Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on August 16, 2011, 06:30:26 PM
-
I would like to request the
IAR-80C
342mph at 23K
6.6minutes to 5000m
4 7.92mm mgs and 2 Mg151/20's
Fiat G.55
417 with WEP at 23k
8.57mins to 7000m
2 12.7mm cowl mounted MG's
3 Mg151/20's (one engine mounted (250 rpg), two wing mounted (200))
And hopefully the Re.2005
421mph at 23k
3900'/min
2 12.7mm cowl mounted MG's
3 Mg151/20's (one engine mounted (150 rpg), two wing mounted (200))
-
-1 to all three at this time.
Re.2005 might not even qualify at all.
-
Why and the Re.2005 barely qualifies, depending on if you call "sqadron strength" multiple mixed squadrons.
-
wowowo! oye! do not say no to the IAR
-
Don't worry Raphael, if I'll add something with severly limited prospects in the MA to the list, and then he'll come around :lol.
-
Don't worry Raphael, if I'll add something with severly limited prospects in the MA to the list, and then he'll come around :lol.
You already did, the IAR-80C.
Try finding some things that actually fought the war for a change.
It would be like somebody constantly saying no to your neigh useless in the MA Panzer III and demanding the M-26 Pershing and Centurion, then arguing that the Centurion really does count for whatever reason.
-
what? I said HOPEFULLY the Re.2005. I don't know if HTC will take the multiple mixed squadrons thing or not.
IAR-80 wouldn't be much worse than the spit-9, Yak-9T, P-39Q, etc.
Again, why not?
-
343mph is slower than the Spitfire Mk Ia, let alone the 408mph Spitfire Mk IX. The Yak-9T and P-39Q are both significantly worse than the Spitfire Mk IX.
As to the Re.2005, why do you want the Panzer III and not the Centurion?
-
Because i would use the panzer III, and I wouldn't use the centurion, same way I haven't really used the Tiger II. I have more than enough perks for it, it would easily let me get my k/d up off the deck, but thats not what I'm going for.
As to the IAR-80 speed, thats was actually the IAR-81C, I think. The bombrack caused significant penalties in speed, climb, and acceleration. And even if it is correct, its still not much or any worse than the Hurricane, 109E, A6M, Brewster, I-16, and a couple others.
-
Because i would use the panzer III, and I wouldn't use the centurion, same way I haven't really used the Tiger II. I have more than enough perks for it, it would easily let me get my k/d up off the deck, but thats not what I'm going for.
As to the IAR-80 speed, thats was actually the IAR-81C, I think. The bombrack caused significant penalties in speed, climb, and acceleration. And even if it is correct, its still not much or any worse than the Hurricane, 109E, A6M, Brewster, I-16, and a couple others.
No, it isn't much worse, better than most of that list actually. That said, how many Bf109E-4s, Hurricane Mk Is, I-16s, A6M2s or A6M3s do you see?
I don't have anything particular against adding it, I just think we need other things first. My quip was based on your claim that I'd support your list if you put something that wouldn't get used significantly in the MA when your list already had such an aircraft.
We know the G.55 is on HTC's list as it has taken part in at least on of the two votes for the next aircraft to be added. Personally, I would rather see an Italian aircraft that saw service in more representative numbers, but I am not going to stomp my feet in dismay if the next preview shots HTC give us are of the G.55.
The Re.2005 would be a new level of rarity, beating out even the Ta152 and Me163. At least it would give me the shot to go full out to get the Mosquito FB.Mk XVIII added as its production run of 27 would no longer be an issue.
-
karnak, i'm not surprised. not everything included has to be a late war 500mph monster. talk about low production and obsolesence, only 40 b239s were ever created and they were obsolete by western standards before they got into combat. total production numbers for all models of brewster f2a's was somewhere around 500, and only the b239s sent to finland recorded any real success with them. according to the ah speed charts that thing doesn't hit 320mph level at any alt. so how would something like the iar-80c that was at least as fast as the a6m5 and could compete against many of the early war plane set not deserve consideration? it was just as significant to romania during the war as the brewster was to finland, with total production of all models in the range of 400, it served on the eastern front from 1941 to 1944.
personal idealism aside, try looking at the merits of a plane based on its capability against its contemporaries.
as for the re.2005 after all the discussions on that plane, everyone who has paid attention already knows there were more than 20 built, it served in squadron strength and saw combat. it was supposedly very successful too.
personally i'd like to see more "pre-1941" aircraft included. there was a war going on before the u.s. entered it and there were a good number of aircraft deemed "obsolete by 1941" being used by many countries to defend their homelands.
