Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Karnak on March 30, 2011, 04:36:04 AM
-
For this argument, set the base speed of the transport at 165mph. You are then given a choice, knowing you will be flying into areas where you are likely to encounter hostile things such as La-7s, Spitfire Mk XVIs, Bf109K-4s, P-47Ms and Ki-84s, of taking a dorsal mounted 13mm machine gun and a beam mounted 7.92mm machine gun on each side or you can have an extra 70mph.
So, do you take the 165mph transport with the three guns or the unarmed 235mph transport?
Why do you take the one you chose?
-
Unarmed. Or that 1*50cal and those two peashooters will save me? ;)
-
Without knowing more it looks like a toss-up. Whether you're more likely to be detected early or later.. Or detected while below or above hostiles.. Whether there will or won't be friendlies there to disrupt.. How sturdy the transport is, assuming both are equally durable... What does the defensive gun coverage look like IE how are the blind spots? etc..
The given hostiles are all so much faster than 235 mph that I'd bet on the armed configuration. Assuming the given information really was all there was to it.
-
Which one turns quicker?
-
Which one turns quicker?
For the purposes of this discussion, all performance characteristics are the same between the two other than the guns and the top speed (and a bit of acceleration past ~140-150mph obviously).
-
Even at 235 your still a sitting duck. I'd rather be a duck with a gun then a fast duck.
-
I'd take the extra speed, but both options sounds like a suicide mission to me.
-
karnak's question is about the ju-52 vs c-47...wondering why anyone would want the ju-52 since it is very slow...and it doesn't have the cargo capacity of the c-47.
thing is where karnak is thinking it would be a hangar queen, it would get more use than one might expect simply due to the guns...both aircraft are slow compared to the aircraft mentioned in the op, having even a remote opportunity to deal out some damage in an attack is better than no chance at all.
-
wot we're getting the RATO goon? :lol
-
With my aim, having a couple guns wouldn't do me any good anyway. :)
-
I'd have to take the guns, would rather go down knowing I fought back and possibly caused damage than doing nothing at all.
-
karnak's question is about the ju-52 vs c-47...wondering why anyone would want the ju-52 since it is very slow...and it doesn't have the cargo capacity of the c-47.
thing is where karnak is thinking it would be a hangar queen, it would get more use than one might expect simply due to the guns...both aircraft are slow compared to the aircraft mentioned in the op, having even a remote opportunity to deal out some damage in an attack is better than no chance at all.
You are right that it is about the Ju52 and C-47, but you are wrong about the reason for the question. I am curious as to which one different people prefer and the reasons for it. Both answers have strong points.
-
Speed, if I can avoid the other fighters it will be much easier to sneak through going faster to get out of a hot zone.
-
Speed. Not to outrun anything, but higher speed means less time exposed on the approach.
Those guns would be absolutely useless - in this game that just isn't enough firepower to deter anyone.
-
The chances of killing a late war monster with the aforementioned guns at the speed at which you listed is slim to none. Engaging in itself is not ideal, getting tfo of dodge is the goal. The faster ride will give you the best chance of getting out of hostile territory. Since both planes have the same maneuverability, both will be able to make bogey's miss their B&z slashes equally. My strategy would be to head for the promised land, and make bogeys miss me when they take passes, then keep on going. Engaging is death. Choosing bb guns over an extra 70mph wouldn't be a good choice.
-
karnak's question is about the ju-52 vs c-47...wondering why anyone would want the ju-52 since it is very slow...and it doesn't have the cargo capacity of the c-47.
thing is where karnak is thinking it would be a hangar queen, it would get more use than one might expect simply due to the guns...both aircraft are slow compared to the aircraft mentioned in the op, having even a remote opportunity to deal out some damage in an attack is better than no chance at all.
Ask any B5N pilot how much use that peashooter in the tail is against Corsairs, Spixteens, and La-7s...
-
Speed. Time is most critical in offensive transport missions. Often you only have a small window of time. Both variants are dead meat in 9 out of 10 cases when there is no friendly fighter cover, so you better hurry before the cap is getting broken, or the town pops back up.
We already have a similar situation on the ground. People do not chose the M3 over the SdKfz because of the .50cal, but because the M3 is significantly faster.
-
I would op for the guns. For a little added bonus, I'd bring a gunner along with me. :D
While I will not deny that speed is critical, more often than not, there will be ONE con that has some how dodged the CAP or came from another base. While the peashooters don't do a lot of damage, they still do just that, damage. And it could be between just you and that one con from base capture. As mentioned before, MOST people don't even bother trying to dodge fire from guns like those. This is where that kind of attitude can work in your favor. Aim for the cockpit and you'd be surprised how often you will kill the pilot with a peashooter. :devil
-
when the area has lots of baddies there, I'll opt for the slower but armed Ju-52. If my chances are slim I'll at least take one of them enemy bastards down with me. :)
If tactical surprise is needed, I'll take the faster and unarmed C47.
