Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Butcher on September 20, 2011, 01:40:40 PM
-
To many topics deal with Aircraft/vehicles that have seen no combat or wern't in production, can anyone from HTC give a full clarification on this?
Basically I want to know what are the rules in regards to possibly adding something to the game?
-
I'll second the request. :aok
-
A definition of what counts as combat, if combat is a criteria at all, would be nice as well.
Point in case, Meteors dealt with V1s, did some ground attack and, I am told, had a scoreless furball with some Fw190s.
I can see people arguing on both sides of whether or not that is combat.
-
hell. just shooting some ground targets means combat. if its enemy, and your attacking them then its considered combat.
-
A definition of what counts as combat, if combat is a criteria at all, would be nice as well.
Point in case, Meteors dealt with V1s, did some ground attack and, I am told, had a scoreless furball with some Fw190s.
I can see people arguing on both sides of whether or not that is combat.
BEGIN QUOTE:
The Meteor III is superior to the Tempest V in almost all departments. If it were not for the heaviness of its ailerons and the consequent poor maneuverability in the rolling plane, and the adverse effect of snaking on it as a gun platform, it would be a comparable all-round fighter with greatly increased performance.
END QUOTE
A few Meteor IIIs flew to the Continent in January 1945 and operated out of the Low Countries with the 2nd Tactical Air Force until the end of the war in early May 1945. They performed ground strafing attacks, but never engaged in air combat.
Nope never engaged in Air combat during the European Theater, only ground attacks.
Here's the reason why:
With the arrival of the Meteor F Mk.III in December 1944 the RAF finally decided that the Meteor was ready for combat over Europe. On 20 January 1945 a flight of four Meteors moved to Melsbrook in Belgium becoming the first Allied jet squadron to operate from the continent. Their initial purpose was to provide air defence for the airfield, but it was also hoped that their presence might provoke the Germans into sending Me 262s against them. At this point the Meteor pilots were still forbidden to fly over German occupied territory, or to go east of Eindhoven, to prevent a downed aircraft being captured by the Germans or the Soviets.
-
See, only two posts after mine and you have one person saying it saw combat and another saying it did not.
-
See, only two posts after mine and you have one person saying it saw combat and another saying it did not.
Only 4 planes landed in Europe, I do believe HTC said "Squadron Strength".
-
Only 4 planes landed in Europe, I do believe HTC said "Squadron Strength".
It served in squadron strength in the UK.
The only thing that the validity of the Meteor Mk III hinges on is the definition of "combat".
-
There's probably a few planes from BoB, China/Burma/India and North Africa that never saw squadron strength in Continental Europe...
-
It served in squadron strength in the UK.
The only thing that the validity of the Meteor Mk III hinges on is the definition of "combat".
Your last comment was "There was a squad v squad fight of Meteor Mk IIIs against Fw190s, but a squad of Spitfires showed up and chased off the Meteors before any Fw190 or Meteor was downed.
Air to air combat."
Can you please verify this comment with sources, I am interested to know since you are an expert on the Meteor. I'd like to know the names of the pilots who were engaged, and which Luftwaffe units.
Again please clarify this with sources ->
A definition of what counts as combat, if combat is a criteria at all, would be nice as well.
Point in case, Meteors dealt with V1s, did some ground attack and, I am told, had a scoreless furball with some Fw190s.
I can see people arguing on both sides of whether or not that is combat.
Can you please clarify the sources that the meteor engaged a Luftwaffe aircraft. I show only 4 Meteor Mk III's were sent to Europe and none did anything more then Provoke the Germans to send Me-262's after them and fly CAP over an Airfield - none were allowed anywhere near the combat lines for fear the Germans/Russians would get ahold of the aircraft.
Please don't tell me you read it on wikipedia.
-
I am not an expert on the Meteor, nor am I advocating it to be added to AH. I am holding it up as a poster child of an aircraft that might or might not qualify depending on the definition of "combat".
As to the Meteor vs Fw190 claim, it was posted in this forum a long time ago by another poster whom I respect. I no longer recall whom.
You will note that I backed off of the claim in this thread, reducing it to "and, I am told, had a scoreless furball with some Fw190s."
