flown?

But seriously The Il-2 should fire a very short burst because of the non synch. Just as the ww RoF should be cut in 1/2 after a certain amount of time fired... unless a pause for reload.


seeing as most wirbel drivers have figured out how to game it again....i like the idea of the pause to reload idea.  :devil
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: waystin2 on January 01, 2010, 01:02:12 PM
Sooo how many Il-2 have you flown?

Honestly never flew them much before the unsynching of the guns.  Now I fly them pretty regularly.  


But seriously The Il-2 should fire a very short burst because of the non synch. Just as the ww RoF should be cut in 1/2 after a certain amount of time fired... unless a pause for reload.


I actually agree with you on both.  Will be interesting to see how and if Hitech handles it.
Title: Re: GV PERSPECTIVE
Post by: OOZ662 on January 03, 2010, 02:14:13 PM
No I dont believe for a minute that a Firefly had the optics to hit another tank at 5k but I do think the Tiger and Panzer could hit at 3k and did.

A little tidbit of documentation. There's a few pages that describe how far a Tiger could be from a vehicle to be effective on it from the four quarters.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-1%20FILES/tigerfibel.pdf

P.S. I'd kill for an English translation of that thing...