Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: xxIENAxx on July 12, 2011, 04:24:39 PM
-
Is it true??
IENA
-
As with the 5-6 other threads all visible at the top of this very forum, it's pure speculation for now.
-
I confirm that it's a king tiger.
-
Woo Hoo for new toys to break!
-
Ops.... im sorry i didn't see the other posts. :)
IENA
-
Saw it on facebook too I see!
DuHasst
-
M-18 :devil
-
I guess I'm a bummer. I'd rather see the Panzer & Tiger updated from their current very early models. Still, always nice to get new toys. :)
-
Facebook stalkers :noid
-
M-18 :devil
:( :( :( :cry
-
Rather take a Panther and be bombed (while its under 30 perks) vs a King Tiger and lose over 100 perks (guessing).
You can take a B-29 to 40k but a tank still gets bombed faster then a beer on St. Patrick's Day.
-
I guess I'm a bummer. I'd rather see the Panzer & Tiger updated from their current very early models. Still, always nice to get new toys. :)
Check the "aceshighs news" thread, there looks like there is an updated tiger in one of the photos, along with the supposide king tiger.
But if the King Tiger is joining the fight, i demand the Pershing join as well :t
-
But if the King Tiger is joining the fight, i demand the Pershing join as well :t
Something big and Russian might be more representative of the war....
-
Something big and Russian might be more representative of the war....
Something big and Russian... :lol
Totally agree!
ISU-152 would be one big beast...but I would like to see some totally new fighter airframes myself. :(
-
king tiger sweeeet :aok
-
Something big and Russian might be more representative of the war....
:D Nothing says soviet love like a tank armed with 120mm of it.
-
:D Nothing says soviet love like a tank armed with 120mm of it.
...except a 152mm calibre projectile weighing twice as much as that 120mm. :D
(projectile weight roughly 108lbs...ouch!)
-
I was thinking more in line of a "true" tank, and I'm trying to not encourage any more demand for german armor for a little while, I don't think BAR can take much more of this heartbreak, but if we want to start talking SPA, then lets start talking StuGs! (not that I'd be against a soviet 152mm SPA, but c'mon... the StuG!)
-
...except a 152mm calibre projectile weighing twice as much as that 120mm. :D
(projectile weight roughly 108lbs...ouch!)
You do realize that the BS-3 100mm AT gun had better preformance than the 152mm gun (I think, I may be thinking of the 122mm gun). And that the BS-3 was only comperable to the german '88? And not even the L' 71, but the L' 56?
Same with all the ppl asking for the Pershing. Its 90mm was comperable to the Tiger I's 88mm, and so wouldn't be able to penetrate the ~170mm glacis plate of the Tiger II from point blank range, yet alone combat ranges. There was a "super pershing" with a longer barrled 90mm, but that was only a prototype and only one saw combat.
-
You do realize that the BS-3 100mm AT gun had better preformance than the 152mm gun (I think, I may be thinking of the 122mm gun). And that the BS-3 was only comperable to the german '88? And not even the L' 71, but the L' 56?
Same with all the ppl asking for the Pershing. Its 90mm was comperable to the Tiger I's 88mm, and so wouldn't be able to penetrate the ~170mm glacis plate of the Tiger II from point blank range, yet alone combat ranges. There was a "super pershing" with a longer barrled 90mm, but that was only a prototype and only one saw combat.
I wasn't talking anything else than the shell weight and the calibre.
-
Woo Hoo for new toys to break!
With a bomb :neener:
-
You do realize that the BS-3 100mm AT gun had better preformance than the 152mm gun (I think, I may be thinking of the 122mm gun). And that the BS-3 was only comperable to the german '88? And not even the L' 71, but the L' 56?
Same with all the ppl asking for the Pershing. Its 90mm was comperable to the Tiger I's 88mm, and so wouldn't be able to penetrate the ~170mm glacis plate of the Tiger II from point blank range, yet alone combat ranges. There was a "super pershing" with a longer barrled 90mm, but that was only a prototype and only one saw combat.
