Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kenne on April 26, 2010, 03:37:21 PM
-
The gun performance is inferior to current tank guns in use.
Whats the incentive to gamers to choose this vehicle except to be kill points for others?
Why is AH wasting our money in designing this 'old' Sherman when we have one already?
Why is AH going for astetics rather than performance...I mean who here flys the Spit Mk1 in the MA?
Why cant AH focus on the 'BS' problems in the MA. AP rounds exploding in trees for example?
Why cant AH develop the M26 Pershing instead of going backwards. Hell, why not develop the M3 Lee instead!!! It had a 75mm too you know!!
Developing the 75mm Sherman is like bringing back 8track.
-
I don't even know where to start with this one...
it's so bad that I'm thinking/hoping it's just a troll.
-
I don't even know where to start with this one...
it's so bad that I'm thinking/hoping it's just a troll.
Apparently he wasn't content with being clueless in the Sherman/75 thread so decided to spread the stupidity around. :rolleyes:
-
The gun performance is inferior to current tank guns in use. You are forgetting the T34/76
Whats the incentive to gamers to choose this vehicle except to be kill points for others? People fly EW planes in LW arena and do actually drive Panzer & T34/76's even.
Why is AH wasting our money in designing this 'old' Sherman when we have one already? Fleshing out the GV list with one of the most important Gv's in the war instead of adding very rare variants just because they are "better". game isnt all about "performance" anyway... If it was, we'd had the Tempest, the 262 and Spit 14 and not much more.
Why is AH going for astetics rather than performance...I mean who here flys the Spit Mk1 in the MA? You may better look up what people are flying & driving.. most are not going for "best performance, all the time
Why cant AH focus on the 'BS' problems in the MA. AP rounds exploding in trees for example? Ever thougth about why it is that way? ;)
Why cant AH develop the M26 Pershing instead of going backwards. Hell, why not develop the M3 Lee instead!!! It had a 75mm too you know!! Good idea, has my support :aok
-
Needs more pie-chart.
:noid
-
do you notice the calliope of win on that thing? didnt think so
-
Because many in AH like the variety of early, mid and late war GVs, Ships and Aircraft for both SEA Events and MA play and dont just ask for Jet planes, supertanks, and atomic bombs that only came into service in the last 2 weeks of the war.
Thats why.
-
"Why is AH wasting our money in designing this 'old' Sherman when we have one already?"
Minor point Kenne. After we give it to them in exchange for online access it isn't our money, it's their money.
-
dont just ask for Jet planes, supertanks, and atomic bombs that only came into service in the last 2 weeks of the war.Thats why.
Did gamers ask for the 75mm Sherman?
"Why is AH wasting our money in designing this 'old' Sherman when we have one already?"
Minor point Kenne. After we give it to them in exchange for online access it isn't our money, it's their money.
point taken..i was just labouring under the idea of 'customer is always right'
-
I don't even know where to start with this one...
it's so bad that I'm thinking/hoping it's just a troll.
Isn't that the truth. I do think this rests your case from that other thread talking about the loss of folks interested in the history and the infusion of gamers.
Where is our rocket jumping M26!
-
i was just labouring under the idea of 'customer is always right'
And this customer wants a 75mm Sherman. :)
-
point taken..i was just labouring under the idea of 'customer is always right'
How would that work?
-
point taken..i was just labouring under the idea of 'customer is always right'
Aye but the whiner is always wrong. :aok
-
My bad, we really needed this instead:
http://ssau.net/shop/images/SSPEG7501.jpg
You know, to round out the most common AFVs. :lol
-
Not a gver, so not bothered either way. Iconic piece of armour tho.
Sitting waiting patiently for the HE-111
-
Did gamers ask for the 75mm Sherman?
It's one of the more requested vehicles on the forums.
MW GV scenarios are made very difficult by the lack of the M4A3. You either have to sub in a T34 or have Firefly vs. Tiger I instead of M4 vs. Pz IV.
-
Mainly scenario use. You will see it in the MA with that rocket contraption on the top there.
-
. You either have to sub in a T34 or have Firefly vs. Tiger I instead of M4 vs. Pz IV.
ah, then is not the T34/76 on par with the 75mm Sherman, as has been indicated in a previous post?
-
I would think so... I'm no GV guy. However I know enough to know that fighting T34's in the sands of Tunisia's pretty corny. ;)
-
ah, then is not the T34/76 on par with the 75mm Sherman, as has been indicated in a previous post?
How does the speed and RoF compare hmm?
-
ah, then is not the T34/76 on par with the 75mm Sherman, as has been indicated in a previous post?
Stop looking at performance comparisons and start looking at production dates and combat records. Players who take part in Special Events in order to be immersed in the realism do not want to be driving a T-34 with their buddies flying overhead in P-38s and P-47s. Besides, it'd be nice to have an American tank in the first place.
Personally, I don't care for the Spit 1 either. I prefer the Hurri 1. :D
True that. :D
-
Kenne, just because it doesn't fit into your type of game play, doesn't mean that there isn't a place for it here in AH. The 75mm Sherman is going to be a great for the gv'ers in the game. It'll make taking bases fast and less vulnerable than taking a wirble into a town.
Personally, I don't care for the Spit 1 either. I prefer the Hurri 1. :D
And if you look at the stats on Hurri 1 and Spit 1 pilots in the MA, I think you would be surprised. It's not always about score with people. It's the challenge and fun of the game.
-
Stop looking at performance comparisons and start looking at production dates and combat records. Players who take part in Special Events in order to be immersed in the realism do not want to be driving a T-34 with their buddies flying overhead in P-38s and P-47s. Besides, it'd be nice to have an American tank in the first place.
True that. :D
Yeah I'm not sure the M8 counts as a tank.