1) The Meteor Mk III was in series production.
2) The Meteor Mk III served in squadron strength.
3) Depending on if V1 interceptions and ground attack count as combat or not the Meteor Mk III may or may not have seen combat.
1) The F7F Tigercat was in series production.
2) The F7F Tigercat served in squadron strength.
3) The F7F Tigercat did not see combat.
1) The F8F Bearcat was in series production.
2) The F8F Bearcat served in squadron strength.
3) The F8F Bearcat did not see combat.
1) The P-51H Mustang was in series production.
2) The P-51H Mustang served in squadron strength.
3) The P-51H Mustang did not see combat.
See the difference?
-
I am not an expert on the Meteor, nor am I advocating it to be added to AH. I am holding it up as a poster child of an aircraft that might or might not qualify depending on the definition of "combat".
Heh. If you REALLY want to get the boards riled up on this subject all you gotta use is two words:
KING COBRA
*Runs away*
-
I thought all that mattered was what the children wanted by vote??? :headscratch:
-
WOW. Did this one get de-railed or what? :confused:
-
Whirble Wind, served in squadron strength, served longer "IN COMBAT" than the chog and MJug combined :aok
I believe it hade longer active WW2 service than the twit16 and tempest also
I don't think "squadron" size or "active" WW2 service is all that important to the requirements, if so then there are tons of vehicles that should have been here way before the likes of say the Chog :aok IMHO
I think HiTech adds what he wants to add, <-- that is the only requirement!
JUGgler
-
I think HiTech adds what he wants to add, <-- that is the only requirement!
JUGgler
and who said you were not smart??? :aok :D
-
I think HiTech adds what he wants to add, <-- that is the only requirement!
JUGgler
:aok
-
JUGgler,
We already have the Whirbelwind in AH.
If you mean the Whirlwind, it did serve longer than the P-47M and F4U-1C due to the war ending. It served longer than the Spitfire Mk XVI (and it is truly the mark of a low mind to stoop to insulting history) only if you don't account for the fact that something like ten times as many Spitfire Mk XVI's were built and used. In terms of total combat hours the Spitfire Mk XVI will have far more than the Whirlwind.
-
The F7F I think was delivered in squadron strength to the USMC in the Pacific and the F8F was loaded aboard carriers a stones throw away from begining combat operations at the war's end... would be great additions to the late war arena...
-
The F7F I think was delivered in squadron strength to the USMC in the Pacific and the F8F was loaded aboard carriers a stones throw away from begining combat operations at the war's end... would be great additions to the late war arena...
na, maybe if they were heavily perked, the bearcat would make a spit 16 look like an old out dated POS. It climbs 2k feet per min better than a k4!!!, turns with mondo flaps like a f4u and is faster than both. I'm guessing it accelerated better too given the power-to-weight requirements to achieve a climb rate of over 6K per min! (Other sources peg it at 4.6k per min.. so hmmm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F8F_Bearcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F8F_Bearcat)
-
JUGgler,
We already have the Whirbelwind in AH.
If you mean the Whirlwind, it did serve longer than the P-47M and F4U-1C due to the war ending. It served longer than the Spitfire Mk XVI (and it is truly the mark of a low mind to stoop to insulting history) only if you don't account for the fact that something like ten times as many Spitfire Mk XVI's were built and used. In terms of total combat hours the Spitfire Mk XVI will have far more than the Whirlwind.
Yes the Westland Whirlwind is what I meant to say, must be my age :old:
Please splain this
JUGgler
-
Westland Whirlwind, served in squadron strength, served longer "IN COMBAT" than the chog and MJug combined :aok
I believe it hade longer active WW2 service than the twit16 and tempest also
I don't think "squadron" size or "active" WW2 service is all that important to the requirements, if so then there are tons of vehicles that should have been here way before the likes of say the Chog :aok IMHO
I think HiTech adds what he wants to add, <-- that is the only requirement!