I do believe though that the BS-3 was a realtively new development and production availability/capacity was such that it never got mounted to a tank of self-propelled artillery piece, they only saw combat as static or towed field artillery pieces I believe (a shame IMO, would of been interesting to of seen it used otherwise). Something AH doesn't have or has figured out yet a way to implement for players to use in the game....
-
Su-100 had a tank gun version of the Bs-3 (the '100' in Su-100 meaning it had a 100mm weapon)
-
If the Soviets would have stopped with the 100mm, they'd have been fine. Same for the Germans and their Panther's 75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70. Too bad each side wasted so many resources on things not needed. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. The Soviets would have been just fine with the T34/85mm and the Su-100 for the rest of the war. The Germans might have inflicted a bit more damage if they had not wasted so much on "super" tanks, instead cranking out more Panthers and TD's armed with the 75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70.
The reload rate for the JSU-152 was horrendous. The propellent and projectile were loaded separately.
-
Su-100 had a tank gun version of the Bs-3 (the '100' in Su-100 meaning it had a 100mm weapon)
Ah, the D-10! One of those confusing Russian things to me, two names for what seems to be the same thing. I've seen some references give differing numbers in muzzle velocity or other stats for both (range I can understand as the field artillery piece I'd imagine can shoot at a higher angle than those mounted to a tank or TD), so I wonder if they're relatively identical or actually different somehow, other than the means they were used.
If the Soviets would have stopped with the 100mm, they'd have been fine. Same for the Germans and their Panther's 75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70. Too bad each side wasted so many resources on things not needed. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. The Soviets would have been just fine with the T34/85mm and the Su-100 for the rest of the war. The Germans might have inflicted a bit more damage if they had not wasted so much on "super" tanks, instead cranking out more Panthers and TD's armed with the 75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70.
The reload rate for the JSU-152 was horrendous. The propellent and projectile were loaded separately.
Same for the 122mm A-19 and the IS-2. Average was 2-3 rounds per minute. Kind of a good and bad thing IMO in terms of AH.... the things are HUGE guns.
-
huge, but still comperable to the 88 we already have in game. IDK what it is, but russian cannons just weren't that good. I takes them an 85mm gun to match what the germans can do with a '75.
-
I am not sure if The King will be good for the game but I am sure it's a mean looking tank.
(http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz115/William_Duenskie/Tiger/KingTiger_2.jpg)
(http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz115/William_Duenskie/Tiger/kttitle.jpg)
(http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz115/William_Duenskie/Tiger/KingTiger9064L.jpg)
(http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz115/William_Duenskie/Tiger/kingtiger-5543.jpg)
-
Oh the KT will be great for the game. but IMO we need a nashorn along with it. something cheap that can kill it from beyond point blank range :noid.
-
Problem with the Tiger II is that I am not sure a M4A3(75), T-34/76 on Panzer IV H will be be able to kill it. Having a tank that is immune to the free tanks could be a problem. I am pretty sure a T-34/85's HVAP round could kill it from moderate range and making the T-34/85 a free tank might be a needed fix.
After all, a D3A1 can kill an Me262, let alone a P-51D, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, La-7, N1K2-J or Spitfire Mk XVI.
On the other hand a Tiger II can be bombed into submission as a last ditch defense, though having killed Tiger I's with 500lb bombs* I can say that it won't be easy to do.
*I had a Tiger I survive a direct hit from a 500lb bomb. I dropped both 500lbers from my bomb bay, saw a hit sprite on the tank from one and the other exploded about 5-10ft from the tank's side. The Tiger driver's response was "That was LOUD!"
-
it would be killable by all tanks but the M8 (which isn't really a tank anyway), just not from the front.
As to the T-34/85, no not at all. its gun is comperable to the panzer's, and it has ~170mm frontal hull armor once you factor in the slope
-
Don't think the T-34 has 170mm of armor after factoring the slope. That seems a bit too much benefit from the slop as the armor was only, what, 45-60mm thick?
