Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Nemisis on May 24, 2010, 06:41:52 PM
-
Personally, I would love to see some tank destroyers added. There is a lot of debat as to wether or not the limited gun traverse would severly hamper their use.
What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I hardly ever traverse my turret more than is nessecary to correct my aim. I "aim" from the drivers seat, and it seems to work fairly well for me.
Also, tank destroyers such as the hetzer, jagdpazer, and jagdpanther all had thick, well sloped armor. This would increase survivability, and (IMO) offset the reduced traverse.
-
Depends on which ones we would get. The german and soviet TD's would be limited by traverse but the low profile would make it the vehicle of choice for spawn campers in my opinion. The American TD's would be used more as a hybrid tank in the MA. Only thing is the American TD's would be vulnerable to air attack due to the lack of top armor. But I think their inclusion would do nothing but help the game just likenew aircraft do. The Hellcat, Jadgpanther, Hetzer, and the SU-85 would be good in th game. I would use them in the defense more than anything.
BigKev
-
you all know what i'm going to say here right? :D :aok :D :aok any guesses? :lol
-
The jagdpanther in particular would be of great use here, seeing as many place a high priority on survivability here. And the low sillouete would be great for parking on a hill with some trees on it. You will most likely be mistaken for a clump of bushes. That is unless they paint it the same mustard yellow as the panzer and tiger. Then it will be a cannon magnet, and unlikely to survive long once spotted.
-
The jagdpanther in particular would be of great use here, seeing as many place a high priority on survivability here. And the low sillouete would be great for parking on a hill with some trees on it. You will most likely be mistaken for a clump of bushes. That is unless they paint it the same mustard yellow as the panzer and tiger. Then it will be a cannon magnet, and unlikely to survive long once spotted.
jagdpanthers have slanted armor nemesis. compare that to the TigerI with almost the same amount of armor and you will have a more survivable unit. the Jagdpanther also uses the later model 88mm Pak43/3 (43/4 L/71) of the TigerII (King Tiger or Konigstiger) compared to the tigerI's earlier KwK 36 L/56 cannon. it also is faster by 4.6 mph and weighs about 11 tons less. This would need maybe a 45-50 perk cost compared to the tiger's 30 unless you add in the fact that it doesn't have a turret then maybe 30-45 perks. The Germans only manufactured 415 of the Jagdpanther 1944-1945. But before we even think of adding ANY armored unit (SP guns such as the Stug and Jagdpanther) we NEED brake turning and zero turn. All tiger models (TigerI TigerII), the Panther, and later war SPs such as the Jagdpanther and Hetzers all utilized zero turn ability and ALL tracked vehicles in WWII used brake turning.
-
Thats what I was thinking. Tiger II perked at 50-60 base cost, Jagdpanther perked at 40-50. The lack of ammo will also force it to RTB or be re supped often.
-
but we NEED brake turning and zero turn before we ever attempt to get SPs or Konigstigers
-
We don't NEED break turning, although it would be a BIG help. You can get around it, but it gets tiresome after doing it many times of backing up 5 ft and pulling forward.
-
I don't know if it is a tank destroyer but I have been wanting the m-18 for quite some time!
-
I don't know if it is a tank destroyer but I have been wanting the m-18 for quite some time!
M-18 Hellcat is a TD all the way through. actually the first tank destroyer built on its own chassis instead of incorporating a tank chassis for the design such as the M-10 Wolverine. Nemesis, without break turning you will have a bulk the size of my stomach trying to wedge in between two close together obstacles to get a good advantage point on the enemy. With brake turning these things will be easily slipping in and out of tight spaces they couldnt easily get into before. Zero turn would even add more advantages to maneuvers. maybe you dont want to risk moving you tiger out of cover while turning to put the front towards the stronger enemy tank? zero turn fixes this problem...some of these GV hills are too small to be able to maneuver behind without brake or zero turning
-
Yes, and as it said, it would be a great help. But there ARE ways to getting around the problems. A carefull hand at the controll can get a tiger into a niche that doesn't looke big enough to hold a jeep. Doesn't mean it will get out again, but it can get in there. And to the hill problem: Just kind of parallel park your way into possition.