JUGgler
-
na, maybe if they were heavily perked, the bearcat would make a spit 16 look like an old out dated POS. It climbs 2k feet per min better than a k4!!!, turns with mondo flaps like a f4u and is faster than both. I'm guessing it accelerated better too given the power-to-weight requirements to achieve a climb rate of over 6K per min! (Other sources peg it at 4.6k per min.. so hmmm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F8F_Bearcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F8F_Bearcat)
Like I said, perfect for the main arenas! And you didn't even look up the F7F - think of the offspring from an orgy of P-38s, A-20s, and F6Fs.
-
Like I said, perfect for the main arenas!
ahh lol
<--- BBS sarcasm fail
-
i think the defenition of seeing combat means seeing combat against the enemy or in a combat zone, it dosnt have to mean seeing combat against other aircraft to mean seeing combat. the meteor qualifies as seing combat as it was used against the enemy in a combat zone. ground attack or dogfighting or just being in a zone of conflict or combat counts as seeing combat.
an example. my grandfather served in vietnan as a aviation mechanic, he worked on the F4 Phantom, and was never in a firefight against viet-cong or NVA troops, but still was awarded the combat action ribbon. i know its not a good example.
-
Yes the Westland Whirlwind is what I meant to say, must be my age :old:
Please splain this
JUGgler
"Twit16"
The fighter contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany and, by virtue of being a good, easy to use fighter, saved Allied lives. Using derogatory names for it is not, in my opinion, appropriate.
Names like "Runstang" are in the same boat.
-
"Twit16"
The fighter contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany and, by virtue of being a good, easy to use fighter, saved Allied lives. Using derogatory names for it is not, in my opinion, appropriate.
Names like "Runstang" are in the same boat.
Oh! the nono spot!! I get it :rolleyes:
Do you know why the seat in the spitfire sits so low?
JUGgler
-
This thread has gone to ludicrous speed... :rolleyes:
-
This thread has gone to ludicrous speed... :rolleyes:
(http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu279/Icewinddale/spaceballs_ludicrous_speed.jpg)
-
This thread has gone to ludicrous speed... :rolleyes:
Yeah, ADHD tends to do that, always the same ones doing it.
-
Yeah, ADHD tends to do that, always the same ones doing it.
Says the guy who initiated the derail.
:rofl
-
A definition of what counts as combat, if combat is a criteria at all, would be nice as well.
Point in case, Meteors dealt with V1s, did some ground attack and, I am told, had a scoreless furball with some Fw190s.
I can see people arguing on both sides of whether or not that is combat.
This has nothing to do with my request for clarification for what criteria HTC has for something to be added in the game, try again.
-
Y'all worry too much, let Hitech do his jib and sit back and enjoy the game. Or engage him directly and ask him what the criteria is for a a/c to be inducted into the game.
This back and forth BS is just that. fly with what you got put what you want (within reason on the wishlist) and continue to have fun.
Here's a banana....... :banana:
-
i think the defenition of seeing combat means seeing combat against the enemy or in a combat zone, it dosnt have to mean seeing combat against other aircraft to mean seeing combat. the meteor qualifies as seing combat as it was used against the enemy in a combat zone. ground attack or dogfighting or just being in a zone of conflict or combat counts as seeing combat.
an example. my grandfather served in vietnan as a aviation mechanic, he worked on the F4 Phantom, and was never in a firefight against viet-cong or NVA troops, but still was awarded the combat action ribbon. i know its not a good example.
Really bad example.
445 Phantoms were lost. 385 in combat, in Viet Nam, just not your Grandfather's.
Viet Nam.
Arab/Israel.
Iran/Iraq.
Desert Storm.
Iraqi Freedom.
The only thing HTC said they will not add is the nook.
wrongway
-
(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc473/UnkShadow/threaddirection.gif)
(http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu279/Icewinddale/spaceballs_ludicrous_speed.jpg)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Space Balls for the win!!!
May as well keep thread off course...
Attacking ground targets would count as combat against the enemy. I know in a post I made in the Meteor thread, I said something along the lines of "it didn't see air-to-air, so no". Still want to know what I was smoking when I posted that... :headscratch: Right now, it's so-so. If they add the V1, then I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be added as it would have the interception of the V1's AND the ground sorties it flew going for it. But wouldn't the He-162 have a priority over the Meteor as it has confirmed kills? Think it has a higher production number than the Ta-152 as well, so ye can't say no due to it's production number? :headscratch: Either way, I'm not against the Meteor. And if we get a Korean Era Arena(s), then it will definitely be added. :D
-
This has nothing to do with my request for clarification for what criteria HTC has for something to be added in the game, try again.
yeah it does - the widely acknowledged criteria are:
served in at least squadron strength
saw combat
so the definition of saw combat is very relevant ...