-
Sorry, 'it' was refering to the King Tiger, not the T-34. T-34 has somewhere around 100mm of armor (both models).
Anyway, we do need something with a bigger gun thats cheaply perked to counter the KT. Only 3 guns currently in the game would be capable of penetrating the glacis plate, and even then not much beyon 200yds if that. The King Tiger's gun would, on the other hand, have no trouble killing any tank in the game, regardless of hit location, out to about 1000yds or so, well beyond the range of retaliation from any other tanks.
-
I think a lot is going to depend on the KT's perk price. My guess is it's going to be like a 262 for GV's and rightly so. The 88mm L-71 is a monster of a gun, pretty much consider it a 75mm L-70 on steroids. As far as impact on game, we'll have to wait and see. I've got a feeling that egging them will be the most common way of their demise.
:salute
BigRat
-
huge, but still comperable to the 88 we already have in game. IDK what it is, but russian cannons just weren't that good. I takes them an 85mm gun to match what the germans can do with a '75.
Even then, the German's 75mm was superior to the Soviet 85mm. the larger diameter does not mean "better". It simply means bigger diameter. heck, compare the British 17 Pdr and the US M4/76mm to the Soviet 85mm, they too were superior in regards to armor penetration.
-
Something big and Russian... :lol
The KV or IS? :lol
-
My concern is this, the 88mm L71 will command large amounts of space given how open AH terrain usually is, making circling around to the flanks and rear of the Tiger II difficult to say the least. I am not sure the three free tanks, Panzer IV H, T-34/76 and M4A3(75), will be able to defeat its armor from the front at any range, even with the decent 75mm on the Panzer IV H or the T-34/76's HVAP rounds. That being the case, should a Tiger II be on the field against opponents who, for whatever reason, have no vehicle perks to buy, and likely lose, a lot of T-34/85s it may prove to be, effectively, an immovable object for those three free tanks.
Yes, there are still 1000lb bomb lugging aircraft to use on it, but it seems kind of a shame to, potentially, push people in a tank fight into aircraft to deal an opposing tank.
-
Yes, there are still 1000lb bomb lugging aircraft to use on it, but it seems kind of a shame to, potentially, push people in a tank fight into aircraft to deal an opposing tank.
we used to do it for the tiger I way back when...
-
My concern is this, the 88mm L71 will command large amounts of space given how open AH terrain usually is, making circling around to the flanks and rear of the Tiger II difficult to say the least. I am not sure the three free tanks, Panzer IV H, T-34/76 and M4A3(75), will be able to defeat its armor from the front at any range, even with the decent 75mm on the Panzer IV H or the T-34/76's HVAP rounds. That being the case, should a Tiger II be on the field against opponents who, for whatever reason, have no vehicle perks to buy, and likely lose, a lot of T-34/85s it may prove to be, effectively, an immovable object for those three free tanks.
This is actually what the GV situation was many years ago, with only Tiger, Panzer & T-34/76 (no HVAP) in the lineup, no B-25H and no 37mm Il-2. Back then the Tiger was truly king of the battlefield, and when ords were unavailable, the only thing to stop a Tiger was another Tiger (except for a very few players using the Hurri D).
And honestly, I don't remember it as being that bad for gameplay, as the combat performance of the Tiger was being offset by a bigger perk price than today and like a 262, the cry "TIGER!" was getting everybody's attention. (And players brought in ords from two sectors away to get that Tiger :) )
While not actually wishing for yet another ever-bigger late war ?ber monster, I wouldn't mind having another tank that could bring similar excitement back into the game. Though with the setup of the ground and air-to-ground warfare on the current maps, I'm afraid a King Tiger would be strictly used in a pure base sitting defensive role.