-
"but we NEED brake turning and zero turn before we ever attempt to get SPs or Konigstigers"
I cannot see a problem in making them both. The brake turn would simply be established by using e.g. rudder control to control the brake while the stick control controls just the clutch as it seems to do now.
In turretless tank the gun left/right control would first turn the gun a few degrees (as was the case in real turretless guns) and after that it would turn the whole tank by running tracks in different directions. If the engine is not running only the fine adjustment works and if the tank is tracked the turn rate is 1/3 of normal rate.
-C+
-
In turretless tank the gun left/right control would first turn the gun a few degrees (as was the case in real turretless guns) and after that it would turn the whole tank by running tracks in different directions. If the engine is not running only the fine adjustment works and if the tank is tracked the turn rate is 1/3 of normal rate.
SP guns "aka your turretless tank" did not always have zero turn ability, therefore this idea of the gunsight moving the entire SP might cause problems in your movements. Stugs and such did not have zero turn. If it was a Jagdpanther then yes this could work because it has zero turn. Not many SPs had zero turn ability.
-
my bad... i feel like i need to correct my previous statements... The Panther Tank was the only German vehicle to introduce pivot/zero turning with the Ak 7-200 transmission. Otherwise E-brake turning would still need to be added. after the Panther there were no active armored units in WWII with pivot turning until the M26 Pershing but i do not know if that is accurate (i cannot find info on the Pershing's transmission)... :o So basically the Panther was the only Pivot turning tank in WWII :bolt:
I believe that the Jagdpanther and Kingtiger also did but also, i cannot find information
-
Somehow I thought that it would be a standard feature even in WW2 tanks to be able to run the tracks in opposite directions but apparently it's not. Had not really thought about it before...
The brake/clutch system has been in WW2Online for ages and it works really well and AFAIK none of the tanks modelled there have pivot turn -at least none modelled.
-C+
-
Somehow I thought that it would be a standard feature even in WW2 tanks to be able to run the tracks in opposite directions but apparently it's not. Had not really thought about it before...
The brake/clutch system has been in WW2Online for ages and it works really well and AFAIK none of the tanks modelled there have pivot turn -at least none modelled.
-C+
i seriously thought i was right about the pivot turn until i looked up the Ak 7-200... not a single tank other than the PnzrV Panther had pivot turn and even then it was dangerous to do due to the unreliability of the transmission.
-
stug3 was one of the most numerous support vehicles during the war .
Many variants , from the short 75mm , 50mm , 50mm long , the 75mm antitank.
-
i seriously thought i was right about the pivot turn until i looked up the Ak 7-200... not a single tank other than the PnzrV Panther had pivot turn and even then it was dangerous to do due to the unreliability of the transmission.
Not to mention that doing it was seriously hard on tracks, put lots of pressure on the pins.
On the wrong ground, or if you hit a rock you could easily break or throw a track.
-
stug3 was one of the most numerous support vehicles during the war .
Many variants , from the short 75mm , 50mm , 50mm long , the 75mm antitank.
Panzer III - 37mm, 50mm, 50mm long, 75mm short, flamethrower
Stug III - 75mm short, 75mm, 105mm, flamethrower
Sig33b - 150mm
Many, many variants...
-
Jagdpanzer
M-10
M-18
Stug
:aok
-
Jagdpanzer
Which one?
-
At this time due to the coading' of the tanks, the M18 or M10 would be the best bet. These vehicles would be almost useless vs OBJ due to the very low number of HE rounds carried, highly vulnerable against attacks from the air (think of how easy it is to damage the turret/main gun of the Ostwind or Wirblewind), and their offensive punch would be only slightly better, if measurable at all, against other vehicles.
The M18 would have to rely on its ability to shoot-n-move because it would not be able to stand and fight, and the M10 while having more armor than the M18, it would still have to sit back and engage enemy tanks from a long way out in order to keep its head above water.
-
Which one?