-
karnak, i'm not surprised. not everything included has to be a late war 500mph monster. talk about low production and obsolesence, only 40 b239s were ever created and they were obsolete by western standards before they got into combat. total production numbers for all models of brewster f2a's was somewhere around 500, and only the b239s sent to finland recorded any real success with them. according to the ah speed charts that thing doesn't hit 320mph level at any alt. so how would something like the iar-80c that was at least as fast as the a6m5 and could compete against many of the early war plane set not deserve consideration? it was just as significant to romania during the war as the brewster was to finland, with total production of all models in the range of 400, it served on the eastern front from 1941 to 1944.
personal idealism aside, try looking at the merits of a plane based on its capability against its contemporaries.
as for the re.2005 after all the discussions on that plane, everyone who has paid attention already knows there were more than 20 built, it served in squadron strength and saw combat. it was supposedly very successful too.
personally i'd like to see more "pre-1941" aircraft included. there was a war going on before the u.s. entered it and there were a good number of aircraft deemed "obsolete by 1941" being used by many countries to defend their homelands.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am certainly not the one advocating for rare, ultra-potent aircraft here. That would be Tank-Ace.
-
You post theese three rides every week?
-
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am certainly not the one advocating for rare, ultra-potent aircraft here. That would be Tank-Ace.
you're right...
At least it would give me the shot to go full out to get the Mosquito FB.Mk XVIII added as its production run of 27 would no longer be an issue.
but that's a rare occurrence for you lately...any other time you're just railing against everything that isn't something you're interested in. to illustrate, one of your arguments against the the iar-80 was speed...
343mph is slower than the Spitfire Mk Ia, let alone the 408mph Spitfire Mk IX. The Yak-9T and P-39Q are both significantly worse than the Spitfire Mk IX.
and yet the fairey firefly at 316mph...
I think the Firefly would be a good addition as well, but I doubt it would need to be perked. Its performance envelope is much poorer than the F4U-1C. 316mph top speed is nothing to crow about, that is about the same as a Hurricane Mk I.The four Hispanos would be nasty though.
or has there been some progression since that time?
-
You post theese three rides every week?
Determination: Never underestimate it :D
-
OK, so the IAR-80 is anything but a LW 500mph monster, and neither is the G55. The G.55 was slightly superior to the 109 yeah, but not by THAT much.
Re.2005: I'm not really expecting it to be added, as I've said, I'm just hoping that HTC throws me a bone with this one.
Karnak, I'm just poking fun at your support for earlier planes such as the Ki-43 with mediocre preormance.
Determination: Never underestimate it :D
The Finns' determination got us that useless Brewster. So far we've done a grand total of 1 Special Event where the B239 was present. Aside from that we've just used it to fill in for the inferior F2A.
-
Why and the Re.2005 barely qualifies, depending on if you call "sqadron strength" multiple mixed squadrons.
There was less then 30 total built and never entered into production. The ones that were built consisted of 2 prototypes and 27 pre-production models.
ack-ack
-
The Finns' determination got us that useless Brewster. So far we've done a grand total of 1 Special Event where the B239 was present. Aside from that we've just used it to fill in for the inferior F2A.
You do know that the Brewster we have in the game is an F2A, correct? It's the F2A-1.
ack-ack
-
Wait, so we have it incorrectly listed under the wiki pages? And I'm fairly certian even you've said we have the Finnish version in the game.
Even the "planes" page on the AH website has the Buffalo listed under the Finnland list.
-
Wait, so we have it incorrectly listed under the wiki pages? And I'm fairly certian even you've said we have the Finnish version in the game.
Even the "planes" page on the AH website has the Buffalo listed under the Finnland list.
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol
here do some reading...
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm)
learn up on it, f2a-1=b239, f2a-2=b339, f2a3=b239e & b439
-
Wait, so we have it incorrectly listed under the wiki pages? And I'm fairly certian even you've said we have the Finnish version in the game.
Nope, the Brewster is correctly listed in AHWiki and yes, I've said we have the Finnish version of the Brewster in game. When the US was getting rid of the F2A-1s in the USN inventory and decided to give the surplus planes to the Finnish government, the F2A-1s that were being exported were given the export designation of B-239.
ack-ack
-
you're right...
but that's a rare occurrence for you lately...any other time you're just railing against everything that isn't something you're interested in. to illustrate, one of your arguments against the the iar-80 was speed...
and yet the fairey firefly at 316mph...
or has there been some progression since that time?
I still have no idea what you are contesting. It feels like you are arguing against a position I have never held.
-
I don't think adding a "weaker" plane to the game is a waste or such... i know i would fly the iar, but if you guys say it didn't really figth in the war and such things you must be rigth, i really don't know for sure and can't trust wikipedia, if it didn't figth then i would agree to say no.
When i played Il2 1946 I use to love flying the IAR models i got owned all the time but still...
-
I don't think adding a "weaker" plane to the game is a waste or such... i know i would fly the iar, but if you guys say it didn't really figth in the war and such things you must be rigth, i really don't know for sure and can't trust wikipedia, if it didn't figth then i would agree to say no.
