Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1Nicolas on October 03, 2011, 06:52:55 PM
-
WHY THE M-18! WHY NOT THE CHURCHILL OR MATILDA WHY WHY WHY! :cry
-
:cry
you coulda summed it up by just putting that :aok
-
Why no StuG III Ausf G? why no KV-1S? why no M26 pershing?
answer those and ill answer your question.
-
because bar asked first.
that is just how law in real life works. that is why you learn since you are a child "I CALLED IT!"
-
I'm just happy I can finally do jeep speeds with a 75 mm gun on top :D
-
Why no StuG III Ausf G? why no KV-1S? why no M26 pershing?
answer those and ill answer your question.
Because the Stug brings nothing new to the game. so theres no reason to have it added at this time.
-
Because the Stug brings nothing new to the game. so theres no reason to have it added at this time.
Nothing new?!?! For shame! ;) A turret-less AFV for starters. The Pzr III chassis for easily adding the Pzr II J. Oh, and maybe one of the best things about adding the StuG III would be adding another EW tank if the short barreled 75mm was made available. There was almost no change (or rather very little) to the chassis over the length of the war, just the gun. There were over 9400 of the StuG III's built. HTC could easily offer 2 types of main guns (7.5 cm StuK 37 L/24 for EW "A/B" version and 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 for the LW "G" version).
-
Because the Stug brings nothing new to the game. so theres no reason to have it added at this time.
Nothing new?!?! For shame! ;) A turret-less AFV for starters. The Pzr III chassis for easily adding the Pzr II J. Oh, and maybe one of the best things about adding the StuG III would be adding another EW tank if the short barreled 75mm was made available. There was almost no change (or rather very little) to the chassis over the length of the war, just the gun. There were over 9400 of the StuG III's built. HTC could easily offer 2 types of main guns (7.5 cm StuK 37 L/24 for EW "A/B" version and 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 for the LW "G" version).
dammit smokin, you beat me to it.
obviously, you did your research as opposed to a certain someone...
-
WHY THE M-18! WHY NOT THE CHURCHILL OR MATILDA WHY WHY WHY! :cry
Because Bar wanted it. :old:
-
geez you whiny girls. it's not that big a deal. htc just gave you the tiger 2 and panther, relax...just a matter of time before they get the documentation needed for other vehicles and get them in the game. i'd personally rather have more 1938-1941 aircraft but, whining about it is childishly useless.
-
Nothing new?!?! For shame! ;) A turret-less AFV for starters. The Pzr III chassis for easily adding the Pzr II J. Oh, and maybe one of the best things about adding the StuG III would be adding another EW tank if the short barreled 75mm was made available. There was almost no change (or rather very little) to the chassis over the length of the war, just the gun. There were over 9400 of the StuG III's built. HTC could easily offer 2 types of main guns (7.5 cm StuK 37 L/24 for EW "A/B" version and 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 for the LW "G" version).
As so many before me has stated, you want a stug? up a Panzer IV and dont move your turret. theres your stug. wish granted.
Plus we already have a turret-less TD. (M3 TD).
Like i said, it brings nothing new to the game. not saying it shouldnt be added. i'd just like more important things to be added in its place. like say, the m3 lee. that tank is LONG overdue to be added.
Besides, i dont think the G model would qualify to be added to EW. Wiki has its Entrace date as December 1942, thats pushing the limit of EW arena's timeline. so ether, it wouldnt be added, or it would be added but have a perk limit, in which case no one would use it simply because there aren't really any major EW tank battles to begin with.
Id rather have the Panzer III before the stug.
-
Like i said, it brings nothing new to the game. not saying it shouldnt be added. i'd just like more important things to be added in its place. like say, the m3 lee. that tank is LONG overdue to be added.
you want a tank with a crappy 37mm top gun, and a limited range 75mm side gun on a tank with less armor than a M4?
heres your M3 lee, up a M4/75 and only turn the turret about 10 degrees to the left/right. :rolleyes:
-
heres your M3 lee, up a M4/75 and only turn the turret about 10 degrees to the left/right. :rolleyes:
not even close to an accurate substitute.
someones a little sore their stuggy's getting downplayed. :rofl
Edit: Please tell us how the m3 is "Crappy". In its timeframe it did rather well, and was beloved by both the british and american tankers who used it. as well as feared by the Panzer III tankers who came up against it.
