Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: tuton25 on July 02, 2012, 02:40:34 AM
-
This aircraft was desighned and built during the last few months of the war to intersept incoming allied bombers. This plane had a metal fuselage with wooden wings and tail. This plane had a top speed of 750+ km/h (450+ mph) and was armed with 2 deadly 30mm Mk.108 cannons (50rpg) or 2 20mm Mk.151/20 cannons (120rpg). The plane was unfortunately very unstable and the wings had a tendancy to seperate from the plane due to poor quality glue. This plane was made to 320 examples, saw combat, and made a few kills but otherwise had little impact on the war.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/He162_color010.jpg/300px-He162_color010.jpg)
-
I understand the desire for this and the meteor and such. . . but I think there is quite a long list of planes that should be added to the game before it moves on to jets. This list is extensive and goes from early war through to the late war.
-
+1
After the 410, Ki-43, He-111 etc.
-
this before meteor:) but 100+ planes before both
-
this before meteor:) but 100+ planes before both
Agreed about the bunches before both, but I'd have to favor the Meteor over this. It saw a lot more combat.
-
+1 haven't heard of it but looks alot like an A10 warthog with the engines moved forward
-
Agreed about the bunches before both, but I'd have to favor the Meteor over this. It saw a lot more combat.
162 has a lot more kills and has even been shot down
-
162 has a lot more kills and has even been shot down
Given the meteor was kept behind the lines for safety concerns, I don't think its fair to rule this on grounds the 162 deserves to be in first
I think if HTC was going to add more jets, both should be added at the same time.
-
162 has a lot more kills and has even been shot down
But less combat by far. Combat is not only air-to-air.
-
Agreed about the bunches before both, but I'd have to favor the Meteor over this. It saw a lot more combat.
Define "combat".
-
Define "combat".
Firing guns in anger and/or risking being shot at/blown up.
-
A bit questionable then, IIRC. Weren't only 4 aircraft released for ground attack missions, while the rest shot at buzz bombs (IMO, it doesn't really count as combat, since the buzz bombs weren't trying to blow them up), and flying patrol over friendly airspace.
IIRC, didn't make any kills (on actual aircraft, buzz bombs don't count IMO) either, correct? Shouldn't that alone put the Salamander ahead of the Meteor III from a combat-perspective.
-
A bit questionable then, IIRC. Weren't only 4 aircraft released for ground attack missions, while the rest shot at buzz bombs (IMO, it doesn't really count as combat, since the buzz bombs weren't trying to blow them up), and flying patrol over friendly airspace.
IIRC, didn't make any kills (on actual aircraft, buzz bombs don't count IMO) either, correct? Shouldn't that alone put the Salamander ahead of the Meteor III from a combat-perspective.
I would of probably agreed with this a year ago, in fact I have - however What do you define as combat? Meteors did ground attack missions and faced anti aircraft fire, they were held in reserve for a valid REASON, I don't think that dismisses them as Combat Ready.
From a combat perspective - He-162 was not in squadron strength, it was rushed into combat where the meteor has already been around for months and in squadron strength.
You cannot simply dismiss the Meteor because it wasn't pressed into front line combat, in my opinion BOTH earned their rights to be in aces high, not one over the other however, both served their respective duties, one defended what was left of Germany and the other wasn't needed.
look at the perspective of the war, Me-262s barely could put a few dozen in the air at one time, He-162? I doubt even that - did the British really need to "push" the Meteor to the front lines? Nah they didn't need too, P51s and Tempests roamed the countryside and took care of the Me-262 threat.
If the 262 came out earlier and in numbers - it would certainly of been pressed, however at this stage in the war - the luftwaffe barely managed to get planes in the Air.
I think both should be added, but not before the other I see no reason for it.
Karnak will agree with my first statement, I was completely against the Meteor until I researched the squadron and read why It was held in reserve, I completely believe it would of been pressed otherwise.
-
I'm not saying there wasn't a reason for being held back, or anything like that. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't only 4 aircraft make ground-attack sorties? Unless they were at it for a while, I still don't think that being in service without fighting, and making a few ground-attack sorties matches confirmed aerial kills.
If the He-162 had served in squadron strenght since, say Novemeber 1944, even if nothing else but the time in service chagned, I don't think there would be any possible argument for the Meteor III over the Salamander. As it is, I feel the Meteor's main argument is that it was in official service for a longer period of time, despite the fact that it saw less, and lighter fighting than the Salamander.
-
Buzz-bomb hunting is most certainly combat.
As I recall, the Meteor's tally on the ground was a fair amount of destruction. As to aerial kills, well, they got chased off of the Fw190s by Spitfires and the Fi156 managed to get on the ground and the crew evacuate before the Meteor managed to kill it, but the Fi156 was destroyed.
-
I'm not saying there wasn't a reason for being held back, or anything like that. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't only 4 aircraft make ground-attack sorties? Unless they were at it for a while, I still don't think that being in service without fighting, and making a few ground-attack sorties matches confirmed aerial kills.
If the He-162 had served in squadron strenght since, say Novemeber 1944, even if nothing else but the time in service chagned, I don't think there would be any possible argument for the Meteor III over the Salamander. As it is, I feel the Meteor's main argument is that it was in official service for a longer period of time, despite the fact that it saw less, and lighter fighting than the Salamander.
Both saw combat, both fired guns in anger - problem is does He-162 fit the bill to be added in aces high? (not saying it didn't) but i haven't seen AAR's or combat reports on the He-162, frankly I never researched it ever, I don't even believe I have one book on it.
From what I do know it was pressed into combat April 1945, pressed meaning rushed into combat, I do know Heinz Bar was the CO of the squad that tested it, far as JG-1's record of combat action I really don't know exactly how many were in combat strength or even seen combat.
Frankly I can't comment on the He-162, from what little information I know and so late in the war, it would be inline with the Ta-152.
Karnak, where did the Meteor ever engage FW-190s? I keep seeing this "fairy tale" and after countless AAR's of the Meteor squadron posted in France, not one ever mentioned combat action against a German aircraft "period", unless it went unrecorded.
Few books I have on the meteor strictly say it never seen "Air to air engagements" period (other then buzz bombs).
-
Karnak, unless the Meteor pilots were under threat from the buzz bombs, like if they had proxy fuzes and would blow up if a meteor got too close, or something, then thats not quite combat. IMO, combat implys that the other side is shooting at you, or at least in your general direction. The buzz bombs were being launched off at cities, not at the meteors. Really, unless you would say destruction of any enemy ordnance, be it bombs, rockets, or even bullets, before it reaches the target is combat, regardless of the circumstances, even if the one who fired the bullet is miles away and not shooting at you, then shooting down buzz bombs isn't combat.
They weren't being shot at the Meteors, the Meteors weren't really under threat of destruction besides from pilot error or mechanical failure, therefore shooting buzz bombs isn't true combat.
The ground-attack missions, and Fi-156 i'll give you.
-
Really, unless you would say destruction of any enemy ordnance, be it bombs, rockets, or even bullets, before it reaches the target is combat, regardless of the circumstances, even if the one who fired the bullet is miles away and not shooting at you, then shooting down buzz bombs isn't
I am so not touching this comment with a 1000 ft stick.