I know the Hetzer was produced in much larger numbers but I was specifically thinking about the Jagdpanzer IV with 7.5 cm PaK 39 L/48.
-
Hell, just add the L48, and add the L70 for a large perk price (say 50 base price).
Perked
Jagdpanzer L70 (50 base)
Jagdpanther (70 base)
Panther (60 base, and yes, I know its not a tank destroyer, but I still want it)
Elephant (100 base)
Free
Jagdpanther L48
Hetzer
Stug III ausf G
-
^^^^^^^
Dont forget M-18 in non perked. We could have a hellkitty in the air, and on the ground!
-
At this time due to the coading' of the tanks, the M18 or M10 would be the best bet. These vehicles would be almost useless vs OBJ due to the very low number of HE rounds carried, highly vulnerable against attacks from the air (think of how easy it is to damage the turret/main gun of the Ostwind or Wirblewind), and their offensive punch would be only slightly better, if measurable at all, against other vehicles.
The M18 would have to rely on its ability to shoot-n-move because it would not be able to stand and fight, and the M10 while having more armor than the M18, it would still have to sit back and engage enemy tanks from a long way out in order to keep its head above water.
Since when has the M10 been a stand off vehicle? it was just a M7 3inch gun. Tank destroyers were meant for speed. the M10 did have more speed than the M4s that the chassis was meant for but not as good as the M18 speed and maneuverability wise. The M18 would just be a slower and much more powerful M8.
Other than my M18 i'd take a
StugIV or III
Jagdpanther
Hetzer
and by the way, Stugs were not tank destroyers. they were SP guns. Jagdpanthers and Hetzers, although also SPs were meant to kill GVs.
-
Stug's weren't designated tank destroyers, but they were often used as them. That was the whole purpose of upgrading to the long barreled 75mm cannon: to increase anti-tank capabilities. Otherwise, Germany would have left them armed with the L24.
The M10 and M18 both used essentially the same gun as the M4A3(76)W, and so all you would get by using one over the M4 is speed, and not a great amount with the M10.
Here is a revised list:
Perked
Jagdpanzer L70 (50 base)
Jagdpanther (70 base)
Panther (60 base)
Elephant (100 base)
Free
Nashorn
Jagdpanther L48
Hetzer
Stug III ausf G.
M18 Hellcat.
The Nashorn is listed as free because of its crappy armor, small ammunition reserve, and because its gun has a limited traverse.
I'm dead serious about the Elephant too. Of course we would have to get a Nashorn at the very least to kill it(its KwK43 L'71 is about the only thing that would be capapble of killing one from the front, given the 200mm armor). Of course, the Tiger I, Firefly, Panther, and Jagdpanzer L70 would all be capable of killing one from the side, but you can't have a tank that is invincible from the front.
-
Stug's weren't designated tank destroyers, but they were often used as them. That was the whole purpose of upgrading to the long barreled 75mm cannon: to increase anti-tank capabilities. Otherwise, Germany would have left them armed with the L24.
The M10 and M18 both used essentially the same gun as the M4A3(76)W, and so all you would get by using one over the M4 is speed, and not a great amount with the M10.
Here is a revised list:
Perked
Jagdpanzer L70 (50 base)
Jagdpanther (70 base)
Panther (60 base)
Elephant (100 base)
Free
Nashorn
Jagdpanther L48
Hetzer
Stug III ausf G.
M18 Hellcat.
The Nashorn is listed as free because of its crappy armor, small ammunition reserve, and because its gun has a limited traverse.
I'm dead serious about the Elephant too. Of course we would have to get a Nashorn at the very least to kill it(its KwK43 L'71 is about the only thing that would be capapble of killing one from the front, given the 200mm armor). Of course, the Tiger I, Firefly, Panther, and Jagdpanzer L70 would all be capable of killing one from the side, but you can't have a tank that is invincible from the front.
we'll never get the Elephant. Maybe not even King Tigers. Stugs can never be considered anything other than a tank with no turret. They were used with HE rounds as often as AP.