-
Did gamers ask for the 75mm Sherman?
point taken..i was just labouring under the idea of 'customer is always right'
Yes, the vanilla Sherman has been the topic of many a wish list. Had you been here for any reasonable amount of time, you would have seen the numerous wishlist threads.
No, the customer is not always right.
ack-ack
-
It'll make taking bases fast and less vulnerable
fast...less vulnerable!!!!
u mean the 75mm Sherman was a match for the PkW4 Auf2?
and faster as well?
-
Stealing this from the other thread to make another point.
I've only read about 10 or so posts in this thread, but the point I'd like to make (in response to everyone saying "if its gun is on par with the T-34s, it's going to suck/be a hangar queen/ect") is how the game is slowly bringing the "standard" for tanks down.
People are used to getting bigger and better things. Upgrading, if you will. But if you look at the "strength" of the tanks being introduced, you'll notice that the average is declining. With proper balancing means, this can be put to good use. Back in AHI, you had three choices; Tiger, Panzer, M8. The Panzer was the throw-away tank and arrived en-mass to a target, while the Tiger could control the entire battlefield with decent support. A clash between groups of Tigers was a sight to behold. Due to that, the Panzer has always been seen as the standard tank in Aces High. With the introduction of the cheap Firefly, things got a bit confused.
With a properly made perk cost balance, we may see (rightfully in a historical sense) the T-34 and Sherman become the most used tanks in the game, with Panzers in slightly fewer numbers, Fireflies in a reduced quantity, and Tigers being rather rare. One could also do away with the historical lean on perk cost and use it only as a performance balancing system, in which the Firefly and Tiger would be equally rare.
As all of this is simply a proposition it obviously won't be specifically what's implemented. But, as you can see, it's a possibility. Just because we have ubertanks doesn't mean "lowering the bar" is a bad thing.
-
Did gamers ask for the 75mm Sherman?
point taken..i was just labouring under the idea of 'customer is always right'
N/M not worth it.
-
Stealing this from the other thread to make another point.
then you will ask for the PkWIV Ausf F then...for Barbarossa events...yes?
-
then you will ask for the PkWIV Ausf F then...for Barbarossa events...yes?
I don't see the relevance in this question. Personally, I don't know the difference between Panzer models.
-
then you will ask for the PkWIV Ausf F then...for Barbarossa events...yes?
I would love to see a vehicle set that would allow for ground battles through the entire length of the war, the same way I'd like to see a plane set that does the same thing.
People ask for very early war, non-competitive-in-the-main-arenas aircraft all the time.
-
fast...less vulnerable!!!!
u mean the 75mm Sherman was a match for the PkW4 Auf2?
and faster as well?
Kenne, I don't know what was a better match between the two tanks you named. I'm not a gv'er. Never have been. I can hold my own, but knowing what the weight of a Firefly with a full compliment of AP rounds, a full tank of gas, and 4 crew members, (one carrying a few extra packs of smokes)....not a clue.
If your asking why we have the 75mm Sherman over something else, I don't have an answer for that either. All I was discussing was the 75mm Sherman (with the HE rockets) would be nice to take a town down. It's not a vulnerable as a wirble and it's open turret. That was all I said.
-
Kenne the M4A3 is a very nice match for the panzers it is not vulnerable at all,what you guys are saying when you say that it is vulnerbale is this "If the crew happens to Not know what they are doing".
Honestly the M4A3 will be a perfect addition ive racked up 600 kills in 3 week time period in m8's, and Panzers.
Its all what the person gunning and driving knows,that matters.
-
Hell, why not develop the M3 Lee instead!!! It had a 75mm too you know!!
YES!!! Bring the M3!!! Please! Or was it the Grant? Great post, I totally agree with the author! :banana:
Cheers!
-
Kenne the M4A3 is a very nice match for the panzers it is not vulnerable at all,what you guys are saying when you say that it is vulnerbale is this "If the crew happens to Not know what they are doing".
Honestly the M4A3 will be a perfect addition ive racked up 600 kills in 3 week time period in m8's, and Panzers.
Its all what the person gunning and driving knows,that matters.
so the apeal is that it will have more amor than the Wirbel and more armament then the M8...yes?
-
The appeal of earlier M4's is that they open up room for ground scenarios with American involvement. Anything else is simply a bonus deal.
-
so the apeal is that it will have more amor than the Wirbel and more armament then the M8...yes?
And that it's the only American tank. And that it fills a gaping hole for Special Events.
-
Yes Kenne it will be right with all the gv'ers who know how to kill Tigers in it.
Kenne what im saying and let me put this in a very understandable way "anyone who knows what they are doing will use the sherman extensiveley and will be very good in it with no trouble at all".
-
so the apeal is that it will have more amor than the Wirbel and more armament then the M8...yes?
So HTC should only add GVs and planes that "trump" the ones already in game? They typical squeaked "OMG that would be AWESOME!" stuff?
-
So HTC should only add GVs and planes that "trump" the ones already in game? They typical squeaked "OMG that would be AWESOME!" stuff?
Agreed.
-
Kenne let me put it this way if you dont like it dont worry about it, or up it.The tank is a darn fine tank and seeing the calliope added with it fills the gap between what it will and wont kill.
-
So HTC should only add GVs and planes that "trump" the ones already in game? They typical squeaked "OMG that would be AWESOME!" stuff?
well that is 'realism' isnt it.
I meanthe 51 didnt start out as a 6 gun merlin machine..yes?
-
well that is 'realism' isnt it.
Um...no?
-
Kenne why are you so worried about it its just a tank and its just a game the sherman will be a non-perked common gv so why worry its free.
-
I meanthe 51 didnt start out as a 6 gun merlin machine..yes?