-
Buzz bombs had a tendency to explode, oddly enough, and if they did so they sometimes took out the intercepting aircraft. It was a dangerous job. It wasn't at all like the disposal of unused ordnance you portray it as.
From page 67, Terror in the Starboard Seat:
We drifted in over the coast and pretty soon our circle of lights showed up. He did a circuit and landed and parked. A flashlight bobbed around under my wing, the door opened, and ladder came up and with it a blurred face.
"Where have you been?" asked Hal.
"We got a doodlebug."
"From pretty close." Hal observed.
"That's been mentioned." Sid said.
I climbed down the ladder. Sid followed and took Hal's flashlight and played it on the wings and nose. There wasn't an inch of paint anywhere. The Mosquito was black. No roundel, no number, no letters, no nothing.
-
How close were they firing at those things from :huh?
-
How close were they firing at those things from :huh?
Meteor had 20mm cannons, there are a few gun cam videos of them shooting at V-1 rockets, the explosion is not the main problem, the debris from the explosion was the serious issue.
Tipping was far safer, assuming it could be done, the story behind the first tip is quite interesting, its captured also in a few photos.
(http://yougottobekidding.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/image0117.jpg)
-
You never felt an explosion go off near you?
How close were they firing at those things from :huh?
A few years ago, a couple of kids on my block somehow let an entire pack of fireworks go off on 4th of July, the thing weighed probably 20 or 30 lbs? The whole nighborhood felt it going off.
Now these things carried 1,900lb of explosives....I wouldnt be surprised if they were still in the "danger zone" 800 yards away.
-
A bit questionable then, IIRC. Weren't only 4 aircraft released for ground attack missions, while the rest shot at buzz bombs (IMO, it doesn't really count as combat, since the buzz bombs weren't trying to blow them up), and flying patrol over friendly airspace.
IIRC, didn't make any kills (on actual aircraft, buzz bombs don't count IMO) either, correct? Shouldn't that alone put the Salamander ahead of the Meteor III from a combat-perspective.
I would suggest the pilots risking their lives would think it was combat, whatever your opinion may be on the subject :furious.
-
So I imagine a Tiger tank firing on an infantry unit with no AT weapons isn't in combat :rolleyes:
-
How close were they firing at those things from :huh?
That was actually one of the difficulties of dealing with the V-1 at night: judging range in the FB.VIs (staring into a furnace surrounded by dark sky) was extremely hard. The radar-equipped night-fighter Mossies (as opposed to the Mk.1 Eyeball-equipped intruders) had an advantage, as the wireless op could give the pilot a rough distance in as far as the radar set's minimum range.
-
Karnak, unless the Meteor pilots were under threat from the buzz bombs, like if they had proxy fuzes and would blow up if a meteor got too close, or something, then thats not quite combat. IMO, combat implys that the other side is shooting at you, or at least in your general direction. The buzz bombs were being launched off at cities, not at the meteors. Really, unless you would say destruction of any enemy ordnance, be it bombs, rockets, or even bullets, before it reaches the target is combat, regardless of the circumstances, even if the one who fired the bullet is miles away and not shooting at you, then shooting down buzz bombs isn't combat.
They weren't being shot at the Meteors, the Meteors weren't really under threat of destruction besides from pilot error or mechanical failure, therefore shooting buzz bombs isn't true combat.
The ground-attack missions, and Fi-156 i'll give you.
when you or the other side is shooting at you thats considered by the military as engaged in combat. seeing combat is a different story it can range from doing something that does damage to the enemies will to fight (propoganda) destruction of ability to make war (hitting factories, interdiction of supplies so on so forth) and generaly being at threat from the enemy in most jobs in the military.
Everyone keeps saying oh vehicles and planes must have seen combat. well seeing combat and engaging in combat are 2 different things in the eyes of the military.
if i joined the military a few years ealier and went to iraq and didnt shoot my rifle once at the enemy, in the eyes of the military i saw combat. if i shot at insurgents in a fire fight no matter how small the fire fight that is engaging in combat.
So you really cant say something never saw combat if it never fired its weapons at the enemy. which both the He-162 was in combat and engaged in combat before the war ended. same with the meteor it was in combat and engaged in air support and interdiction roles.
-
If the standard for "seeing combat" is firing at something that's firing you back, I guess the modern AEGIS-based ships aren't designed for combat as their main purpose then.
I mean, because they were mostly designed as carrier escorts, to shoot down enemy ASMs directed at their protected carrier. So, noone would be shooting at them, right?. They'd just be doing "enemy weapon disposal" roles, right?. What's a Ticonderoga under that particular standard of what combat is?
So,if the Meteor wasn't in combat because their main use was to shoot down V-1s directed at cities and not at them, I guess a Tico is just an auxiliary ship. Not a combat unit. Yet last time I checked it was a fearsome guided missile cruiser. Guess that's a gross classification error, then?
What an argument. A farce, plain and simple. You see combat as soon as you fire your weapons in anger to the enemy. That the enemy in this case used to be a straight-flying drone is STILL combat. Even more when you had almost 2000lbs of explosives going off and a pretty big cloud of shrapnel to avoid if you were skilled enough to hit it. Not exactly "putting yourself in the line of fire" ,but I'd call that a pretty god-damned dangerous job. And certainly qualifies as combat.
The meteor saw combat. Intensively. Has as much a right to be in this game as the Salamander has. Or maybe more, given it was in service for much longer.
-
A bit questionable then, IIRC. Weren't only 4 aircraft released for ground attack missions, while the rest shot at buzz bombs (IMO, it doesn't really count as combat, since the buzz bombs weren't trying to blow them up), and flying patrol over friendly airspace.
IIRC, didn't make any kills (on actual aircraft, buzz bombs don't count IMO) either, correct? Shouldn't that alone put the Salamander ahead of the Meteor III from a combat-perspective.
Many combat pilots never made kills against the enemy. Are they still "combat Pilots"? I'd also say blowing up a buzz bomb, most of all tipping them, sounds pretty hazadous to me. The Meteor passes the test, in MOHO. Of course the TU-2 must come first. :D
-
Many combat pilots never made kills against the enemy. Are they still "combat Pilots"? I'd also say blowing up a buzz bomb, most of all tipping them, sounds pretty hazadous to me. The Meteor passes the test, in MOHO. Of course the TU-2 must come first. :D
Of course. Both the Meteor and He162 ought to be way down the list. Tu-2 would be nice to have at or near the top of the list.
-
I'm not saying the Meteor didn't see combat, I'm saying that (personally) I think the He 162 saw more. It certianly saw more intense combat, and that counts for something as well.
But what I'm questioning is wether simple service length trumps combat usage. Sorry to anyone who gets offeneded, but going out into the fight, and engaging an enemy who is actively trying to kill you will always count for more than blowing up buzz bombs.
I don't think, and again sorry to anyone who gets offended, that blowing up buzz bombs is the equal of actually engaging enemy aircraft in aerial combat. The Fi-156 and the ground attack missions make up for some of that, but still not all of it (at least in my mind).