-
We may, provided we can get something armed with the KwK43 L'71 in the game. Its at 100 base cost, as opposed to the 30 of the tiger. Hell, I'd be happy with 150 base cost even.
Look at how slow it is, it will be used mostly as a defensive type weapon (IMO), because anything in the game could catch it, and its not invincible from the sides. The limited ammo means you're gona wana have a place to land nearby. Limited traverse means that its at a serious disadvantage when dealing with multiple opponents, if it turns to deal with one, it will take fire to the side from the other.
-
We may, provided we can get something armed with the KwK43 L'71 in the game. Its at 100 base cost, as opposed to the 30 of the tiger. Hell, I'd be happy with 150 base cost even.
Look at how slow it is, it will be used mostly as a defensive type weapon (IMO), because anything in the game could catch it, and its not invincible from the sides. The limited ammo means you're gona wana have a place to land nearby. Limited traverse means that its at a serious disadvantage when dealing with multiple opponents, if it turns to deal with one, it will take fire to the side from the other.
nobody's gonna wanna up a 100 perk tank when a bomb can kill it. at least in the air you have a chance of survival
-
Since when has the M10 been a stand off vehicle? it was just a M7 3inch gun. Tank destroyers were meant for speed. the M10 did have more speed than the M4s that the chassis was meant for but not as good as the M18 speed and maneuverability wise. The M18 would just be a slower and much more powerful M8.
Other than my M18 i'd take a
StugIV or III
Jagdpanther
Hetzer
and by the way, Stugs were not tank destroyers. they were SP guns. Jagdpanthers and Hetzers, although also SPs were meant to kill GVs.
The M10 did not, unless it absolutely had to, barge into a situation and duke it out with the enemy. It did its best to stand off and engage enemy armor. Also, I'm under the impression that the M10 is no faster than the M4 series of tanks (25-28mph max). The speed nod goes to the M18.
-
The M18 would just be a slower and much more powerful M8.
Slower? the m-18 runs about 60 mph, its only weakness is its open top!
it will probably out accelerate the m-8 as well
-
321BAR, of course no one will up one... Unless his side has complete or near complete air superiority. Also, some have 5000+ GV perks just waiting to be burnt. Plus factor in the 50+ kills you will likely make (with resup), and you will likely only loose 75-60 perks.
-
The M10 did not, unless it absolutely had to, barge into a situation and duke it out with the enemy. It did its best to stand off and engage enemy armor. Also, I'm under the impression that the M10 is no faster than the M4 series of tanks (25-28mph max). The speed nod goes to the M18.
the M10 was faster IIRC. but i never said they barged into combat. A tank destroyer used its speed to displace fast and set up another position fast also.
M-18 runs at 60mph on ROAD. offroad this speed would be limited to 45-50 maybe. It would easily out accelerate the M8, but still, slower (an M8 runs at what top speed?)... and much more powerful than the M8.
Nemesis... so basically you just said that no one will up one if air space is even remotely contested. correct. people love burning points sometimes. correct. but imagine if you had air superiority and 5 people had 200 perks each (which many do). The defenders would have no unit to stop the enemy onslaught of GVs AND aircraft. At least now the Defenders still have a chance when a base is capped by A/C this would stop immediately once we had Konigstigers and Elephants. And you rarely get 50 kills on a good day now because no GV battle lasts that long anymore. You would lose near the 100 base cost no matter what.
-
the M10 was faster IIRC. but i never said they barged into combat. A tank destroyer used its speed to displace fast and set up another position fast also.
M-18 runs at 60mph on ROAD. offroad this speed would be limited to 45-50 maybe.
there is no difference "in game" for speed on road verses off road.
m- 8 has Power/weight 14.1 hp/ton Hercules JXD 6-cyl gasoline 110 hp
m-18 has Power/weight 18.9 hp/ton Continental R-975-C4, 9-cylinder, radial engine 340 hp
so the m-8 will not outrun the m-18 in any condition! it might be more stable since it is a rubber tired gv but it is not faster in any way!
-
Well I guess they have to change speed for terrain.