-
This is actually what the GV situation was many years ago, with only Tiger, Panzer & T-34/76 (no HVAP) in the lineup, no B-25H and no 37mm Il-2. Back then the Tiger was truly king of the battlefield, and when ords were unavailable, the only thing to stop a Tiger was another Tiger (except for a very few players using the Hurri D).
And honestly, I don't remember it as being that bad for gameplay, as the combat performance of the Tiger was being offset by a bigger perk price than today and like a 262, the cry "TIGER!" was getting everybody's attention. (And players brought in ords from two sectors away to get that Tiger :) )
While not actually wishing for yet another ever-bigger late war ?ber monster, I wouldn't mind having another tank that could bring similar excitement back into the game. Though with the setup of the ground and air-to-ground warfare on the current maps, I'm afraid a King Tiger would be strictly used in a pure base sitting defensive role.
the 37mm IL2 was there but no where near as powerful as what we have now. they updated it to be stronger. And the T34/76 when it first came out for a week or two was more powerful than the panzers. Last time i saw tiger screamed on country was before the T34
-
the 37mm IL2 was there but no where near as powerful as what we have now. they updated it to be stronger. And the T34/76 when it first came out for a week or two was more powerful than the panzers. Last time i saw tiger screamed on country was before the T34
The update that made it more powerful was the addition of the 37mm cannon option. The AH1 Il-2 was limited to only the 23mm cannons.
-
the 37mm IL2 was there but no where near as powerful as what we have now. they updated it to be stronger. And the T34/76 when it first came out for a week or two was more powerful than the panzers. Last time i saw tiger screamed on country was before the T34
See Karnak's comment about the 37mm in the Il-2, which was introduced long after AH went to version 2.0 (IIRC in 2007, will have to look ut up.) And concerning the T-34, that may have been a glitch between introduction and first update. When I joined AH in tour 70 (and for many tours after that), the T-34/76 had basically no chance to kill the Tiger from any angle. The only real dangers for the Tiger were a bomb or another Tiger
-
It aint got no wings.
Nuff said.
-
See Karnak's comment about the 37mm in the Il-2, which was introduced long after AH went to version 2.0 (IIRC in 2007, will have to look ut up.) And concerning the T-34, that may have been a glitch between introduction and first update. When I joined AH in tour 70 (and for many tours after that), the T-34/76 had basically no chance to kill the Tiger from any angle. The only real dangers for the Tiger were a bomb or another Tiger
seems i was mistaken
-
Then it sounds like the only option is to add the Nashorn, and disable ordnance at all bases within 2 sectors of a vehicle spawn :noid.
Ppl that hear about a GV fight, go bomb without any request for ordnance, and bomb the highest perked tank there just piss me off.
-
Then it sounds like the only option is to add the Nashorn, and disable ordnance at all bases within 2 sectors of a vehicle spawn :noid.
Ppl that hear about a GV fight, go bomb without any request for ordnance, and bomb the highest perked tank there just piss me off.
Actually, I'd propose just unperking the T-34/85. Seems a simpler solution, but maybe that is just me.
-
Would you unperk the M4 as well? The T-34/85 is superior in many respects. Its faster, its gun is more powerful (counting HVAP, its currently the most powerful in the game), and its turret traverses faster, all of which would make it superior to the M4 for combating the Tiger II with a flanking maneuver.
What about the panzer? It would need an ENY of 30 if we're giving out free M4's here. Turret is vastly weaker, its much more vulnerable to strafing, and it takes significanly less damage to kill one.
Oh, and as to your concern about the KwK 43 (88mm L'71) dominating the terrain, I think you are over estimating how much open space there is. Area wise, yes, there is probably more open ground than wooded, but the trees often block shots any further than about 1500yds in some maps, and even down to about 800 in others. While a Tiger II would be almost impossible to kill if it was at the dreaded V85 spawn, on the Tank Town map (the one with the big center island, and a string of GV bases protecting an airbase) it would be hideously vulnerable to ambushes.