-
yeah it does - the widely acknowledged criteria are:
served in at least squadron strength
saw combat
so the definition of saw combat is very relevant ...
again what is the defenition of seeing combat. did HTC say it had to see combat against enemy aircraft to be added or just being used against the enemy in combat count. does being in a combat zone count as seeing combat. no one has said Hitech said it had to see combat against other aircraft or in the case of tanks seen combat against other tanks. being used against the enemy is still seeing combat. with that said the M-26 pershing should just barely count for inclusion. the Jagdtiger should also count for inclution aswell.
and to wrongway i didnt mean the phantom never saw combat i meant my grandfather never got into a firefight and engaged the NVA or Viet-cong in combat but yet was awarded the combat action ribbon.
-
and to wrongway i didnt mean the phantom never saw combat i meant my grandfather never got into a firefight and engaged the NVA or Viet-cong in combat but yet was awarded the combat action ribbon.
it could have been a unit award (which is common). that means everyone who served with that unit (including the office pogues) got the award whether they fired a shot or just sat around drinking coffee, even though it was just the pilots who were engaging in actual combat with the enemy.
-
yeah it does - the widely acknowledged criteria are:
served in at least squadron strength
saw combat
so the definition of saw combat is very relevant ...
I can't find the page that the actual information is on any more for inclusion. I seem to recall it said it must have seen service during WWII & at squadron strength.
I don't think it said anything about combat. It tends to be the accepted norm though.
-
I can't find the page that the actual information is on any more for inclusion. I seem to recall it said it must have seen service during WWII & at squadron strength.
I don't think it said anything about combat. It tends to be the accepted norm though.
I was hoping someone from HTC would verify this, I know from memory it was "Squadron Strength", however I don't exactly recall the details on "combat" however given the votes I've seen over the years, never once was a questionable aircraft ever posted on it.
-
Can you please verify this comment with sources, I am interested to know since you are an expert on the Meteor. I'd like to know the names of the pilots who were engaged, and which Luftwaffe units.
Again please clarify this with sources ->
Can you please clarify the sources that the meteor engaged a Luftwaffe aircraft. I show only 4 Meteor Mk III's were sent to Europe and none did anything more then Provoke the Germans to send Me-262's after them and fly CAP over an Airfield - none were allowed anywhere near the combat lines for fear the Germans/Russians would get ahold of the aircraft.
Please don't tell me you read it on wikipedia.
So apparently according to Butcher, combat only counts if it's against the luftwaffe? I bet tens of thousands
of ground troops might disagree. As well as thousands of navy guys killed by shelling or torpedos...duh.
-
yeah it does - the widely acknowledged criteria are:
served in at least squadron strength
saw combat
so the definition of saw combat is very relevant ...
This.
As to the other bits, I do recall either Pyro or HiTech state that it had to be in series production, not prototypes or preproduction models.
-
So apparently according to Butcher, combat only counts if it's against the luftwaffe? I bet tens of thousands
of ground troops might disagree. As well as thousands of navy guys killed by shelling or torpedos...duh.
Apparently your understanding of basic reading comprehension is elusive, there is a certain "criteria" HTC has allowing vehicles into the game - the definition of combat has always been possibly one of them.
I never stated my definition of combat as being "against the luftwaffe", actually I never stated mine period come to think of it.
Mine is quite simple - If it served in a combat theater - then it was in combat - whether pre-production/post production.
-
I know exactly what they use to figure out if the plane makes the grade.
It's what ever plane they feel like doing next. :D :D
-
I know exactly what they use to figure out if the plane makes the grade.
It's what ever plane they feel like doing next. :D :D
Well that makes sense, I want my Me410/G.55 :(
-
Do you know why the seat in the spitfire sits so low?
JUGgler
It is to make sure there is plenty of room for the Tiara!