Right that's why we need an early sherman... or did they start with the firefly?. :rolleyes:
-
Kenne why are you so worried about it its just a tank and its just a game the sherman will be a non-perked common gv so why worry its free.
because there are many more anomalys in the game that should be adressed b4 delving into
newer (to us) GVs or AC...
it is akin to introducing 'eye candy' that are only good to those with hi end vid cards/computors.
-
it is akin to introducing 'eye candy' that are only good to those with hi end vid cards/computors.
Improving the top end without severely damaging the bottom end...in this case, the other way around. I don't see the issue.
-
Kenne,
I really want this new tank, and I don't see why you don't want something new. As far as I see it it's just another tank. If you are worried about performance perhaps you should become a better GVer? I can guarantee that with this new tank I will be able to take on Panzers and Tigers and then get the "ZOMG YOU CHEATER HOW DID YOU DO THAT IN A 75mm SHERMAN? WAAA NOT FAIR!" wines because it's people like you that think this tank will royally suck. All it takes is a well placed shot, and BOOM they are dead.
-
Kenne its still a game im waiting for it to become real.Again gain a little respect for it and try to use it when it comes out to the best of your interest.
-
Kenne,
I really want this new tank, and I don't see why you don't want something new. As far as I see it it's just another tank. If you are worried about performance perhaps you should become a better GVer? I can guarantee that with this new tank I will be able to take on Panzers and Tigers and then get the "ZOMG YOU CHEATER HOW DID YOU DO THAT IN A 75mm SHERMAN? WAAA NOT FAIR!" wines because it's people like you that think this tank will royally suck. All it takes is a well placed shot, and BOOM they are dead.
Well said,Personally i have killed Tigers in an M8 still say the 75MM Sherman is ineffective?
-
Well said,Personally i have killed Tigers in an M8 still say the 75MM Sherman is ineffective?
well seeing that the 37mm M6 gun on the M8 booked down the bunny path at 2900ft/s
and the 75mm M3 of the A3 used a walker to hobble up to 2000ft/s...i kinda agree that the
M8 had pretty good effect against tigers..but then I also add in the speed of the M8, the RoF and the slo traverse of the tiger!
and seeing that the M3gun of the A3 cood pierce 76mm of plate at 500m and that the amor of the PkWIV is ~90mm, yes, I think the 75mm sherman is ineffective.
-
The gun performance is inferior to current tank guns in use.
Whats the incentive to gamers to choose this vehicle except to be kill points for others?
Why is AH wasting our money in designing this 'old' Sherman when we have one already?
Why is AH going for astetics rather than performance...I mean who here flys the Spit Mk1 in the MA?
Why cant AH focus on the 'BS' problems in the MA. AP rounds exploding in trees for example?
Why cant AH develop the M26 Pershing instead of going backwards. Hell, why not develop the M3 Lee instead!!! It had a 75mm too you know!!
Developing the 75mm Sherman is like bringing back 8track.
2 weeks for all of the rest of your request I hear. :bolt:
-
Why is AH going for astetics rather than performance...I mean who here flys the Spit Mk1 in the MA?
I do.
I also fly the 109E4 and the Hurri 1.
Aesthetics? Boy, its called a challenge. If you're one of these people who prefer to work for kills like me, then you up an EW plane like the Spit 1.
Don't like it? Quit Whinging and don't use it. Simple as.
-
Kenne its going to go in becuase of various request why do you even ask this question.
Like where does it come from?
-
I mean im not trying to be mean but we need tanks for EW and MW and i promise on my life you will have a blast in the thing.
-
and seeing that the M3gun of the A3 cood pierce 76mm of plate at 500m and that the amor of the PkWIV is ~90mm, yes, I think the 75mm sherman is ineffective.
Yes, because hitting the upper hull is all anyone could ever hope for. :rolleyes:
-
I mean im not trying to be mean but we need tanks for EW and MW and i promise on my life you will have a blast in the thing.
In the imortal words of 'Oddball'
"The only way i can keep them busy is to have them shoot holes thru me!"
is that the 'blast' you speak of ;)
-
The continued development of the Sherman is a cost effective way to add variety. The various gun tube configurations allow for both a quality MA tank superior to the current PZIV as well as a more appropriate version similar to the T34/76. I'm sure many will welcome the challenge of the earlier 75mm version even if you don't...remember your "a customer" not "the customer"...
-
...remember your "a customer" ...
if that is the way you think,
then that's all you'll ever be!
-
I think the low perk on the Firefly is allowing you to scue the picture. Its like having a 50 dollar bill in your pocket and seeing a 1 dollar bill lying in the street. It looks a lot less attractive than if you only had 25 cents in your pocket.
<S>
-
Kenne its a tank its a chunk of steel. And at this point i refuse to make any more posts on this topic.
-
YES!!! Bring the M3!!! Please! Or was it the Grant? Great post, I totally agree with the author! :banana:
Cheers!
M3 Grant was the light tank. Lee was the 2 gun tank as big as the M4. but the 75mm was in a side mount and a smaller gun was on top
Guys just stop posting here... kenne is trolling. leave the topic be and see what he does. bet ya he will keep posting and bumping the thread to draw people back for attention
-
M3 Grant was the light tank. Lee was the 2 gun tank as big as the M4. but the 75mm was in a side mount and a smaller gun was on top
actually the Grant was a modded version of the Lee for the British. But they both had
the 37mm in the top turret and the lo vel 75mm in the lower hull.
-
Yes but could have swore i saw a M3 halftrack carrying a 75 with armour plate mounted right above the drivers cab.
-
Yes but could have swore i saw a M3 halftrack carrying a 75 with armour plate mounted right above the drivers cab.