-
Would you unperk the M4 as well? The T-34/85 is superior in many respects. Its faster, its gun is more powerful (counting HVAP, its currently the most powerful in the game), and its turret traverses faster, all of which would make it superior to the M4 for combating the Tiger II with a flanking maneuver.
And yet the M4A3(76) sees vastly more use than the T-34/85. It is possible that unperking the T-34/85 would also make it viable to unperk the M4A3(76), but it is also possible that it would not offset it enough. Only way to find out is to unperk them both and see where usage ends up, then reperk the M4A3(76) if it still proves too dominant.
What about the panzer? It would need an ENY of 30 if we're giving out free M4's here. Turret is vastly weaker, its much more vulnerable to strafing, and it takes significanly less damage to kill one.
What are the ENY's of the T-34/76 and M4A3(75) right now as the Panzer IV H does that to them? Basically, I do not care a whit if the Panzer IV H is massively reduced in use and I think having its ENY bumped up could be a good thing, giving a somewhat usable tank to ENY limited sides rather than just forcing them to fight from a massive disadvantage in M4A3(75)s and T-34/76s. Bottom line is that the Panzer IV H does not have an inherent right to be the top dog of unperked tanks.
Oh, and as to your concern about the KwK 43 (88mm L'71) dominating the terrain, I think you are over estimating how much open space there is. Area wise, yes, there is probably more open ground than wooded, but the trees often block shots any further than about 1500yds in some maps, and even down to about 800 in others. While a Tiger II would be almost impossible to kill if it was at the dreaded V85 spawn, on the Tank Town map (the one with the big center island, and a string of GV bases protecting an airbase) it would be hideously vulnerable to ambushes.
As long as the Tiger II is aware of the attempt to flank it the situation becomes much more difficult as all it has to do is rotate to face the flanking tank. If you have multiple tanks against the Tiger II you can try to use some of your forces to keep pressure on it from the front while others try to flank, but if the Tiger II is supported by other tanks as well the flanking attempt is likely to result in a brawl, or the Tiger II's supporting tanks can keep the attacking tanks tasked with suppression fire busy, allowing the Tiger II to rotate to face the flankers.
This makes for a very difficult situation for M4A3(75)s, T-34/76s and Panzer IV Hs.
-
I can see you're point. And personally, I think a Panzer IV Ausf. G would be better suited to a decent high ENY tank. All it would require is modifying our existing Panzer IV H (assuming things can be edited once in the game, and it seems to be, given the speed with which bugs are fixed). Reduce frontal hull armor by 30mm, remove the armored skirts, and reduce the number of shells carried (I think its 80 as opposed to 87).
And Karnak, if someone is willing to take the time to drive 2-3k out to either side and come in from a rear flank, then odds are that Konigstiger ends up a nice yellow kill message in someone's text buffer. To be honest, how often do you look behind you when in a tank? I do so VERY rarely if at all.
-
No need to revise the Panzer IV H in order to get the Panzer IV G. The Panzer IV D should be added for early war as well.
-
No no, saying it would be easier than rebuilding a modifed Panzer H (thats all it would be) from scratch. I would guess they could just copy the code for the Panzer IV and edit it to get a Panzer IV G. Of course I have no idea how they do it, so I may be completly wrong.
And agreed on the Panzer D. Perk the T-34/76 in there, and let the tanks that can easily kill eachother be the free ones. And the earlier Panzer's would give some competition for the M4(75), particularly the G. Since it only has 50mm of armor, it would be engagabe out to around 3700yds I think (theoreticly anyway. no idea how hard it would be to land hits at that distance).
-
Before they introduce the big perked tanks, its time to change the system , how to spot a tank from a plane :
You normally have problems to see a stationary tank from a plane, they are small targets , normally well camo'ed.
A moving tank in the open is another matter though,
Shooting is an other example how to get yourself spotted in a tank, we where taught to shoot 2-4 rounds within 20 secs, then get the .... out of there.
Very few tanks where bombed to death, because they where not ssen, and HTC should have a good thinking how spotting system should be reworked.
