Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: lutzmax on May 10, 2011, 03:15:05 PM
-
Just wondering if you've considered attaching perk points to special ordnance? Like making available some of the remotely-guided ordnance used on both sides of WW2 or special bomb or gun packages for players to 'buy'. Some of it will require a ton of coding I am aware. Just thought that this would be an interesting variable that could be brought into the game.
-
You may recall they do plan to implement a perk price for specific loadout options.
The F4U-1C, for example, is intended to be a perked guns option for the F4U-1D plane in the hangar list. They just haven't got to that point yet.
I doubt you'll ever see remote control bombs, but perhaps the more powerful loadout options like 4x20mm on a corsair, or perhaps the TseTse gun for the mosquito, or the BK5 for the Me410, or maybe (I'm just brainstorming here) big bomb options like the 4k cookie on the mossie, stuka, lanc, etc?
-
Perk the st00ka!!
-
Perk the st00ka!!
:headscratch:
-
You may recall they do plan to implement a perk price for specific loadout options.
The F4U-1C, for example, is intended to be a perked guns option for the F4U-1D plane in the hangar list. They just haven't got to that point yet.
I doubt you'll ever see remote control bombs, but perhaps the more powerful loadout options like 4x20mm on a corsair, or perhaps the TseTse gun for the mosquito, or the BK5 for the Me410, or maybe (I'm just brainstorming here) big bomb options like the 4k cookie on the mossie, stuka, lanc, etc?
It's like HTC to take the proposed perked ordnance system a step further to include historical load outs.
ack-ack
-
I like the idea for perked loadouts. +1 for sure.
Of course, the concept makes me salivate over the prospect of someday seeing the AN/APG-13A radar ranging setup on the B-25H - which made 75mm hits out to 5,000 yards on shipping quite probable. That should be perk-intense.
But naturally this would take a bit of graphics modification and other mods, so it's not exactly a drop-in. But a guy can dream :)
-
+1 I have no idea how implement but I think this concepts intriguing :aok
-
+1 for tue idea. I would like to see the P-51D 1000lb perked because it was a uncommon load for it to carry. I also saw on another post about the P-47's big gun package being a very rare thing so you could perk that as well.
-
+1 for tue idea. I would like to see the P-51D 1000lb perked because it was a uncommon load for it to carry. I also saw on another post about the P-47's big gun package being a very rare thing so you could perk that as well.
the 400+ rpg loadout was almost nonexistant
-
I think you trying to devise a plan for a n00k!
-
Joachim, what does your reply mean?
-
He means that we had a nice little discution in the MA several times about adding nukes to the B-29 but making them perked so that the would not be used all the time but rather by those who had say 5000 perk points to blow on something like that.
-
Joachim, what does your reply mean?
I was assuming you are trying to get a n00k for b29 in exchange for perks :noid
-
I don't see any way that nukes should be allowed. That would ruin the game asap I think. Being able to guide a bomb into a cv via remote would be fun though. Or using a Goliath from a gv when attacking field ack.
A discussion on how nukes could be added to the game without destroying gameplay may be interesting.
Given the number of blowhards and chest-thumpers who hang around here, I am sure that it would devolve immediately.
-
I don't see any way that nukes should be allowed. That would ruin the game asap I think. Being able to guide a bomb into a cv via remote would be fun though. Or using a Goliath from a gv when attacking field ack.
A discussion on how nukes could be added to the game without destroying gameplay may be interesting.
Given the number of blowhards and chest-thumpers who hang around here, I am sure that it would devolve immediately.
If nuke got added I'd goto TT kill all ground and aircons in the area in
-
the 400+ rpg loadout was almost nonexistant
It WAS nonexistent. Ever. Even the highest loads were maybe 30 rounds above the standard loadout, not this 150 rds extra fantasy loadout.
-
It WAS nonexistent. Ever. Even the highest loads were maybe 30 rounds above the standard loadout, not this 150 rds extra fantasy loadout.
Sure about that?
From Osprey's "P-47 Thunderbolt Aces of the Ninth & Fifteenth Air Forces"
It was common practice the 325th to only half load the P-47's wing guns in an effort to save weight and performance. However, on this occasion Bunn Hearn's armorers had loaded the full 800 rounds per gun.