So that leaves the question: does service lenght trump combat usage?
-
So that leaves the question: does service lenght trump combat usage?
Nope considering Meteor was in the voting in January it certainly will get added eventually, HE-162 probably won't be for a long time (HTC does a good job juggling EW, MW, LW fighters) However nobody knows exactly what HTC comes up with as far as listing the aircraft to add.
I would ASSUME, the Me-410 is simply top of the list, Yak-3/Meteor/Ki-43 are somewhere on this list, it could be a month or years before they get added but they are on the radar.
-
Thats not at all what I was talking about. You kinda just went off on a tangent there.
-
Thats not at all what I was talking about. You kinda just went off on a tangent there.
There has been speculation on everything, but nothing is exact - you'd have to ask HTC directly - although its been asked hundreds of times what "specific" details before a plane gets added, only two things have been known:
It served in squadron strength and in combat.
-
Didn't someone post a quote from a PM where pyro or Hitech stated that the only actuall requirment for being added to the WWII arena is that it saw service during WWII?
IIRC, he said that it was only "preferable" that it saw combat.
-
Didn't someone post a quote from a PM where pyro or Hitech stated that the only actuall requirment for being added to the WWII arena is that it saw service during WWII?
IIRC, he said that it was only "preferable" that it saw combat.
Yeah, can't remember how old that comment was, but it seems to be, 47M - Ta152, Me-163 and now Meteor - all served in a very limited capacity but were added.
I think if we got a clear and updated answer from Pyro/HTC it would fill us in what we could look for to add.
-
But what I'm questioning is wether simple service length trumps combat usage. Sorry to anyone who gets offeneded, but going out into the fight, and engaging an enemy who is actively trying to kill you will always count for more than blowing up buzz bombs.
With all due respect, Tank-Ace. Don't want to seem picky with your opinions, but unless you have the guts to repeat that kind of statement when talking face to face with someone who actually flew and blasted those things off the sky, risking his skin and life in the process, and seeing friends of his dying while doing that same job, then I'd say you should just tone down the ""this kind of combat" counts more than "that kind of combat"" afirmation, or just drop the argument alltogether.
I don't take any offense by your opinions. But if I was one of the guys who actually did the job, I'm damned sure I'd take it as nothing short of an insult. So please, show some respect towards the men who did a really dangerous job to save countless civilians lifes, and just try a different, more respectful, approach in your affirmations.
-
With all due respect, Tank-Ace. Don't want to seem picky with your opinions, but unless you have the guts to repeat that kind of statement when talking face to face with someone who actually flew and blasted those things off the sky, risking his skin and life in the process, and seeing friends of his dying while doing that same job, then I'd say you should just tone down the ""this kind of combat" counts more than "that kind of combat"" afirmation, or just drop the argument alltogether.
I don't take any offense by your opinions. But if I was one of the guys who actually did the job, I'm damned sure I'd take it as nothing short of an insult. So please, show some respect towards the men who did a really dangerous job to save countless civilians lifes, and just try a different, more respectful, approach in your affirmations.
We're talking about priority of addition to a game where the aircraft's main focus would be air to air engagment of manned enemy aircraft.
Its not at all disrespectfull to say that (in this situation and context), combat against enemy fighters counts for more than blowing up buzz bombs. We don't have anything even simmilar to the buzz bombs to shoot at, it would probably be a minor attraction in AH if we had them, and the focus of the game is on something the Meteor didn't do a lot of.
I'm not, nor have I ever said it wouldn't be dangerous to go up and fly around in the dark, firing at buzz bombs (although I didn't know how much explosives a V1 carried, I've never really cared enough to check). I just said that it wasn't quite combat (I don't think a EOD unit called in to clear out 20yo mines can say its in combat either).
I think a good definition of combat is "active, armed struggle with enemy forces", as really that gets down to what combat is.
-
I know what we're talking about. Yes, a game. But you're establishing your standards and opinions about said game by looking at history. And while doing so you've repeatedly (and done so again in your last post) stated that the Meteor, in your eyes, saw no combat.
The problem is that you're discussing a machine, but that machine had a pilot, and that pilot did run some serious risks in order to complete a dangerous task that demanded loads of skill and cojones. A number of those who did that job lost their lifes when the V1 they were trying to shoot down blew on their faces.
Now tell me, how you qualify those pilots' deaths?. Fallen in combat? or just unfortunate accidents?.
if it's the latter I got nothing else to discuss with you, for I don't want to have anything to do with someone who has such an unrespectful view of gentlemen who got their skin in danger because it was their duty to do so. Maybe there was no german fighter shooting at them but for damned sure their duty was VERY risky indeed and they deserve a lot of respect that you wouldn't be showing if you qualify the deaths of those who got killed as anything other than "killed in action". Which means, they died in combat.
However, if If it's the former the one you choose, I can't see how you can keep on repeating that the Meteor saw no combat. It indeed did, and so did the gentlemen who flew them.
-
This is the NATO definition of a battle casualty: Any casualty incurred as the direct result of hostile action, sustained in combat or relating thereto or sustained going to or returning from a combat mission.
"any casualty incurred as the direct result of hostile action..."
The deaths of any Meteor pilots were not direct results of a German soldier pushing the launch button. Had the bomb reached their targets, exploded, and caught the meteors in the blast, yes, that would be combat, as the Meteor pilots would have died as a direct result of enemy action (firing a V1 at a target, meteors got caught in the blast).
However, I would not consider intercepting the V1's, shooting them, and then being taken out by the ensuing blast or shrapnel (that was a direct result of shooting at the bomb) as "directly caused" by enemy action. The enemy set the situation up, but it was the pilot's actions that directly caused the deaths.
NATO would probably list them as non-battle casualties, if they're following their own definition. However, I feel there needs to be something in between battle casualties and non-battle casualties. More specificly, I think there needs to be some distinction between soldiers who died in accidents and hazardous situations directly relating to their duties, and those who died in accidents or hazardous situations not directly relating to their duties (say, cutting down a tree for firewood, and the tree falls on them and kills them) or died of disease.
Perhaps change the definition slightly, call them battle casualties, but then go further and seperate them from KIA's. Maybe call it KLD (Killed in line of duty).
-
Can't agree with your assessment there, Tank-Ace. Any deaths due to V1s are directly due to it having been launched.
-
"any casualty incurred as the direct result of hostile action..."
and of course hundreds of V1s aimed at london, antwerp or elsewhere is not an hostile action in your eyes. Right?.
-
Not so Karnak. If the a Meteor collided with a V1 that was aimed at London, screwed up the trajectory and distance measurments, and caused the bomb to hit in Dover, then any casualties in Dover are a direct result of the Meteor pilot's actions.
The Germans didn't take any actions that directly caused the Meteors to go down. If the Meteors hadn't fired their guns at the V1's, they wouldn't have gone down.
If I put a big crate of non-shock-proof TNT in your town, you shoot at it as a means of disposal, and die in the ensuing blast, I didn't directly cause your death, you did by firing at it.