All in all, I'll take the Ju52 like I take the SdKfz 251 more often than the M3 because I like not doing things the easy way all the time. ;)
-
We already have a similar situation on the ground. People do not chose the M3 over the SdKfz because of the .50cal, but because the M3 is significantly faster.
And because the game doesn't have enough variation in ground surface to make the considerably larger ground-contact area from the SdKfz 251's tracks a consideration.
-
The chances of killing a late war monster with the aforementioned guns at the speed at which you listed is slim to none. Engaging in itself is not ideal, getting tfo of dodge is the goal. The faster ride will give you the best chance of getting out of hostile territory. Since both planes have the same maneuverability, both will be able to make bogey's miss their B&z slashes equally. My strategy would be to head for the promised land, and make bogeys miss me when they take passes, then keep on going. Engaging is death. Choosing bb guns over an extra 70mph wouldn't be a good choice.
When's the last time you saw a C47 successfully egress from hotzone?
Speed. Time is most critical in offensive transport missions. Often you only have a small window of time. Both variants are dead meat in 9 out of 10 cases when there is no friendly fighter cover, so you better hurry before the cap is getting broken, or the town pops back up.
We already have a similar situation on the ground. People do not chose the M3 over the SdKfz because of the .50cal, but because the M3 is significantly faster.
I'll take the 251 almost all the time. It survives ack better and can take down some impromptu buildings with the rockets. Now that you mention it I'm curious what the time difference is between a 251 and M3 in driving to average town from GV spawn.
-
When's the last time you saw a C47 successfully egress from hotzone?
Never, but that was not the original question. If a C47 had a gun on it and was 50 mph slower it would still never egress from a hotzone because everyone dives in on the C47 as if it was an Me262. :)
-
So why are you better off with the C47?
-
I'd take the guns.
From Hell's heart I stab at thee!
-
So why are you better off with the C47?
Speed. The peashooters would do nothing against 5 (approximated)
late war monsters, and the extra speed means you could possibly
be past the area where those 5 late war monsters would be, before
they even get there.
-
30% difference in speed, so yeah it's significant. That'd mean .. ~8min for the C47 vs ~11 for the Junkers, for an adjacent field capture assuming 25mi distance. But you're still dead slow in the C47 and have to plan in advance what your path to map room or friendly GVs is going to be, so there's not much difference in that respect. And when you're caught there's no chance of escape unless it's a Val or something chasing you down.
In a situation like Grizz describes, which is the majority of the time in AH - correct me if I'm wrong, 160 or 230 mph is no different as far as survivability is concerned. The fast fighters catch you in seconds and the slow ones have little chance of missing their shot once they're caught up.
I think we'd have to have it in game to really see if one of the two is clearly better.
-
I choose the faster, ungunned version of the two. I then immediately assign my X.O. to fly it
while I up a Tempest. :airplane:
-
30% difference in speed, so yeah it's significant. That'd mean .. ~8min for the C47 vs ~11 for the Junkers, for an adjacent field capture assuming 25mi distance. But you're still dead slow in the C47 and have to plan in advance what your path to map room or friendly GVs is going to be, so there's not much difference in that respect. And when you're caught there's no chance of escape unless it's a Val or something chasing you down.
In a situation like Grizz describes, which is the majority of the time in AH - correct me if I'm wrong, 160 or 230 mph is no different as far as survivability is concerned. The fast fighters catch you in seconds and the slow ones have little chance of missing their shot once they're caught up.
I think we'd have to have it in game to really see if one of the two is clearly better.
The way I see it is the C-47 increases your chances of not encountering an enemy fighter by reducing the travel time. Once an enemy fighter does find you the speed will make little practical difference unless it is a Hurricane Mk I or something like that, which is highly unlikely in the Late War MAs. Once encountered I would say the Ju52 has a marginally higher chance of success as it is possible to down a fighter with the 13mm gun, but it is heavily stacked against you. Overall I think the C-47's speed makes it better, but I can definitely see the appeal of the guns on the Ju52, even if for no other reason than what horble posted.
-
I'll take the 251 almost all the time. It survives ack better and can take down some impromptu buildings with the rockets. Now that you mention it I'm curious what the time difference is between a 251 and M3 in driving to average town from GV spawn.
M3 is 50% faster. 48 to 32 mph. "Need troops town A55 quick!" ... :joystick:
-
I choose the faster, ungunned version of the two. I then immediately assign my X.O. to fly it
while I up a Tempest. :airplane:
:lol
-
You stand a bigger chance of not running into anything, but how much? I don't know how else to find out other than practical experiment. Same with the guns.. What would the view from gunners be like, and what is the airplane's durability? Gotta see it in practice to see how it all works together.
M3 is 50% faster. 48 to 32 mph. "Need troops town A55 quick!" ... :joystick:
I just took out all the ack on a vbase only to have a tank pop me as I turn around for the map room.. I dunno if I coulda done that with an M3.
-
I just took out all the ack on a vbase only to have a tank pop me as I turn around for the map room.. I dunno if I coulda done that with an M3.