-
not even close to an accurate substitute.
someones a little sore their stuggy's getting downplayed. :rofl
Edit: Please tell us how the m3 is "Crappy". In its timeframe it did rather well, and was beloved by both the british and american tankers who used it. as well as feared by the Panzer III tankers who came up against it.
wow, that right there screams ego boost. the M4 is alot better than the M3 lee in the ways of more armor, a better gun and better suspension/engine. the ammo load is bigger IIRC and the panzer 3 was a very well placed match against the lee. you need to do alot more research. now time to place you on the ignore list. you cant go 1 minute without talking from your backside.
-
wow, that right there screams ego boost. the M4 is alot better than the M3 lee in the ways of more armor, a better gun and better suspension/engine. the ammo load is bigger IIRC and the panzer 3 was a very well placed match against the lee. you need to do alot more research. now time to place you on the ignore list. you cant go 1 minute without talking from your backside.
Yes the m4 is a better tank than the LEE, but the m4 isent an EW tank now is it?
like i stated before, IN ITS TIMELINE, the lee was a very good tank against its opponents. you cant tell others to do more research when your yourself dont even have your own facts straight. :rofl
Edit: i bolded that part to make sure you see it, you seemed to of overlooked it last time since you were so eager to get your opinion in. :rolleyes:
-
Yes the m4 is a better tank than the LEE, but the m4 isent an EW tank now is it?
like i stated before, IN ITS TIMELINE, the lee was a very good tank against its opponents. you cant tell others to do more research when your yourself dont even have your own facts straight. :rofl
the M4 obviously isnt in the EW era, but its the best sub we got. you tell me to use a Pz4 in EW for the stug when it didnt even see service till late 1943, out of the EW timezone.
still ego boosting?
-
the M4 obviously isnt in the EW era, but its the best sub we got. you tell me to use a Pz4 in EW for the stug when it didnt even see service till late 1943, out of the EW timezone.
still ego boosting?
thought you were putting me on the ole ignore list skorpy, see, you just HAVVVEEE to respond everytime i say something. :rofl
ok im done guys, i apologize, i didnt know skorp would throw such a fit over his precious stuggy. i'll try to avoid upsetting the little one so much in the future. :( please forgive me. :angel:
-
thought you were putting me on the ole ignore list skorpy, see, you just HAVVVEEE to respond everytime i say something. :rofl
ok im done guys, i apologize, i didnt know skorp would throw such a fit over his precious stuggy. i'll try to avoid upsetting the little one so much in the future. :( please forgive me. :angel:
still egoboosting. you find a reason to attack everyone in a thread dont you? how sad. not to mention you reply before i even get off the thread. butthurt about your M3 Lee being outdone by a StuG with a better FOV and armor?
i'll let you ponder that while your being ignored.
-
still egoboosting. you find a reason to attack everyone in a thread dont you? how sad. not to mention you reply before i even get off the thread. butthurt about your M3 Lee being outdone by a StuG with a better FOV and armor?
i'll let you ponder that while your being ignored.
who else in this thread have i "attacked"? :headscratch: certainly not "everyone".
the stug AUSF G wouldnt even fit into the EW timeline that the LEE would, therefore they'd never meet in combat (unless you up them both in ether MW-LW) but AvA concerned, nether one would fight eachother i dont believe.
So how am i "Afraid" a tank will outdo another tank, when nether one of them will fight against eachother in their own respected timelines within AH.
you say i have no logic, and then you type up this complete farse that makes the finger point at you. :ahand
ok guys im really out, im sorry, im trying to cut down on my attitude on the BBS, im getting there (sorta :uhoh)
PUFFFFF :bolt:
-
(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc473/UnkShadow/threaddirection.gif)
-
Anyone else notice that like 90% of the threads on the BBS end with tyrannis and skorpion tolling each other? I don't think I've ever seen two people troll each other in as many threads as these two have.
-
Anyone else notice that like 90% of the threads on the BBS end with tyrannis and skorpion tolling each other? I don't think I've ever seen two people troll each other in as many threads as these two have.
They're in an eternal pissing match.
They should be buried next to each other so they can troll in the afterlife.
-
Anyone else notice that like 90% of the threads on the BBS end with tyrannis and skorpion tolling each other? I don't think I've ever seen two people troll each other in as many threads as these two have.
Yes.