The differences between that and the V1's: The V1s were going to blow up anyway, although still not in a location that posed a threat to the Meteors, and the Meteor pilots had a duty to shoot at the V1's.
The Meteor pilots could have done everything the same, and as long as they didn't fire their guns, they wouldn't have died. Since they pulled the trigger (an action), and they wouldn't have died otherwise, their deaths were in direct respons to them pulling the trigger.
Now again, they had a duty to knock the V1's down, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't their own actions that resulted in their deaths.
Not to say the German's weren't responsible, but only that their actions didn't directly lead to those death's.
and of course hundreds of V1s aimed at london, antwerp or elsewhere is not an hostile action in your eyes. Right?.
Oh its hostile action, but when you preform the action that, if not preformed would have left you safe and sound, you take away the "direct" portion of NATO's discription.
In fact, thats one of the primary reasons I would say we list non-KIA's who died as a result of enemy action (even if not as a DIRECT result of enemy action) as battle-casualties. If they died because of something the enemy did, even if they were the ones that actually caused the death, they deserve recognition for it if it was in the line of duty.
-
Some aircraft were lost when they used their guns as well.
The blunt fact is that the Meteor, Spitfire, Mustang, Tempest or Mosquito would not have been playing with the V1 if it had not been launched. The direct reason the aircraft was in danger was due to the need to protect their country.
-
Tank-ace I just get the feeling you're really starting to push thing beyond belief just for the sake of not giving way, or admitting your analysis isn't correct.
Not to say the German's weren't responsible, but only that their actions didn't directly lead to those death's.
and this is what I can't get at all. FFS, dude, the germans launched the blasted thing to start with. Can any action get more DIRECT than shooting a projectile at the enemy?. You said the allied pilots who died shooting at V-1s caused it because they pulled the trigger...guess what, if there was no V-1 to begin with, they wouldn't have died -at all-
Those V-1s were weapons of war. They were launched by germans, and as such, any pilot killed when trying to bring one down was directly killed because a german hostile action. It's just mental that you try to go around that simple, bassic fact.
There was german hostile involvement directly related to their death. That V1 was there because the germans launched it. No V-1 - no pilot death. You can't get more simpler than that.
hence, they were COMBAT losses. And as a corolary, it's essentially basic to understand that their planes had been in combat.
trying to argue that the pilots died because they shot at the german weapon is, well, excuse me if I sound unpolite because it's not my intention to sound like it and I'm not an english native speaker, but at a loss for a better word to apply, it's a sorry excuse. Those pilots were TASKED and ORDERED to intercept and bring those weapons down, by any means neccesary. Initially by gunfire. When the hazards of firing at a explosive laden V1 became apparent, Wingtipping was developed. But those pilots sortied had a combat task. That the weapon wasn't aimed at them doesn't mean they weren't in combat.
Please take the following example, that actually happened in WWII. USS Hamman, Sims class DD tasked with tending and helping the USS Yorktown damage control efforts to bring the wounded carrier back to Pearl after the battle of Midway. A japanese submarine shot four torpedoes at the USS Yorktown. Two missed, one hit the Yorktown and another one hit the Hammann which essentially was blown out of the water. The torpedo was intended for the carrier, yet the DD ate it. The 80 sailors who died in that event didn't die as a result of a combat action?. Because according to you those guys are nothing else but "battle casualties" given that the torpedo wasn't aimed nor intended to hit their ship to start with. Guess their status as KIA has been wrong for 70 years now.
More examples. Take my first post proposal here. A ticonderoga shooting SAMs at a bunch of missiles aimed at the carrier she's protecting. Is the Ticonderoga in combat? The missiles aren't aimed at her, are they?. under your standards, the Tico wouldn't be in combat in that scenario.
Yet another instance. A naval escort (say, a OHP Frigate) using chaff to confuse enemy radar guided ASM missiles so they don't hit the ship she's escorting. Chaff is sucessfull in deviating one ASM from the main target but instead the missile locks into the frigate, which gets hit instead (quite a plausible outcome of a chaffing effort by an escort ship) causing dozens of dead and injured and wrecking the ship that sinks afterwards. Was that escort hit in combat? the missile wasn't aimed at her initially ,was it?. Had the escort not launched chaff, the missile wouldn't have deviated from it's initial course and would've hit other ship, right?. Then you're trying to argument that in that scenario the escort wasn't in combat, so the ship is not a combat loss, and the deaths aboard caused by the missile would not be combat losses either. "Battle casualties"...do you think -that- is a correct assessment of the situation and outcome of such a scenario?
well, neither it is in the case of the pilots that intercepted V1s.
Finally, you don't fire a gun in anger if there is no combat involved. Those pilots indeed fired their guns in anger, and hence, another corolary , it's essencially basic to understand that they, and their planes, had to be in combat to do so.
-
Tank-ace I just get the feeling you're really starting to push thing beyond belief just for the sake of not giving way, or admitting your analysis isn't correct.
You now know Tank-Ace.
-
You now know Tank-Ace.
look at the panzer 3 forum he becomes delusional that a king tiger cannot be destroyed for the sake of whatever comes up in his head. i think he just finds a reason to argue or troll.
-
There is no hard and fast rule. But generally we want planes to have seen service.
HiTech
nothing about seeing combat. nor did he say there was a hard and fast rule. so really its what ever HTC wants to add. so nit picking over if it saw combat or engaged in combat against another aircraft or land target(infantry tanks trucks etc etc) really is pointless. now i believe arguing over what takes priority is something you guys can discuss all day. not really gonna change someones opinion.
In my opinion all aircraft that entered into service during WW2 (and by service i mean out of Prototype stage no Do-335 and Ho-229 only aircraft that were ordered and were delivered to said countries military) but F7F tigercat Re-2005 He-162 Meteor. and countless other aircraft. and just because someone flames a post that has one of those aircraft in it isnt really going to change my opinion.
-
I just feel that hunting buzz bombs isn't quite combat. I'm not saying it isn't close, or that it isn't dangerous, I'm not saying that at all. But I am saying that in terms of 'how much action did this plane see', a kill on a manned enemy aircraft that is doing his best to kill you at the same time you are trying to kill him is worth anywhere between 5 and 30 "kills" on buzz bombs that are neither aimed at you, nor a threat to you.
To me, in terms of "how much action did this plane see", being pushed into service for a few frantic, desperate, harried months while you're fighting tooth and nail to keep your country from going under, and are under daily threat is worth close to a years worth of duty where you will not die unless you pull the trigger first, or simmilarly screw up.
The fact is that the Meteor pilots would not have died if they hadn't pulled the trigger. That means up untill the very second their mussles contracted, they could have lived, and whether they lived or died was entirely dependent on if they pulled the trigger.
The Germans shooting the buzz bombs did not directly result in the death of any Meteor pilot, unless a buzz bomb killed one on the ground. They set up the situation in which those meteor pilots would make the call wether or not to pull the trigger.
The only reason they deserve to be considered battle casualties is because it was their duty to stop the buzz bombs, and they died in the line of duty.