This is a special case.
Most troop transports are running when the ack is already down, or someone else is already working on it. And in most cases, speed is the crucial factor. In a sneak, you want to be there before someone notices the flashing base. In a more "regular" capture situation, you might have only a small frame of time where your buddies can prevent enemies from getting to the maproom, or before anything in the town / on the base pops. Having to drive just two minutes instead of three will more often make a difference than having some rockets aboard. That's one minute more time for the enemy T-34 to reach the town...
By the numbers alone, m3 is seeing about 10 times more "usage". I'm an avid base defender, but only very rarely encounter any SdKfz.
-
I don't mean deacking with the rockets, I mean you can MG the acks without dying as quick as the M3. Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't done it too many times. The M3 doesn't seem as survivable versus acks. If you can be in the ack where the M3 can't, that's some useful advantage. Only works if the defenders are busy returning fire, though.
If you're sneaking, the ack needs to be taken down. Other than an M8, the 251 should be able to keep up with anything that's doing the deacking.
Those rockets are such a large HE package.. It's a shame to see them unused.
-
I don't mean deacking with the rockets, I mean you can MG the acks without dying as quick as the M3. Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't done it too many times.
Not wrong at all, the SdKfz is more survivable. But the amount of "more" doesn't justify the loss of speed, which is simply more crucial in the majority of MA operations. Most of the time your real enemy isn't ack, but that pesky players with a red tag ;)
"White flag, ack down, base capped. A55 needs troops NOW!" - You never know for how long these conditions are met, it just needs a single fighter to evade the vulchers and getting to town to foil the capture attempt. So you better be quick with the troops.
That doesn't make the SdKfz useless per se, but it makes it somewhat less useful in the majority of cases. There is a reason it's used so rarely...
-
Lusche where's the table with lbs equivalency, that includes the SK rockets?
I'll usually roll the 251 with the tanks working the town, or when it looks like they're about to finish it off. It's used so rarely because people only roll troops once the map room is already prepped, no sooner. Too bad cause with a bit more teamwork you could have troops sooner on site.. e.g. asking for wirble escort to town.
-
Lusche where's the table with lbs equivalency, that includes the SK rockets?
No idea... the one on trainer's site hasn't the SdKfz rockets in it. There was a thread about it a few months ago, but since then the rocket's damage rating has been increased by HTC.
-
281.2 lbs. 11 rockets per hangar.
-
the speed difference is greatest at 5000 feet, above or below that the speed drops off on the c-47...i believe the ju-52/3m achieved a max speed of 175mph(?)at approx 3000 feet and 165mph(?) at sea level.
people would fly the ju-52 for the same reason they fly the p-40b in the lwma's...whatever that reason may be.
-
In a situation like Grizz describes, which is the majority of the time in AH - correct me if I'm wrong, 160 or 230 mph is no different as far as survivability is concerned. The fast fighters catch you in seconds and the slow ones have little chance of missing their shot once they're caught up.
But I was assuming you need to get out of a certain hot zone before you are considerably safer, that is you can evade and reverse until you have friendly backup or the enemy threat drops off. The 230 mph transport would get you out of the hot zone quicker. Both rides are sitting ducks, but one is just a slower duck.
-
QFT, give me the speed please!
The chances of killing a late war monster with the aforementioned guns at the speed at which you listed is slim to none.
-
But I was assuming you need to get out of a certain hot zone before you are considerably safer, that is you can evade and reverse until you have friendly backup or the enemy threat drops off. The 230 mph transport would get you out of the hot zone quicker. Both rides are sitting ducks, but one is just a slower duck.
I'm just saying that if you're spotted, you're caught in either plane. Whether the 52's guns could get kills and how many kills it could get, and how many deaths the Ju52 would take due to its speed handicap, I can't guess.
-
That depends -- am I 999000? ;)
-
I'd take the speed and a few hours' worth of work in the TA/DA learning how to use it. A decent knowledge of evasive maneuvers is going to do you much more good than any peashooter. You're much more likely to kill the other guy (and survive) by flying him into the ground than holding steady trying to aim a token gun. Even if you do happen to hit him, what do you think the chances are he hasn't hit you too?
-
The only way to settle this is to add this plane :devil
-
We already have many types of fighters already in the game. If everything boils down to speed… Why do we need more than one choice?
I would love to have the JU52. I would sometimes choose the JU52 over the C47 just because of it’s STOL capabilities. Not to mention it’s use in scenarios.
-
M3 is 50% faster. 48 to 32 mph. "Need troops town A55 quick!" ... :joystick:
In the case of the M3 vs SdKfz 251, if the troops are an after thought and are being reactive, then the M3 is the better call because speed is of the essence. But, if the troops carrier is a part of an assault force of tanks, etc, then the 251 will certainly get the nod from me because it does seem to shed enemy fire better. There is no sense in having the faster M3 if it has to stay with or behind the tanks. Say... that sounds similar to what the Germans did at the start of WWII. ;)