M3A1 half track an entirely different vehicle than the M3 Lee Medium Tank
M3A1 75 mm GMC (the one you were referring to)
(http://images3.fotki.com/v37/photos/1/133612/571644/m3gmc25-vi.jpg)
M3 Lee Medium Tank
(http://www.tankstogo.com/United_States/images/USlee-1.jpg)
ack-ack
-
M3 Grant was the light tank. Lee was the 2 gun tank as big as the M4. but the 75mm was in a side mount and a smaller gun was on top
Guys just stop posting here... kenne is trolling. leave the topic be and see what he does. bet ya he will keep posting and bumping the thread to draw people back for attention
Like the M3 Lee, the M3 Grant was also a medium tank, not a light tank.
ack-ack
-
Another colour pic.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/1a35218u.jpg)
-
Did gamers ask for the 75mm Sherman?
point taken..i was just labouring under the idea of 'customer is always right'
Actually the M4A3 was requested for years, not sure what rock you were hiding under.
It's the height of arrogance to assume that YOUR opinion is the only customer one.
-
Like the M3 Lee, the M3 Grant was also a medium tank, not a light tank.
ack-ack
actually the Grant was a modded version of the Lee for the British. But they both had
the 37mm in the top turret and the lo vel 75mm in the lower hull.
uhh...then which was the light tank model? :headscratch:
-
I would like to correct the use of a commonly used phrase.
"The customer is always right".
Now, this phrase pertains to choices a customer may make. For example. If you walk into any upper scale clothing store, the choice of your purchase is based on your opinion and because all the clothing is high quality, there is no wrong decision. Thus, this makes "the customer always right". Bottomline is when the customer is in a position of making a choice and that choice will never be a bad one, "the customer is always right".
Conversely, if you walk into that fine retail establishment and tell them how to run their business and complain about the clothing they carry, there is a good chance they will ask you to leave. In this case, "the customer is a nuisance".
My point being, if you are going to use the above phrase, please use it in the context it was meant to be used.
Modeling something does not slow down the efforts to correct any potential issues in the game. Modeling and coding are two separate processes. They do cross paths, but for the most part they are autonomous processes, once everyone is on board with how things are done.
-
because there are many more anomalys in the game that should be adressed b4 delving into
newer (to us) GVs or AC...
it is akin to introducing 'eye candy' that are only good to those with hi end vid cards/computors.
The HTC "artists" do not fix "coad" ... so while HT addresses the coading, what would he have his artists and Pyro do ? He is not going to pay them to sit around and do nothing until he addresses the so-called "anomaly" ridden in the coad ... :lol
-
who here flys the Spit Mk1 in the MA?
(http://www.lumbergh.aquiss.com/ah/ah_screenies/spit1_5k.png)
:noid
-
(http://www.lumbergh.aquiss.com/ah/ah_screenies/spit1_5k.png)
:noid
Now your just showing off, RT. :D
-
yes. yes I am. :banana:
-
yes. yes I am. :banana:
Anyway of linking the Early War Challange thread from our Squad Forum here RT? Might just shut this guy up :t
EDIT: Lets try http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,200839.0.html
-
pretty sure you got to be member of the squad forum to see that mac.
to explain the ... ahem ... hijack, we have an ongoing squad EW Challenge, best run in a EW fighter in LW. great fun if you (literally) want a change of pace. been going for a coupla years and noone has bothered upping a A6M2 yet. just 2 kills to get on the board but still noone wants to up that crate :lol
-
AHHH!!! I remember!!!! The M3 stuart!!!!
(http://yresult.com/yresult_army/tank/tank/stuart.jpg)
sorry for the mix up there. thought the grant was the stuart
-
AHHH!!! I remember!!!! The M3 stuart!!!!
(http://yresult.com/yresult_army/tank/tank/stuart.jpg)
sorry for the mix up there. thought the grant was the stuart
It's all those darn Civil War Generals.
:aok
FWIW: M3 Lee = M3 Grant.
Same tank. British called it Grant.
wrongway
-
I would like to correct the use of a commonly used phrase.
"The customer is always right".
Now, this phrase pertains to choices a customer may make. For example. If you walk into any upper scale clothing store, the choice of your purchase is based on your opinion and because all the clothing is high quality, there is no wrong decision. Thus, this makes "the customer always right". Bottomline is when the customer is in a position of making a choice and that choice will never be a bad one, "the customer is always right".
Conversely, if you walk into that fine retail establishment and tell them how to run their business and complain about the clothing they carry, there is a good chance they will ask you to leave. In this case, "the customer is a nuisance".
My point being, if you are going to use the above phrase, please use it in the context it was meant to be used.
Modeling something does not slow down the efforts to correct any potential issues in the game. Modeling and coding are two separate processes. They do cross paths, but for the most part they are autonomous processes, once everyone is on board with how things are done.
to add to this you are only a customer after you have paid for the goods recived . seeing how we pay after the month is up we are never really a customer. So HTC could screw us over as much as he wanted.
of note i fly almost exclusively the hurricane Ia ( but wishing for the Ib to be added)
-
It's all those darn Civil War Generals.
:aok
FWIW: M3 Lee = M3 Grant.
Same tank. British called it Grant.
wrongway
:lol :aok
-
From the unfortunate first post in this thread.
"The gun performance is inferior to current tank guns in use."
That is not true, and the ways that its not true were fundamental to why the 75mm Sherman hung around so long.
It its intended purpose, HE fire, it was superior to the pak40 and the 17 lbr. Against armour, it is certainly inferior. But with the rockets on the roof(nice addition) and the 76mm to support it, it fills a good niche in this game.
As to who will use it. People who relish in over achieving.
Every other function that the tank has in this game except fighting other tanks, this will be the best tank in the game.
Obviously a big constraint. But a great reason to include it in my mind.
I thought when they where first talking about adding tanks to the game the stable should have been.
Panzer IVh, T34 85, Sherman 75.
They would support each other very well.
-
Yes Yes the M3A1 i remeber now it was in a WW2 national museum very competetive when in the right hands'.(Or well thats what i think)
-
I take T-3476's out most of the time..., nothing sais ,"I kicked your butt!" like killing a panzer with your week, underachieving T34.
