Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: lyric1 on July 28, 2010, 04:24:51 PM
-
I think it might be time to look at tanks ability's at shooting down airborne aircraft at several K away with one shot. The same players that I have run in to of late can't seem to hit you with a flack at 800 out. How ever put them in at a tank & a round hits you from as much as 3k with 1 shot.
I have done this as well it just seems a little off when Shermans become flack units IMHO.
-
I concur. Nose on close range is feasible but ranges that are beyond 1k should be almost impossible. +1 to an HTC review.
-
Very first time HiTech was testing the vehicles, he shot down Pyro, who was flying in a circle 2K out. That was the very first tank round ever fired in this game.
-
I think it might be time to look at tanks ability's at shooting down airborne aircraft at several K away with one shot. The same players that I have run in to of late can't seem to hit you with a flack at 800 out. How ever put them in at a tank & a round hits you from as much as 3k with 1 shot.
I have done this as well it just seems a little off when Shermans become flack units IMHO.
+1, but there is a way around that. Attack from above, not the horizontal.
-
+1, but there is a way around that. Attack from above, not the horizontal.
It is not always necessarily the case. I hardly use a tank, however I am able to track and kill bombers fairly easily (however I cannot hit a thing with an osti?!?!)
Fighters I can hit in the manner you described.
I have been killed 3k-4k away from a panzer flying at 4,000ft, when I was not even attacking it. Some players are especially good at using tanks as AA.
-
I have no idea what HTC could do to change this. You might want to make suggestions as to what you think should be altered. It isn't as though the tank rounds are guided.
-
Very first time HiTech was testing the vehicles, he shot down Pyro, who was flying in a circle 2K out. That was the very first tank round ever fired in this game.
HiTech still vulching planes in a tank after all these years? You should have him tell you about his vulching with the T-34 in AW.
ack-ack
-
+1, but there is a way around that. Attack from above, not the horizontal.
In these particular instances I was not at the point of attack was heading the other way in fact on one occasion. I understand flying right down the barrel will get you dead fast. This is not the case that I am pointing out here.
-
I have no idea what HTC could do to change this. You might want to make suggestions as to what you think should be altered. It isn't as though the tank rounds are guided.
I am in the same boat as you on this one :headscratch: I was just hoping for the best on this issue in terms of an answer. Funny thing is the tank round looked a lot like the heat seeker films from the Vietnam gun films. I swear it looked as if it was tracking although I know it was not. :O
-
I have no idea what HTC could do to change this. You might want to make suggestions as to what you think should be altered. It isn't as though the tank rounds are guided.
When this has come up before someone suggested the main issue was with how the tank optics were handled.
-
The fact remains that in real life it could happen, there is nothing in the laws of physics that says that this can not be done...granted its odd and unusual but none the less still very possible.
-
The fact remains that in real life it could happen, there is nothing in the laws of physics that says that this can not be done...granted its odd and unusual but none the less still very possible.
But it was not logic to attempt for any tank to try.
-
Very first time HiTech was testing the vehicles, he shot down Pyro, who was flying in a circle 2K out. That was the very first tank round ever fired in this game.
Needs reamdomizer, be sure.
-
The fact remains that in real life it could happen, there is nothing in the laws of physics that says that this can not be done...granted its odd and unusual but none the less still very possible.
No it could not happen ever ! There are two things which would stop this . First the turret . To put it simple it could not track it physically . With any kind of aspect ratio change at all . Second thing is you would never be able to acquire a plane in the first place . Also you once again would not be able to track it with the type of sight used . The only way I see around this is to limit the optics . You would have to restrict the gunners ability to zoom. That would make spotting far more difficult . So you would need to give the tc better optics . Give him some biono's , give the gunners tpi so you spot with the tc then drop to gunner to fire . The turret position indicator to be sure you have the target in the gunners field of view .
-
Does it really happen so much that it is an issue?
-
Does it really happen so much that it is an issue?
i had a video of me in an M4 76 shooting down 6 aircraft in 5 minutes. 1 flying away at 1k at an angle. 3 on approach to strafe and 2 at close angles covering my friendly GVs... :lol
-
I recall getting the Tiger and the Old Pizza map was up. Rooks were defending a base from the Bish. I was pointed at the town and next to high ridge. LTARRaptr lost 3 Goons to 3 rounds. We kept the field and Raptor was not a happy player. :D
-
As much as I hate being shot down by a Tank's main gun, I have always attributed it to practice, practice, practice.
Shoot thousands of rounds at planes and you're bound to get the hang of it.
Why doesn't it happen in real life? Who has the thousands of rounds, and thousands of lives, to get the actions and lead worked out and how often did the opportunity actually present itself?
wrongway
-
Needs reamdomizer, be sure.
I don't think it would help. I think it would be as likely to randomize a near miss into a hit as a hit into a near miss.
-
Does it really happen so much that it is an issue?
No not really. How ever it just seems wrong that a tank is taking out aircraft moving at over 150 MPH & over several K away with one shot. Then the same GV guys turn to flacks & cant hit an aircraft that is within 800 feet. As I said before Shermans as flack units just seems wrong.
-
Does it really happen so much that it is an issue?
No, it has happen to me twice in the five years of playing.
-
We have that advantage of unlimited lives and unlimited rounds in the game, not to mention a one man tank crew with no one to tell use what we can't do with it. So it's possible, I see no reason to change anything. If someone has the skill to take my airplane down with their tank, more power to them (attitude may be different for the first couple minutes after the incident while I'm screaming BS! :D).
The closest I've come to this is taking down a B25 with a shore battery. I was so excited. :banana:
-
I have been killed 3k-4k away from a panzer flying at 4,000ft, when I was not even attacking it. Some players are especially good at using tanks as AA.
Just jink a little when you know an M4 is improvising some AA fire. With a tank's ROF, if he hits you then he did it by dumb luck and you number just happened to be called. Realisticly, he should only get 1 shot before you start diving and climbing, and making small, imperceptable turns that will screw his aim.
And Lyric1, would you have HTC make tank rounds have no effect on aircraft period, or only when they are airborne? Since the turret traverse rates, gun elevations and depressions, balistics, and ROF are as close to accurate as possible, then it was possible in WWII for tanks to kill bombers from several thousand yards out.
-
Just jink a little when you know an M4 is improvising some AA fire. With a tank's ROF, if he hits you then he did it by dumb luck and you number just happened to be called. Realisticly, he should only get 1 shot before you start diving and climbing, and making small, imperceptable turns that will screw his aim.
And Lyric1, would you have HTC make tank rounds have no effect on aircraft period, or only when they are airborne? Since the turret traverse rates, gun elevations and depressions, balistics, and ROF are as close to accurate as possible, then it was possible in WWII for tanks to kill bombers from several thousand yards out.
Show me one instance of a tank shooting down an aircraft at speed with it's main gun during WWII while in flight. No I would not make HTC do anything I only posted a wish on the wish list forum.
Since gv icons don't show up until you are just about on them. There is not much chance of avoiding them when you don't even know they are about & then POW dead from a tank round fired from 2-4k away nailed you in one shot.
-
No, it has happen to me twice in the five years of playing.
yet people get kill streaks of 5-15 planes in T34/76s M4/76s M4/75s and M8s. I prefer the M8. rapid fire means more shots off quicker.
-
please watch this film I captured before continuing the discussion.
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/dueling_the_SB.ahf
that is all :rofl
-
please watch this film I captured before continuing the discussion.
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/dueling_the_SB.ahf
that is all :rofl
:rofl
-
Killing planes on strafing runs with tanks is easy as pie. Your best defense is a steep attack above the guns max elevation, but even then you either need to kill/turret or make sure you pull out with plenty of space between you and the ground or you will be fragged by HE as you pass and sit there going :noid.
-
Just think if we had canister rounds. PULL!
-
When this has come up before someone suggested the main issue was with how the tank optics were handled.
From my brief experience driving tanks in this game, I would tend to agree. The zoom level on the optics is way too powerful.
-
Just think if we had canister rounds. PULL!
You give me canister and I'll give you 15 minutes in the woodshed with Grizz?
-
Just think if we had canister rounds. PULL!
Now that would be fun! :aok
-
please watch this film I captured before continuing the discussion.
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/dueling_the_SB.ahf
that is all :rofl
Reminded me of the time I shot down AAolds while he was in a set of Lancs & I nailed one of them with the shore batt 6.5k out. His responce was about the same.
-
Reminded me of the time I shot down AAolds while he was in a set of Lancs & I nailed one of them with the shore batt 6.5k out. His responce was about the same.
Exactly! When a shore battery hits me I find it hilarious. It's easier in a tank perhaps so not as funny but still a good laugh I rekon.
So why change what is good for a laugh?
-
I'll give you guys a tip for the shore battery. At some bases the shore battery traverses to where it can cover the field, usually only covering one end of the runway. If you find yourself at a heavily vulched shore base and all the manned guns and the VH are down jump in the shore batt. If it traverses to the base find range on the runway just ahead of the spawn point and keep it aimed there. Timing is everything but when you see someone dive in for the vulch let one rip and if you get lucky it will hit just as the vulcher is passing over. Splash damage, BOOM, ZOMG H4X.
-
I'll give you guys a tip for the shore battery. At some bases the shore battery traverses to where it can cover the field, usually only covering one end of the runway. If you find yourself at a heavily vulched shore base and all the manned guns and the VH are down jump in the shore batt. If it traverses to the base find range on the runway just ahead of the spawn point and keep it aimed there. Timing is everything but when you see someone dive in for the vulch let one rip and if you get lucky it will hit just as the vulcher is passing over. Splash damage, BOOM, ZOMG H4X.
Done that before. :D
-
Exactly! When a shore battery hits me I find it hilarious. It's easier in a tank perhaps so not as funny but still a good laugh I rekon.
So why change what is good for a laugh?
I see your point I just like how HTC has tried to keep their product as true to it possibly was in real life. This part of the game seems to me just a tad off that's all.
-
I've shot down planes in my tank more times than I can count.
I think that it is the funniest damned thing that one can do in this game. I'm surprised that out of all the things mentioned: skill, modeling, zoom, etc that the one other BIG factor that is involved here. Some have way more of it than others. It's the same thing that pays me 30:1 on a snake-eyes or boxcars bet (the odds of each, actually being 35:1)
Those of you that get killed in your plane by a tank need to keep your sorry tulips from shooting at my table, or at least wear a sign :devil
(sorry, weekend is coming and I have Atlantic City on the mind) :rock
-
Show me one instance of a tank shooting down an aircraft at speed with it's main gun during WWII while in flight. No I would not make HTC do anything I only posted a wish on the wish list forum.
Since gv icons don't show up until you are just about on them. There is not much chance of avoiding them when you don't even know they are about & then POW dead from a tank round fired from 2-4k away nailed you in one shot.
Never happened, but clearly it could have been done had people flown/driven in the manner that we do, and given a little luck or tremendous ammounts of skill.
Just think if we had canister rounds. PULL!
Sir, if we had infintry, I would be asking for canister. But since we rarely have hoards of infintry rushing you with molotov coctails, I figure the normally useless hull gun or coaxil machine gun will do.
-
Show me one instance of a tank shooting down an aircraft at speed with it's main gun during WWII while in flight.
Just because they didn't do it ... doesn't mean that it couldn't be done.
Better yet, you prove that a tank shell could not take down an aircraft in flight.
-
Never happened, but clearly it could have been done had people flown/driven in the manner that we do, and given a little luck or tremendous ammounts of skill.
How do you know it never happened?
When Rudel was shot down by a Soviet Lend-Lease Sherman, he described how the Shermans were firing their main gun and machine guns at the low flying attacking Stukas. Fortunately for Rudel, it was only the machine gun on a Sherman that downed his plane. Not sure if any of the Soviets hit any of the Stukas with their main gun but at least in that engagement, they tried. It was this incident that caused Rudel to hate attacking Shermans because they were better able to defend themselves from air attack then the T-34, despite the fact the Sherman was easier to knock out.
I'm sure there are other examples as well of tankers on all sides occasionally taking a shot at a low flying plane that was trying to kill them.
ack-ack
-
I think alot of people forget this is a game and pilots do things in here that were never done or rarely done during the war. Just because a tank never had a recorded kill (that we know of) of an aircraft doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
Think about it, we have ships that use 5" guns that shoot down aircraft all the time. True they're using flak ammo but they still have to get the shot CLOSE to the aircraft. If a ships cannon can hit an aircraft then I surely think a tank would have a chance.
The Sherman has a fast turret and a fast rate of fire, plus it has a pretty flat trajectory out to about 1.5-2k. We have guys that get 1000's of chances per week to practice with that main gun so it's not unfeasible that folks have learned how to lead with the gun. I'll bet if our WWII tank crews had that chance you might have seen more kills by tank guns.
-
Just because they didn't do it ... doesn't mean that it couldn't be done.
Better yet, you prove that a tank shell could not take down an aircraft in flight.
OK I will play :devil's advocate. I say it never happened because I can't find anything saying that it did. Ball is back in your court now go prove that it did. :neener:
-
OK I will play :devil's advocate. I say it never happened because I can't find anything saying that it did. Ball is back in your court now go prove that it did. :neener:
He said that it's possible, not necessarily that it was done. In the simplest terms, a tank shell travels through the air, an airplane travels through the air, if the two cross paths it probably won't end well for the plane. There are many other reasons it didn't happen though.
-
OK I will play :devil's advocate. I say it never happened because I can't find anything saying that it did. Ball is back in your court now go prove that it did. :neener:
*steals the ball mid court and stabs it*
Well lets throw this baseball out onto the court. We have the B25H which wasn't really used against tanks during WW2, however, it is used with great success vs tanks in AH. Just because the B25H wasn't designed to attack tanks, it's gun is very effective at killing them when proper tactics are used. Should we nerf the B25's 75mm so it cannot damage tanks because it wasn't used that way?
-
*steals the ball mid court and stabs it*
Well lets throw this baseball out onto the court. We have the B25H which wasn't really used against tanks during WW2, however, it is used with great success vs tanks in AH. Just because the B25H wasn't designed to attack tanks, it's gun is very effective at killing them when proper tactics are used. Should we nerf the B25's 75mm so it cannot damage tanks because it wasn't used that way?
No.
-
beefcake, the B25's cannon is a derivative of the M3 tank gun used on the M4. I haven't been able to kill a tank using the M4's HE, so it probably shouldn't be able to kill a tank (I've even hit the top of a panzer trying to climb a hill). I would guess its a game play thing.
-
*steals the ball mid court and stabs it*
Well lets throw this baseball out onto the court. We have the B25H which wasn't really used against tanks during WW2, however, it is used with great success vs tanks in AH. Just because the B25H wasn't designed to attack tanks, it's gun is very effective at killing them when proper tactics are used. Should we nerf the B25's 75mm so it cannot damage tanks because it wasn't used that way?