I've travelled @ 70km/h plus in terrain in a tank many times, you dont spot much moving @ that speed, also you get banged up quite considerably
One time I tried to open the commanders hatch as the tank found a big hole to plummet down into, result : crushed and broken finger on me , blue eye on the gunner , only the loader and driver managed to cushion the impact.
-
321BAR, good defense relys on absorbing the enemy's attacks in multiple supporting possitions. If I were to be put in command of 6 tanks (Panzer IV's even, which aren't much when put against a koinstiger, or an elephant), I would be able to make a formidable defensive line.
Personally, I believe in using blitzkrieg tactics for defense, and Kursk style tactics for defense. Sure the knits can take any one possition, but how many untill they get tired of loosing perks by the hundreds each spawn?
As I said: to make it work, we would need something free (or at least cheap) thats armed with the KwK43. I proposed the Nashorn because its weak armor makes if very vulnerable. Il-2's will be able to kill them from the FRONT. Any vehicle mounted cannon firing AP will tear right through the armor.
You have Jagdpanthers, Koinstigers, Nashorns, and other Elephants to deal with the attackers from the front (elephant will likely be added last, IMO). Also, (in an ideal situation), you have jagdpanzer L70's, Panthers, Fireflys, T-34/85's, and Tiger I's that will be able to penertate the side armor at a good range. It would be vulnerable to the Panzer's and M4A3(76)'s gun from the side at med range as well.
-
there is no difference "in game" for speed on road verses off road.
m- 8 has Power/weight 14.1 hp/ton Hercules JXD 6-cyl gasoline 110 hp
m-18 has Power/weight 18.9 hp/ton Continental R-975-C4, 9-cylinder, radial engine 340 hp
so the m-8 will not outrun the m-18 in any condition! it might be more stable since it is a rubber tired gv but it is not faster in any way!
you just made me happier to wish for my M-18 :D
321BAR, good defense relys on absorbing the enemy's attacks in multiple supporting possitions. If I were to be put in command of 6 tanks (Panzer IV's even, which aren't much when put against a koinstiger, or an elephant), I would be able to make a formidable defensive line.
Personally, I believe in using blitzkrieg tactics for defense, and Kursk style tactics for defense. Sure the knits can take any one possition, but how many untill they get tired of loosing perks by the hundreds each spawn?
As I said: to make it work, we would need something free (or at least cheap) thats armed with the KwK43. I proposed the Nashorn because its weak armor makes if very vulnerable. Il-2's will be able to kill them from the FRONT. Any vehicle mounted cannon firing AP will tear right through the armor.
You have Jagdpanthers, Koinstigers, Nashorns, and other Elephants to deal with the attackers from the front (elephant will likely be added last, IMO). Also, (in an ideal situation), you have jagdpanzer L70's, Panthers, Fireflys, T-34/85's, and Tiger I's that will be able to penertate the side armor at a good range. It would be vulnerable to the Panzer's and M4A3(76)'s gun from the side at med range as well.
part 1: yeah until that big fat blob of a tank rolls over your pnzrIVs or even tigers like flies. yes absorb the enemy attacks but if the enemy CANNOT be absorbed you lose the base no matter what. having that many GVs that would need perking would completely destroy any GV fight for people without perks. yes people have 3000 perks, i used to. but some have 30 or so like i do now, now picture this. 2 guys with 3000 perks up King Tigers while the defenders cant even up a firefly. what would happen? the defenders get smashed and the base is taken in minutes... you cannot add these major GVs without throwing the fairness out of the game, (at least not yet)
part 2: blitzkrieg tactics for defense? blitzkrieg was an offensive tactic to smash the enemy fast. there was no defensive tactics involved for blitzkrieg due to the far strung out supply lines and lack of defensive positions.
part 3: the nashorn's never gonna be unperked, even the firefly has 15 perks...
part 4: since when has an actual GV battle in this game been under ideal circumstances?
-
you just made me happier to wish for my M-18
glad I could help!! :aok I like the m-18 as well!!! have been asking for it for a few years!