And RRAM, the line grows sketchy in areas. Now you can fire your weapon 'in anger' when you're not even on the same continent as your enemies. We have the capability to kill our enemies on the opposite side of the globe, and from total safety.
Really depends on the situation. Personally, I would say that if its your own personal choice as to wether you take the hit, as in the case of the Hermann, or pulled the trigger in the case of the frigate using chaffe, and whether you live or die is dependent on whether you act, its not combat. It might be your duty to take the hit, or pull the trigger, but up till the moment YOU act, you aren't under threat.
If a decision is made for you, its out of your hands whether you take the hit or not, or whether the chaff is deployed, or if the weapon is currently aimed at you (important note, since we now have weapons that can change targets mid-flight), then its combat.
look at the panzer 3 forum he becomes delusional that a king tiger cannot be destroyed for the sake of whatever comes up in his head. i think he just finds a reason to argue or troll.
Thats a damn lie and I can prove it. I gave a scenario that we started out discussing, and then you changed the number of Tiger II's involved from at least 24 and dropped it back to a platoon or two.
Shall I go grab the quotes, or are you going to cut the **** Butch?
-
Thats a damn lie and I can prove it. I gave a scenario that we started out discussing, and then you changed the number of Tiger II's involved from at least 24 and dropped it back to a platoon or two.
Shall I go grab the quotes, or are you going to cut the **** Butch?
Quote from: Tank-Ace on June 19, 2012, 04:27:48 PM
You lowered the origional number, you idiot. I started out by repeating some of the more outrageous BS I've heard (Read the quote in my last post, 2nd to last section). In that quote, the "number" given was "dozens". This means at LEAST 24, that being 2 dozen. 24 being about 2 companies of Tiger II's. Hence, "dozens" means at least 2 companies.
Quite litterally, you just pulled the part about a platoon out of your arse.
*EDIT* just saw the part of your post yesterday about IS-2's and T-34's destroying Tiger II's. Karnak also said those T-34's destroyed the Tiger II's at close range.
So, you are ignoring both:
Yep you simply pulled the number out of your butt, two companies do I hear a regiment next?
Here's my comment:
Fact is IS-2 man handled a platoon of Tiger IIs, just as Karnak said a T-34 whipped the Tiger II in an Ambush - as I said before the German's LACKED any gunnery later in the war, which concludes to me this document is pretty authentic, most likely the Russians caught the Tiger II's off guard and won a shoot out.
And your comment:
Quote from: Tank-Ace on Yesterday at 09:30:29 PM
A platoon is 4 Tiger II's, a company is 12. So a group of IS-2's came out with a tactical win against two companies of Tiger II's in a long-range shoot out
Now you add two companies? where does this come from? Or simply another delusional statement from you?
Looks like you are the one who randomly pulls numbers out the butt, as I said in the post, please explain where I ever said "platoon, company" or what you refer to as "two dozen".
Stop making up your own details as you go, you are a smart enough kid - My theory was right on the nail and you wanted to continue to argue and lost, now going back to it, Read above^.
I never mentioned Platoon or Company the entire post, you devised "two dozen" or whatever crap you spew out next. You got caught lying and thats the end of it, accept the reality kid.
-
HTC put the Meteor in their last player poll, so obviously they think it merits inclusion in the game. Personally I'd rather neither that or the 162 made it into the game though.
-
Not so Karnak. If the a Meteor collided with a V1 that was aimed at London, screwed up the trajectory and distance measurments, and caused the bomb to hit in Dover, then any casualties in Dover are a direct result of the Meteor pilot's actions.
The Germans didn't take any actions that directly caused the Meteors to go down. If the Meteors hadn't fired their guns at the V1's, they wouldn't have gone down.
If I put a big crate of non-shock-proof TNT in your town, you shoot at it as a means of disposal, and die in the ensuing blast, I didn't directly cause your death, you did by firing at it.
The differences between that and the V1's: The V1s were going to blow up anyway, although still not in a location that posed a threat to the Meteors, and the Meteor pilots had a duty to shoot at the V1's.
The Meteor pilots could have done everything the same, and as long as they didn't fire their guns, they wouldn't have died. Since they pulled the trigger (an action), and they wouldn't have died otherwise, their deaths were in direct respons to them pulling the trigger.
Now again, they had a duty to knock the V1's down, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't their own actions that resulted in their deaths.
Not to say the German's weren't responsible, but only that their actions didn't directly lead to those death's.
Oh its hostile action, but when you preform the action that, if not preformed would have left you safe and sound, you take away the "direct" portion of NATO's discription.
In fact, thats one of the primary reasons I would say we list non-KIA's who died as a result of enemy action (even if not as a DIRECT result of enemy action) as battle-casualties. If they died because of something the enemy did, even if they were the ones that actually caused the death, they deserve recognition for it if it was in the line of duty.
So pilots on both sides crashing as a result of over pushing in a dogfight, that's their own fault and not a combat death? bomb disposal guys working currently in Afghanistan and Iraq, if they get killed then they don't deserve to be recorded as a combat casualty, because they could have just let it be and allow it to kill someone else, the analagy is the same as the meteor pilots attacking or knocking v1's off course.
You are holding onto your failed argument for whatever reason, have you ever been in combat? Nevertheless you are quite obviously a troll, ill informed, and you offend me.
Oh and by the way, if you were to pay Hi Tech some money, for an account for example, it might carry more weight when you wish for something.
-
I saw an HE-162 at I believe Wings of Eagles museum in NY. I been to so many Military museums over the years it is hard to keep track. I always liked the looks of it it was an innovative designed and I wonder what another year of development would have done for it. But the war ended and no allied power really went toward the HE-162 type design but worked up fighter with the basic ME-262 fuselage. The HE-162 is still a pretty cool looking bird ether way.
-
HTC put the Meteor in their last player poll, so obviously they think it merits inclusion in the game. Personally I'd rather neither that or the 162 made it into the game though.
Interesting the Meteor lost, I was almost betting the Meteor would of won hands down.
-
Interesting the Meteor lost, I was almost betting the Meteor would of won hands down.
Probrably because people knew it was british and it wouldnt start or its canopy wouldnt close all the way or something would go wrong with it lol jk jk
Been watching to much top gear (the good top gear not the US or aussie version.)
-
Probrably because people knew it was british and it wouldnt start or its canopy wouldnt close all the way or something would go wrong with it lol jk jk
Been watching to much top gear (the good top gear not the US or aussie version.)
I think you must be confusing British pre 1970, when it was seen as a by-word for quality, and post 1960 to present, where it is seen as a by- word for tat. Pre 1970 Supermarine, Hawker, Humber, Alvis, Imperial Airways, Shorts Co, Bentley, Jaguar, DeHavilland etc
Post 1970 Rover Longbridge, British Rail and Greggs :old: :bhead
-
For those talking about the V1 and the threat of the explosion when shooting it down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A
Skip to 2:43 ish
-
*more BS from Butcher*.
Either you're trolling, or you REALLY don't understand how stupid you're being.
This is the origional comment that started the whole discussion of IS-2 vs Tiger II's:
It always cracks me up when people go around saying how IS-2's knocked out dozens of Tiger II's at over 2000yds, since its both impossible from the front, and so improbable as to be almost impossible.