The B-25Hs that were used by the 1st Air Commandos in the CBI used their 75mm cannons to chew up Japanese armor when encountered. 5 AP rounds were also a normal load out for the B25H, which were used against both ground vehicles and ships.
ack-ack
-
I would guess its a game play thing.
It's not.
ack-ack
-
Actually killing tanks with a B25H is a bad example, a better one is the B25H shooting down aircraft with the 75mm. Although it's incredibly hard even vs bombers, you can kill planes with the 75mm cannon. Should HTC remove or disable the ability to kill planes with the 75mm since it never happened in WW2 and is in no way a normal tactic for the plane?
-
Actually killing tanks with a B25H is a bad example, a better one is the B25H shooting down aircraft with the 75mm. Although it's incredibly hard even vs bombers, you can kill planes with the 75mm cannon. Should HTC remove or disable the ability to kill planes with the 75mm since it never happened in WW2 and is in no way a normal tactic for the plane?
I am guessing you kill other ACs in a HO approach?
-
Actually killing tanks with a B25H is a bad example, a better one is the B25H shooting down aircraft with the 75mm. Although it's incredibly hard even vs bombers, you can kill planes with the 75mm cannon. Should HTC remove or disable the ability to kill planes with the 75mm since it never happened in WW2 and is in no way a normal tactic for the plane?
This is within the realm of possibility only because I think some Pacific units did shoot at enemy planes with the H model. No confirmed kills that I know of.
-
Just think if we had canister rounds. PULL!
If you guys ever add the Yamato, can we get the canister rounds for her 18.1" guns?
-
I am guessing you kill other ACs in a HO approach?
That's what i do in the B-25H. If I'm being attacked by a fighter, I'll try and maneuver so my nose is pointing in his direction and give him a facial he soon won't forget as he comes at me.
ack-ack
-
Well my point is you guys seem perfectly acceptable with the B25H shooting down a plane with the 75mm, however, by the same token these same people say that tanks shooting down planes is not acceptable.
-
That's what i do in the B-25H. If I'm being attacked by a fighter, I'll try and maneuver so my nose is pointing in his direction and give him a facial he soon won't forget as he comes at me.
ack-ack
That is why you do not do a HO pass on them, or for that matter, IL2, 110, 190, La, Moss, ect.
Well my point is you guys seem perfectly acceptable with the B25H shooting down a plane with the 75mm, however, by the same token these same people say that tanks shooting down planes is not acceptable.
It piss some ppl off that this can be done. They just need to have a better tactical approach of GVs.
-
Just out of interest, do any of you regularly hit airborne enemy planes with the B-25H's cannon?
-
Well my point is you guys seem perfectly acceptable with the B25H shooting down a plane with the 75mm, however, by the same token these same people say that tanks shooting down planes is not acceptable.
Never said not acceptable just not quite right within the realm of AHII.
-
Just out of interest, do any of you regularly hit airborne enemy planes with the B-25H's cannon?
Depends on the maneuvering. If they are in a shallow bank then I can lead them easily and if level, it's really not hard to hit it. But if the plane is making hard banking turns, I won't even try.
ack-ack
-
Just out of interest, do any of you regularly hit airborne enemy planes with the B-25H's cannon?
One time for my self. Most planes even bombers can out run you in a B25H.
-
I've shot down planes in my tank more times than I can count.
I think that it is the funniest damned thing that one can do in this game. I'm surprised that out of all the things mentioned: skill, modeling, zoom, etc that the one other BIG factor that is involved here. Some have way more of it than others. It's the same thing that pays me 30:1 on a snake-eyes or boxcars bet (the odds of each, actually being 35:1)
Those of you that get killed in your plane by a tank need to keep your sorry tulips from shooting at my table, or at least wear a sign :devil
I do the same thing. Shoot IL2's with a tank all of the time if they dive in at a shallow angle and the turret will line up on them they are finished. Second little trick is to fire an HE round into the ground just as the plane is in its lowest dive point over your tank. It will kill the plane as well.. I had a guy bombing and firing at my tank last week. I shot him with my main gun and he PM'd me pissed off calling me a cheat.. I told him to look at my score and he could see that I wasnt a cheat. He is trying to kill me in a plane. Am I supposed to sit back and let him do it? I agree with Von Mesa on this one. It is fun stopping the bomb**** with an AP or HE round... Or the guy that keeps getting killed in a tank so he ups an IL2 or A20 to get his revenge.. The down side is if the Pilot dives in at a steep angle that cannot be reached by my turret, I am toast cause he killed me with that IL2....
-
You see sky, you would be screwed if I ever turned bomb tard. I can't aim bombs worth watermelon in a shallow dive (although I can get lucky sometimes), it has to be a dive steeper than (about) 45 degrees.
-
You see sky, you would be screwed if I ever turned bomb tard. I can't aim bombs worth watermelon in a shallow dive (although I can get lucky sometimes), it has to be a dive steeper than (about) 45 degrees.
Lets hope you dont become a bomb****.. :salute :aok
-
I don't think I will. I'll bomb if there is no other chance at stopping them (I'm not going to up a firefly or a tiger to try and stop 5 or 6 tigers from camping a field), the I will bomb them. But past that, I'm content to create fireballs with a '75 :banana:.
-
I have over 70 aircraft kills with an M4-76 and most of them are with the main gun. Some pilots can execute a strafe on a tank and not put their plane in jeapordy by knowing the proper angle of attack, meaning they stay at such an angle that no gun on the tank will have a solution on them. Lets face it, this is a computer game and not reality. Im sure Wile E. Coyote would have alot to complain about if he was real, but again, its fantasy. How far do you want to take it as far as reality? I am a terrible pilot, so would it be fare to say I shouldn't have to fly against the best pilots in the game because they shot me down all the time? Just my $0.02 worth. :old:
-
It's the ghost of General J.E.B. Stuart.
(http://dailypop.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hauntedtank.jpg)
(http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/1245_4_091.jpg)
wrongway
-
Just out of interest, do any of you regularly hit airborne enemy planes with the B-25H's cannon?
Only once. It was a Zero, and talk about a BOOM! I was very close to the con, maybe 300-400 out.
-
Show me one instance of a tank shooting down an aircraft at speed with it's main gun during WWII while in flight.
This is what I would like to see matter fact I would like to see more than 1 time a tank shot a plane with its main gun.
It didn't happen and is complete gamery BS. It happens all the time to me when I take a b-25. Completely ridiculous!
-
It's the ghost of General J.E.B. Stuart.
(http://dailypop.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hauntedtank.jpg)
(http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/1245_4_091.jpg)
wrongway
After following the discussion and viewing Wrongways historical documents :lol (I used to read those comics when I was a kid) I retract my +1. Fine the way it is HTC.
-
Yet AKAK kills GV's at will with the B25, and I bet he rarely if ever eats a 17lber. Hmmm.
-
Yet AKAK kills GV's at will with the B25, and I bet he rarely if ever eats a 17lber. Hmmm.
-
It was possible but it didn't happen. Learn to attack tanks at a steeper angle
-
This is what I would like to see matter fact I would like to see more than 1 time a tank shot a plane with its main gun.
It didn't happen and is complete gamery BS. It happens all the time to me when I take a b-25. Completely ridiculous!
And what do you propose to do about it? If the tank turrets traverse at the proper speeds, have guns that elevate at the proper speeds, have the proper rates of fire, proper muzzle velocities and the rounds lose energy at the proper rates, what then?
Yes, it is gamey, but it is gamey because it is a game and people master things that people in reality had no chance to master. Live with it.
-
And what do you propose to do about it? If the tank turrets traverse at the proper speeds, have guns that elevate at the proper speeds, have the proper rates of fire, proper muzzle velocities and the rounds lose energy at the proper rates, what then?
Yes, it is gamey, but it is gamey because it is a game and people master things that people in reality had no chance to master. Live with it.
I don't think it can be said any better than that. If people can't accept this than there is nothing to do to make them happy. :rolleyes:
-
Ok lets cut the crapolla here!! #1. If your coming in on an angle that a tank can shoot you down, then that is your bad not the tankers. Dive down on it from above and give the tank no shot at your plane along with keeping your speed up as most have figured out long ago. You have business trying to ho a tank anyway. Most of the time the tank is either preoccupied in battle with another tank or moving to get away or where it's going so this also gives you the option to NOT FLY INTO IT'S TURRET :rofl If you see it pointed directly at you then pull up and try again. Try the back door or side, not the heavily armored front as well #2 Read the description of a T34 on the Homepage where it warns you to watch out for it's turret as it has no pintle gun. That along with speed are its only two defenses againsed staffing bomb****s trying to rack up their assists before flying home. I'm aware there are times a tank has to be marked for friendly gvs or killed with guns due to having no ords but the group who started this thread aren't those people. It's the people who will fly what ever distance climb to whatever alt. to clear mountain just to get there A20 or other bomb****ing plane to a good gv battle so they can mess it up. Most of the time it's a spawn battle with neither side looking to take the others base either. just a good tank furball. They see that and :O Easy Kills! Easy Kills! :O I think I'll bomb**** for 3 hours straight! That will get my name in lights for all to see!!! Then one 1000lber dropped, then another, I got two of them!! But now I'm out of ords... What do I do know?? :headscratch: I know! I'll stafe the tanks and get some assists! If you do that for the purpose of spotting I can understand that... But most DO NOT. Either way, that's where I come in :devil I LOVE the fool who wants to give my location away by countless staffing runs. Most either lawn dart of even collide there angle is so poor if I don't pop them for them first for coming in so low and foolishly hoing a tank. Then they get angry and you see a post like this because they can't get there dive angles right and strafe till there bingo. My advise is take your 2 kills and go home or gain alt. and wait for a con to come and engage you. Don't whine on the forums for your poor tactics. If you ARE getting shot down at far distances by tanks there are two things you must remember. One is that more then likely you were over a gv battle like i said and you the tank that got you wasn't the only tank shooting at you. There were probobly a handful that missed as well so it wasn't a one shot one kill scenerio. probly had 10 to 20 shots that missed you. The second is that YES, it was a lucky shot! There is no formula to shooting down planes at far distances. Although you can get a tad more accurate over time the main deciding factor is luck, along with your angle and speed which would again be your errors. And last but certainly not least, #3 the IL. The IL is slow, and a big target for tanks but a skilled IL pilot can turret and even kill a tank even if hoing it. I've shot down many planes in panzers, M4's, and T34's, but the IL is one mean gv killer. With the proper aim and angle I've been killed many times by an IL in distances of 1K out even when coming in level with me. The ones I do kill are the ones who can't aim very well in them and come right on the deck with no speed what so ever. Usally I wait for a plane to get within 600 out before popping out a round at it which most of the time is to late when your dealing with a good IL pilot who knows where to aim and how to fly them. So i take it a tank should have absolutely NO defense against IL's?? If one ups and you have no air cover then that's it, might as well bail right?? Give me a break.. Bottom line is this thread was for the whining bomb****s who can't or didn't make it home to land his tard kills or rearm so he can fly back and do it again. :cry :furious My heart goes out to you.. Funny you won't see them in a gv ever participating in the ground war below them, Just messing it up for the few that are on the ground enjoying a good gv fight. Sorry but the truth hurts. Maybe next time I see a furball I'll spend the night flying bombers over again and again and again dropping Fighter Hangers all night long... :neener: <S> DeViouS
-
In my case there was no GV fight & as I had stated I was not even at the point off attack was flat & level 3.4k away first time & 2.6 the second time. I can't even see the enemy tanks this far out & in both situations one round each time killed me.
I understand diving down the barrel is certain death I GET IT My point of issue is the same people can't hit you in a flack Panzer 800 feet away but can 1 shot you miles away in an aircraft doing over 100 mile perhour.
All I am saying is that the game is slightly off when this happens.
-
snip
Wow thanks for your wonderful insight and advice. We are all noob tankers and plane drivers here so we could not have got through this without you. :rolleyes:
-
See Rule #4
-
OK, I would have to see that to believe it so lyric, please post the recording of you twice being shot down by A TANK ROUND at 3.4 and 2.6 out. You may want to check the recording yourself to find out what really happened. May have been a closer tank or osti you missed or.... maybe someone needs to be reported.. I look forward to seeing that though so they can teach me to do the same along with everyone else in the game. :cheers: <S> DeViouS
-
Then why complain about about it.. you want the facts you got them waystin... Not the tankers fault they drop unskilled pilots.. right?
-
OK, I would have to see that to believe it so lyric, please post the recording of you twice being shot down by A TANK ROUND at 3.4 and 2.6 out. You may want to check the recording yourself to find out what really happened. May have been a closer tank or osti you missed or.... maybe someone needs to be reported.. I look forward to seeing that though so they can teach me to do the same along with everyone else in the game. :cheers: <S> DeViouS
Film is long gone now & I can guarantee that was what happened no one else about but two Shermans to begin with. I think you should know that this is not a rare thing that happens it is very frequent. Hell I have done it before ask AAolds 1 shot ed a Lanc from 6.5k out with a shore batt. That is just one instance as I have done it many times before.
-
Then why complain about about it.. you want the facts you got them waystin... Not the tankers fault they drop unskilled pilots.. right?
I was not complaining, nor did I view the op's request as a complaint. Most of the posters I see here are not what I would call skill-less in planes or tanks. Myself included. So your recommendations of obviousness were a bit self serving and looked silly.
-
Once again waystin.. the truth hurts.. If your getting shot down by tanks IT IS YOUR FAULT!! If it is from that distance it is a fluke and nothing more... so what do they do about this rare accurance? run to the forums :cry thats.... that's not fair :cry you cant do that :cry no shooting back.. :cry Sorry I find it funny that the film of twice being shot down from the distances lyric discribed are "long gone" :uhoh but if it did happen... TWICE.. and he watched film to make SURE that's what happened then there is something fishy going on with someone or they are the GREATEST SHOT IN THE GAME to pick off a moving plane from 3.4 and 2.6... If it wasn't the same person then you have very bad luck lyric. Although you are appearently the BEST in the game Waystin others are not and some noob may have read that and learned from.. Lord forbid that happen but dont insult me for that for no reason. I just through that in there. The main point I was making was addressing ordless bomb****s sir. Funny how just about every post I see from you are just insults on someone who posted and and some smart a** comment along with the occasional reference to your "uncanny" skill... Gets old after awhile brother. give it a rest...