-
part 1: The elephant is incapable of dealing with multiple opponents with heavy cannons at once. And certainly not 6 panzers at close range. When it turns to deal with one, the other 3 with a shot will put shells into the rear and side, killing the crew and engine.
To the GV fight thing: the firefly and tiger are rare compared to the other GV's. And the firefly has a 15 perk base price. IMO, we'll see maybe 1000 Elephants used in any heavy combat, making any real difference per tour. Koinstigers will be used more, as will the SPG's and tank destroyers. But still, if a 30 base price limits the tigers to their current numbers, what is a 50 base price, a 100 base price, or a 200 base price going to do to the numbers?
part 2: I made a typo, it should say offense, not defense
part 3: Nashorn has 30mm FRONTAL armor. An M8 will tear right through that at 1600yds. The M4A3(75) will be able to kill one at 2000yds with no problems. Even .50's will pose a threat to it: the top isn't armored at all.
part 4: I meant ideal as far as the GV line up goes. We get an M18, and an M36 for the U.S., Churchill for the british, KV-1, KV-85, and the IS-2 for the russians, and the tank destoryers I listed for the Germans.
-
part 1: The elephant is incapable of dealing with multiple opponents with heavy cannons at once. And certainly not 6 panzers at close range. When it turns to deal with one, the other 3 with a shot will put shells into the rear and side, killing the crew and engine.
To the GV fight thing: the firefly and tiger are rare compared to the other GV's. And the firefly has a 15 perk base price. IMO, we'll see maybe 1000 Elephants used in any heavy combat, making any real difference per tour. Koinstigers will be used more, as will the SPG's and tank destroyers. But still, if a 30 base price limits the tigers to their current numbers, what is a 50 base price, a 100 base price, or a 200 base price going to do to the numbers?
part 2: I made a typo, it should say offense, not defense
part 3: Nashorn has 30mm FRONTAL armor. An M8 will tear right through that at 1600yds. The M4A3(75) will be able to kill one at 2000yds with no problems. Even .50's will pose a threat to it: the top isn't armored at all.
part 4: I meant ideal as far as the GV line up goes. We get an M18, and an M36 for the U.S., Churchill for the british, KV-1, KV-85, and the IS-2 for the russians, and the tank destoryers I listed for the Germans.
part 2: ok no problemo there then
part 3: the nashorn has a gun thats better than many guns from WWII and can kill some pretty big tanks. That would be the reason for a perk, not the armor. the sherman firefly is perked for the gun also and it has a weaker gun than the nashorn and its armor cant withstand any round but the M4 75mm and the M8 at distance.
part 4: GVing will never be ideal im sorry to say. the KV-1 is extremely weak in late war standards and the Churchill is too slow to keep up with other GVs. Tank Destroyers are the only true thing that can help GVing out tactically right at the moment. These super tanks of WWII probably won't be added any time soon due to their massive chance to unbalance the GV war with the amount of people with banked perkies
-
Yes, thats why we have bombs, and particularly the stuka.
-
Yes, thats why we have bombs, and particularly the stuka.
sometimes those bombs arent usable? :headscratch: especially when what you stated previously about air superiority is in effect
-
These super tanks of WWII probably won't be added any time soon due to their massive chance to unbalance the GV war with the amount of people with banked perkies
Oh, sure we would see a lot of them at first, but that would quickly wear off along with the novelty factor.
Most players that have huge amounts of banked perkies do have them -surprise! - because they rarely to never use them at all. A player that didn't spend his perks on 262's, Temps or Tigers & Fireflies will most probably do the same with other, future perk planes & vehicles. I doubt they are just waiting for a certain uber item. (Bombers are a different matter though)
-
sometimes those bombs arent usable? :headscratch: especially when what you stated previously about air superiority is in effect
Il-2 does not need bombs. You can also give the B-25H a few AP rounds. And if the enemy has air superiority in such a way even Il-2s can't get to the tanks, it really doesn't matter anymore what's rolling in.