I spent like 20 years in tanks on and off, also flying of spotting/recce in a helicopter, and 20 years flying in ultralights.
Our system does not give justice to the GV'ers, that get cheap deaths to all them planes flying around using bombs, specially irritating is it to see a set of 4-engined planes blasting a couple of
tanks flying at ground level.
-
IMO, we also need some sort of spawnable FlaK cannon. I would be perfectly happy with the FlaK 41 50mm AAA gun. It would be relativly weak compared to the 5" guns, needing a very close hit, and you would have to set the fuze yourself. But we DO need something better than the wirb's and osties to deter bomb tards.
Perhaps the US 90mm M1A1? it would have trouble firing on ground targets due to lack of depression of the gun barrel, if thats a concern. It would be almost 100% vulnerable to ANY gv in the game, even a jeep.
But the fact is the wirb just doesn't cut it against carpet bombing lancs flying at 3k.
-
IMO, we also need some sort of spawnable FlaK cannon. I would be perfectly happy with the FlaK 41 50mm AAA gun. It would be relativly weak compared to the 5" guns, needing a very close hit, and you would have to set the fuze yourself.
"Relatively weak"? A 5" shell is about 16 times larger than a 50mm round - which, by the way, doesn't have a fuze to set as it is a direct firing AA gun, no "puffy" ack. The 5 cm FLak 41 was also exceedingly rare and not mass produced. Only a small experimental "Vorserie" (=pre-production series) of 50 guns was built.
-
yes, lusche, as I mentioned in my post, we would have to set the fuze ourselves.
And yeah, really too bad about the FlaK 41, about the onlything I can see people not yelling their heads off about how it would kill the game, and that it would be too dangrous, and how it should be perked at 100 if its even added.
something like a 90mm M2 would put the dedicated bomb****s outa bussiness, god forbid the GV's get something to combat the 8K A20's diving in and bombing.
-
yes, lusche, as I mentioned in my post, we would have to set the fuze ourselves..
Reread my post please. :)
-
To really liven up the tanker's days, we need the Mosquito FB.Mk VIII. :t
-
oh oops, thought you were saying it had no proxy fuze :D.
Good god no Karnak, if you do that, I will blow all my perks on 262's to hunt them down if need be.
-
I don't see the KT upsetting the game too badly, well, because.....
(http://www.vectorsite.net/Ywfat_2m.jpg)
:devil
-
picture is broken. And if its a reference to bombing, then I'll be quite upset with you :furious.
-
"Relatively weak"? A 5" shell is about 16 times larger than a 50mm round - which, by the way, doesn't have a fuze to set as it is a direct firing AA gun, no "puffy" ack. The 5 cm FLak 41 was also exceedingly rare and not mass produced. Only a small experimental "Vorserie" (=pre-production series) of 50 guns was built.
If 43 Ta-152's produced is enough to get them in the game (and 6 were prototypes), then 50 seems well beyond the threshold of consideration.
-
Depending on the source, around 45 Ostwinds and 100 Wirbelwinds were produced during the war.
I don't think numbers have ever mattered too much to HTC. If HTC feels the game needs a certain plane or vehicle it's there.
-
then why not a FlaK cannon? Fact is the wirbs and osties just don't cut it out past 1.5k. If you ask me, wirbs and osties are a deterent, a strong one to most people, but if you piss someone off, it won't stop them. Once they make that calculation, once they decide they can get their bombs out before going down, nothing this side of an AAA gun will stop them.
-
Depending on the source, around 45 Ostwinds and 100 Wirbelwinds were produced during the war.
I don't think numbers have ever mattered too much to HTC. If HTC feels the game needs a certain plane or vehicle it's there.
QFT
DuHasst
-
Ppl that hear about a GV fight, go bomb without any request for ordnance, and bomb the highest perked tank there just piss me off.