-
Once again waystin.. the truth hurts.. If your getting shot down by tanks IT IS YOUR FAULT!! If it is from that distance it is a fluke and nothing more... so what do they do about this rare accurance? run to the forums :cry thats.... that's not fair :cry you cant do that :cry no shooting back.. :cry Sorry I find it funny that the film of twice being shot down from the distances lyric discribed are "long gone" :uhoh but if it did happen... TWICE.. and he watched film to make SURE that's what happened then there is something fishy going on with someone or they are the GREATEST SHOT IN THE GAME to pick off a moving plane from 3.4 and 2.6... If it wasn't the same person then you have very bad luck lyric. Although you are appearently the BEST in the game Waystin others are not and some noob may have read that and learned from.. Lord forbid that happen but dont insult me for that for no reason. I just through that in there. The main point I was making was addressing ordless bombers sir. Funny how just about every post I see from you are just insults on someone who posted and and some smart a** comment along with the occasional reference to your "uncanny" skill... Gets old after awhile brother. give it a rest...
I rarely ever film & when I do I review it & dump it no point clogging up memory with hundreds of films for no purpose other than to bathe in ones glory.
Plus nothing fishy going on here either no C word or H word being used on my part the players in question are not in doubt in any way shape or form.
So if you have read the entire thread? Is Skuzzys post of Hitech firing at pyro 2k out with his tank & killing a moving plane the first time ever in AHII on the very fist shot ever fired by a tank fishy? I think not.
Or maybe he is not quite telling it like it is as you have alluded to in regards to me dumping film?
-
Read the whole thing lyric...Hello??? its a lucky shot! that's it!
-
Once again waystin.. the truth hurts.. If your getting shot down by tanks IT IS YOUR FAULT!! If it is from that distance it is a fluke and nothing more... so what do they do about this rare accurance? run to the forums :cry thats.... that's not fair :cry you cant do that :cry no shooting back.. :cry Sorry I find it funny that the film of twice being shot down from the distances lyric discribed are "long gone" :uhoh but if it did happen... TWICE.. and he watched film to make SURE that's what happened then there is something fishy going on with someone or they are the GREATEST SHOT IN THE GAME to pick off a moving plane from 3.4 and 2.6... If it wasn't the same person then you have very bad luck lyric. Although you are appearently the BEST in the game Waystin others are not and some noob may have read that and learned from.. Lord forbid that happen but dont insult me for that for no reason. I just through that in there. The main point I was making was addressing ordless bombers sir. Funny how just about every post I see from you are just insults on someone who posted and and some smart a** comment along with the occasional reference to your "uncanny" skill... Gets old after awhile brother. give it a rest...
Interesting...I very rarely say anything insulting. However, nooblets offering obvious advice is a bit of an annoyance for me. Show some respect and know who you are talking to and what you are talking about. It's worked for me, it will work for you. Let's not talk skill here, what I have seen of your skillset is you are a great camper and that is about it.
-
Not a nooblet bub... had several dif. names now.. played for years but i have nothing to prove to sir... more insults from the great one i see... just you being your respectful self right? :rofl so what i said was incorrect? .. nah, i dont think so.. not by any means... maybe you should know who your talking to instead of attacking people.. the advise i gave was right on the money but as you just said it wasn't the advice, it was who was giving it.. thats respect??? If I was new thats how you would talk to me... pffft... Yeah you got respect written all over you... I'm one of the few who answer noobs on the game without the alt F4 joke... like i said lord forbid someone new learns anything but how to be a smart a** right?? BnZ people on here with your comments then swoop back up to your alt of greatness..
-
This is what I would like to see matter fact I would like to see more than 1 time a tank shot a plane with its main gun.
It didn't happen and is complete gamery BS. It happens all the time to me when I take a b-25. Completely ridiculous!
The issue remains: WHAT THE HELL DO YOU PROPOSE HTC SHOULD DO ABOUT IT?!?! Answer me that.
gun elevations: accurate (shouldn't be changed)
Traverse rates: accuate (shouldn't be changed)
ROF: accurate (shouldn't be changed)
Damage model: accurate (a plane can't survive a 75mm HE round to the cocpit, so it shouldn't be changed)
Well, that just about kills your complaint unless HTC is willing to nerf the tanks.
-
Nerf the tanks.....?? Pfffft it's easier to bomb**** then to shoot a moving plane down unless once again it's strafing you on the deck. And in that case it's an earned death.. Unless you get a lucky shot at one flying by which does happen. I still say leave it be and quit crying. People aren't purposely upping tanks as AA guns.. If you really want to kill one up an IL2 and strafe away. If not, quit poking the lion and complaining when it bites.. :cheers:
-
untill you pay my cash a week you have no right to tell me what i can or cant do. I'll go bomb my own factories if I please. And btw i dont camp much, more look for a good gv battle thats even. But that was very rude and ignorant sir to make a comment like that to someone you don't even know and on top of it to post it on the forums.
Your very ignorant comment was the motivation for my reply.
And my comment was ?
I cannot help but laugh. Thanks man, I'll continue to help Train new/old sticks in this game. You continue to be "the Lion".
I still haven't a clue on why he thinks his diatribe "wasn't offensive or rude". :banana:
-
YeaY.... :aok a second know it all basher :aok Ok So what do you got for me??? All I did was point out the obvious and got nailed for it... like i said since you cant read it was addressed to the bombers.. And what was rude?? Never named anyone of the 100 who just bomb tard... did I?? Nope... but You ARE personally attacking me correct? For having an opinion? And it's called an analogy fool... the lion is any tank... like I said was addressing the bombers who fly over to kill a good gv battle and rack up kills (against tanks that are engaged with other tanks) with no other purpose in mind. kind of the same idea of dropping FH's for the sole purpose of killing a fuball correct? Same logic.. Never done it and wouldn't but gave you something to think about.. My question is why YOU think I was talking to you?? Ahhh, you must be one of the lame bomb tards.. The peices of the puzzle finally come together :aok And by the way you said nothing useful in this thread.. just insults from another "AWSOME" player who ridicules me for saying something some noob can learn from so on the "I'll continue to train" statement.... yeah... EPIC FAIL! Unless it's for how to be smart a**.... :cheers:
-
I have never been shot down by a Tank in the 8.5 years of playing. I don't plan on it anytime soon. :banana:
-
Ok lets cut the crapolla here!! :neener: <S> DeViouS
I have to agree with Devious on a few points. As a Gv'er myself (And Yes, before some body asks I do suck in a fighter) it is very rude game play to enter into a tank fur ball where no base taking is going on and start dropping bombs.. Devious is also correct that many times the guys that do this are mad GV drivers who got their buts kicked on the ground so they get their revenge by bomb tarding.. I have been any many good tank battles in tank town, just to have my good time ruined by some bomb**** trying to pad his scores..
I have seen the furballers get mad when some guy kills their fun by dropping hangers on a base. This is kind of the same thing...Gv's taking a base are fair game and so are spawn campers. Tank Alley should be off limits to bomb tards... IMHO.
-
<S> Sky... I also kind of see camping a gv spawn as the equivalent to vulching as well only with much more ammo lol.. You also proved another of my points by having to degrading yourself as a bad fighter pilot before they have the chance to throw insults your way.. It's a damb shame it has to be like that... but I guess thats the price to pay for having an opinion on here now....
-
I have to agree with Devious on a few points. As a Gv'er myself (And Yes, before some body asks I do suck in a fighter) it is very rude game play to enter into a tank fur ball where no base taking is going on and start dropping bombs.. Devious is also correct that many times the guys that do this are mad GV drivers who got their buts kicked on the ground so they get their revenge by bomb tarding.. I have been any many good tank battles in tank town, just to have my good time ruined by some bomber trying to pad his scores..
I have seen the furballers get mad when some guy kills their fun by dropping hangers on a base. This is kind of the same thing...Gv's taking a base are fair game and so are spawn campers. Tank Alley should be off limits to bomb tards... IMHO.
Wrong. I just enjoy dropping bombs on campers and watch them post their crap in here. Look for a thread I've ever started even remotely close to it. You cannot because I've never started one.
I'm a "furballer" and could give a rat's posterior what anyone else thinks about me being a "furballer". It's quite funny how it ALWAYS has to be a "Furballer vs now GV'er, instead of the BaseTaker". Which side are the "GV'ers that camp spawns on?"
-
I have to agree with Devious on a few points. As a Gv'er myself (And Yes, before some body asks I do suck in a fighter) it is very rude game play to enter into a tank fur ball where no base taking is going on and start dropping bombs.. Devious is also correct that many times the guys that do this are mad GV drivers who got their buts kicked on the ground so they get their revenge by bomb tarding.. I have been any many good tank battles in tank town, just to have my good time ruined by some bomber trying to pad his scores..
I have seen the furballers get mad when some guy kills their fun by dropping hangers on a base. This is kind of the same thing...Gv's taking a base are fair game and so are spawn campers. Tank Alley should be off limits to bomb tards... IMHO.
There is a very simple solution to your problem. Bring along a couple of flak panzies for AA protection or better yet, ask some squadron mates to fly a CAP over the battlefield to intercept the bombers.
ack-ack
-
-1
If the pilot chooses to engage with a GV, then he is leaving it up to chance that the tank might hit him.
And yes it is possible. I'm driving west, plane is flying east - perfect 12 o clock, I lift up the turret, aim it carefully, then fire a round down range. If I'm lucky, I'll hit him. :joystick:
You think if WWII plane (or any plane for that matter) got hit with a tank round that it wouldn't fall out of the sky/explode and make pretty fireworks for the people on the ground? Nothing like raining body parts. :rock :x
-
The issue remains: WHAT THE HELL DO YOU PROPOSE HTC SHOULD DO ABOUT IT?!?! Answer me that.
gun elevations: accurate (shouldn't be changed)
Traverse rates: accuate (shouldn't be changed)
ROF: accurate (shouldn't be changed)
Damage model: accurate (a plane can't survive a 75mm HE round to the cocpit, so it shouldn't be changed)
Well, that just about kills your complaint unless HTC is willing to nerf the tanks.
Well the only thing I can think of & has been mentioned already is the tank gun site? I don't know how a real one actually operated & how it would have looked to see through an actual tank gun site. Any one got actual pictures of the real thing using the optics of the day?
-
I bet you suck in a fighter. :banana: My God, if only some of us GAF about spawncamping our way to the "top".
I'm sure you are a great pilot and very good at furballing, but please don't insult me for liking GVing.. I love tanks and always will before and after this game (if there is an after lol) That's like me saying "i bet you suck at GVing!" I'm not like that sir.. <S> And I would much rather have a good spawn fight then camp anything as well ... And a <S> to ack ack and Marine... ack ack that is something i haven't seen mentioned yet but can be easily done to remedy the situation.. And Marine, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make, is that it's luck.. Although some pilots make it easier to hit them by there low speeds and on the deck approach. You also hit my point by saying IF a pilot chooses to engage a GV... Key word is "IF"... It's done by choice.....
-
You think if WWII plane (or any plane for that matter) got hit with a tank round that it wouldn't fall out of the sky/explode and make pretty fireworks for the people on the ground? Nothing like raining body parts. :rock :x
If it could happen yes. Now in AHII I have seen others & have had it happen to me as well the tank round bounces off the in coming plane. I guess it swings both ways.
-
Ive been killed a few times by tankers using their main turret...the reason being is because i was approaching them with out any sort of evasion, meaning, i made it easy for them to shoot me. Perhaps you people should just learn from your mistakes.
-
Perhaps you people should just learn from your mistakes.
You should read all of the thread & understand what I was doing prior to being shot down.
-
Read the whole thing lyric...Hello??? its a lucky shot! that's it!
heh...i could start here on you devious about some things you said to me in the game but i wont because id be skuzzified... :rolleyes: lucky shot my butt. i have been hit by tank shells as far as 2k out before and i have done the same to the enemy. the new M4 is perfect for it but id prefer the M8.
-
You should read all of the thread & understand what I was doing prior to being shot down.
:rock
-
OK I will play :devil's advocate. I say it never happened because I can't find anything saying that it did. Ball is back in your court now go prove that it did. :neener:
I am not saying it happened or didn't happen ... what I am saying is that there is nothing (physics-wise & a whole lot of luck) that would not allow it.
Firing a tank round and considering its speed and flat trajectory for the distance it can shoot, I can't find any reason that someone with a good sense of Kentucky windage could not hit an aircraft.
They most likely didn't shoot at aircraft because their chances were slim to none, and wasting precious ammo that could/should be used for their real threat would not be a smart move.
-
No turbulence in the air to disrupt the round in flight...
-
I am not saying it happened or didn't happen ... what I am saying is that there is nothing (physics-wise & a whole lot of luck) that would not allow it.
Firing a tank round and considering its speed and flat trajectory for the distance it can shoot, I can't find any reason that someone with a good sense of Kentucky windage could not hit an aircraft.
They most likely didn't shoot at aircraft because their chances were slim to none, and wasting precious ammo that could/should be used for their real threat would not be a smart move.
Not to mention the chances of the shell hitting a friendly unit or falling in a civilian town.
-
I am not saying it happened or didn't happen ... what I am saying is that there is nothing (physics-wise & a whole lot of luck) that would not allow it.
Firing a tank round and considering its speed and flat trajectory for the distance it can shoot, I can't find any reason that someone with a good sense of Kentucky windage could not hit an aircraft.
They most likely didn't shoot at aircraft because their chances were slim to none, and wasting precious ammo that could/should be used for their real threat would not be a smart move.
I agree 100%.
-
They didn't shoot at aircraft due to the steep angle fighters dove to drop bombs look at old footage and you will see planes coming in at a 45 angle or more. In ah tanks kill lots of planes due to the shallow angle we fly and usually at low alt so we can see the icons vs in ww2 that were flying at a much higher altitude. I am pretty sure the Russian il2s were not flying at 500 feet towards a tank. Just speculating here but I do know for sure allied tanks shot down a few planes with their main tank. And if you ever seen Rambo a helicopter too but that was more like a ho.
Semp
-
heh...i could start here on you devious about some things you said to me in the game but i wont because id be skuzzified... :rolleyes: lucky shot my butt. i have been hit by tank shells as far as 2k out before and i have done the same to the enemy. the new M4 is perfect for it but id prefer the M8.
Yeah Yeah Bar.... we know... your the best.. :rofl :aok Join the club with the other 2 who posted before you about their "uncanny" skill.... At the end of the day you guys can draw straws, play bubble gum, bubble gum in a dish, or maybe even rock, paper, scissors for it :banana: The main deciding factor for shooting down a plane at extremely far distances is luck however, and picking one off doesn't give you any "special powers" :rofl ... Just a rabbits foot up the wazzoo... :D
-
No turbulence in the air to disrupt the round in flight...
Would have a very small effect and on something as luck based as this is just as likely to blow a near miss into a hit as it is to blow a hit into a near miss.
-
Stuka..... ok. Pony diving at 450... bah. With the best tracking technology and precise servo motors, our modern ADA systems are not 100 percent accurate. I firmly believe there is not stinking way a round 7.5cm wide, that is point detonating, key...point detonating, can hit a plane at speed. low flying slow stuka.... perhaps. The guess on where that 450mph plane is going to be when that 7.5 cm round, directly contacts it.... a bah to the high tank HP on AC.