Notice it says nothing about 3-4 Tiger II's. Also notice how, by the definition of dozen and the plurality of the word "dozens", that the comment means a minimum of 2 dozen, perhaps more. In other words, at least 24 tanks, 2 companies of Tiger II's minus the command units.
And I really don't care where you changed the discussion to about 3-4 Tiger II's vs an unspecified number of IS-2's (and I never did see you specify how many IS-2's would be beating on these Tiger II's, it could be more than 500 for all the numbers you've posted). Complain all you like about how I'm not giving a quote showing YOU saying 2 dozen, but the fact remains that your wrong about be changing the numbers. And beyond that, its irrelevent to the origional comment.
So Butch, cut the crap here, as I'm really getting a bit tired of your provably false slander. Grow a pair and admit you're wrong, or shut up and quit with the little childish comments.
-
So Butch, cut the crap here, as I'm really getting a bit tired of your provably false slander. Grow a pair and admit you're wrong, or shut up and quit with the little childish comments.
I'm not even gonna say it. :noid :bolt:
-
So pilots on both sides crashing as a result of over pushing in a dogfight, that's their own fault and not a combat death?
I'd say they're in combat, as they are actively engaging an enemy that is attempting to kill them, not shooting at an unpiloted bomb that isn't aimed at them.
bomb disposal guys working currently in Afghanistan and Iraq, if they get killed then they don't deserve to be recorded as a combat casualty, because they could have just let it be and allow it to kill someone else, the analagy is the same as the meteor pilots attacking or knocking v1's off course.
Are they disarming some 20 something year old ordnance from when Russia was fighting the Mujahdeen, or are they disarming some ordnance thats been wired up recently and placed with the intent to do harm to US forces in Afghanistan? Is the bomb out in the middle of the desert and posing no threat to anyone, or in the city and posing a threat to civilians and military personel. Did he try and defuse it, or did it blow up as he approached or was preparing to detonate it under a controled circumstance?
All of that matters. If it was intended for the russians, and no enemy tried to detonate it against the US soldiers, then you'd have to be an idiot to list it as a killed in combat. If its in the desert, and he just decides to disarm it for whatever reason and cuts the wrong wire, as opposed to blowing it up when it poses no threat to anyone, its not killed in combat.
If an enemy blew it up, then of course its a combat death. If it poses a threat to people, or might cause colateral damage, and he tries to disarm it, its still a combat death.
You are holding onto your failed argument for whatever reason, have you ever been in combat? Nevertheless you are quite obviously a troll, ill informed, and you offend me.
Oh and by the way, if you were to pay Hi Tech some money, for an account for example, it might carry more weight when you wish for something.
With all due respect, I really don't care that much if I've offended you. I don't know you, and you're getting pissed because I don't feel that any death in any way related to an enemy automatically counts as combat. I personally don't think that firing at a bomb not even aimed at you, and that poses ZERO threat to you as is counts as combat.
Was it in the line of duty? Yes. Should the pilots be recognized for it? Yes. Was it combat? Really, I don't feel it is.
If theres a block of C4 with a cable attached to the pin on the firing device, and the cable is attached to my house, its directly my fault I'm dead if I'm stupid enough to pull the string, not directly the fault of whoever attached the C-4 to my house. He's carrying the blame, but it wasn't directly his fault. Not saying the Brits in the meteors were stupid for going after the Buzz bombs, but its a simmilar situation: I'm under potential threat, just like the meteor pilots, I'm not under actual threat (you could play football with a brick of C4 and it wouldn't go off), just like the meteor pilots, and my actions directly determine if I live or die, also like the meteor pilots.
Not all deaths result from combat, even if an enemy is involved. What if an enemy craps in a river, and a soldier drinks from it. He later comes down sick from drinking contaminated river water, and dies. Should he be listed as killed in combat? He wouldn't have died if the enemy hadn't defecated in the river. He didn't know he would die from drinking the water, and so there wasn't any choice made to sacrafice himself. That means the enemy is directly responsible for killing him, right?
So should he be listed as KIA?
What if an enemy puts a bunch of tacks on the road to interfere with trafic. A soldier goes out to help clear the road, and punctures his hand while picking up the tacks. He gets a staff infection and dies. He wouldn't have died if the enemy hadn't put the tacks on the road, so was he killed in combat?
Should he be listed as KIA?
Theres a difference between direct and indirect action, and that difference matters. Sometimes it can grow VERY sketchy, but the difference still matters.
-
:rolleyes:
-
With all due respect, I really don't care that much if I've offended you.
Well let's see.
Danny voluntarily put his life on the line and served his country by taking a tour in Afghanistan. Is respectful, friendly, hard-working, well mannered and experienced both in life and in combat.
Then there's you, an attention seeking, argumentative youth that would argue with Satan himself over the temperature of Hell's furnaces, who by his own admission isn't very good in fighter aircraft in a game entitled Aces High and further by his own admission doesn't even presently have an active paying account but spends his days on this free forum being disrespectful to everyone he comes across who won't concede to his superior knowledge presumably springing from the eternally flowing fountain of the arrogance of youth.
Let me put these two things on the scales of credibility for a moment and see which way it swings...
-
:rofl
-
I'd say they're in combat, as they are actively engaging an enemy that is attempting to kill them, not shooting at an unpiloted bomb that isn't aimed at them.
Are they disarming some 20 something year old ordnance from when Russia was fighting the Mujahdeen, or are they disarming some ordnance thats been wired up recently and placed with the intent to do harm to US forces in Afghanistan? Is the bomb out in the middle of the desert and posing no threat to anyone, or in the city and posing a threat to civilians and military personel. Did he try and defuse it, or did it blow up as he approached or was preparing to detonate it under a controled circumstance?
All of that matters. If it was intended for the russians, and no enemy tried to detonate it against the US soldiers, then you'd have to be an idiot to list it as a killed in combat. If its in the desert, and he just decides to disarm it for whatever reason and cuts the wrong wire, as opposed to blowing it up when it poses no threat to anyone, its not killed in combat.
If an enemy blew it up, then of course its a combat death. If it poses a threat to people, or might cause colateral damage, and he tries to disarm it, its still a combat death.
With all due respect, I really don't care that much if I've offended you. I don't know you, and you're getting pissed because I don't feel that any death in any way related to an enemy automatically counts as combat. I personally don't think that firing at a bomb not even aimed at you, and that poses ZERO threat to you as is counts as combat.
Was it in the line of duty? Yes. Should the pilots be recognized for it? Yes. Was it combat? Really, I don't feel it is.
If theres a block of C4 with a cable attached to the pin on the firing device, and the cable is attached to my house, its directly my fault I'm dead if I'm stupid enough to pull the string, not directly the fault of whoever attached the C-4 to my house. He's carrying the blame, but it wasn't directly his fault. Not saying the Brits in the meteors were stupid for going after the Buzz bombs, but its a simmilar situation: I'm under potential threat, just like the meteor pilots, I'm not under actual threat (you could play football with a brick of C4 and it wouldn't go off), just like the meteor pilots, and my actions directly determine if I live or die, also like the meteor pilots.