Why? I don't participate in many egging sessions, but it seems fairly logical to deal with the greatest threat first. Just like furballing, take out the planes that have the best chance of killing you first... Then take care of the lesser threats. If you up a perked tank or plane, you're going to be a target. Accept it.
-
Because is not their place. They aren't doing it to protect their base, or help their friends, they bombing just to bomb. If we we're rolling for the base, and the defenders can't stop us, ok, release the A20's. But there are often GV bombers at an even odds fight without any camping taking place.
If we had a spawnable 90mm with proxy shells, HTC would hear the furballer's screams all the way from texas. The fighters would see it as an encroachment on their territory, and it would royaly piss them off.
-
Because is not their place. They aren't doing it to protect their base, or help their friends, they bombing just to bomb. If we we're rolling for the base, and the defenders can't stop us, ok, release the A20's. But there are often GV bombers at an even odds fight without any camping taking place.
If we had a spawnable 90mm with proxy shells, HTC would hear the furballer's screams all the way from texas. The fighters would see it as an encroachment on their territory, and it would royaly piss them off.
In your opinion it's "not their place". How do you know that they're not doing it to help their friends or to protect an asset of some sort? Also, a flak gun with alot of ammo would be far more devestating than a jabo with a couple of bombs.
Point being, there is no "territory" in AH. You spawn in, you have a chance of being shot at by many aircraft and vehicles.
If you REALLY wanted to have an uninterrupted tank fight, you'd spawn in at the tank town area... Unfortunately, the tank town areas are usually barren of activity. If you up in an area that aircraft are going to be hunting you, why complain about being bombed? It was your decision to go there in the first place.
-
Because is not their place. They aren't doing it to protect their base, or help their friends, they bombing just to bomb. If we we're rolling for the base, and the defenders can't stop us, ok, release the A20's. But there are often GV bombers at an even odds fight without any camping taking place.
If we had a spawnable 90mm with proxy shells, HTC would hear the furballer's screams all the way from texas. The fighters would see it as an encroachment on their territory, and it would royaly piss them off.
Bombing GVs is fun and it is part of the game. I've never seen a GVer fail to try to kill an enemy fighter that was engaged with one of his side's fighters and passed within rage of his machine guns or AA cannons. It is a two way street and you are playing in a combat environment that includes being attacked by aircraft, deal with it.
-
Believeing what you read on facebook is like believing in the easter bunny.......its fun until you realise its all been a lie
-
Bombing GVs is fun and it is part of the game. I've never seen a GVer fail to try to kill an enemy fighter that was engaged with one of his side's fighters and passed within rage of his machine guns or AA cannons. It is a two way street and you are playing in a combat environment that includes being attacked by aircraft, deal with it.
Seems that some people here spend a lot of their time bombing gv's...drop their ords, go land their kills, up more ords, etc, etc. Unless the pilot does something foolish, tanks don't have any defence against it(talking tanks..not flak guns). If I up a perked tank and get killed by another gv..good for him, but when I lose a perked ride with no was to fight back it gets annoying. And as for the lancstukas...hard to believe that strategic bombers were out dive bombing individual tanks. Interesting stuff in the stats.
-
In your opinion it's "not their place". How do you know that they're not doing it to help their friends or to protect an asset of some sort?
Also, a flak gun with alot of ammo would be far more devestating than a jabo with a couple of bombs.
If you REALLY wanted to have an uninterrupted tank fight, you'd spawn in at the tank town area... Unfortunately, the tank town areas are usually barren of activity. If you up in an area that aircraft are going to be hunting you, why complain about being bombed? It was your decision to go there in the first place.
Admited it. I can't count the number of times I've heard (seen really) "to piss you guys off mate, no better sport than that". Another favorite is "bombing targets aren't worth chit, so what else am I gonna bomb?".
give it 100 rds and we're fine. its not a 5", you can't make due with making it close. It would require a near direct hit. Picture how close you have to put a panzer's HE shell to kill an aircraft on the tarmac. Increase that circle by about 2/3' and you have the FlaK 36's shell. And you have to set the fuze yourself. AND you're aiming at a constantly manuvering target. How many people do you think have the skill to kill a big swarm of aircraft under those conditions? I think the issue is greatly exagerated on your part.