-
Yeah Yeah Bar.... we know... your the best.. :rofl :aok Join the club with the other 2 who posted before you about their "uncanny" skill.... At the end of the day you guys can draw straws, play bubble gum, bubble gum in a dish, or maybe even rock, paper, scissors for it :banana: The main deciding factor for shooting down a plane at extremely far distances is luck however, and picking one off doesn't give you any "special powers" :rofl ... Just a rabbits foot up the wazzoo... :D
so youre saying that being on a game for 6 years aiming weaponry like that all the time wont give you any amount of skill devious? im sorry but MANY people in the game can kill at distances over 1k. stop flaming me because you cant aim a gun on a GV. you apparently know everything huh? how long have you played this because under devious i only have you listed for two tours.
-
so youre saying that being on a game for 6 years aiming weaponry like that all the time wont give you any amount of skill devious? im sorry but MANY people in the game can kill at distances over 1k. stop flaming me because you cant aim a gun on a GV. you apparently know everything huh? how long have you played this because under devious i only have you listed for two tours.
He isn't worth the attention or effort. He's a hypocrite.
-
I think a factor that is being overlooked is how the Tankers SA is so much better than what was historically possible. There's a huge difference between hitting a button and instantly moving from the commanders position to the gun sight, versus calling out an incoming plane to a gunner. Also think about how quick rounds get reloaded, or changed from AP to HE, these are modeled as working to perfection and minimal time. So while all the mechanical components may be modeled correctly, we have the advantage of better SA and virtually instantaneous control.
With that being said, I'm not sure anything should be changed, but I wanted to point out an aspect I had not seen brought up in this discussion.
-
Stuka..... ok. Pony diving at 450... bah. With the best tracking technology and precise servo motors, our modern ADA systems are not 100 percent accurate. I firmly believe there is not stinking way a round 7.5cm wide, that is point detonating, key...point detonating, can hit a plane at speed. low flying slow stuka.... perhaps. The guess on where that 450mph plane is going to be when that 7.5 cm round, directly contacts it.... a bah to the high tank HP on AC.
:rofl ... what difference does the plane type or speed really have to do with ... luck is luck.
If some guy in a tank takes one real lucky shot with a lot of Kentucky windage at a passing P-51 going 450 mph and the path of the tank round directly intersects with the flight path of the P-51 ... that sucker is going down ... and could be considered one of the luckiest shots in history.
Could someone do it regularity ... I think not ... but it is in no way ... impossible ... just highly improbable.
-
HiTech still vulching planes in a tank after all these years? You should have him tell you about his vulching with the T-34 in AW.
ack-ack
I remember sitting at the spawn of runways so he could test fire the range of the T-34 to kill people on the Pacific map central atoll from B-lands main island.. "Over" "Under" "BOOM!" :rofl
-
Show me one instance of a tank shooting down an aircraft at speed with it's main gun during WWII while in flight. No I would not make HTC do anything I only posted a wish on the wish list forum.
Since gv icons don't show up until you are just about on them. There is not much chance of avoiding them when you don't even know they are about & then POW dead from a tank round fired from 2-4k away nailed you in one shot.
Didn't read all 8 pages so not sure if this was mentioned or not but simply here is my counter argument to it all.
If I recall, no CV was ever sunk from a level flying bomber, yet it happens all the time in AH. Does this mean we shouldn't be allowed to do it?
-
Didn't read all 8 pages so not sure if this was mentioned or not but simply here is my counter argument to it all.
If I recall, no CV was ever sunk from a level flying bomber, yet it happens all the time in AH. Does this mean we shouldn't be allowed to do it?
This is probably mostly due to noone took level bombers over a carrier because 1)hard to find, even if general area is know, but I'm guessing its primarily because of 2)CAP over the carriers... If people flew CAP over their carriers this wouldnt happen (in game, that is) which means you'd need something faster, more maneuverable to get in and get bombs/torpedos off.
-
The bismark was first bombed by (not sure which type) buffs but it kept turning to avoid the bombs. Buffs never scored a hit, they dropped from too high alt as buffs were trained to do in ww2. Then again in ww2 no single cv grouped parked next to a Japanese base and attacked it either.
Semp
-
This is probably mostly due to noone took level bombers over a carrier because 1)hard to find, even if general area is know, but I'm guessing its primarily because of 2)CAP over the carriers... If people flew CAP over their carriers this wouldnt happen (in game, that is) which means you'd need something faster, more maneuverable to get in and get bombs/torpedos off.
They did it several times at Midway, but the B17's failed to score hits.
The reason people hit the CVs in AH so easily is because most buff pilots have had 6 or more years to refine their skills.
-
This is probably mostly due to noone took level bombers over a carrier because 1)hard to find, even if general area is know, but I'm guessing its primarily because of 2)CAP over the carriers... If people flew CAP over their carriers this wouldnt happen (in game, that is) which means you'd need something faster, more maneuverable to get in and get bombs/torpedos off.
B-17s were used to bomb the Japanese at Midway. Zero hits.
ack-ack
-
There is a very simple solution to your problem. Bring along a couple of flak panzies for AA protection or better yet, ask some squadron mates to fly a CAP over the battlefield to intercept the bombers.
ack-ack
Ack-Ack, the problem is that AA isn't 100% effective (look at the murderous CV ack. I managed to get through it in a Golly-geen B5N after 6 tries or so.) and neither is a CAP with just a few people in it. The second problem is that the enraged tankers will just bring fighters instead of slow, wallowing bombers. I've even seen a guy use a temp for the sole purpose of bombing tanks; As soon as he dropped, he dove for the deck and ran like hell.
You laugh at me for what you deem oversimplifications and then come out with that crap?
-
They did it several times at Midway, but the B17's failed to score hits.
The reason people hit the CVs in AH so easily is because most buff pilots have had 6 or more years to refine their skills.
Exactly right if no one was to tell you how much to lead a moving target in AHII how many of us flat & level could hit a CV in game with just only the game instructions as a reference? Now throw in real life bomb sites of the day & no possible knowledge as to how exactly to do it, it really is no surprise it never happened in real life.
-
Ack-Ack, the problem is that AA isn't 100% effective (look at the murderous CV ack. I managed to get through it in a sweet potato B5N after 6 tries or so.)
Hate to burst your bubble squeaker but AA wasn't 100% effective in real life either. So your point is moot.
and neither is a CAP with just a few people in it.
Depends on the tactics used by the CAP. A CAP as little as one person can be effective, it really does depend on the skill level and tactics used by the ones flying the DEFCAP. I can understand when you fly CAP that it isn't effective but that's because of your skill level.
The second problem is that the enraged tankers will just bring fighters instead of slow, wallowing bombers. I've even seen a guy use a temp for the sole purpose of bombing tanks; As soon as he dropped, he dove for the deck and ran like hell.
What does this have to do with using mobile AA assets to protect the attacking tanks? Nothing.
You laugh at me for what you deem oversimplifications and then come out with that crap?
You and the other tools are crying about having your tanks attacked by aircraft, if you want to stop it, bring along AA assets. It really is that simple. Hell, I would have thought that it was so simple that even someone with a simplistic mind such as yours would be able to grasp its simplicity. I guess I was wrong.
Have you ever thought why attacking armored forces include mobile AA assets that move along with the attacking force and often have a DEFCAP flying over head? Why do you think it should be any different in Aces High?
ack-ack
-
Exactly right if no one was to tell you how much to lead a moving target in AHII how many of us flat & level could hit a CV in game with just only the game instructions as a reference? Now throw in real life bomb sites of the day & no possible knowledge as to how exactly to do it, it really is no surprise it never happened in real life.
I think the concession was made in the sake for game play with how easy it is to sink a CV or any other ship in AH level bombing at any altitude compared to how it was in real life.
ack-ack
-
They did it several times at Midway, but the B17's failed to score hits.
The reason people hit the CVs in AH so easily is because most buff pilots have had 6 or more years to refine their skills.
For further evidence on how difficult it was to hit a ship with a level bomber, look at the successes. In all the cases, more ordnance was wasted than what hit the ships and if the bomber did score a hit, it was usually a single bomb. In the attacks that were successful, I don't think any of the bombs that hit caused extensive damages to the ships other than causing casualties.
When HMS Repulse was attacked by 25 Nell bombers dropping 1,100 and 550 pound bombs, only one hit Repulse in the hanger deck area but did little damage. When HMS Prince of Wales was attacked by another large force of bombers, the bombs straddled Prince of Wales with only one hitting and not being able to penetrate the armored deck but caused a lot of casualties amongst the wounded that were laid on out on the deck. Nell and Betty torpedo bombers were the ones that did the most damage to both ships that resulted in their demise.
Here is a photo of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse under bomb attack by Nell bombers.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/H60566.jpg/220px-H60566.jpg)
HMS Prince of Wales is the ship at the top of the picture and HMS Repulse is the ship at the bottom. You can see the bombs from one of the Nell bombers straddle the aft section of Repulse and the dark smoke is the impact of the only bomb of all those dropped that hit Repulse.
ack-ack
-
Hate to burst your bubble squeaker but AA wasn't 100% effective in real life either. So your point is moot.
My point is that AA doesn't stop bomb****s. If they aren't type that would get jumpy when a tiger starts shooting at their tank, its an annoyance at best. My point is hardly moot when you are saying that AA is good solution to pissed off tankers going out on a bombing run.
Depends on the tactics used by the CAP. A CAP as little as one person can be effective, it really does depend on the skill level and tactics used by the ones flying the DEFCAP.
I'm willing to bet that 1 good pilot in a 190D would be hard pressed to stop 4 or 5 bomb laiden P-38's flown by average pilots.
What does this have to do with using mobile AA assets to protect the attacking tanks? Nothing
Well first off, fighters make a much smaller and faster target than a lancaster, and they are capable of diving at steeper angles, wich AA gunners seem to have a hard time hitting. But I was using this as an argument against your 3 person CAP, since they put up more of a fight than a B-25 or an Il-2.
You and the other tools are crying about having your tanks attacked by aircraft, if you want to stop it, bring along AA assets. It really is that simple. Hell, I would have thought that it was so simple that even someone with a simplistic mind such as yours would be able to grasp its simplicity. I guess I was wrong.
Have you ever thought why attacking armored forces include mobile AA assets that move along with the attacking force and often have a DEFCAP flying over head? Why do you think it should be any different in Aces High?
You clearly don't spend much time in GV's do you. If you drove tanks much, you would know that wirbs, osities, and M16's are a deterent at best. Once the bomb****s make the calculation, and decide its worth the risk, no AA defense can stop 5 P-38's diving in at 350mph at a 90degree angle. A CAP may do better, but its still not guaranteed to stop them.
-
What is your solution then? Whine about being bombed by bombers because you're too friggin' lazy and inept to bring along assets to defend yourself and the other tankers?
You clearly don't spend much time in GV's do you. If you drove tanks much, you would know that wirbs, osities, and M16's are a deterent at best. Once the bombers make the calculation, and decide its worth the risk, no AA defense can stop 5 P-38's diving in at 350mph at a 90degree angle. A CAP may do better, but its still not guaranteed to stop them.
I have more time in GVs in the years I've been playing this game then you'll ever have.
ack-ack
-
Nevertheless he is correct in that a determined opponent willing to sacrifice himself in order to lay bombs on a fixed immoveable object will nearly always succeed. It requires a great amount of experience to setup a proper intercept and not much effort at all to defeat the intercept and hit the target anyway. Its not much different for a moveable and evasive carrier. Hit or miss as they say. :devil
-
so youre saying that being on a game for 6 years aiming weaponry like that all the time wont give you any amount of skill devious? im sorry but MANY people in the game can kill at distances over 1k. stop flaming me because you cant aim a gun on a GV. you apparently know everything huh? how long have you played this because under devious i only have you listed for two tours.
Bar, if you'd spend more time reading my previous posts instead of looking for a fight you'd see I agreed with you.... The second is that YES, it was a lucky shot! There is no formula to shooting down planes at far distances. Although you can get a tad more accurate over time the main deciding factor is luck
You obviously had enough time to look up my record.. huh?? :banana: And my old names or records are of no concern to you anyway... that's how you spend your free time?? Go for a walk, It's a beeeeautiful day outside.. :rofl Now move on to your next Bashing...... er I mean post.... :neener:
-
Bar, if you'd spend more time reading my previous posts instead of looking for a fight you'd see I agreed with you.... You obviously had enough time to look up my record.. huh?? :banana: And my old names or records are of no concern to you anyway... that's how you spend your free time?? Go for a walk, It's a beeeeautiful day outside.. :rofl Now move on to your next Bashing...... er I mean post.... :neener:
yeah. agreed..right. second i'm pretty sure that you've been bashing me every second you get the chance to in game and out of it. 3rd, if i miss my OWN squad's squad night because i was out with my friends partying i'm pretty sure you have nothing on me... 4th grow up
edit: 5th. stop flaming me. especially when you know you responded sarcastically to me so why wouldnt i be pissed at it?
-
Always funny when you blast a plane while its in flight. A couple times ive aimed up into the air and fired from several K out in boredom thinking no way it will hit, then following the round as the plane flys to it...BOOM! :huh :eek: :x
-
Always funny when you blast a plane while its in flight. A couple times ive aimed up into the air and fired from several K out in boredom thinking no way it will hit, then following the round as the plane flys to it...BOOM! :huh :eek: :x
Have to admit it is funny when ones self is doing the shooting in this circumstance.
-
And what do you propose to do about it? If the tank turrets traverse at the proper speeds, have guns that elevate at the proper speeds, have the proper rates of fire, proper muzzle velocities and the rounds lose energy at the proper rates, what then?
Yes, it is gamey, but it is gamey because it is a game and people master things that people in reality had no chance to master. Live with it.
We can't have planes in the game that didn't see action, we cant have skins in the game that weren't used. But we can have 262's that fly around like zekes and tanks that shoot planes. its stupid! A Flak panzer can fire a hundred rounds and not hit a thing, BUT yes a Tank can hit a plane with 1 round and it never happened at all. so much for historical accuracy.
What should they do about it? Fix It! Simple! Hell why not make the 8" guns on the ship hit planes in one shot as well?
-
Hell why not make the 8" guns on the ship hit planes in one shot as well?
Pretty sure Ive done that. :D
-
...and it never happened at all.
How do you know it never happened? You mean you have never found any documentation or recorded instances that it happened, but the possibility is there reguardless of if you think it did not happen.
Yes, I agree the odds of it actually happening in real life are slim, but being the possibility is there, it could have happened. I have killed many B25s and IL2 coming at my tank, head on at less than 25% off the horizon flying perfectly straight and level... 600 Bingo! your dead. Probably never happened in real life because in real life the pilots were smart enough not to fly that way at a tank. Wouldn't expect a plane to be taken down by riflemen ground fire, but it happens, ask the Red Baron.