I recomend HTC makes them a private section on the forums for they can stop hijacking all the threads. ;) :bolt:
-
you want a tank with a crappy 37mm top gun, and a limited range 75mm side gun on a tank with less armor than a M4?
heres your M3 lee, up a M4/75 and only turn the turret about 10 degrees to the left/right. :rolleyes:
Anyone else notice that like 90% of the threads on the BBS end with tyrannis and skorpion tolling each other? I don't think I've ever seen two people troll each other in as many threads as these two have.
anyone notice that its skorpion thats always starting the trolling match?...who else in this thread have i "attacked"? :headscratch: certainly not "everyone".
the stug AUSF G wouldnt even fit into the EW timeline that the LEE would, therefore they'd never meet in combat (unless you up them both in ether MW-LW) but AvA concerned, nether one would fight eachother i dont believe.
So how am i "Afraid" a tank will outdo another tank, when nether one of them will fight against eachother in their own respected timelines within AH.
you say i have no logic, and then you type up this complete farse that makes the finger point at you. :ahand
ok guys im really out, im sorry, im trying to cut down on my attitude on the BBS, im getting there (sorta :uhoh)
PUFFFFF :bolt:
and also read this last post because skorpion you started this fighting yet again and tyrannis was just posting his opinions.
also skorpion last time i checked tyrannis was responding to what you were saying and you baited him for a troll. stop arguing and stay on topic because all i see in this thread is tyrannis defending his position. Simple grow up because this is just plain dumb
-
(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc473/UnkShadow/threaddirection.gif)
:aok
-
They should be buried next to each other so they can troll in the afterlife.
LOL! Excellent!
-
I'm just happy I can finally do jeep speeds with a 75 mm gun on top :D
+1
-
They're in an eternal pissing match.
They should be buried next to each other so they can troll in the afterlife.
:rofl
-
WHY THE M-18! WHY NOT THE CHURCHILL OR MATILDA WHY WHY WHY! :cry
Just to aggravate you, I guess. It couldn't be that either of those two would be no competition for the
current hangar list could it? I know that the GV ranks are just crawling with folks that want a horrendously
slow tank armed with a peashooter :rolleyes:
-
you want a tank with a crappy 37mm top gun, and a limited range 75mm side gun on a tank with less armor than a M4?
heres your M3 lee, up a M4/75 and only turn the turret about 10 degrees to the left/right. :rolleyes:
"crappy"??? tsk tsk tsk. Know your time frames, jr. The 2 Pdr, 37mm, 50mm, 45mm, etc etc from the early war AT guns were the standard of their day. They did their job and did it well. Compared to LW, they are lesser, sure. But "crappy" they are not. ;)
-
"crappy"??? tsk tsk tsk. Know your time frames, jr. The 2 Pdr, 37mm, 50mm, 45mm, etc etc from the early war AT guns were the standard of their day. They did their job and did it well. Compared to LW, they are lesser, sure. But "crappy" they are not. ;)
try to penetrate the T-34's armor with a 37mm gun. betchya cant do it.
-
try to penetrate the T-34's armor with a 37mm gun. betchya cant do it.
thats where youre wrong
-
try to penetrate the T-34's armor with a 37mm gun. betchya cant do it.
i do it with an m8 rather offten......useally about 1100 yards away
-
i do it with an m8 rather offten......useally about 1100 yards away
ok, sloped frontal armor about 75-ish MM thick from 1.1k away with a 37mm seems kind of hard to do, unless your hitting the low hull or if your hitting the tracks.
-
ok, sloped frontal armor about 75-ish MM thick from 1.1k away with a 37mm seems kind of hard to do, unless your hitting the low hull or if your hitting the tracks.
no actaully you aim for the engine/rearside near engine/turret at 1100 yards u hit the top of it useally
generaly speaking you dont aim for the front hull plate as its the most armored...
-
Why no turreted panzer but with a gun working ? why no HE177 why no A6M7 ?
answer those and ill answer your question.
-
panzer gun can knock out a tiger with 1 hit, no HE177 because it sucked in design terms and the A6M7 would only be a gap filler.
-
panzer gun can knock out a tiger with 1 hit, no HE177 because it sucked in design terms and the A6M7 would only be a gap filler.
last time i checked the A6M7 never made it into combat
-
ok, sloped frontal armor about 75-ish MM thick from 1.1k away with a 37mm seems kind of hard to do, unless your hitting the low hull or if your hitting the tracks.