-
I take T-3476's out most of the time..., nothing sais ,"I kicked your butt!" like killing a panzer with your week, underachieving T34.
:aok
so your the one that keeps turreting my PkW4...
-
I would like to correct the use of a commonly used phrase.
"The customer is always right".
Now, this phrase pertains to choices a customer may make. For example. If you walk into any upper scale clothing store, the choice of your purchase is based on your opinion and because all the clothing is high quality, there is no wrong decision. Thus, this makes "the customer always right". Bottomline is when the customer is in a position of making a choice and that choice will never be a bad one, "the customer is always right".
Conversely, if you walk into that fine retail establishment and tell them how to run their business and complain about the clothing they carry, there is a good chance they will ask you to leave. In this case, "the customer is a nuisance".
My point being, if you are going to use the above phrase, please use it in the context it was meant to be used.
Modeling something does not slow down the efforts to correct any potential issues in the game. Modeling and coding are two separate processes. They do cross paths, but for the most part they are autonomous processes, once everyone is on board with how things are done.
"the skuzz is always right" :aok
idk why this guy doesnt want the M4, i myself am very excited :x
-
well that is 'realism' isnt it.
I meanthe 51 didnt start out as a 6 gun merlin machine..yes?
It started as a 4 hispano Allison machine. Are you saying that is inferior?
-
It started as a 4 hispano Allison machine. Are you saying that is inferior?
heh...the 4 hispano allison was inferior no matter what people think
-
It started as a 4 hispano Allison machine. Are you saying that is inferior?
actually the mustang started out with the same weapons package as the p40B.
-
actually the mustang started out with the same weapons package as the p40B.
no, it didnt. and, they're talkin about engines, not guns
-
pretty sure you got to be member of the squad forum to see that mac.
to explain the ... ahem ... hijack, we have an ongoing squad EW Challenge, best run in a EW fighter in LW. great fun if you (literally) want a change of pace. been going for a coupla years and noone has bothered upping a A6M2 yet. just 2 kills to get on the board but still noone wants to up that crate :lol
As a side note the record so far is 12 in a 202 [in late war arena] (since my A-20 doesn't count :headscratch:) {was 1 hop no rearms}[not me BTW], so anyone who thinks the EWA birds aren't deadly hasn't been around long enough....
-
no, it didnt. and, they're talkin about engines, not guns
wrong again. (u guys must run in packs)
Look at Pongo's reply with my quote.
-
wrong again. (u guys must run in packs)
Look at Pongo's reply with my quote.
yes, and you guys, the ones who dont appreciate the game and dont enjoy having one of WWII's most important vehicles added into the game, you must run in packs as well.
and the P-51A's allison engine, in every single aspect there is, is inferior compared to the rolls-royce/merlin engine in the P-51B/D.
-
yes, and you guys, the ones who dont appreciate the game and dont enjoy having one of WWII's most important vehicles added into the game, you must run in packs as well.
and the P-51A's allison engine, in every single aspect there is, is inferior compared to the rolls-royce/merlin engine in the P-51B/D.
so in other words my response to pongo's is correct.
I just wanted to make that clear you incase you had forgotten ;)
-
wrong again. (u guys must run in packs)
Look at Pongo's reply with my quote.
i meant in both senses kenne. the hispano's weighed the Pony down too much to let it fly like an eagle to the sea and the allison didnt let the spirit carry it (me). aka cannon p51=crap. allison p51=crap. cannon allison p51=crappy crap
-
i meant in both senses kenne. the hispano's weighed the Pony down too much to let it fly like an eagle to the sea and the allison didnt let the spirit carry it (me). aka cannon p51=crap. allison p51=crap. cannon allison p51=crappy crap
The Mustang IA that had the 4x 20mm cannons was a very good plane, the major drawback was the dramatic decrease in performance at 15,000ft and above because of the single stage supercharger's critical altitude rating. The British found the Mustang IA, with its long range to be excellent in the ground attack and tactical recce role but of limited value as a fighter due to the performance hit at 15,000ft and above.
At low altitudes, the Allison Mustangs were excellent planes.
ack-ack
-
The Mustang IA that had the 4x 20mm cannons was a very good plane, the major drawback was the dramatic decrease in performance at 15,000ft and above because of the single stage supercharger's critical altitude rating. The British found the Mustang IA, with its long range to be excellent in the ground attack and tactical recce role but of limited value as a fighter due to the performance hit at 15,000ft and above.
At low altitudes, the Allison Mustangs were excellent planes.
ack-ack
yes but vs other fighters? those cannons would hold it down in fights
-
as a dedicated GVer, it will take some time for me to figure out how to use the new tanks. looking forward to some fun town killing with the rockets.
hopefully they will be useful, prolly in high ENY situations. not end-up as hanger queens like the Stdk251.
-
as a dedicated GVer, it will take some time for me to figure out how to use the new tanks. looking forward to some fun town killing with the rockets.
hopefully they will be useful, prolly in high ENY situations. not end-up as hanger queens like the Stdk251.
251 aint much of a hanger queen. compared to the others yes i guess. but i use it and i see others use it
-
yes but vs other fighters? those cannons would hold it down in fights
i disagree.
even tho it performed badly above 15k..it wood still fly above that alt. so if you had a 51 with 4 20s,
buff hunter :aok, boom n zoom :aok .
think of it as a faster N1K2
-
yes but vs other fighters? those cannons would hold it down in fights
At altitudes below 15,000ft, the Mustang IA was more than capable of defending itself against another fighter. I believe some scored a few kills over Dieppe.
ack-ack
-
yes but vs other fighters? those cannons would hold it down in fights
Probably not much more than the 20mm holds down the F4U-1C vs. the 1D. Could it be a difference maker? Yes, but it's very slim.