I think the reason it occurs so much in the game is simply due to the fact that more pilots fly low and slow straight at tanks to try to turrent or destroy them, therefore the occurance increases. Whether it is a .303 or an 8 inch, if the path of the projectile meets intersects the path of an aircraft, the damage will occur.
My $0.02 worth. :salute
-
im gonna add one tip i learned from I think it was txmom on an aiming method to pop low-angle fools with your main gun..
assuming you have different button for primary/secondary, spray with the coax mg (secondary).. once you start getting pings with the mg, fire main gun :neener: the two diff rounds are close enough in velocity to use the mg's as a marker.
works great in t34's. I got 9 the other day in 1 sortie in t34/76. tracked, sittin on a hill they kept tryin with b25's and il2's (and spitfires :huh ).. yea half were proxies as they augered into the hill, but had a good 4 or 5 maingun hits. then one got smart and upped a tiger or something and ended it.. finally!
-
Wouldn't expect a plane to be taken down by riflemen ground fire, but it happens, ask the Red Baron.
If you subscribe to this point on the Baron no rifle was involved.
http://www.library.act.gov.au/find/history/frequentlyaskedquestions/act_memorial_stories/Red_Baron
-
I think it might be time to look at tanks ability's at shooting down airborne aircraft at several K away with one shot. The same players that I have run in to of late can't seem to hit you with a flack at 800 out. How ever put them in at a tank & a round hits you from as much as 3k with 1 shot.
I have done this as well it just seems a little off when Shermans become flack units IMHO.
Several thousand feet out? The distance of hitting someone is already tied into simple probability. The further you shoot it, the less likely you are to hit them. I don't see why anyone thinks it's impossible to hit a plane with a tank round. If you are shooting a projectile into three dimensional space and an airplane is flying through that same space, why can they not meet at the same time? This sounds like a whine because lyric got unlucky and got blasted out of the sky by an incredible shot.
-
Always disparaging on people arent you grizz? Lyric thinks its funny when it happens... just not in keeping with reality. If it ever happened in WWII the gunner in question would have been heralded a hero and given a parade... which bears out his position on it.
The argument is not taking into consideration the differences in actual tanks versus AH. In AH the same guy that drives the tank also guns for it and sits in the cupola. Thats a big advantage when it comes to shooting tank rounds at airplanes. In the real tanks for instance the commanders instructions as to where to aim would need to be a lot more clear then 'to the right of the red barn' which the gunner might not have ever seen but the commander knows precisely where it is. The sights werent that good either but we have crystal clear perfect sights that have no trouble focusing at any range.
Very different worlds.
-
Always disparaging on people arent you grizz? Lyric thinks its funny when it happens... just not in keeping with reality. If it ever happened in WWII the gunner in question would have been heralded a hero and given a parade... which bears out his position on it.
The argument is not taking into consideration the differences in actual tanks versus AH. In AH the same guy that drives the tank also guns for it and sits in the cupola. Thats a big advantage when it comes to shooting tank rounds at airplanes. In the real tanks for instance the commanders instructions as to where to aim would need to be a lot more clear then 'to the right of the red barn' which the gunner might not have ever seen but the commander knows precisely where it is. The sights werent that good either but we have crystal clear perfect sights that have no trouble focusing at any range.
Very different worlds.
I guess I missed the memo stating that Aces High was a simulation of WW2. There are plenty of things in the game that never happened in WW2 that are perfectly physically possible. Jets on the deck, negative G evasives, risky close quarter maneuvering and shooting, oxygen-less 35k P51s and tempests, scorpion bites, etc. The list goes on, this is no different. Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
-
Pretty sure Ive done that. :D
one of my squadies, 49Grave, managed to hit a plane with the SB a few tours back. I was shocked he hit the plane 2k out.
-
Several thousand feet out? The distance of hitting someone is already tied into simple probability. The further you shoot it, the less likely you are to hit them. I don't see why anyone thinks it's impossible to hit a plane with a tank round. If you are shooting a projectile into three dimensional space and an airplane is flying through that same space, why can they not meet at the same time? This sounds like a whine because lyric got unlucky and got blasted out of the sky by an incredible shot.
Maybe as far as a whine is concerned. How ever I could make the same argument with the 30mm rounds on your K4 not killing aircraft you hit. It could happen & in fact did. Photo documentation exists of this happening. One mans whine is some one Else's concern I guess :old:
-
Maybe as far as a whine is concerned. How ever I could make the same argument with the 30mm rounds on your K4 not killing aircraft you hit. It could happen & in fact did. Photo documentation exists of this happening. One mans whine is some one Else's concern I guess :old:
Nice try on making a good point, except it's not the same thing at all. The main concern involving 30mm's was an attempt at understanding why some rounds failed to record any damage. If it was a programmed feature or in fact a bug. All that 'whining' got some damage related bugs fixed in the game. As far as this whine is concerned, someone fired a projectile at you and it hit you, simple as that.
-
Lyric, hop in a tank, and start taking shots at strafing aircraft. After you can do that without much thought, start taking pot shots at near by (1-1.5K out) low flying bombers and keep at it untill you land a hit.
-
... oxygen-less 35k P51s and tempests, scorpion bites, etc.
Last time I checked P-51s had plenty of oxygen and if you werent such a pill no one would put scorpions in your helmet.
Just saying. :D
-
Lyric, hop in a tank, and start taking shots at strafing aircraft. After you can do that without much thought, start taking pot shots at near by (1-1.5K out) low flying bombers and keep at it untill you land a hit.
I can & do now my issue is that it should not happen.
-
As far as this whine is concerned, someone fired a projectile at you and it hit you, simple as that.
True my main gripe is that when the same guys died after I bombed them they upped flacks & could not hit me within 800 yards.
Then they gave up & jumped back in tanks to use as a flack unit. Something is a little off when AA vehicles can not inspire enough confidence in it's operator to shoot down aircraft.
keeping in mind that it is a weapon designed for that purpose & yet they give up on it & jumped back in to a tank because they are more likely to hit said plane.
-
I can & do now my issue is that it should not happen.
But you have not given any physical reason as to why it should not happen and that is due to the fact that if a projectile is fired at a moving target and the path of the projectile intersects with the moving target ... the moving target will get hit by the projectile ... doesn't matter if your shooting tank rounds at a plane or shooting arrows at ducks ... somewhere along the line, someone is gonna get lucky coupled with some good aiming sense and their gonna hit the target. Just because you say "it should not happen" doesn't dismiss the fact that it can happen.
True my main gripe is that when the same guys died after I bombed them they upped flacks & could not hit me within 800 yards.
Then they gave up & jumped back in tanks to use as a flack unit. Something is a little off when AA vehicles can not inspire enough confidence in it's operator to shoot down aircraft.
keeping in mind that it is a weapon designed for that purpose & yet they give up on it & jumped back in to a tank because they are more likely to hit said plane.
Total bollocks ... your embellishing to make your point.
Karaya or Zazen will light you up with unbelievable consistency in flak guns or ostwinds, but I doubt strongly that they could be as prolific in a tank. They just might get you in a tank, but your chances of survival is much better with them in a tank as opposed to flak/ostwinds.
-
But you have not given any physical reason as to why it should not happen and that is due to the fact that if a projectile is fired at a moving target and the path of the projectile intersects with the moving target ... the moving target will get hit by the projectile ... doesn't matter if your shooting tank rounds at a plane or shooting arrows at ducks ... somewhere along the line, someone is gonna get lucky coupled with some good aiming sense and their gonna hit the target. Just because you say "it should not happen" doesn't dismiss the fact that it can happen.
Total bollocks ... your embellishing to make your point.
Karaya or Zazen will light you up with unbelievable consistency in flak guns or ostwinds, but I doubt strongly that they could be as prolific in a tank. They just might get you in a tank, but your chances of survival is much better with them in a tank as opposed to flak/ostwinds.
1st issue if you read the entire thread I made the point I am not sure how or why or for that matter how to address it. On the second point no I didn't embellish any thing I have listed & the two players you listed where not involved so it has no relevance.
-
I can & do now my issue is that it should not happen.
Why shouldn't it happen? Tell my why it is PHYSICLY impossibly for a tank (or self propelled artillery piece) to fire a round, and have it intercept the course of a plane flown by someone with really toejamty luck. I don't care if it didn't happen in WW2, because zeros never fought zeros in WW2. P-51's never fought spitfires in WW2. Clearly it is possible because you can hit a plane with the pintle gun.
A tank's shell is nothing but a giant bullet. The gun traverses slower and can't be elevated as much, but it still functions the exact same way.
-
1st issue if you read the entire thread I made the point I am not sure how or why or for that matter how to address it. On the second point no I didn't embellish any thing I have listed & the two players you listed where not involved so it has no relevance.
I have read the entire thread since it was started and all you have to say is ... "it shouldn't happen" ... and many have explained why it could happen, so there is really nothing to address. There is nothing wrong ... except you being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yes, Karaya and Zazen were not involved, but those 2 are 2 of the most prolific gunners ... so your story of a guy who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with an Ostwind can magically jump into a tank and be more deadly with it's main gun ... bollocks. If anyone could jump from an AA platform and be prolific in a tank's main gun it would be Karaya/Zazen and even then, they would most likely miss 99% of the time so your "nemesis" that took you down is more than likely a whole lot lucky more than he is deadly in a tank gun ... hence "bollocks" on your story.
-
If you subscribe to this point on the Baron no rifle was involved.
http://www.library.act.gov.au/find/history/frequentlyaskedquestions/act_memorial_stories/Red_Baron
I always thought that too, but the Military channel just had a show on last week where they proved that it would be possible for the single shot to take and kill him. All depends on who you believe, right?
-
assuming you have different button for primary/secondary, spray with the coax mg (secondary).. once you start getting pings with the mg, fire main gun :neener: the two diff rounds are close enough in velocity to use the mg's as a marker.
That is the method I use, especially with tanks without a pintle gun (T-34s). Most people don't ever use the coaxial, I use it all the time for the above described, taking down bldgs (ack), and to find range or clear lines of fire at another tank. If you get hit by small arms, then WHAM! DrDeath8 killed you, you know where those small arms are from. :salute
-
Why shouldn't it happen? Tell my why it is PHYSICLY impossibly for a tank (or self propelled artillery piece) to fire a round, and have it intercept the course of a plane flown by someone with really toejamty luck. I don't care if it didn't happen in WW2, because zeros never fought zeros in WW2. P-51's never fought spitfires in WW2. Clearly it is possible because you can hit a plane with the pintle gun.
A tank's shell is nothing but a giant bullet. The gun traverses slower and can't be elevated as much, but it still functions the exact same way.
Only missing part on this issue to me is an actual gun site of the day. If that was there on our gv's & it could be done then fair enough.
Since we don't & HTC needs to have some thing practical for every one. Then we have what we have. I only asked for it to be looked at if they deem this is what we are going to get so be it.
Maybe some one from staff can end this debate with a reply of some kind.
-
Yes, Karaya and Zazen were not involved, but those 2 are 2 of the most prolific gunners ... so your story of a guy who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with an Ostwind can magically jump into a tank and be more deadly with it's main gun ... bollocks. If anyone could jump from an AA platform and be prolific in a tank's main gun it would be Karaya/Zazen and even then, they would most likely miss 99% of the time so your "nemesis" that took you down is more than likely a whole lot lucky more than he is deadly in a tank gun ... hence "bollocks" on your story.
Well you use the term Bollocks from my perspective you say I am not being truthful. I am being truthful & nothing will convince you other wise. So I am done with you on this thread. :salute
-
Only missing part on this issue to me is an actual gun site of the day. If that was there on our gv's & it could be done then fair enough.
Since we don't & HTC needs to have some thing practical for every one. Then we have what we have. I only asked for it to be looked at if they deem this is what we are going to get so be it.
Maybe some one from staff can end this debate with a reply of some kind.
How about for the sake of fun, tankers can lob up 1:1000 shots at 2k-3k planes in the sky and waste their ammo for a small chance. If they hit one once a year, consider it like a hole in one and have yourself a laugh over it. It is actually pretty unbelievable/incredible to have happen to you if you stop your blithering excuse making for a minute to think about it.
-
I agree that there are several points that most probably make this particular feat easier...but there aren't too much that can be done about it. One would of course be a look into the optics. I don't know if the magnifying abilities of the optics in different tanks are accurate or not. It is very cool if this is true. Another thing that would be cool to see would be real life sighting imaginary/symbols on all tanks. Unless I'm mistaken the current generic tank's gun sight resembles the one used in the Sherman series of tanks. Personally I don't see this as a problem at all. At least in my experience it's still quite rare occurrence one way or another.
Anyway, this thread made me think about a photo I first saw about 10 years ago or so and seems to be found online aswell...
(http://www.dhc4and5.org/Caribou_Ha_Thahn.jpg)
"This haunting photograph, which graced every Caribou briefing room, was a grim reminder that the Viet Cong and the NVA were not the only problem for pilots in Vietnam. This incident occurred in August of 1967 when the Caribou (tail number 62-4161 - c/n #99) flew into the line of fire of a 155mm howitzer. This was early in the transition of the Caribou from the Army to the Air Force and highlighted the need for far better coordination amongst the services. The aircraft was assigned to the USAF 483rdTAW/459thTAS.
This photo is from book of photographs by combat photographers called Requiem. The photo credit is as follows: HIROMICHI MINE Ha Phan (sic), Vietnam, 1967
A U.S. twin-engine transport Caribou crashes after being hit by American artillery near Duc Pho on August 3, 1967. U.S. artillery accidentally shot down the ammunition-laden plane, which crossed a firing zone while trying to land at the U.S. Special Forces camp. All three crewman died in the crash. Thanks to Peter Bird and the Caribou Association"
http://www.dhc4and5.org/USAF_1.html (http://www.dhc4and5.org/USAF_1.html)
You never know when it's your time...
-
How about for the sake of fun, tankers can lob up 1:1000 shots at 2k-3k planes in the sky and waste their ammo for a small chance. If they hit one once a year, consider it like a hole in one and have yourself a laugh over it. It is actually pretty unbelievable/incredible to have happen to you if you stop your blithering excuse making for a minute to think about it.
Sure butt it happened back to back with two different guys. Odds would be on par with winning mega millions & power ball all in the same week on the jackpot. :headscratch: Guess I should go out & buy some huh? :)
-
Sure butt it happened back to back with two different guys. Odds would be on par with winning mega millions & power ball all in the same week on the jackpot. :headscratch: Guess I should go out & buy some huh? :)
Idk... me thinks your story isn't as likely then as you claim to have been "several Ks out". Embellished^3 perhaps?