The numbers are wrong, but it's clear they had over loaded the ammunition
As 'Herky' Green later quipped, "The punch line is that I had actually landed with more ammunition remaining than I had thought I had at mission start!".
In this case he wasn't flying his own plane, but the group XO's bird. The author guesses that the over loading may have been due to the XO not flying combat missions as often. The overloaded ammo probably wasn't the common load out, but saying that it was completely nonexistent is dangerous like most absolutes when talking about history.
-
I'm pretty sure that's flat out wrong.
Not only is that 50% past the theoretical max limit for any single gun (factory specs list 500) it's also been oft-reported as a single anecdotal incident where he had more ammo than he though. However, exactly HOW MUCH he had is never clear, nor ever explicitly stated. It's come up a number of times.
Also, the "half load" is inaccurate. The standard load was 267 rpg. Rare occasions had 300rpg, one or two incidents shows 310rpg possibly. These 300rpg loadouts were often on the early D models with no wing racks. Any model with wing racks was limited to 267 rpg [basically speaking].
It is the same as saying the Ta152 has 175rpg instead of the 250 that the 190D it is based on holds. The ammo containers are not smaller. The space is not constricted. It was dictated "this is your loadout" to save weight. That is what we have in-game.
It was dictated "267 rpg" for jugs. It was stenciled on the wings. It was listed in literature. That is what we should have in AH. If we get some rare 300rpg option, then that's still light years more realistic than 425rpg (which never happened).
-
The same paragraph says that the armorers added an entire extra belt of ammo. The tell-tale sign that one belt was running low was a string of nothing but tracer at the end of the belt. He even says that he landed with more left over than what he thought he had in the wings to start with, after claiming six victories in combat.
Never is a strong word, and is wrong in this case.
-
The same paragraph says that the armorers added an entire extra belt of ammo. The tell-tale sign that one belt was running low was a string of nothing but tracer at the end of the belt. He even says that he landed with more left over than what he thought he had in the wings to start with, after claiming six victories in combat.
Never is a strong word, and is wrong in this case.
A "belt" is not a specific quantity. And clearly he wasn't flying around with 534 rounds per gun (which would be double the standard loadout of 267 rpg), because even at max factory specs there wasn't room for that much ammo.
That entire "tale" is a tall one and rife with holes in every retelling. It's possible the armorers belted tracers halfway into the loadout instead of at the end. There are many photos where ground crew walked up to the plane draped in .50cal belts around their necks, and linked the belts as they loaded them. What's more likely? That a pilot had over 500rpg on a plane that couldn't physically hold >500 rpg, and was dictated to only use 267rpg? Or a pilot wasn't counting rounds, saw tracers, and went home, because of an error in where that belt with tracers was linked?
-
I know this is a thread hijack, but I am really going to be adamant on this loadout being historically false.
I defy you to find a combat report or loadout stating 400+rpg. Seriously. The challenge has been issued, and this anecdote doesn't count because of all the inaccuracies and inconsistencies. This anecdote has reached urban legend status.
EDIT: A "combat" loadout. I know of one instance where they loaded the plane down so much with extra ammo during a ferry mission that they almost hit some trees taking off, but again that was not combat and was a short hop to from UK to France or some such.
-
If we're going to talk about what's "most likely" then I think the odds that the author accidentally doubled his numbers when writing the book. The P-47 came off the assembly line with the capacity to carry 400 rounds per gun. So what's more plausible? His "half" load that he thought he had which according to you would have been around 100-130 rounds per gun (about half what the P-40E carries) pretty good shooting to claim 6 victories on. Or accepting the fact that while un-common the full ammunition bay was actually used on occasion?
Again "never" is a very poor word to use, especially when trying to prove a negative.
-
I realize in general never is a poor word to choose. But chosen it I have, and as I mentioned I'm adament. Poor choice or not, I believe it fits.
Plus, it only takes a single snapshot with 8x50cal to down any plane. He may have been one of the few able to aim, or may have simply been lucky enough to get in behind 6 planes that were busy on somebody else.