-
At altitudes below 15,000ft, the Mustang IA was more than capable of defending itself against another fighter. I believe some scored a few kills over Dieppe.
ack-ack
Not cannon armed 51s. The MG armed RAF Allison Mustangs were there. And how did this thread become the inevitable 4 cannon Allison Mustang dream anyway? :)
Bring on the P51DVLR(20mm)!
-
Four .50 cal M2 = 255 lbs
Six .50 cal M2 = 382 lbs
Four 20mm Hispano II = 440 lbs
So there's a whopping 58 lbs difference in gun weight between the typical six machine gun US configuration and a four cannon version.
-
And how did this thread become the inevitable 4 cannon Allison Mustang dream anyway? :)
Yes, this thread HAS been derailed.
Well Pongo posted a reply (c page 6 midaway down) using a quote of mine stating that the first mustangs
where cannon version (Mustang1As) when in fact they were Mustang1s with a weapons
package similar to the P40B...
-
Yes, this thread HAS been derailed.
Well Pongo posted a reply (c page 6 midaway down) using a quote of mine stating that the first mustangs
where cannon version (Mustang1As) when in fact they were Mustang1s with a weapons
package similar to the P40B...
Just for the record that is incorrect, the early production variants of the P-51 were XP-51, P-51, A-36, P-51A.
I believe the prototype XP-51 was unarmed, and according to Dean (America's Hundred Thousand) The next model was the P-51 which had four 20mm cannons, from there they went to the A-36 which in addition to other changes had the armament changed to 4 .50's in the wings and 2 under the nose. The next model the P-51A changed it again to the 4 .50 cal machine guns in the wings that we see on the B and C models.
*edit*
I was wrong myself on the XP-51/NA-73X armament, it is not mentioned in Dean, but online sources do have it listed as 4 .30's and 2 .50's cal MG's. So as with most arguments it comes down to semantics. The prototypes did have a similar armament to the P-40B but the first production models that were delivered to units did not, at least as near as I can figure.
-
Did gamers ask for the 75mm Sherman?
point taken..i was just labouring under the idea of 'customer is always right'
Ok, first off to start, if you don't want a 75mm sherman than ignore the fact that it was never brought up, as if it doesn't exist. I mean heck, I don't want spit 16 in the game, but yet it still gets credit for very little combat service it saw and the award to be in AH. P-51H was in the war, had very little combat and why doesn't that get credit? Yes the customer is right, but it's not just what you want, it's what other people want to have in the game. All these bugs that are in the game right now have been there since the day of the new release of AH, for example: trees messed up, the rounds hitting and not destroying the tree, you hitting a tree and flipping over and/or spinning out of control instead of you mowing the tree down, etc. There's also something very easy to do if you don't like this game; end account and play something else, there are other games besides AH :old:
-
TRASH99,
The Spit XVI saw lots of combat. You're in fantasy land if you think it didn't.
-
Ok, first off to start, if you don't want a 75mm sherman than ignore the fact that it was never brought up, as if it doesn't exist. I mean heck, I don't want spit 16 in the game, but yet it still gets credit for very little combat service it saw and the award to be in AH.
We have shown you conclusively that the Spitfire Mk XVI did see a lot of action during World War II and garned quite a few kills. For some reason, you insist on using the operational service record of a single Spitfire Mk XVI as proof the entire production type saw limited combat and very little kills.
P-51H was in the war, had very little combat and why doesn't that get credit?
The P-51H never saw any combat while it was in US service. Please, provide any verifiable data that proves otherwise. Heck, I'll even throw in an all expenses paid date with Mensa if you're able to provide one single bit of proof that shows the P-51H saw combat in World War II or in Korea. Hell, I'll even sweeten the pot even more and I will pay 3 months of your AH subscription if you can provide any proof it saw combat.
Yes the customer is right,
As you've shown repeatedly with your posts, the customer is most definitely not always right.
All these bugs that are in the game right now have been there since the day of the new release of AH, for example: trees messed up,
I'm sure this graphical bug will be fixed soon.
the rounds hitting and not destroying the tree, you hitting a tree and flipping over and/or spinning out of control instead of you mowing the tree down,
Those are not bugs but rather a result of how objects are treated in the game.
etc. There's also something very easy to do if you don't like this game; end account and play something else, there are other games besides AH :old:
You should follow your own advice and seek a game that is a better fit for you. I would suggest, based on your skill level, Hello Kitty Online Adventures.
ack-ack
-
You should follow your own advice and seek a game that is a better fit for you. I would suggest, based on your skill level, Hello Kitty Online Adventures.
ack-ack
:rofl
-
You should follow your own advice and seek a game that is a better fit for you. I would suggest, based on your skill level, Hello Kitty Online Adventures.
ack-ack
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Why is AH wasting our money in designing this 'old' Sherman when we have one already?
You pay your money to play the game for a month. Once you pay to play the money is Hitech Creations to use as they see fit.
-
*edit*
I was wrong myself on the XP-51/NA-73X armament, it is not mentioned in Dean, but online sources do have it listed as 4 .30's and 2 .50's cal MG's. So as with most arguments it comes down to semantics. The prototypes did have a similar armament to the P-40B but the first production models that were delivered to units did not, at least as near as I can figure.
actually it I that misspoke It was not, 2 .30s in ea wing, but TWO .30s and ONE .50 in each wing, along with the 2 .50s under the nose.
This was the armament of the Mustang1 in squadron service with No. 2 Squadron on 15 April 1942.
The Mustang1 drew first blood with the downing of an FW190 near Dieppe on 19 August 1942.