-
I agree that there are several points that most probably make this particular feat easier...but there aren't too much that can be done about it. One would of course be a look into the optics. I don't know if the magnifying abilities of the optics in different tanks are accurate or not. It is very cool if this is true. Another thing that would be cool to see would be real life sighting imaginary/symbols on all tanks. Unless I'm mistaken the current generic tank's gun sight resembles the one used in the Sherman series of tanks. Personally I don't see this as a problem at all. At least in my experience it's still quite rare occurrence one way or another.
Anyway, this thread made me think about a photo I first saw about 10 years ago or so and seems to be found online aswell...
(http://www.dhc4and5.org/Caribou_Ha_Thahn.jpg)
"This haunting photograph, which graced every Caribou briefing room, was a grim reminder that the Viet Cong and the NVA were not the only problem for pilots in Vietnam. This incident occurred in August of 1967 when the Caribou (tail number 62-4161 - c/n #99) flew into the line of fire of a 155mm howitzer. This was early in the transition of the Caribou from the Army to the Air Force and highlighted the need for far better coordination amongst the services. The aircraft was assigned to the USAF 483rdTAW/459thTAS.
This photo is from book of photographs by combat photographers called Requiem. The photo credit is as follows: HIROMICHI MINE Ha Phan (sic), Vietnam, 1967
A U.S. twin-engine transport Caribou crashes after being hit by American artillery near Duc Pho on August 3, 1967. U.S. artillery accidentally shot down the ammunition-laden plane, which crossed a firing zone while trying to land at the U.S. Special Forces camp. All three crewman died in the crash. Thanks to Peter Bird and the Caribou Association"
http://www.dhc4and5.org/USAF_1.html (http://www.dhc4and5.org/USAF_1.html)
You never know when it's your time...
Interesting stuff :aok Now that is what you would call a freak shot with no intent for it to happen it did.
-
Idk... me thinks your story isn't as likely then as you claim to have been "several Ks out". Embellished^3 perhaps?
No it is what happened in each case that was point of impact with the numbers I listed. The rounds would have been fired futher out than that until I was hit.
-
No it is what happened in each case that was point of impact with the numbers I listed. The rounds would have been fired futher out than that until I was hit.
What were you in?
-
What were you in?
Il2 I think. Possibly A20? Have to look at stats.
-
Show me one instance of a tank shooting down an aircraft at speed with it's main gun during WWII while in flight. No I would not make HTC do anything I only posted a wish on the wish list forum.
While he doesn't mention if any German aircraft were shot down, but in an interview Dimitriy Loza (tank battalion commander in the 6th Guards) mentions using the main gun on a Lend-Lease Sherman to shoot at German aircraft.
- The Sherman had an antiaircraft machine gun Browning M2.50 caliber. Did you use it often?
- I don't know why, but one shipment of tanks arrived with machine guns, and another without them. We used this machine gun against both aircraft and ground targets. We used it less frequently against air targets because the Germans were not fools. They bombed either from altitude or from a steep dive. The machine gun was good to 400–600 meters in the vertical. The Germans would drop their bombs from say, 800 meters or higher. He dropped his bomb and departed quickly. Try to shoot the bastard down! So yes, we used it, but it was not very effective. We even used our main gun against aircraft. We placed the tank on the upslope of a hill and fired. But our general impression of the machine gun was good. These machine guns were of great use to us in the war with Japan, against kamikazes. We fired them so much that they got red hot and began to cook off. To this day I have a piece of shrapnel in my head from an antiaircraft machine gun.
Source (http://www.battlefield.ru/en/memoirs/369-loza.html)
ack-ack
-
Lyric you have been shot down twice in the A20 once by a Panzer once by a LVT2 (no main gun) and three times in an IL2 by (one each) M4A3(75) M4A3(76)W and Tiger 1.
-
The M4's could be nose on strafing runs. I would venture a guess that the Panzer was one of the long shots, along with the tiger. The LVT is just unexplainable unless it was a proxy or if the gunner got lucky and killed his pilot.
-
But you have not given any physical reason as to why it should not happen and that is due to the fact that if a projectile is fired at a moving target and the path of the projectile intersects with the moving target ... the moving target will get hit by the projectile ... doesn't matter if your shooting tank rounds at a plane or shooting arrows at ducks ... somewhere along the line, someone is gonna get lucky coupled with some good aiming sense and their gonna hit the target. Just because you say "it should not happen" doesn't dismiss the fact that it can happen.
Total bollocks ... your embellishing to make your point.
Karaya or Zazen will light you up with unbelievable consistency in flak guns or ostwinds, but I doubt strongly that they could be as prolific in a tank. They just might get you in a tank, but your chances of survival is much better with them in a tank as opposed to flak/ostwinds.
When we want a plane we have to prove it out as to why it should be. You want to shoot planes with a tank's main gun prove it happened. Show us five times it happened in real life.
-
When we want a plane we have to prove it out as to why it should be. You want to shoot planes with a tank's main gun prove it happened. Show us five times it happened in real life.
Well, I just posted an interview with a former Soviet battalion commander in the 6th Guards that said they'd use their main guns on their Shermans to fire at airplanes but much preferred using the .50 caliber for that job. Pretty much validates that tanks did use their main guns to fire on low flying planes, regardless if they actually hit anything is inconsequential.
ack-ack
-
When we want a plane we have to prove it out as to why it should be. You want to shoot planes with a tank's main gun prove it happened. Show us five times it happened in real life.
:huh
Wow. Talk about comparing grapes to 500lbs pumpkins.
-
The M4's could be nose on strafing runs. I would venture a guess that the Panzer was one of the long shots, along with the tiger. The LVT is just unexplainable unless it was a proxy or if the gunner got lucky and killed his pilot.
lvt gotta 50.. it can do the job.
-
Well, I just posted an interview with a former Soviet battalion commander in the 6th Guards that said they'd use their main guns on their Shermans to fire at airplanes but much preferred using the .50 caliber for that job. Pretty much validates that tanks did use their main guns to fire on low flying planes, regardless if they actually hit anything is inconsequential.
ack-ack
Fired at and hitting are two different things.... Prove it!
-
:huh
Wow. Talk about comparing grapes to 500lbs pumpkins.
I dont think so... you have to jump through hoops just to get a skin in the game. Show us where a tank ever shot a plane with its main gun?
You cant. It didnt happen.
-
Fired at and hitting are two different things.... Prove it!
Don't need to prove they hit anything. The whole basis of this thread was basically whether or not tanks fired at planes with their main gun in real life. Guess what? Tanks actually did fire their main guns at planes. So, players in game firing at attacking planes in their tanks is not unrealistic or "gamey" in any sense of the word.
I also highly doubt that Lyric1 was shot at 2,000+ yards by a tank's main gun and since he has nothing to prove that he was, it will always remain highly doubtful he was shot down at that range.
ack-ack
-
Don't need to prove they hit anything. The whole basis of this thread was basically whether or not tanks fired at planes with their main gun in real life. Guess what? Tanks actually did fire their main guns at planes. So, players in game firing at attacking planes in their tanks is not unrealistic or "gamey" in any sense of the word.
I also highly doubt that Lyric1 was shot at 2,000+ yards by a tank's main gun and since he has nothing to prove that he was, it will always remain highly doubtful he was shot down at that range.
ack-ack
Do you doubt Skuzzy then & his post?
-
Don't need to prove they hit anything. The whole basis of this thread was basically whether or not tanks fired at planes with their main gun in real life. Guess what? Tanks actually did fire their main guns at planes. So, players in game firing at attacking planes in their tanks is not unrealistic or "gamey" in any sense of the word.
I also highly doubt that Lyric1 was shot at 2,000+ yards by a tank's main gun and since he has nothing to prove that he was, it will always remain highly doubtful he was shot down at that range.
ack-ack
No it wasnt ...the basis of this thread is weather or not tanks hit planes with there main gun. You can talk as many circles as you want ...It didnt happen. <---period....and its totaly gamey
-
Do you doubt Skuzzy then & his post?
I don't doubt that HiTech did it at all. If you had seen my reply to Skuzzy, I asked him to ask HiTech about his stories of vulching planes with a T-34 in AW. I'm sure that HiTech had it all ranged out before hand when he shot down Pyro like he used have it all ranged out in AW.
ack-ack
-
No it wasnt ...the basis of this thread is weather or not tanks hit planes with there main gun. You can talk as many circles as you want ...It didnt happen. <---period....and its totaly gamey
Oh dear gawd I think my IQ just went into negative numbers. Make it stop make it stop!
Megalodon can you please name one pilot that was killed in action that came back to life seconds later in a new airplane?
If you cannot prove this then I feel that HTC should close accounts after you die in game.
-
No it wasnt ...the basis of this thread is weather or not tanks hit planes with there main gun. You can talk as many circles as you want ...It didnt happen. <---period....and its totaly gamey
How do you know it didn't happen? If tanks did use their main guns to defend against air attack, it is very possible that one of those tanks did get lucky and score a hit. While Hans Rudel didn't think very highly of the Sherman tank, he hated to attack them over T-34s because the Sherman crews would not only fire their .50 calibers at the low flying Stukas but also their main gun as well.
What does this mean? It means that you're absolutely incorrect that a plane being shot down by a tank's main gun is gamey in any sense of the word. Those of you that claim it is do so because of the embarrassment of being shot down by a tank's main gun and if you claim it's "gamey" and "unrealistic", it makes the embarrassment a little less painful.
It would be "gamey" if tanks never fired their main guns at planes in real life.
ack-ack
-
How do you know it didn't happen? If tanks did use their main guns to defend against air attack, it is very possible that one of those tanks did get lucky and score a hit. While Hans Rudel didn't think very highly of the Sherman tank, he hated to attack them over T-34s because the Sherman crews would not only fire their .50 calibers at the low flying Stukas but also their main gun as well.
What does this mean? It means that you're absolutely incorrect that a plane being shot down by a tank's main gun is gamey in any sense of the word. Those of you that claim it is do so because of the embarrassment of being shot down by a tank's main gun and if you claim it's "gamey" and "unrealistic", it makes the embarrassment a little less painful.
It would be "gamey" if tanks never fired their main guns at planes in real life.
ack-ack
Just prove it happened and ill shut up...
-
Just prove it happened and ill shut up
I don't have to prove a tank shot down a plane with its main gun. I only had to prove that tanks did indeed use their main guns to defend against air attacks. Having proved that, by de facto proved that a tank can indeed shoot down a low flying plane. The burden of proof that this did not happen is now on you. Good luck.
ack-ack
-
I don't have to prove a tank shot down a plane with its main gun. I only had to prove that tanks did indeed use their main guns to defend against air attacks. Having proved that, by de facto proved that a tank can indeed shoot down a low flying plane. The burden of proof that this did not happen is now on you. Good luck.
ack-ack
Why not? if I want a skin in the game I have to prove every bit of it....They might have shot at it but they didnt hit anything thats why they used the 50's.
Anything else?
What your saying is lets be totaly historical about this part .....buttt lets let this part slide for the gamey factor cause it might be possible.
Well it might be possible the some secreat missions were flown with a Bearcat but no 1 knows about it. ... but it could of happened.
get real
-
Why not? if I want a skin in the game I have to prove every bit of it....
Apples and oranges...
They might have shot at it but they didnt hit anything thats why they used the 50's.
Anything else?
You have failed to prove that it never happened, while I proved that it was totally within the realm of possibility. Again, the burden to prove that it didn't happen is on you. I hope in the next reply you can do a little better than "it just didn't happen" and include some proof that backs up your claim.
ack-ack
-
Apples and oranges...
You have failed to prove that it never happened, while I proved that it was totally within the realm of possibility. Again, the burden to prove that it didn't happen is on you. I hope in the next reply you can do a little better than "it just didn't happen" and include some proof that backs up your claim.
ack-ack
Your the 1 who has failed. You cant prove on this historicaly accurate game that a tank ever shot a plane with its main gun, but it happens all the time in the game. Balls not in my court to prove anything..... but I have searched pretty hard for a Tank ever shooting a plane down in this fashion. Like I said prove a tank ever shot a plane down with its main gun.... The closest you gonna get is Michael Wittman but that has not proven to be correct.
So ... show me proof it happened or keep spinnin
-
Your the 1 who has failed. You cant prove on this historicaly accurate game that a tank ever shot a plane with its main gun, but it happens all the time in the game. Balls not in my court to prove anything..... but I have searched pretty hard for a Tank ever shooting a plane down in this fashion. Ilike I said prove a tank ever shot a plane down with its main gun.... The closest you gonna get is Michael Wittman but that has not proven to be correct.
So ... show me proof it happened or keep spinnin
I can't prove that jets flew around on the deck at 550 miles an hour sneaking up on unsuspecting prey but I do it all the time in a game. If something is physically possible it is irrelevant if it happened in real life. You lose.
-
I can't prove that jets flew around on the deck at 550 miles an hour sneaking up on unsuspecting prey but I do it all the time in a game. If something is physically possible it is irrelevant if it happened in real life. You lose.
far as i concerned you should not be able to do that either or the 163 that fly like zekes so your into gaming the game
edit: if jets did fly around on the ground the way you do ...We would have shirley heard about it from one of the pilots of the many luftwaffe pilots that flew them... dont ya think?
I would say it is much simpler to prove that the jets werent flown that way than did;)
Weak,
-
Your the 1 who has failed. You cant prove on this historicaly accurate game that a tank ever shot a plane with its main gun, but it happens all the time in the game. Balls not in my court to prove anything..... but I have searched pretty hard for a Tank ever shooting a plane down in this fashion. Like I said prove a tank ever shot a plane down with its main gun.... The closest you gonna get is Michael Wittman but that has not proven to be correct.
So ... show me proof it happened or keep spinnin
Again, lack of proof to back up your "claims" while I have shown it was entirely possible that it could be done. As they would say on Mythbusters...
(http://arton.no/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/mythbusters_plausible_spray.png)
While your claim, without any evidence to support it would be...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FsAvWjAq4eU/Sifo9NODJzI/AAAAAAAAAAU/u_pPN2DAAtI/s320/mythbusters_busted..png)
ack-ack
-
Again, lack of proof to back up your "claims" while I have shown it was entirely possible that it could be done. As they would say on Mythbusters...
(http://arton.no/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/mythbusters_plausible_spray.png)
While your claim, without any evidence to support it would be...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FsAvWjAq4eU/Sifo9NODJzI/AAAAAAAAAAU/u_pPN2DAAtI/s320/mythbusters_busted..png)
ack-ack
Go round in circles (http://www.sitao.org/cms/images/stories/retro-circles.jpg) just like a plane up in the sky.
-
far as i concerned you should not be able to do that either or the 163 that fly like zekes so your into gaming the game
edit: if jets did fly around on the ground the way you do ...We would have shirley heard about it from one of the pilots of the many luftwaffe pilots that flew them... dont ya think?