Technically speaking, the P-47 could hold 500 rounds off the assembly line. I've read that a number of places this was the maximum possible load (never used, mind you). Even preliminary testing of the 47C model states that the 300rpg is most likely only to be used with 6 guns, and that in combat 267 for 8 guns would be the limit, possibly less to save weight (200 rpg being suggested a number of times).
You realize that much ammo is nearly 500lbs of extra weight? He wouldn't have been able to stay with his wingmen in climbout, formation, or combat. Would not this fact have earned some attention (i.e. "he fell behind but caught up in time to bag 6 huns")?
As I mentioned, far too many holes and other possible explanations in that story, and no concrete details to fill them in. Can you find any OTHER examples/records/reports? Other than this one doubtful case?
It's a funny thing. For the longest time I (and many others apparently) thought the Me410 could load out 2x 30mm mk108 guns. There was even talk of 4x Mk108s, and a mixed pair of mk108 30mms along with 2 extra 20mms outboard of them. Then, turns out this is all anecdotal and never happened. Seems the 410 never (there's that word again, but it's accurate) carried the mk108 30mm cannon. Moot brought this point up in another thread.
I bring it up here to simply highlight how these urban legends can spread like wildfire, which is how I would describe the lone example of a P-47 with "double ammo belts" (urban legend).
-
just found a p-47n pilot's manual in pdf format dated sept. 45 on another site i use for reference documents, that states the plane had 8 .50 cal machine guns instead of the design loadout of 6 and "maximum load is 500 rounds per gun but usually with 8 guns 267 rounds are carried." interesting read.
same source has a pilot manual for p47b, c, d models. says 6 guns are "design useful load" but 8 guns are "alternate load". Maximum load is "425 rounds each" and "desired loading with 6 guns is 300 rounds each and with 8 guns 200 rounds each".
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-47-thunderbolt-manuals-5081.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-47-thunderbolt-manuals-5081.html)
-
I've read some of those as well. I believe that's where this 425 came from (HTC just pulled it from a manual somewhere).
It's inaccurate, though. Also: Note the date on that technical order is January 1943. That's BEFORE most of those variants became active in combat. Even the 47B didn't see combat til March 1943 or so... Cs, Ds, Gs, etc are all later. Any info it has based on the ammo loadouts is a prediction. Much like the ones I read, that prediction never panned out.
-
yeah that technical order from jan 43 replaced 2 prior tech orders from 42...and it's actually linked in the p-47d-40 writeup on the ah wiki site. i believe it was intended for use by state side evaluation pilots testing the b models before the c models were produced. the rest of the documentation has to be add on stuff that wasn't part of the original tech document.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/P-47D-40 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/P-47D-40)
speaking of combat use, wasn't it the c models that entered combat in 43? i didn't think the b models were anything but state side evaluation models :headscratch:
-
http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_1392.htm
holy bullets batman!
-
I'm not sure. I don't think they would tack details on to a TO later on. They would issue a new TO with a new date.
All the state-side testing lists higher ammo loads than actual combat reports and actual regulations that limit ammo later list.
As to the B: I don't know. I thought the Bs might have had limited testing (even if no combat) in the UK. I'm fuzzy on that part. Note that the TO even lists "C (EST)" and "D (EST)" so it's estimating C/D performance.
-
http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_1392.htm
holy bullets batman!
That's a nice pic. I've always been interested in photos like that because it points out a major flaw in the design: For all the ROOM the bullets had, they had to drape over the wing ribs! So you can only fit so many layers before the door closes down and stops the ammo from feeding properly. Wouldn't you think they'd redesign it with lower ribs? Or feed through the ribs? Other planes worked around this, but the jug just draped them over the top.
Always made me go :headscratch:
-
http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_1392.htm
holy bullets batman!
hard to tell but those canisters look like they hold more than 105 rounds of .50...for a standard 105 round box of belted .50 cal the weight was 35lbs including the box...so eliminate an estimated ~6lbs for the box...approximate weight of ammunition would be ~29lbs per 105 rounds including the belt.
with all the crap infantry had to carry in to battle, wouldn't want to hump that ammo very far, even without the can.
-
+1