-
Four .50 cal M2 = 255 lbs
Six .50 cal M2 = 382 lbs
Four 20mm Hispano II = 440 lbs
So there's a whopping 58 lbs difference in gun weight between the typical six machine gun US configuration and a four cannon version.
didnt allison mustangs only fly with the 4 gun setup? :headscratch: even the P51B only had 4 guns vs the P51Ds 6 guns... also you are leaving out ammo loadouts... 20mm cannon is alot heavier than .50caliber. So add 185lbs to the P51 4 .50cal already and add any weight of the difference to the 20mm vs the 50cal.
-
So there's a whopping 58 lbs difference in gun weight between the typical six machine gun US configuration and a four cannon version.
yes, but you are saving over 500lbs in the Allison Mustang because of the absence of the fuselage tank.
(tank plus weight of 87g of AVgas)
-
didnt allison mustangs only fly with the 4 gun setup? :headscratch: even the P51B only had 4 guns vs the P51Ds 6 guns... also you are leaving out ammo loadouts... 20mm cannon is alot heavier than .50caliber. So add 185lbs to the P51 4 .50cal already and add any weight of the difference to the 20mm vs the 50cal.
The US P-51s did (P-51A) and carried over to the Merlin P-51B/C
ack-ack
-
See Rule #4
-
THRASH99,
I have no idea who you are as you are new here. Thus far you have been egotistical and often in error. While Ack-Ack is knowledgeable, he is not the foremost expert on WWII stuff here, however he is correct and you are incorrect in your claims about both the P-51H and the Spitfire Mk XVI.
First, be aware that the Spitfire Mk XVI is nothing more than a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe with an American built Packard Merlin 266 instead of the Rolls-Royce Merlin 66 in the LF.Mk IXe. LF.Mk IX first entered service in mid 1943, LF.Mk IXe, which changed the four .303s out for two .50s and added the capability to carry a 250lb bomb under each wing, entered service in early 1944. The Spitfire Mk XVI entered service in mid 1944, but other than the engine it is identical to the LF.Mk IXe and in performance both are the same as the LF.Mk IX from mid 1943. You are, essentially, up in arms about a fighter that was in service from the middle of 1943, prior to any Merlin powered Mustang and with a total production of over 5000 airframes.
So, do you think that Spitfire Mk IX/XVIs saw much combat between July of 1943 and the end of the war?
As to the P-51H, it was not used in WWII and was determined to be unsuitable to combat due to fragility and thus was not used in Korea. You are equating a P-51 that never saw combat with the most produced version of the Spitfire.
-
See Rule #4
-
You guys are too nice. I've been sitting here patiently waiting for the "OMG, they killed Kenne" post for aaaages.
-
didnt allison mustangs only fly with the 4 gun setup? :headscratch: even the P51B only had 4 guns vs the P51Ds 6 guns... also you are leaving out ammo loadouts... 20mm cannon is alot heavier than .50caliber. So add 185lbs to the P51 4 .50cal already and add any weight of the difference to the 20mm vs the 50cal.
No, the early Mustang I had six guns; two in the nose and four in the wings. The difference in ammo weight won't be that much, even when comparing with a four-gun P-51B. The Mustang Ia could carry about 500 rounds of 20 mm (125 rounds per gun), the P-51B carries 1260 rounds of .50 cal. A .50 cal cartridge weighs about 112 grams and the 20mm Hispano cartridge weighs about 270 grams. The difference in ammo weight should be in the area of 20 lbs.
-
No, the early Mustang I had six guns; two in the nose and four in the wings. The difference in ammo weight won't be that much, even when comparing with a four-gun P-51B. The Mustang Ia could carry about 500 rounds of 20 mm (125 rounds per gun), the P-51B carries 1260 rounds of .50 cal. A .50 cal cartridge weighs about 112 grams and the 20mm Hispano cartridge weighs about 270 grams. The difference in ammo weight should be in the area of 20 lbs.
ok then. i concede this argument. then im all for any allison mustang then, cannon or not.
-
Where did you get that 185 lbs number from anyway?
-
Four .50 cal M2 = 255 lbs
Six .50 cal M2 = 382 lbs
Four 20mm Hispano II = 440 lbs
So there's a whopping 58 lbs difference in gun weight between the typical six machine gun US configuration and a four cannon version.
Where did you get that 185 lbs number from anyway?
simple mathematics 440-255=185 im pretty sure. so if you add your new 20lbs it'd be 205 from the 4 gun .50 cal to the 4 gun cannon
-
My comment about your skill level has nothing to do with your score, I have no idea what your score or stats are. I can tell that you lack absolutely any skill at flying and fighting by your pathetic whines to perk the Spitfire Mk XVI. As I said earlier in this thread, those that want it perked do so because they lack the necessary skill to fight against one.
As I stated already, I don't need to look at your stats to know that you can't fly or fight worth a damn.
The P-51H never saw combat, it was deployed to some operational squadrons but arrived too late to take part in any combat. That means it never fired a shot in anger towards any enemy aircraft, in fact it never encountered an enemy aircraft. I suggest you do some reading on the history of the P-51H. Now I have to tell Mensa that she's not going to have a date for her prom because you utterly failed to prove the P-51H saw any combat. It also seems that you won't have three free months of AH. Pity.
Read the first few pages of this thread and you'll see how myself and others have shown you to be incorrect again. Are you smart enough to notice a pattern forming? I guess not, othewise you wouldn't be claiming the stuff you do as fact.
If you like, you and I can arrange a little play date in the DA...that is if you have the testical fortitude to face me in the DA.
ack-ack
I've challenged alot of people to 1v1 and what do I get " No show" as they are either afraid or say that they can't to due to stupid reasons. There's also those people I challenge and say that they don't need to waste there time on me even those they're one of those stupid alt suckers and go up to 20K, come down to pick and go back up, until they finally show up, I beat them 3 rounds straight and then have nothing to say. If you fly DA alot you would know who I'm talking about.