I would say it is much simpler to prove that the jets werent flown that way than did;)
Weak,
You really have a hard time grasping simple concepts. Good luck in life.
-
Megalodon, your saying we have to prove why a 75mm shell would shoot down an aircraft that intercepted the shells flight path. For all we know, some of the pilots listed as MIA were shot down because they intercepted an artillery shell's flight path. I don't know this happened and I'm not saying it did, but you must acknowledge that its a possibility.
We can't prove aircraft were shot down by tanks in WWII, and just as much to the point, YOU can't prove they weren't. It isn't gamey because it is physical possible, and may have happened for all the evidence you have shown.
Here is what you must do for this whine to have any legitimacy:
Find definitive proof that it didn't happen in WWII
Find definitive proof that it COULDN'T happen
Tell why/how it negatively affects gameplay and tell us what you propose be done about it
And the 163 can't come close to turning with a zeek. I bet that you turned left 130degrees with the 163 2k out and then stopped, thinking you were safe, while the 163 turned left a bit and made an oblique pass instead of one from dead 6. You, figuring there was no way he could have made that shot, now say that a 163 is as manuverable as a zero.
-
You really have a hard time grasping simple concepts. Good luck in life.
The simple concept that most of the game is historical except the part you game out?
-
Megalodon, your saying we have to prove why a 75mm shell would shoot down an aircraft that intercepted the shells flight path. For all we know, some of the pilots listed as MIA were shot down because they intercepted an artillery shell's flight path. I don't know this happened and I'm not saying it did, but you must acknowledge that its a possibility.
We can't prove aircraft were shot down by tanks in WWII, and just as much to the point, YOU can't prove they weren't. It isn't gamey because it is physical possible, and may have happened for all the evidence you have shown.
Here is what you must do for this whine to have any legitimacy:
Find definitive proof that it didn't happen in WWII
Find definitive proof that it COULDN'T happen
Tell why/how it negatively affects gameplay and tell us what you propose be done about it
And the 163 can't come close to turning with a zeek. I bet that you turned left 130degrees with the 163 2k out and then stopped, thinking you were safe, while the 163 turned left a bit and made an oblique pass instead of one from dead 6. You, figuring there was no way he could have made that shot, now say that a 163 is as manuverable as a zero.
all im saying is if it happened show me...other wise it shouldnt happen just like anything else related to the game. if it did great makin happen for every tank every shot it takes at a plane..... with all the history on/of ww2 we would have heard about it by now ...dont ya think? if planes did get hit by the flight path of the shell....did the tank aim at the plane and confirm a kill ....NO!
simple,
-
The simple concept that most of the game is historical except the part you game out?
So you don't want tank guns to be able to down planes.
Simple question: What exactly should be changed? HOW should HTC prevent that?
-
The simple concept that most of the game is historical except the part you game out?
Historical eh? Which part of Europe are we fighting in in the MA and for which countries? I'm fairly certain there weren't chess piece countries in world war 2 fighting on maps that Fester made. Oh and I'm also pretty sure that countries couldn't fly all of their enemy's aircraft...
Your level of fail is increasing exponentially with every subsequent post you do realize...
-
So you don't want tank guns to be able to down planes.
Simple question: What exactly should be changed? HOW should HTC prevent that?
I dont think tanks should be able to bring down planes and/or Buffs no less with there main gun.
change the coad from tank hitting plane in air to tank not hitting plane in air? Or tank no hitting air objects. some thing to that effect.
With every thing HT knows how to do ..I'm sure it would not be hard.
-
Historical eh? Which part of Europe are we fighting in in the MA and for which countries? I'm fairly certain there weren't chess piece countries in world war 2 fighting on maps that Fester made. Oh and I'm also pretty sure that countries couldn't fly all of their enemy's aircraft...
Your level of fail is increasing exponentially with every subsequent post you do realize...
actually your the 1 failing show me where a 262 ever flew the way you do ever.
-
I dont think tanks should be able to bring down planes and/or Buffs no less with there main gun.
change the coad from tank hitting plane in air to tank not hitting plane in air? Or tank no hitting air objects. some thing to that effect.
With every thing HT knows how to do ..I'm sure it would not be hard.
So you you would bend physics to get the desired result? So that any plane can simply fly down a gun barrel, because there is no danger involved, as "tank rounds do not hurt planes" ?
Would this make the game more relaistic... or less? ;)
-
So you you would bend physics to get the desired result? So that any plane can simply fly down a gun barrel, because there is no danger involved, as "tank rounds do not hurt planes" ?
Would this make the game more relaistic... or less? ;)
Basicly you have no proof either right? :lol ;)
-
Historical eh? Which part of Europe are we fighting in in the MA and for which countries? I'm fairly certain there weren't chess piece countries in world war 2 fighting on maps that Fester made. Oh and I'm also pretty sure that countries couldn't fly all of their enemy's aircraft...
Your level of fail is increasing exponentially with every subsequent post you do realize...
Funny you should mention Fester :)
-
actually your the 1 failing show me where a 262 ever flew the way you do ever.
You can say that about almost all action in the MA's
Different combat environments breed different tactics. We can try again and again, we have unlimited lives, we have unlimited resources.
I'm killing tanks in my Hurri IID in a way completely different from "real" WW2 tactics... because I had the opportunity to practice it again and again, hundreds of times, because I did not really die. I can "afford" to continue attacking tanks that way, because dying every 6th sortie is not deterring me.
Same applies to tank/plane interaction. IN "real" ww2, planes rarely did get THAT close & low to GVs like we do. Why do you think in WW2 the Ostwind was to replace the Wirbelwind whereas the WW is much more effective in AH? Because in AH the planes get MUCH closer to the GV's, and are much more careless dancing around heavy flack vehicles. Hence the increased range of the OW is less of an asset than the higher rof of the WW in Aces High.
-
Basicly you have no proof either right? :lol ;)
What proof? You need now proof that a several pound cannon round would hurt a plane if hitting it?
-
Your being an idiot megalodon. We don't need to prove that it happened in WWII because a shell would detonate if hit an aircraft. This isn't a matter of historical usage or service because it could have happend from pure dumb luck.
Here is some stuff you need to accept:
For this to have a snowball's chance in hell of happening, you need to prove why it shouldn't happen, because it is physicly possible
no change is likely to happen, regardless of how you try to look at this argument.
-
I'm pretty sure HT got rid of the Lancasterstuka's didn't he? Why...cause it didn't happen and was bad for game play. same applies here
i think he should coad out the extrem maneuverability of the 262 till its 20k
-
I'm pretty sure HT got rid of the Lancasterstuka's didn't he? Why...cause it didn't happen and was bad for game play. same applies here
What's ur game name?
-
It's CryinFin.
-
Your being an idiot megalodon. We don't need to prove that it happened in WWII because a shell would detonate if hit an aircraft. This isn't a matter of historical usage or service because it could have happend from pure dumb luck.
Here is some stuff you need to accept:
For this to have a snowball's chance in hell of happening, you need to prove why it shouldn't happen, because it is physicly possible
no change is likely to happen, regardless of how you try to look at this argument.
dont call me names sir ... Im not the only one who sees it this way chum and its GAMEY at its best.
-
It's CryinFin.
My head just exploded. That explains it all.
-
It's CryinFin.
are the rest of the ankle bitters otw?
Poof,
-
Funny you should mention Fester :)
Lol, Fester posted this the other day in the general discussion and I replied in that thread. Oh noes conspiracy right?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,293453.0.html
-
Question, if we now need proof that a 75mm and up shell fired from a tank shot down aircraft or it has to go....can I say I want proof of where we took large masses of land with 10 troops. Oh, it took us thousands to gain a little land? Then it should take thousands of troops to take a base, and if we're taking a base on a new island it should take even more (utmost respect for the troops, referring to Normandy). I have proof we needed thousands of troops (among other things) to take some land, so where's my base capture requiring thousands of people? :P
As said, we have:
>Correct guns
>Correct flight models
>Correct Turret elevations/rotation speeds
>Correct gun modeling (muzzle velocity, drop, range, etc.)
>Correct bullet penetration
>Correct armor values
So if a 75mm+ round were to be fired with the correct lead how would it not penetrate the thin armor of a plane and shoot it down? Would it take luck? Yes. Would it take patience? Yes. Would it take a few tries? Yes Would it kill the pilot/plane if fired with the right lead and hit said plane? Yes.
We will always have things that did not happen in real life because we get more tries. I sure don't remember hearing of my grandfather getting shot down and appearing in a tower, hell took him getting shot down twice in a few hours to get home! Should we have to walk back to our tower or wait for rescue...wait you didn't bail? Best cancel that account.
Not trying to be mean, but clearly you're over-reacting, it may not have happened, it may have happened...who knows, the point is it "could" happen with all the correct data that we have for a fact put into effect.
-
Megalodon, tell me why I need to prove that you would die if I put a cannon shell in your cocpit. Its a matter of the effects of ordanance rather than historical usage or service.
I think that you need to prove this didn't happen because you are asking for something to be removed. If we were asking for tank shells to damage aircraft (say, if HTC never modeled that), we would be the ones that would have to provide the proof.
And I'm not calling you names. Had I said "you are an idiot" instead of "your being an idiot", then I would be calling you names. In this context, I'm saying that your actions or words are simmilar to that of an idiot.
-
I dont think tanks should be able to bring down planes and/or Buffs no less with there main gun.
change the coad from tank hitting plane in air to tank not hitting plane in air? Or tank no hitting air objects. some thing to that effect.
With every thing HT knows how to do ..I'm sure it would not be hard.
That would be gamey and nerfing something out of the game because you don't want tanks to shoot you down despite having no historical bases to make such a request. How long do we have to wait until you prove that there was not one single airplane shot down by a tank's main gun? We've already proven without out a doubt that it's not only physically possible for it to happen but also tanks did use their main guns to fire at attacking planes.
ack-ack
-
I think we should make Hurri IID's AP rounds having NO effect on a Tiger, unless some proves that one was ever killed by a Hurricane IID's guns. :noid
-
I'm pretty sure HT got rid of the Lancasterstuka's didn't he? Why...cause it didn't happen and was bad for game play. same applies here
i think he should coad out the extrem maneuverability of the 262 till its 20k
While the tactic of using the Lancaster as a dive bomber like a Ju88 or Stuka is gamey, it was capable of such diving maneuvers in real life. One just needs to read about the Corkscrew defensive maneuver to see how agile the Lancaster really was.
ack-ack
-
And I'm not calling you names. Had I said "you are an idiot" instead of "your being an idiot", then I would be calling you names. In this context, I'm saying that your actions or words are simmilar to that of an idiot.
Calling someone an idiot and referring that they are being an idiot or acting like one is the same as calling them an idiot. There is no need to get this thread locked.
ack-ack
-
Wow, what a silly discussion these last couple pages. :lol :D
The only "modelling problem" that I see in addition to the possible *too good* optics (I wouldn't know either way) is how you can instantly move between the gunner position and the cupola. As the gunner couldn't peak out to take a looksy and be instantly back in the gunner's seat means that he obviously had a lot less field of view to find the aircraft with his sight to acquire and "accurately" fire at the target. But considering that you have to do everything yourself, adding some kind of "delay" while moving between positions would cause a lot more problems than it would ever fix.
IMO it all works fine the way it is. Unless Hitech sees the need to change the optics in anyway. And even then, people would learn to use the new optics to fire at aircraft like they will learn how to fire at tanks.
-
Obviously you missed a few posts. NO we dont want any delays.
-
This thread makes me :lol.
-
Obviously you missed a few posts. NO we dont want any delays.
<sigh> :rolleyes:
-
Sorry if it was mentioned,( I didn't feel like reading everything on all 15 pages, but has anyone thought that most tanks main guns back then were Modified AA guns?, ie T-34/85, KV-85, Tiger. So in reality, main guns for tanks shot down planes all the time, they just were not in the tanks, in AH you don't have to worry about shooting at planes, because there isn't always an enemy ground force near by that will see it, in AH there is no ammo shortages, there is no vehicle shortages, so it could be done and real life, and AH gives you the chance to do it without consequences
-
I think we should make Hurri IID's AP rounds having NO effect on a Tiger, unless some proves that one was ever killed by a Hurricane IID's guns. :noid
"So to the British designs. Vickers-Armstrong together with Rolls-Royce designed a 40mm airborne gun, Vickers “S”. In 1941 it was installed under the wings of the Hurricane who became the Mk IID. On June 2. 1942, three Hurricanes swept past Bir Hacheim in North Africa and attacked a group of German tanks, leaving two in flames. The second attack was less successful, one Hurricane lost, but another tank destroyed. Later on, the British found that the gun could do little or no damage to the Tiger tank, and need a new weapon."
:noid
-
While the tactic of using the Lancaster as a dive bomber like a Ju88 or Stuka is gamey, it was capable of such diving maneuvers in real life. One just needs to read about the Corkscrew defensive maneuver to see how agile the Lancaster really was.
ack-ack
again ... was the Lanc ever used in this fashion? dive bomber? no.
-
That would be gamey and nerfing something out of the game because you don't want tanks to shoot you down despite having no historical bases to make such a request. How long do we have to wait until you prove that there was not one single airplane shot down by a tank's main gun? We've already proven without out a doubt that it's not only physically possible for it to happen but also tanks did use their main guns to fire at attacking planes.
ack-ack
So what... You havent proven the point of the thread. not 1 account not 1 miniscule thing. no proof none that a tank ever once shot a plane with its main gun in ww2.
You could go rob a liquor store tonight you have the capability it could happen. proof will be when you do it.
-
So what... You havent proven the point of the thread. not 1 account not 1 miniscule thing. no proof none that a tank ever once shot a plane with its main gun in ww2.
i think you already have your answer many pages ago. It didn't have to actually happen -- as others said, we do things that never happened every day.. AH is not a ww2 simulator, it's a combat simulator using ww2 equipment.
-
Did no one else see the obvious difference between what happened to lyric and what a real WWII tanker saw?
WWII tanker said the germans would approach from straight up, drop their bombs 800 yards up, and be gone, out of range impossible to hit.
All too often people in AH approach tanks in a shallow straight on attack. And if that tanker happens to be looking that way, and lines up it would indeed be in the realm of possibility's to shoot a main gun at a plane, hit and destroy it.
Don't want to be shot by tanks, keep your attack profiles in the vertical!
Don't ask for the game to change to make up for your lack of tactics.
-
So what... You havent proven the point of the thread. not 1 account not 1 miniscule thing. no proof none that a tank ever once shot a plane with its main gun in ww2.
You could go rob a liquor store tonight you have the capability it could happen. proof will be when you do it.
You would make a good scientist.