And since it wouldn't be as big of a threat as you suggest, it means it would be for a group of flackers to go out into a furball and knock down the planes they can. If they do, I guarantee the people shot down will be screaming bloody murder about how the evil AA guns should be perked, god forbid the lemmings on the ground are able to shoot back :rolleyes:.
And zippo makes a good point. As long as aircraft are in the area, you can't up a perked tank without fear of bombers. the people in the 262's don't have to worry about someone else taking care of the things intending them harm, but GV'ers do. Aircraft are also 100% capable of avoiding the wirbs, but tanks don't have the ability to dodge or avoid bombs. If you die in a 262, its because you screw up or didn't look closely enough. But you can be doing EVERYTHING right in a perk tank and still be killed. So I'll make you a deal juggler, when tanks start shooting down perk planes on a regular basis, I'll shut up about the bombing.
Do you see the differences, and how it would make us tankers resent the bomb****s a bit?
-
Seems that some people here spend a lot of their time bombing gv's...drop their ords, go land their kills, up more ords, etc, etc. Unless the pilot does something foolish, tanks don't have any defence against it(talking tanks..not flak guns).
Boohoo, bring some AA vehicles to cover your group as well. You know there are a lot of bomb laden aircraft out there. Should I whine that my airplane has almost no life expectancy near an enemy fleet?
If I up a perked tank and get killed by another gv..good for him, but when I lose a perked ride with no was to fight back it gets annoying.
Oh well, it happens. Bring friends next time.
And as for the lancstukas...hard to believe that strategic bombers were out dive bombing individual tanks. Interesting stuff in the stats.
Nope, they definitely didn't exist in reality. They didn't exist because they are a near useless suicide mission. What was it that Lusche's chart showed? 0.4% of vehicle deaths were to Lancasters? One of the largest exaggerated whines in the game.
-
You know the best defence against air attack is fighter cover and I very rarely see gvers asking for air support on the Bish country channel. Most fighter pilots would love to browse on unescorted low alt Lancs and jabos.
-
Boohoo, bring some AA vehicles to cover your group as well. You know there are a lot of bomb laden aircraft out there. Should I whine that my airplane has almost no life expectancy near an enemy fleet?
Flak guns spawning in to a hot spawn (v85 comes to mind) probably have less life expectancy than your plane near a fleet. They are under tank fire when they spawn in.
Oh well, it happens. Bring friends next time.Nope, they definitely didn't exist in reality. They didn't exist because they are a near useless suicide mission. What was it that Lusche's chart showed? 0.4% of vehicle deaths were to Lancasters? One of the largest exaggerated whines in the game.
I need to find Lusche's chart...as of today, of 2147 kills by lancasters, 811 were vehicles. I may be reading the stats wrong.
-
I wonder how many people going "your fault fault for upping" and "up a flack". Are speaking with any real expierence.
I've done just about everything at one point or another and I can say this from expierence: bombing is easy, defending against it is much harder for the guys on the ground.
-
I need to find Lusche's chart...as of today, of 2147 kills by lancasters, 811 were vehicles. I may be reading the stats wrong.
You are reading the stats wrong. You shouldn't be looking at what percentage of the Lancaster's kills are vehicles, just the total number of vehicle kills by Lancasters compared to the total number of vehicle kills. The total number of Lancaster kills is completely irrelevant.
-
I need to find Lusche's chart...as of today, of 2147 kills by lancasters, 811 were vehicles. I may be reading the stats wrong.
A huge percentage of the Lancaster's kills are GV, because the lanc has a hard time to shoot enemy fighters down.
But if you look at my recent stats (see link in my sig), you will see that only a surprisingly small fraction of tanks (0.6% in case of Panzer IV and M4(76) in 2010) are actually killed by Lancasters.