Not all deaths result from combat, even if an enemy is involved. What if an enemy craps in a river, and a soldier drinks from it. He later comes down sick from drinking contaminated river water, and dies. Should he be listed as killed in combat? He wouldn't have died if the enemy hadn't defecated in the river. He didn't know he would die from drinking the water, and so there wasn't any choice made to sacrafice himself. That means the enemy is directly responsible for killing him, right?
So should he be listed as KIA?
What if an enemy puts a bunch of tacks on the road to interfere with trafic. A soldier goes out to help clear the road, and punctures his hand while picking up the tacks. He gets a staff infection and dies. He wouldn't have died if the enemy hadn't put the tacks on the road, so was he killed in combat?
Should he be listed as KIA?
Theres a difference between direct and indirect action, and that difference matters. Sometimes it can grow VERY sketchy, but the difference still matters.
I was mid way through writing a reply when my common sense got the better of me and I went off to calm down for a while before getting Png'd.
I am typing this thinking that I am wasting my time replying to you but there we are. I have served in two areas of conflict and in both I did very little, and the worst I have got was some scrapes and bumps, however at remembrance parade in November last year I was standing with a group of squaddies, one, a 20 year old, had no right leg or arm and was missing most of his face, his vehicle had been hit by an IED when he was en route to carry out a foot patrol, he was there in his uniform, his wife alongside him, carrying his baby in his left arm. He endured about 2 hours of standing to attention and following the parade on raw stumps because his artificial legs had only recently been fitted. He refused all assistance despite visibly trembling in pain. He had endured countless operations to that point and had to look forward to several facial reconstructive surgeries.
We had drinks afterwards which he refused point blank to let anyone pay for, despite a multitude of offers from all those around, and was making jokes about his disability that had us all crying with laughter, and just crying.
According to you, not only did he not get wounded in combat, he also brought it on himself by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would like for you to have the opportunity to discuss your opinions with him. I guarantee, despite his condition, he would sing you a lullaby. He would have to stand in line though.
This forum for the most part seems to be made up of people who have either served, are serving, or have a deep respect for the fighting men and women, whichever branch or arm they serve in. I don't know whether or not you are just attempting to provoke a reaction, or you are genuinely as pig-headed as you appear, either way, I would ask you in as reasonable a way as I can to desist, and I hope that this thread gets locked
-
Well let's see.
Danny voluntarily put his life on the line and served his country by taking a tour in Afghanistan. Is respectful, friendly, hard-working, well mannered and experienced both in life and in combat.
Then there's you, an attention seeking, argumentative youth that would argue with Satan himself over the temperature of Hell's furnaces, who by his own admission isn't very good in fighter aircraft in a game entitled Aces High and further by his own admission doesn't even presently have an active paying account but spends his days on this free forum being disrespectful to everyone he comes across who won't concede to his superior knowledge presumably springing from the eternally flowing fountain of the arrogance of youth.
Let me put these two things on the scales of credibility for a moment and see which way it swings...
:lol
Tank Ace, I think it might not be too late to save face if you just keep your opinions to yourself in the future. Or you can get an account and show these guys your uber skills!
-
I'm not required to agree with any of you. Personally I don't think the meteor pilots were in combat. They weren't actively fighting anyone.
Following the letter of the NATO definition of a battle-casualty, they were not battle casualties.
Danny, I respect what you've done for the country, and I respect your squad mate. Try and guilt-trip me all you like, I still don't think firing at an unmanned bomb not aimed at you, and posing no threat to you counts as combat. Theres always going to be ambiguous cases, but those ambiguous cases aren't the rule, they are the exception.
I respect you as a soldier, but your oppinion still doesn't carry enough weight to make me do a 360 on my oppinions.
Tell me, who were the Meteor pilots fighting? The Germans that launched the bombs were in no danger what so ever, and neither were the Meteor pilots (at least not any more than usual, until the instant they pulled the trigger). They weren't shooting at anyone, or anything controlled by a human. The bombs blew up not because of what the Germans did, but because the Meteor pilots were shooting at volatile high-explosives.
Rigged to blow up if something got screwed up with the avionics, or if an aircraft came to close? Sure, cause the Germans were trying to take out anyone who interfered with the bombs. The bomb is aimed at a Meteor, or even a Meteor pilot? Sure, because again, the Germans would be actively trying to take out the meteors.
I'm not saying those pilots shouldn't be recognized for their bravery and sacrafice, but I am saying there shouldn't be just KIA, DWRIA and non-battle-casulaties, as not all of the deaths will fit into one of those three casualties.
-
I'm not required to agree with any of you.
No you are not, and no one is requiring that from you. What we do expect and require is that you treat people respectfully even if you disagree with them. If you don't do that then expect a hostile reaction.
The secondary issue is credibility. It doesn't matter how forcefully you forward your opinion, it is merely your opinion and your age and life experience, intelligence and ability to articulate logically goes towards the weight that should be given to said opinion. You seem to be inordinately needy of attention and in my opinion you're out of your league on this point.
These comments toward you are pertinent to this Wishlist thread and all these threads that you continually post in in this way. The following is free advise, so take it or leave it, it's up to you:-
You should consider moving these activities away from the sterility and protection of this forum, and begin to interact with people face to face, join a debating club or participate in an activity in which opinions are shared or exchanged or developed in a co-creative spirit. Here you are learning a false sense of 'normal' interaction with people.
-
Tell me, who were the Meteor pilots fighting?
The Germans.
Modern weapons, even WWII era, have moved past the point where you have to be attacking a man to be fighting. No longer is combat what can be reached with a cloth yard shaft or broadsword.
-
The Germans.
Modern weapons, even WWII era, have moved past the point where you have to be attacking a man to be fighting. No longer is combat what can be reached with a cloth yard shaft or broadsword.
Maybe. For all we know, the guys who launched the bombs got off duty and hit the sack the minute they were done pushing the button. You really can't be fighting someone who is asleep.
Were the Germans in combat with those Meteor pilots?
And if you mean the German people, then you could list everyone who blew up a bridge without seeing an enemy, and then later died because of pilot error as KIA. The people they were 'fighting' weren't present, but they were still taking action to do harm to the German war effort.
Is the guy sitting back in the control room in florida, piloting the UAV's in combat? Sorry, I really don't think so. If he has a heart attack because of what he sees on his screen, he doesn't deserve to be listed as KIA, and personally I think would be a bit disrespectful to those who actually, you know, died in combat.
The issue is that as soon as the first guided weapon came into service, the line became blurry. Its only grown more blurry as the weapons have grown more advanced. You think the line lies here, I think the line lies there. We're clearly not going to convince eachother, so agree to disagree?
-
Were the Germans in combat with those Meteor pilots?
I did the research, the meteor was in combat. Wikipedia failed you sorry.
-
I did the research, the meteor was in combat. Wikipedia failed you sorry.
^^^^ reading-fail?
I didn't say a thing about the meteor seeing combat. Or are you going to try and pull another "but I said...." thing?
-
Oh joy, here we go.