When i played Il2 1946 I use to love flying the IAR models i got owned all the time but still...
with all the references for the plane you're looking at wiki? it flew and it fought...for romania.
-
IAR was romanian. Fought from '41-'45.
-
The IAR was the only plane on his list that was at all significant.
The Re.2005 was the one I was objecting to, though he says it was bait.
To be clear to Tank-Ace and gyrene81, there are both early and late war units I advocate for. My typical range right now is something like Ki-43, Yak-1 through Ju188A-1, Me410, J2M3/J2M5 and Tu-2. My criteria are a mixture of what is needed for historical purposes and what I think would do well in the MA or fill quasi holes in the MA.
-
Like I said, if HTC is fine with the multiple split squadrons thing :noid.......
Personally I couldn't care less if we get Ki-43, Yak-1, and the J2M. Granted they have some use in special events, and some limited prospects in the MA, buuhhuut I still don't really care. I won't fly them so I don't get anything but a new icon to shoot at.
Thats not to say I don't want them added eventually, I'd just prefer something thats significant and that I would use.
-
I would use the Ju188 and J2Ms. The Ki-43 I'd use occasionally.
Things left to be added, completely new airframe airplanewise, that might see noticeable MA usage, in my opinion:
A-26
B7A
Do217
He162
He177
G.55
J2M
Ju188
Ki-44
Ki-102
Meteor
SB2C
Tu-2
-
Did the meteor score any actually kills against a manned aircraft? Not just against V1's?
Asside from that, you might want to add the Me-410. If we got the BK-37 armed version, it would likely replace the Il-2 as the main GV buster.
-
:huh OK someone REALLY needs to explain or better yet show me how the crap you killa tank with an IL2 or a Hurri mk IID. :headscratch: yeah, i get that you can shoot the rockets at tanks and drop the bombs from the IL2 and get kills but how do you gun down a tank with 30 bullets from a hurri? even if you could keep it on target without missing a single shot or getting a face full of howitzer does it even do any damage to the heavier ones, i mean i can see it taking down a jeep or m3 or even an m8, ive been killed by 2d's in M8's before but against a Sherman or even a Panzer +? probly the wrong thread to post this on but just confused :headscratch: LOL
-
Did the meteor score any actually kills against a manned aircraft? Not just against V1's?
No, just one dogfight against some Fw190s before being chased off by some Spitfires who thought they were Me262s. Shooting down an aircraft is not a criteria though. It saw combat, being used for ground attack missions against German positions.
Asside from that, you might want to add the Me-410. If we got the BK-37 armed version, it would likely replace the Il-2 as the main GV buster.
Perhaps. I'd like to see the Me410 added in any case.
:huh OK someone REALLY needs to explain or better yet show me how the crap you killa tank with an IL2 or a Hurri mk IID. :headscratch: yeah, i get that you can shoot the rockets at tanks and drop the bombs from the IL2 and get kills but how do you gun down a tank with 30 bullets from a hurri? even if you could keep it on target without missing a single shot or getting a face full of howitzer does it even do any damage to the heavier ones, i mean i can see it taking down a jeep or m3 or even an m8, ive been killed by 2d's in M8's before but against a Sherman or even a Panzer +? probly the wrong thread to post this on but just confused :headscratch: LOL
The 23mm, 37mm and 40mm AP ammo those aircraft carry for whichever gun is the one in question can penetrate some of the armor on most of the tanks in AH. It isn't a matter of repeated hits, it is a matter of hitting in the right place at a steep enough angle of impact. Do that with one round and it can be a dead tank.
-
uh..so if i sneak my hurri D up behind a panzer engine off and land/roll up on him, then shoot him in the back of the turret at point blank will i get a kill with the 40mms? :headscratch: that would be the best kill ever. or do i jump out fo my plane and stick my .45 down the barrel and shoot the shell to detonet inside tank?? :ahand
-
uh..so if i sneak my hurri D up behind a panzer engine off and land/roll up on him, then shoot him in the back of the turret at point blank will i get a kill with the 40mms? :headscratch: that would be the best kill ever. or do i jump out fo my plane and stick my .45 down the barrel and shoot the shell to detonet inside tank?? :ahand
Front, side and rear armor tends to be too thick for these guns to get through. Normally you are trying to punch through the thinner armor on the deck or turret roof. Some older model tanks do have other vulnerabilities.
-
The IAR was the only plane on his list that was at all significant.
The Re.2005 was the one I was objecting to, though he says it was bait.
ok true. the re.2005 though fitting the squadron and combat criteria fails in the category of significance. perhaps given another year it may have been as significant as the c.202/205.