JUGgler
-
if squadron strength is a requirement then why is the ta152 in the game.....it was only partial squadron,jg301 flew ta152,fw190d and fw190a all at same time,not having enough of ta 152 to a full squadron.....but here are some rides that were at squadron strength,saw combat,shot down enemy aircraft,nade in quantitys that are higher than some aircraft that are in the game now.....and yet they are not in the game...HE-162,J2M,G-55,D-520,KI-43,KI-44,KI-45,YAK-3,MIG-3,PE-2,SM-82,SM-79,IAR-80/81,JU-188,HE-219,HE-177,JU-52,P-63,Beaufighter,BF-109g-10,AND I HAVENT EVEN GOT TO THE BI-PLANES OR ANPHIBS YET......AND WE GOT WHAT? OH YEAH,A P-40F. WTG
-
if squadron strength is a requirement then why is the ta152 in the game.....it was only partial squadron,jg301 flew ta152,fw190d and fw190a all at same time,not having enough of ta 152 to a full squadron.....but here are some rides that were at squadron strength,saw combat,shot down enemy aircraft,nade in quantitys that are higher than some aircraft that are in the game now.....and yet they are not in the game...HE-162,J2M,G-55,D-520,KI-43,KI-44,KI-45,YAK-3,MIG-3,PE-2,SM-82,SM-79,IAR-80/81,JU-188,HE-219,HE-177,JU-52,P-63,Beaufighter,BF-109g-10,AND I HAVENT EVEN GOT TO THE BI-PLANES OR ANPHIBS YET......AND WE GOT WHAT? OH YEAH,A P-40F. WTG
whoa! simmah down now
-
wow all this banter has led me to believe........believe in the addition of the italian fighter RE-2005....squadron strength,saw combat with three nations,shot down enemy planes,and was in series production.......its a lock!
-
wow all this banter has led me to believe........believe in the addition of the italian fighter RE-2005....squadron strength,saw combat with three nations,shot down enemy planes,and was in series production.......its a lock!
We're still waiting on you to supply your evidence supporting your claim of the Re.2005 being in squadron service.
Also, remember that the Ta152 was variant of the Fw190D-9, so graphically it was easier to add than an entirely new airframe like the Re.2005.
-
We're still waiting on you to supply your evidence supporting your claim of the Re.2005 being in squadron service.
Also, remember that the Ta152 was variant of the Fw190D-9, so graphically it was easier to add than an entirely new airframe like the Re.2005.
His source on things comes from Wikipedia, I wouldn't argue after all Wikipedia is never wrong.
-
We're still waiting on you to supply your evidence supporting your claim of the Re.2005 being in squadron service.
Re.2005's served in the 22nd Autonomous Group. It is also said that, despite the smaller numbers, they saw far wider service in the RA than G.55's.
Source: Ali d'Italia 16 - Reggiane RE 2005 by Gregory Alegi
About the author: http://www.gregoryalegi.com/home/English.html (http://www.gregoryalegi.com/home/English.html)
-
i thought we had this discussion months ago. check out 362 ima Squadriglia, flew re.2005s from about april through august 1943. supposedly 1 was captured by the u.s. in july 43 and 17 were sent to the luftwaffe before the armistice was signed.
-
check out 362 ima Squadriglia,
Yep, RE2005s were concetrated to the 362 which was part of the 22nd.
-
Alpini13 you want the 2005 so bad call HiTech get there cost to code it and put it in the game and then Send them a check. And saying "i pay my 15 dollars" will not work. You want it so bad step up and pay for it.
-
ok... until HTC puts something on their website that say the exact requirements then it seems to me that there are only 2 requirements:
1> What HTC wants.
2> The winner of a vote as allowed by HTC.
Another thing to think about: Anyone remember the list of aircraft from the last vote that the B29 won? Me thinks it would be very smart to remember well that list because HTC chose which aircraft to allow us to vote on. Meaning, those aircraft on that list are probably on a short list for being developed. Just a hunch.
I'd forget any perceived "list" of criteria. Yes, someone with authority perhaps can be quoted in a far away post about the requirements but do not let that be the end all. HTC will can do as they wish without notice.