-
Il-2 does not need bombs. You can also give the B-25H a few AP rounds. And if the enemy has air superiority in such a way even Il-2s can't get to the tanks, it really doesn't matter anymore what's rolling in.
i meant as in air superiority stops bombers and attack runs on the GVs
-
BAR, they aren't as uber as you think. Honestly, 90% of my tricks involve getting in on flanks and behind them. I've taken out 2 tigers this tour (might be listed under last tour, was near the start of the month) with an M4A3(76) by circling around on their flanks, while others were trying (unsuccesfully I might add) to rush it, and get within effective range. Thats pretty good considering your notions of GV combat.
And honestly, no defense (short of CV manned ack) will stop everything. And there is JABO fighters too. I guarantee that a 1000lb bomb on top of an elephant will stop it. It will require good accuracy, but thats rarely a problem in the MA's. There is always an abundance of talent flying around.
Personally, I would be perfectly fine taking on an elephant with a panzer or an M4A3(76). Just so long as I have cover, and he isn't actively hunting me.
-
BAR, they aren't as uber as you think. Honestly, 90% of my tricks involve getting in on flanks and behind them. I've taken out 2 tigers this tour (might be listed under last tour, was near the start of the month) with an M4A3(76) by circling around on their flanks, while others were trying (unsuccesfully I might add) to rush it, and get within effective range. Thats pretty good considering your notions of GV combat.
And honestly, no defense (short of CV manned ack) will stop everything. And there is JABO fighters too. I guarantee that a 1000lb bomb on top of an elephant will stop it. It will require good accuracy, but thats rarely a problem in the MA's. There is always an abundance of talent flying around.
Personally, I would be perfectly fine taking on an elephant with a panzer or an M4A3(76). Just so long as I have cover, and he isn't actively hunting me.
yeah and a tiger doesnt have the side armor a king tiger has... yet again also. if the defenders dont have any aircraft in the air and a mass of GVs inb it would be unstoppable if there were 3 Konigstigers and 7 pnzrs versus the defending 10-15 pnzrs if the GVers have any idea how to use tactics. Yes flanking maneuvers are crucial but out of all the times you tried to flank a tiger, how many times did he kill you? or did you just get lucky that the tigger was a noob? in my time since i restarted AH this year after a 6 month break i havent been flanked by any GVs at that distance.
-
Honestly, my flanking manuvers are rarely thwarted with the exception of aircraft spotting for my target. With that exception, about the only time I fail to get on my targets flank is when I do something dumb like misjudge the distance and pop out infront of him, and when he has a viz on me from spawn it, and is watching his flanks, or if he picks me out from the crowd, and watches his flanks and rear.
Its fairly easy to spot the ones who know their business if you pay attention. They're the ones who are hull down, behind good cover, and/or about even with your sides tanks, and out to one side.
-
Honestly, my flanking manuvers are rarely thwarted with the exception of aircraft spotting for my target. With that exception, about the only time I fail to get on my targets flank is when I do something dumb like misjudge the distance and pop out infront of him, and when he has a viz on me from spawn it, and is watching his flanks, or if he picks me out from the crowd, and watches his flanks and rear.
Its fairly easy to spot the ones who know their business if you pay attention. They're the ones who are hull down, behind good cover, and/or about even with your sides tanks, and out to one side.
and i must say the one thing you didn't say was the ones who are completely oblivious to whats around them :aok
some new tankers know their tactics as well as the vets. they just don't implement them as well. You can never know the difference between them unless you see 2-5 of your allies die in front of you in short succession from one enemy.
-
I sort enemies into two groups:
Deal with now
People who look like they know what to do
People in a threatening position (if he gets close, aiming won't be a big problem, even if he's a newb)
Deal with when I'm not threatened, or when he wanders infront of my sights
Everyone else
I'm like you said in aircraft:
I know ACM (pretty good anyway), I just cant implement many manuvers efficently (scissors, both rolling and flat, Split-S, and Immelmen are about all I can preform without concious thought. The rest require concious thought on my part, which creates hesitation), and I'm an average shot at best.
-
alright. i'm done with this argument. we follow two different sets of tactics. I'll agree to disagree Nemesis. <S>
P.S. Give us the M-18.