Congratulations :aok
You may have almost figured out that the ones who say it can be done are not stupid enough to attack from the front.
-
panzer gun can knock out a tiger with 1 hit, no HE177 because it sucked in design terms and the A6M7 would only be a gap filler.
lol
-
How about Why are all Sherman tanks over powered.
Why is it you shoot someone in the front and it takes out their engine and not the turret or tank itself?
Why is you shoot the rear of the tank and it keeps moving away from you and takes 20 more hits to die?
Why is it you hit the turret and he still traverses 180 degrees and kills you with one shot?
answer them and I'll think about answering yours...Maybe!
-
WHY THE M-18! WHY NOT THE CHURCHILL OR MATILDA WHY WHY WHY! :cry
Do u even play?
-
How about Why are all Sherman tanks over powered.
Why is it you shoot someone in the front and it takes out their engine and not the turret or tank itself?
Why is you shoot the rear of the tank and it keeps moving away from you and takes 20 more hits to die?
Why is it you hit the turret and he still traverses 180 degrees and kills you with one shot?
answer them and I'll think about answering yours...Maybe!
shermans are not overpowerd...well the VC firefly is but it has a much better gun then the other 2...most tanks can still 1 shot a sherman
as for taking out the engine with a frontal shot ive never heard of or seen that one...but if you want a reason the AP shell passed threw the tank and crew/everything inside and hit the other end of the tank...farfetched but you wanted a reason....
as for shooting the rear of the tank most tanks require 2-3 shots to the engine to disable it and you have to be sure your not hitting the rear part of the tred... shooting tanks in the engine is not the best way to kill them...so it does tend to take 4-5 rounds depending on range
and if you hit the turret and its not down either
A the shell riccocheted
B it absorbed it or
C u hit just under the turret or
D you need to just shoot it more as most tanks at a long range still need 2-3 rounds to turret them...heck a tiger at 1900 yards can take 5+ shots to turret from another tiger panzer takes 5 m8 rounds to turret but only 2 at close range....so more or less massive factor is distance and shot placement
theres your questions answerd
-
panzer gun can knock out a tiger with 1 hit, no HE177 because it sucked in design terms and the A6M7 would only be a gap filler.
you just prove my point that you dont know much about WW2, A6M7 never went into combat like BAR stated, "panzer gun can knock out a tiger with 1 hit" would love to see this happen. HE177 sucked in design terms...not really, but failed in combat do to bad engines etc...
-
you just prove my point that you dont know much about WW2, A6M7 never went into combat like BAR stated, "panzer gun can knock out a tiger with 1 hit" would love to see this happen. HE177 sucked in design terms...not really, but failed in combat do to bad engines etc...
i bet id know more about WW2 than you. you want the HE-177 in game and you said it failed, the panzer 4 we have in came CAN knock out a tiger in 1 hit. your just to thick headed to find that you hit it in its side as a smart person would and the A6M7 you found out never went into service because of BAR.
-
and the A6M7 you found out never went into service because of BAR.
I highly doubt the Bar decided to keep the A6m7 out of combat.
-
you just prove my point that you dont know much about WW2, A6M7 never went into combat like BAR stated, "panzer gun can knock out a tiger with 1 hit" would love to see this happen. HE177 sucked in design terms...not really, but failed in combat do to bad engines etc...
to be fair it is possible to kill a tiger in 1 shot with a panzer... you just have to be point blank....most tiger drivers wont let that happen so it is possible...just not logical as by the time u get in range you will probably die...
and as for the 177 its design was not bad...but its time of release was a major factor in its performance from what ive read low fuel supply kept alot of them grounded same with lack of pilots and the pilots they had were not the most experianced
-
how did i get sucked into being the major centerpoint of this argument? :headscratch:
-
you just prove my point that you dont know much about WW2, A6M7 never went into combat like BAR stated, "panzer gun can knock out a tiger with 1 hit" would love to see this happen. HE177 sucked in design terms...not really, but failed in combat do to bad engines etc...
When the tiger2 first came out and they were cheap I destroyed 2 back to back with one shot from a panzer. I shot their side armor with very little deflection from 600-800 yrds out. It can happen.
What I didn't do was shoot from a long distance at a high deflection into the front and then cry that the someone cheating or that everything is modeled incorrectly, when I cant get a kill.