-
So what... You havent proven the point of the thread. not 1 account not 1 miniscule thing. no proof none that a tank ever once shot a plane with its main gun in ww2.
You could go rob a liquor store tonight you have the capability it could happen. proof will be when you do it.
You havent proven the point of the thread. not 1 account not 1 miniscule thing. no prood none that a huge spitfire furball ever happened in ww2.
You could go and play AH and shoot spitfires down with spitfires you have the capability it could happen. proof will be when you do it.
:devil
game set match
The point is that this is NOT A WW2 Simulator, it is a simulator using equipment based on WW2. Tanks in WW2 had the capability to shoot down planes they really did, pilots were smart enough, however, to not go level to the ground and try to HO a tiger in their P-51....see my point? This game was not designed to re-enact WW2, it was designed for the player to choose whatever equipment from WW2 they want to use and go kill someone in a virtual war.
In WW2 there was not a single incident were two group of allied planes ran into each other and had a furball for 4 hours...so based on YOUR philosophy on AH and how this game should be designed...any two planes from the same side (IE: Allies, Axis) should not be able to shoot each other down.
Unfortunately, for you, this is not how the game was designed. Every piece of equipment on this game is capable of killing anything, just because it did not happen in WW2 does NOT mean that it could never happen.
-
So what... You havent proven the point of the thread. not 1 account not 1 miniscule thing. no proof none that a tank ever once shot a plane with its main gun in ww2.
You could go rob a liquor store tonight you have the capability it could happen. proof will be when you do it.
This thread is AWESOME ! :rock
Fly down the barrel of my tank within the limits of the turret elevation, I'll demonstrate what happens :aok
I've got crossing shots @ 1.5k down pretty well, also.
HORRIDO !
-
I don't get the ... prove that it did or didn't happen.
What has to be proven or dis-proven is the actual physics involved.
Before HT would even begin to think about making the wish come true ... it would have to be proven, via physics, that shooting a tank round at a moving airplane and taking that airplane down is not possible.
So prove that firing a round from a fixed position (tank) at an aircraft in flight (moving target) and that aircraft is flying within the allowable vertical and horizontal trajectory of the tank barrel, the plane could not be hit with the right horizontal lead and vertical trajectory.
We are talking the laws of physics here ... not eyewitness accounts ... who gives a rats arse if was seen or not seen. Grizz touched on the ... "So if it wasn't seen then that means it didn't happen" ... to subscribe to that notion is ludicrous at best (and I am not saying that Grizz subscribes to this). That's like ... "If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?" ... according to Megladon logic ... there is no sound.
If shooting a plane down with a tank can't be done, within the laws of physic, then I would agree that something would need to be changed and I have my money on the "it could be done".
-
We are talking the laws of physics here ... not eyewitness accounts ... who gives a rats arse if was seen or not seen. Grizz touched on the ... "So if it wasn't seen then that means it didn't happen" ... to subscribe to that notion is ludicrous at best (and I am not saying that Grizz subscribes to this). That's like ... "If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?" ... according to Megladon logic ... there is no sound.
I said that? :headscratch:
I subscribe to reason, I said this:
I don't see why anyone thinks it's impossible to hit a plane with a tank round. If you are shooting a projectile into three dimensional space and an airplane is flying through that same space, why can they not meet at the same time? This sounds like a whine because lyric got unlucky and got blasted out of the sky by an incredible shot.
Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
-
The simple solution would be to remove the icon when peering through the gun sight. :devil
-
I said that? :headscratch:
I subscribe to reason, I said this:
;)
This ... "So if it wasn't seen then that means it didn't happen" ... was paraphrasing this ... "Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have happened".
Was too lazy to go back and find it.
-
Well you use the term Bollocks from my perspective you say I am not being truthful. I am being truthful & nothing will convince you other wise. So I am done with you on this thread. :salute
Bollicks : Exaggerated truth or blatant lies.
My intent was "exaggerated truth".
:salute
-
;)
This ... "So if it wasn't seen then that means it didn't happen" ... was paraphrasing this ... "Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have happened".
Was too lazy to go back and find it.
The way you paraphrased it made it sound the opposite of my intent though so I had to clarify. :)
-
The way you paraphrased it made it sound the opposite of my intent though so I had to clarify. :)
:aok
-
This thread is great :rofl
Your level of fail is increasing exponentially with every subsequent post you do realize...
siged btw :D
-
This thread is great :rofl
siged btw :D
Ah gee whiz, you makin me bluthsh.
-
The only "modelling problem" that I see in addition to the possible *too good* optics (I wouldn't know either way) is how you can instantly move between the gunner position and the cupola.
You don't actually move. All you do is take control over the gunner, the commander, the driver, or the hull gunner.
-
You don't actually move. All you do is take control over the gunner, the commander, the driver, or the hull gunner.
I think someone like WMaker that has been playing this game since you were in kindergarten knows that you are actually taking control of the the driver's position rather than "moving" to it.
ack-ack
-
Clearly he wouldn't give the quoted statement unless he thought you actually DID move from position to position. And I've seen some supprising displays of ignorance regarding the vehicles and aircraft in AH. I've seen long time players say the panzer has an '88 and the tiger has a 105. I've heard the M8 referred to as "a wheeled tank destroyer armed with a 50mm cannon". I've even seen people think we have a Bearcat, and complain that we don't have a hellcat.
-
Clearly he wouldn't give the quoted statement unless he thought you actually DID move from position to position. And I've seen some supprising displays of ignorance regarding the vehicles and aircraft in AH. I've seen long time players say the panzer has an '88 and the tiger has a 105. I've heard the M8 referred to as "a wheeled tank destroyer armed with a 50mm cannon". I've even seen people think we have a Bearcat, and complain that we don't have a hellcat.
Heh... :)
Yes, I'm well aware that these tanks weren't crewed by a single person. :) My point was that even if the tank wasn't buttoned up, you'd have a commander in the cupola looking out and even if not, it would still be impossible for the gunner to aim and look out of the cupola at the same time. And as I said, in the end all this is irrelevant since certain game concessions have to be made due to the fact that most of the time tanks are operated by a single player.
I won't go into the philosophical question of if I, myself, am moving inside an empty virtual tank in the game called Aces High or am I simply taking "roles" of the individual crewmen. :D
-
Heh... :)
Yes, I'm well aware that these tanks weren't crewed by a single person. :) My point was that even if the tank wasn't buttoned up, you'd have a commander in the cupola looking out and even if not, it would still be impossible for the gunner to aim and look out of the cupola at the same time. And as I said, in the end all this is irrelevant since certain game concessions have to be made due to the fact that most of the time tanks are operated by a single player.
With the above comment I would say that is about it on this thread.
-
I never questioned your knowledge of our vehicles IRL. I was unaware that we had people aiming their main cannon while in the commanders cupola. As far as I'm aware, you have to switch possitions to get a different view point. If you have a secret, please share.
-
Always one isn't there. :D
-
I never questioned your knowledge of our vehicles IRL. I was unaware that we had people aiming their main cannon while in the commanders cupola. As far as I'm aware, you have to switch possitions to get a different view point. If you have a secret, please share.
Ehh... :)
Nemesis, please read the last posts of mine again and I'm sure you understand what I meant. :) Granded, I'm not a native English speaker but I thought they were pretty clear. :)
Funny thread. :)
-
I won't go into the philosophical question of if I, myself, am moving inside an empty virtual tank in the game called Aces High or am I simply taking "roles" of the individual crewmen. :D
Do it and watch his little bitty head explode. It would be really funny.
ack-ack
-
Do it and watch his little bitty head explode. It would be really funny.
ack-ack
yes please do Wmaker... I would like to see his hamster wheel roll out of balance and go bang :t
-
Well, I'm just going to go out on a very solid limb here and say that since I've already answered that question and have known the answer since the first week I hopped in a tank, my head is in no danger of exploding from reading him ponder the implications of either answer.
And W'maker, I'm not sure what you DO mean by this: "My point was that even if the tank wasn't buttoned up, you'd have a commander in the cupola looking out and even if not, it would still be impossible for the gunner to aim and look out of the cupola at the same time."
You can't be in both the commander's cupola and aiming the gun at the same time. Based on your post, I thought you were confused as to wether we have a little cartoon driver scrambling from position to position, or wether we simply jump into that crewman's body so we can control his actions. Tell me if I'm hitting any where in the ballpark with this.
-
You can't be in both the commander's cupola and aiming the gun at the same time.
Heh. :)
My point was from the start that you can change positions a lot quicker by pressing couple keys compared to real life where you would have to crawl from the gunners position to the turret hatch to take a better look out side. In this game, the commander and the gunner is one and the same person while in the real tank they are two different persons. While the commader can give you general directional advice where the aircraft is flying, acquiring an aimed gun solution based on that kind of advice using the sight alone with very limited fov would be very difficult.
-
I don't believe they are one and the same. It seems that you are simply barowing the bodies of the tank's crew for a time. The tank is fully crewed, you just take over one crewmans body at a time, and can change which person you are controlling. Hence the lack of delay. There isn't one person inside your tank crawling from the drivers seat to the commander's cupola.
Also, something I like to do is have a driver for my tank. My usual driver is Red (FYB), and has become quite proficent at saving my one and only precious, irreplacable ass :D. So I may not understand the difficulties of solo crewing your tank.
-
Ok, I give up. You aren't going to get it.
-
Nem the point is the same one I pointed out way back in the first 3 or 4 pages... in other words... in the real world (which this isnt obviously) the only way to direct the gun from the cupola is through verbal communication. Since the turret itself (and the cupola as well) move independently of the hull (they rotate) there is no universal bearing other than compass headings (which incidently we dont have in every position not that it matters). It would be virtually impossible to pull off a shot on an aircraft in reality (I dont care what the Russians have claimed).
In AH you move from one position to another instantly. As unrealistic as that is I dont believe anyone wants to change it.
It should be much harder in AH but it is what it is.
-
Harder, hell, it would be nearly impossible. You wait 5 secs to goto the cupola to see whats shooting at you, 10 secs of looking, 5 secs to the driver to get face on with him so you don't get hit in the side, and then you get killed.
-
Harder, hell, it would be nearly impossible. You wait 5 secs to goto the cupola to see whats shooting at you, 10 secs of looking, 5 secs to the driver to get face on with him so you don't get hit in the side, and then you get killed.
The other guy shooting at you would be doing the same thing as well. It would be a wash to some extent.
-
Well yes, but the defender has the advantage of cover, and usually the first shot. When moving, he will be pulling back toward friendly tank. You are correct that it would be a wash (to a certian extent), but the defenders still would have a larger advantage than they hold now.
I can also see tank battles happening in slow motion. Instead of numerous tanks exploding in several minutes time, I could see 1 tank being destroyed in 1 minute of combat.
-
Hmm just last week I killed six tanks in under a minute. Yes it was defense but I was up against greater numbers from the first moment of launch from the hangar and against faster firing tanks that already had cover and position on the spawn. They all died with one shot and Im not that good with tanks either.
Whats this slow motion your talking about?
-
I can also see tank battles happening in slow motion. Instead of numerous tanks exploding in several minutes time, I could see 1 tank being destroyed in 1 minute of combat.
Belton Cooper in his book "Death Traps" talks about a battle near the town Paderborn in Germany in which an entire task force (Task Force Doan) from the US 3rd AD was completely wiped out by 10 King Tiger tanks. Within a span of 10 minutes, the 10 King Tigers knocked out 17 M4 (mix of M4A4 75/76mm) Shermans, 17 M3 half tracks, three GMC trucks, two jeeps and one M36 tank destroyer.
Task Force Doan was caught in the open by 7 King Tigers that advanced on the left side of theTask Force when suddenly the King Tigers turned to the right into a column formation and opened fire. The Task Force didn't have any time to maneuver and then 3 more King Tigers appeared on the right side of the Task Force, trapping them in this wide open field. The seven King Tigers on the left proceeded up and down the length of the column, when they got to one end, they'd turn around and then come back up the column. An observer said it looked like a naval enagement rather than a land tank battle.
The 3 King Tigers on the right were keeping position as a blocking force to keep Task Force Doan from escaping to the woods on the right. One Sherman was able to break out and took refuge behind a small farm building that was just to the left of the Task Force. As the Tiger column came back around and passed the small farm building, the Sherman that was hiding swung its 76mm cannon and fired at the rear of one of the Tigers at very, very close range hitting the engine compartment and causing the Tiger to burn. The Sherman was killed about a second afterwards by the following Tiger.
A Sherman near the middle of the task force column was close to the 3 Tigers that were on the right of the task force, swung the 75mm towards the closest of the three Tigers and fired a white phosphorus round at the Tiger. The round struck the glacis plate right above the driver's compartment. The smoke from the white phosphorus completely engulfed the tank and the fan in the engine compartment sucked in the smoke inside into the tank. The German crew, thinking they were on fire and not realizing it was just a white phosphorus round abandoned the tank (later recovered by US forced undamaged). The Sherman commander had another white phosphorus round loaded again and fired at the 2nd Tiger, with the same result. The Sherman was completely destroyed seconds after he fired the 2nd white phosphorus round, killed by the 3rd Tiger.
After the Tigers destroyed Task Force Doan, they withdrew down the road that was next to the open field, leaving 3 Tigers behind (1 knocked out, 2 abandoned).
When you read it, it kind of does appear it happened in slow motion but just look at the fight between the Sherman and the 3 Tigers, it probably lasted within a span of 3-5 seconds tops.
ack-ack
-
See Rule #4
-
I can also see tank battles happening in slow motion. Instead of numerous tanks exploding in several minutes time, I could see 1 tank being destroyed in 1 minute of combat.
A factual account of "slow motion" being non-existent in tank warfare:
My grandfather (USMC PTO - 43-46) worked with a fellow who was in 3rd AD (Tank Commander). In France he recalled of a story that puts one in the driver's seat, per se. He often stated: "The Sherman was a joke."
Here is one of his encounters while in a Sherman:
"One day we're East of Paris and we get a call over the radio that two Tigers have stalled the line. I move forward and had time to count 76 burned out Shermans. I order the driver to proceed cautiously and we immediately get hit. We jumped out and watched our Sherman go up with a second round fired at it. I hop into another tank and we try and get it reversed in enough time to try and flank their position. Nope, by the time the Sherman rolled backwards, another hit. We jump out and I commandeer another Sherman to try again. Nope. Yet another round hit the track of this Sherman destroying the Main Drive Sprocket on top of it. We again hop out and now move rearward on our line and I order the remainder of my unit to flank the two Tigers' positions. We were surprised when the crews exited as they had exhausted their ammo. I was able to talk to one of the crews gunners while waiting for someone to escort them rearward as POW's." The gunner said "You displayed more class and honor than we were expecting, from the amount of carnage we caused. The gunner in the Tiger on the South position had graduated from Harvard in 38."
Edit: Hardly "slow motion".