Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: titanic3 on August 22, 2011, 09:41:26 PM
-
Is it possible to fly the 110 without the BB gun in the back? I know you can shoot and empty the rounds to save a couple of pounds, but is it possible to remove the gun itself completely/the weight of the gunner? Assuming the the gunner is average weight at 180lb, the gun itself is at 15lbs and the 1500 rounds of ammunition weighs roughly 175lb.
It might not be much, but every little bit helps. So can we hope to see this option added whenever the Bf110 gets remodeled?
-
If the lack of the weight from the gun and gunner are your salvation then you should never have been in that position to begin with. :aok
The Germans put a rear gunner in the 110 for a reason. ;)
-
Well, in RL, any gun shooting at you is a threat to your life. However, in AH, the BB gun does almost nothing except annoying the other guy and maybe make him duck a bit. (But of course, there are always lucky shots). The saved weight would increase climb rate, turn rate, and speed, even if it is just a little bit. Kinda like the same of why people choose to fly without gunpods. More guns is good right? But saved weight and drag is even better.
-
in fact i wish they had a heavier gun! the 2 ventral 20mm cannon...real good to shoot buffs down with..
-
No, just as I can't leave my "navigator" at home.
-
You think yoo can feel that 300lbs difference in a 18k lbs plane?
Im afraid even the synthetic tests cant notice anything.
-
Well, in RL, any gun shooting at you is a threat to your life. However, in AH, the BB gun does almost nothing except annoying the other guy and maybe make him duck a bit. (But of course, there are always lucky shots). The saved weight would increase climb rate, turn rate, and speed, even if it is just a little bit. Kinda like the same of why people choose to fly without gunpods. More guns is good right? But saved weight and drag is even better.
Let's put it this way...any savings in weight is not going to be a determining factor in an engagement.
ack-ack
-
I think it should only be an option if it was common practice in real life for the 110 to fly without a rear gunner. As far as I know it wasn't.
-
Let's put it this way... you shave 30 gallons off your gas and that's 180 lbs.
Let's put it this way... You have 331 lbs of 30mm ammo alone. You have 363 lbs of 20mm ammo alone
Let's put it this way: If the only thing saving your bacon is 180 lbs you've screwed up in a big way or are just totally out-performed. No amount of weight savings will protect you from a spit16.
-1,000,000 for this wish. Totally unhistoric and totally wrong answer to the problem.
-
I'm with greebo. If the option was available in real life and can be documented then it would be cool for it to be available in the game. The tail gun is dead weight.
-
Hell man, if you can't out manuver someone in a 110 then dropping 250 lbs probably isn't going to save your neck. If you're out manuvered its usually in the area of roll rate which won't be helped in the slightest by saving some weight.
Not taking the extra 20mm's would probably be even more effective either way.
-
I'm with greebo. If the option was available in real life and can be documented then it would be cool for it to be available in the game.
Generally I am there too.
If however I were to be in WWII with a 110 and was prepping for a fighter oriented mission as opposed to ground attack, I'd sure have my support crew do what it could make my vehicle lighter. If this includes yanking the tail gun so be it.
I think little things like this can make a difference. This is a game of a shot hitting or not by a few pixels! :O
Combine this (yanking the gun) with less fuel, less ammo load etc., and these things just might add up to coming back with a kill or better yet...in one piece!
Bf-110 Option to Remove Rear Gun: +1
-
fyi all, this isn't going to happen no matter how many +1s you give it. I have never heard of Bf110s going into action without the rear gunner. Furthermore, even if you do find a one off, we don't have field mods.
-
It's the Crimson Skies generation I guess.
Slade: No amount of pulling stuff off a 110G is going to make it an uber plane. It's NOT a matter of a few pixels. You get shot down in 110Gs because they are 110Gs. Going into waves of enemy spits, jugs, zekes, and so forth gets you DEAD.
Funny thing about that though.... It's historically accurate. You want to survive in a 110G? Don't fly it as a fighter in a late-war furball! Period! Get some cover (wingmen, friends, random country mates). That's how you'll survive.
Funny thing about that too.... It's also historically accurate!
You all gotta realize... You don't go screwing with the game to tweak/mess/[bleep] over the historical accuracy of the aircraft "just cause" you wanna live longer.
-
While we're at it I'd like extra canisters of ammo loaded into my B17s and I'd like to pull the waist gunners out. We could easily add a few thousand rounds to the tail guns.
-
While we're at it I'd like extra canisters of ammo loaded into my B17s and I'd like to pull the waist gunners out. We could easily add a few thousand rounds to the tail guns.
I think I can find a few historical references to B-17s with no waist gunners. Not the extra tail ammo however.
wrongway
-
Alright, I understand, I'm all for realism, but I know the rule of no field mods are allowed, but I wasn't sure, so I asked if it was possible. No big deal, no need to go all out on the "Crimson Skies generation". We're not all idiots.
-
You cannot get rid of the rear gun in the 110...what ever will Boxman do without it???!!!
-
Slade: No amount of pulling stuff off a 110G is going to make it an uber plane.
It was my error to type syntax that could have possible been inferred that the 110 could ever become an "uber" plane. That was not my intent. :bhead
Let me be more specific: if the changes I mentioned could make the plane 1-5% more responsive as a fighter I would make the changes IF it was actually done in WWII.
I commonly take just enough fuel to arrive over a battles zone as light as possible. It would be nothing more than this type tactic. Tweaking the gun load out to achieve a minor improvement. Thats all. Nothing more. No in-the-field mods requested. Maybe a gun loadout change IF it was historically accurate. :salute
-
The 110G2 is fine the way it is, and I might add is quite PWNtastic :aok
JUGgler
-
It was my error to type syntax that could have possible been inferred that the 110 could ever become an "uber" plane. That was not my intent. :bhead
Let me be more specific: if the changes I mentioned could make the plane 1-5% more responsive as a fighter I would make the changes IF it was actually done in WWII.
I commonly take just enough fuel to arrive over a battles zone as light as possible. It would be nothing more than this type tactic. Tweaking the gun load out to achieve a minor improvement. Thats all. Nothing more. No in-the-field mods requested. Maybe a gun loadout change IF it was historically accurate. :salute
Like stated before, it wouldn't make you 1-5% more responsive. It wouldn't even make you five-TENTHS of a percent more responsive.
Its not a minor improvement, its a null improvement. I can guarantee if somehow HTC took it out, but retained the flight models, you would come on here telling us how you're now outturning Zeros and such. It would be a placebo effect.
If you want to have a more responsive 110, fly a 109 with gondolas.
-
Why remove the gun when firing off it's entire load of ammo gives you a 4mph boost that lasts 3 minutes at 20k feet?
-
Raptor05121,
you would come on here telling us how you're now outturning Zeros and such.
Can you please help me understand how you think I have communicated that my goal was for a 110 to "outturning Zeros and such"? Can you show me the words I used that communicated that?