To be clear to Tank-Ace and gyrene81, there are both early and late war units I advocate for. My typical range right now is something like Ki-43, Yak-1 through Ju188A-1, Me410, J2M3/J2M5 and Tu-2. My criteria are a mixture of what is needed for historical purposes and what I think would do well in the MA or fill quasi holes in the MA.
alright i get it now.
-
Karnak, the Me-410 would give much increased preformance in every aspect over the Il-2. Oh sure, you might not kill as many tanks with each rearm or sortie, but you might be able to make 3 sorties in the time it takes the Il-2 to make 2.
With the Il-2, the 23mm cannons are basicly useless. Take the 37mm's.
Panzer/Panther: Sides and back of the hull/turret, and the engine decking
M4: Sides of the hull, and the engine decking/turret top
T-34: Engine decking/turret top
Tiger: Dive in strait down from above and fire at the top of the tank. Little chance of succes but possible.
-
It would depend on the loadouts we get with the Me410. It has a lot of options and there is no promising we'd get a BK-37 as an option.
-
The BK37 was the anti-tank gun on the Ju87G. what the 410 had was the BK5, a 50mm round that was HE only. I've read some commentary that they were used on the Russian front against armor, but often terms like "armor" are loosely defined and it probably wouldn't harm tanks much.
Even the 75mm HE from the B-25H we have in-game bounces off medium tanks. I remember flying right up behind a Sherman on the deck and firing a 75mm @ 200 yards, seeing it "hit" (saw the hit sprite) in the dead center of the engine compartment, and never did any damage.
So I wouldn't suspect the guns on the Me410 to be super tank busters. Not like can openers or anything.
Just sayin'...
-
Hmmm... Must be thinking of the Hs 129 that had the BK37.
-
Hs129 is more noted for Mk101 30mm and Mk103 30mm.
Few ever got the BK37. Those were almost exclusively on the Ju87 variants. Instead, as soon as the BK37 became available on the Hs129, they moved to the PAK40 75mm. This was some 1200 kg for an already underpowered airframe and was almost unflyable. But.... fly it did!
Very low, and very slow, but with a mean punch!
EDIT: 12 rounds, claimed to be able to knock out any tank in the world at the time, assuming the Hs129 survived to get into attack position. It was vulnerable to ground fire due to its slow speed. Maximum speed clean was only 250mph. Much slower with the PAK40.
-
Would rather have the Ju-88P if its that or the Hs 129 with BK 7. But the Hs 129 DID carry the Bk 37, even if rarely. P-51 can carry 1000lb bombs and rockets, when they rarely carried both.
I say as long as we're taking 25%, carrying full fuel and full ordnance in the B-29, etc, then no reason not to include the Hs 129 with Bk 37.
-
There was no BK37 on the Hs129... They started testing and stopped right away. They shifted tracks entirely away from that. It wasn't rare, it was downright nonexistent. The Hs129's main claim to fame was the Mk101 and Mk103 guns. The majority of them that carried gunpods used these guns. The problem is that by even early 1943 they were having problems punching through Soviet armor. They were only 30mm rounds.
The 75mm was also rather rare, but actually used. 25 were made starting in June 1944 and ending in Sept 1944. That was when they shut down production.
So if you want a Hs129 representative of actual WW2 capabilities, it will have a 30mm gunpod or external bombs/rockets. In short, it was obsolete before 1943 came around, and Fw190Fs and obsolete Ju87Gs were much more capable of killing tanks. An interesting addition if ever added, but useless in almost every way related to Aces High MA play.
P.S. I think you should stop wishing for the Hs129 and just wish for the Ju87G. It had more ammo, better performance, and 2x the hitting power (twice the guns).
-
You could make the argument for a perked ordnance package (if this feature is ever introduced) consisting of the 7.5 cm BK cannon that was mounted on the Hs 129 B-3.
I also wouldn't call the Hs 129 "obsolete by the time 1943 came around", when there is no evidence to support that claim. The Hs 129 was produced in very small numbers, so small that it really had no appreciable impact on the war. However, it did perform well in battle when conditions were right. Like the Ju 87, it was dependent on the Germans having tactical air superiority over the battle field and by middle-late 1943, things were changing dramatically on the Eastern Front and the luxuries of air superiority was no longer enjoyed exclusively by the Luftwaffe. The small numbers of Hs 129s found themselves in flying in increasingly large numbers of defensive actions and their losses started to increase as air cover wasn't always available as it was in the past.
This was the major problem with the Hs 129, it was a plan introduced at a time when things were shifting against the Germans, basically it had the deck stacked against it from the start. Had the B series been produced in larger numbers and the Luftwaffe could have maintained their early tactical air superiority over the battle field, the Hs 129's reputation would have been positive instead of being a plane that was never really given a chance to succeed.
ack-ack
-
Wouldn't mind a perked ordnance feature. Would let us add some load-outs and planes without the game being completly thrown off balance.
I would enjoy using the 14000lb super torpedo in the B-29 :banana:.