-
:bhead
-
^^^^ reading-fail?
There's only one p in opinion Tank-Ace. And if you do a 360 'on' your opinion then you end up facing exactly the same direction you started out. Brain fail?
This kid's a rolling violation of not only forum rule ⌗2 but also Darwin's laws of natural selection.
Someone should invoke the sacred Raptor05121 curse: 'Someone please ban this guy'.
-
There's only one p in opinion Tank-Ace. And if you do a 360 'on' your opinion then you end up facing exactly the same direction you started out. Brain fail?
This kid's a rolling violation of not only forum rule ⌗2 but also Darwin's laws of natural selection.
Someone should invoke the sacred Raptor05121 curse: 'Someone please ban this guy'.
:rofl
-
Oh Tank Ace...if only I could've met you in game before you quit. You know how that kid from the Simpsons always goes "Ha-ha!"? Yea, that's what I would've said to you everyday.
-
Someone should invoke the sacred Raptor05121 curse
:rofl
-
Tank-Ace,
By your logic, the German AA gunners weren't usually in combat with the Lancasters or B-17s because they personally weren't usually in the target area and thus were actually in less danger than the Meteor pilots.
-
According to you, not only did he not get wounded in combat, he also brought it on himself by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would like for you to have the opportunity to discuss your opinions with him. I guarantee, despite his condition, he would sing you a lullaby. He would have to stand in line though.
This forum for the most part seems to be made up of people who have either served, are serving, or have a deep respect for the fighting men and women, whichever branch or arm they serve in. I don't know whether or not you are just attempting to provoke a reaction, or you are genuinely as pig-headed as you appear, either way, I would ask you in as reasonable a way as I can to desist, and I hope that this thread gets locked
According to Tank-Ace, he didn't serve combat since nobody shot at him - yeah I know...I think TA is simply looking to provoke a reaction or trolling as usual.
Amazing story though Danny, kid sure had alot of pride enduring that pain like that, really you can't do anything but respect the man whose got more balls then most people you will ever meet. He'll his brass pair is bigger then a pair of liberty bells :cheers:
-
No He-162 please. There is a load of other exciting aircrafts to add.
And im a luftwheenie ;)
-
No He-162 please. There is a load of other exciting aircrafts to add.
And im a luftwheenie ;)
Me-109G6 AS :)
-
German aircraft that I'd like to see added:
Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS
Fw190A-2
Fw190A-9
He111
Hs129
Ju52
Ju88G-7
Ju188A-1
Me323D-6
-
German aircraft that I'd like to see added:
Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS
Fw190A-2
Fw190A-9
He111
Hs129
Ju52
Ju88G-7
Ju188A-1
Me323D-6
Really? Slow as hell, it's still going to carry 10 troops, the firepower isn't even going to be that great since there will likely be no formations either.
-
Really? Slow as hell, it's still going to carry 10 troops, the firepower isn't even going to be that great since there will likely be no formations either.
Nah, it wasn't capable of acting as a paratroop transport so far as I know. It would be possible for it to move a light vehicle though.
What I'd actually like to see it used for is a new gameplay mechanism where a number of them could setup a temporary vbase or airfield.
Mostly I want it just because it is so unique looking. :p
-
The german aircraft lineup isnt as bad (the 188 would be a cookie tho). Unlike the russian, italan and maybe the japaneese planeset.
-
Really? Slow as hell, it's still going to carry 10 troops, the firepower isn't even going to be that great since there will likely be no formations either.
Firepower is tremendous compared to the C-47 :D
I could see it as a perked (yes, you did read that right) and armed transporter carrying 2x field supplies.
-
Firepower is tremendous compared to the C-47 :D
I could see it as a perked (yes, you did read that right) and armed transporter carrying 2x field supplies.
Assuming the attacker is competent..at most you're going to have two 20mm aimed at you. I wouldn't perk it nor fear it at all if it was added.
-
Assuming the attacker is competent..at most you're going to have two 20mm aimed at you. I wouldn't perk it nor fear it at all if it was added.
The perk would be necessary for gameplay balance, and not just because it's a deathstar.
-
The perk would be necessary for gameplay balance, and not just because it's a deathstar.
I respectfully disagree. :)
You either pick the C47 which is 2x faster. Or you can pick this in exchange for defensive firepower. It may have a lot of cannons, but unless it has formations enabled, it's not really that great. They got butchered in WWII, they'll get butchered in here.
-
I respectfully disagree. :)
You either pick the C47 which is 2x faster. Or you can pick this in exchange for defensive firepower. It may have a lot of cannons, but unless it has formations enabled, it's not really that great. They got butchered in WWII, they'll get butchered in here.
2x field supplies. Only half number of trips to bring up a base (and no, the C-47 isn't twice as fast). Plus armament.
To balance this impact on the gameplay you would have to perk it. Then players have a choice if they go for maximum efficiency (+guns) while risking some perks for it.
-
2x field supplies. Only half number of trips to bring up a base (and no, the C-47 isn't twice as fast). Plus armament.
To balance this impact on the gameplay you would have to perk it. Then players have a choice if they go for maximum efficiency (+guns) while risking some perks for it.
Top speed is 235mph in a C47.
Top speed is 168mph in a Me 323.
Ok, not twice as fast but fast enough to make a noticable difference. :aok
-
Top speed is 235mph in a C47.
Top speed is 168mph in a Me 323.
Ok, not twice as fast but fast enough to make a noticable difference. :aok
So which plane would be more efficient in base resupply? ;)
If both planes were free, introducing the Me 323 with 2 field supps would simply reduce the requirements for base resupply.
-
Well then it depends on how much base supplies the field will need to be fully up. If it's only one person, then the 323 is the better choice since it'll be faster. If the field only need 3 or 4 supps, then the C47 will be faster with 3 or 4 guys.
-
Well then it depends on how much base supplies the field will need to be fully up. If it's only one person, then the 323 is the better choice since it'll be faster. If the field only need 3 or 4 supps, then the C47 will be faster with 3 or 4 guys.
Or just two guys in case of 323.
In any case, resupplying the field would take less effort, no matter how you turn it around. And that's the whole point.
-
323 would need to land to deliver the supplies while the C-47s could just drop them.
-
Tank-Ace,
By your logic, the German AA gunners weren't usually in combat with the Lancasters or B-17s because they personally weren't usually in the target area and thus were actually in less danger than the Meteor pilots.
Yeah, I would say AA gunner plugging away from the middle of a field aren't really in combat. You kind of need someone to be fighting back to call it combat, IMO.
But like I said, we're clearly not going to convince eachother, lets just agree to disagree.
Debrody, why no He 162? It meets the requirments and should be added eventually.
-
Is there any proof the He 162 was even in combat? I see such spotted records - for example Profiles Publication claims JG 1 never used it guns in anger, although it did have 50 He-162s on the runway, at the time of british capture, there was a lack of aviation fuel to fly them, as there has been no fuel for some time.
I do see one He-162 shooting down a Typhoon but there is only one photo of a JG 1 He-162 flying, I know they were in operational status but without fuel does this allow it to be combat effective?