-
simple mathematics 440-255=185 im pretty sure. so if you add your new 20lbs it'd be 205 from the 4 gun .50 cal to the 4 gun cannon
Ok. I thought you meant 185 lbs of ammo.
-
Ok. I thought you meant 185 lbs of ammo.
no problem. 200lbs still isnt much weight difference though in my perspective
-
I've challenged alot of people to 1v1 and what do I get " No show" as they are either afraid or say that they can't to due to stupid reasons. There's also those people I challenge and say that they don't need to waste there time on me even those they're one of those stupid alt suckers and go up to 20K, come down to pick and go back up, until they finally show up, I beat them 3 rounds straight and then have nothing to say. If you fly DA alot you would know who I'm talking about.
Well you should put ACK ACK in his place then right?
:lol
-
I've challenged alot of people to 1v1 and what do I get " No show" as they are either afraid or say that they can't to due to stupid reasons. There's also those people I challenge and say that they don't need to waste there time on me even those they're one of those stupid alt suckers and go up to 20K, come down to pick and go back up, until they finally show up, I beat them 3 rounds straight and then have nothing to say. If you fly DA alot you would know who I'm talking about.
So I guess this your way of saying "No"?
ack-ack
-
heh...the 4 hispano allison was inferior no matter what people think
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/P-51A.jpg/775px-P-51A.jpg)
Would be interesting to put it in in the game and see what gets played more. This or the P51B.
-
I've challenged alot of people to 1v1 and what do I get " No show" as they are either afraid or say that they can't to due to stupid reasons. There's also those people I challenge and say that they don't need to waste there time on me even those they're one of those stupid alt suckers and go up to 20K, come down to pick and go back up, until they finally show up, I beat them 3 rounds straight and then have nothing to say. If you fly DA alot you would know who I'm talking about.
In other words, you're not willing to test yourself against Ack-Ack and are using other people's past no shows as an excuse while ignoring his recent, humorous duels in which he showed up as he said he would.
Just to be clear.
-
No, the early Mustang I had six guns; two in the nose and four in the wings.
eight guns.
2 in nose, 6 in wings.
-
"OMG, they killed Kenne"
" YOU BASTARDS!"
:rock
-
I've challenged alot of people to 1v1 and what do I get " No show" as they are either afraid or say that they can't to due to stupid reasons. There's also those people I challenge and say that they don't need to waste there time on me even those they're one of those stupid alt suckers and go up to 20K, come down to pick and go back up, until they finally show up, I beat them 3 rounds straight and then have nothing to say. If you fly DA alot you would know who I'm talking about.
Kingcobradude has more backbone...
-
Kingcobradude has more backbone...
thats harsh man...but i believe true.
-
See Rule #6
-
See Rule #4
-
Karnak, am I talking to you?
Yes you are. :)
Because you are using a public forum, and so does Karnak. If you want to have your conversation in private, use PMs. :aok
-
See Rule #6
-
Oh my gosh you guys have killed this forum.Hello anyone read topic says and I quote "Why do we need M4A3 75mm Sherman?(rant)
Ok get to understand,stay on topic if you guys want to argue,and be pathetic about something that doesnt even matter.Please in all respect create another topic for it.
-
See Rule #6
-
Maybe this is just worth the report.
-
Oh my gosh you guys have killed this forum.Hello anyone read topic says and I quote "Why do we need M4A3 75mm Sherman?(rant)
Ok get to understand,stay on topic if you guys want to argue,and be pathetic about something that doesnt even matter.Please in all respect create another topic for it.
you know, i personally am gonna love to use the sherm. great alternative to the T-34/76 :aok
so is the 76mm sherm, but i think thats gonna be slightly perked....
-
Maybe this is just worth the report.
if you rep this im gonna post 17 in posts just for fun! :aok
-
you know, i personally am gonna love to use the sherm. great alternative to the T-34/76 :aok
so is the 76mm sherm, but i think thats gonna be slightly perked....
Omg its finally fixed!!!!!!!!. yay :lol
-
if you rep this im gonna post 17 in posts just for fun! :aok
:lol oh how joyful it is.
-
In #1
-
:mad:
-
Maybe this is just worth the report.
Sad.
ack-ack
-
IN #2 :aok wonder if ill get the ban stick for this?
-
:mad: :mad: :mad:
-
In... #3 i know im gonna get a 2 dayer for this so im stopping
-
OK, OK, I CONCEDE!
The thread has gone WAAAAAAAY off topic and for the sake of all concerned
I ask we close this thread.
I'm man <?> enough to admit I'm wrong and wish all of you the best, but beg
that we all divert our energies unto more pressing subjects at hand.
Such as how many licks DOES it take to get to the centre of a Totsie Pop...pop!
-
See Rule #4
-
how many licks DOES it take to get to the centre of a Totsie Pop?
i dont know about this newfangled totsie pop but it takes around 364 to get to the center of a tootsie pop :D
who came first, the chicken or the egg?
-
who came first, the chicken or the egg?
the rooster!
:old:
-
around 364, i tested it :aok
Not according to Mr. Owl.
-
Mr. Owl.
is :old:
-
Not according to Mr. Owl.
thats because Mr. Owl droped out of Harvard in the spring of '43 to join the Army Air Corps and slay the Huns :aok
-
This thread needs to go to an IN #4... but it actually took 372 licks :aok
-
This thread needs to go to an IN #4
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy329/Wildcat1995/277.jpg)
but it actually took 372 licks :aok
:huh is my voice modifier working correctly? it takes around 364 for the rest of the world, 372 for you, and 3+ 1 dead Hun for Mr. Owl :aok
-
depends on how long your tongue is.
-
Yes, this could not be more done.
What is it with people who have no idea how to simply walk away from a thread? Ever been chased by someone who cannot stop talking to you? Most people would consider that person to have social issues. I always thought they were few in number, but it seems they have all found their way to this thread.