Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 800nate800 on July 12, 2012, 06:06:28 AM
-
Since we have a Poll for planes to be added why dont we do a tank poll. We need Brit tanks and russki tanks.
-
Since we have a Poll for planes to be added why dont we do a tank poll. We need Brit tanks and russki tanks.
no thank you.
-
no thank you.
I think its a good idea
-
I think its a good idea
I don't want any more tanks, I'd rather see early war planes.
-
+1
We need some turretless "assault guns", characterized by a larger gun than contemporary tanks, but with limited gun traverse and worse hull-defilade performance (harder to shoot while hiding most of the hull, as is possible with most taniks). This means better performance at long range, but significant disadvantages at shorter ranges or against aircraft. These unique characteristics should introduce additional interesting game play elements. By the above, I am implying that the ENY/perk cost should not be based solely on that of tanks with an equivalent gun/armor, but should be discounted from that ENY/perk cost due to the significant disadvantages of not having a turret.
Good candidates might include SU100 (T34 hull 3D model spin-off), Jagdpanther (Panther hull 3D model spin-off and King Tiger gun; would need to be perked), and Panzer IV/70 (Improved Jagdpanzer IV with panzer IV hull 3D model spin-off and Panther gun). The popular Sturmgeschutz III would not be a good candidate, as it's gun is no better than AH "Panzers", has no turret, and requires a Panzer III chassis to be 3D modeled.
MH
-
(erroneous post)
-
The popular Sturmgeschutz III would not be a good candidate, as it's gun is no better than AH "Panzers", has no turret, and requires a Panzer III chassis to be 3D modeled.
MH
Sure it is. Make it 35 ENY, add the option for the 105mm howitzer, and you got yourself a real nice perk farmer. That'll see plenty of use.
-
Sure it is. Make it 35 ENY, add the option for the 105mm howitzer, and you got yourself a real nice perk farmer. That'll see plenty of use.
To clarify, I guess I would like the Stug III as well. I just mentioned the 3 which would appear to involve the least 3D development work for HTC, as an incentive for them to do this. Perhaps the Stug III could be added later...
MH
-
Personally I would like to see a butt load of fighters added to our flying game before anymore spawn camping equipment.
-
Personally I would like to see a butt load of fighters added to our flying game before anymore spawn camping equipment.
Personally I would like to see a butt load of GVs added to our "combat simulation" game (see Aces High title page) before any more aerial vulching, hording, and tag-teaming equipment.
-
Personally I would like to see a butt load of GVs added to our "combat simulation" game (see Aces High title page) before any more aerial vulching, hording, and tag-teaming equipment.
The Gv's are here for the Planes.
-
As someone who GV's as much as I fly, more vehicles with aircraft would be a plus.
-
The Gv's are here for the Planes.
This statement lost it's truth many years ago :)
-
The Gv's are here for the Planes.
If that was true why change the icon range?
-
first we should poll all the players to see if they would like to have a poll. one must be done for tanks another for fighters and another for bombers. but in order for the poll to be fair, we just really ask first after the first poll to poll the players to see if they want a poll done, if adding planes by country would be good. well after the first poll to ask if it's ok to have a poll, then after the poll to ask if we should add by country, the we can have the poll to ask for a specific plane. which brings us back to the "to be fair" thing.
ah forget it, I am confused already.
semp
-
first we should poll all the players to see if they would like to have a poll. one must be done for tanks another for fighters and another for bombers. but in order for the poll to be fair, we just really ask first after the first poll to poll the players to see if they want a poll done, if adding planes by country would be good. well after the first poll to ask if it's ok to have a poll, then after the poll to ask if we should add by country, the we can have the poll to ask for a specific plane. which brings us back to the "to be fair" thing.
ah forget it, I am confused already.
semp
Actually, I don't really want a poll; I would prefer dictatorial powers concerning which GVs are to be next. If I had such powers, I would specify the above-mentioned "assault guns", as described in my previous post. A poll would probably generate a result other than the one I prefer...
MH
-
Actually, I don't really want a poll; I would prefer dictatorial powers concerning which GVs are to be next. If I had such powers, I would specify the above-mentioned "assault guns", as described in my previous post. A poll would probably generate a result other than the one I prefer...
MH
maybe we should have a poll to see if players are willing to give you such power :).
semp
-
New tank friendly terrain ,,, or just new terrain!!! JM2C!
-
first we should poll all the players to see if they would like to have a poll. one must be done for tanks another for fighters and another for bombers. but in order for the poll to be fair, we just really ask first after the first poll to poll the players to see if they want a poll done, if adding planes by country would be good. well after the first poll to ask if it's ok to have a poll, then after the poll to ask if we should add by country, the we can have the poll to ask for a specific plane. which brings us back to the "to be fair" thing.
ah forget it, I am confused already.
semp
I don't know, you were on a roll there. :aok
+1 for a poll to have a poll in regards to a poll about a pole, as mandated under Polish law.
-
uhp topic started by nate, time to ignore it, and find a real post.
GOODNDUDE
-
New tank friendly terrain ,,, or just new terrain!!! JM2C!
YUUUUUUUUP!
-
500 perks each
(http://tankove_muzeum.sweb.cz/warpics/kv-2_1.jpg)
-
500 perks each
(http://tankove_muzeum.sweb.cz/warpics/kv-2_1.jpg)
it would only be 10-20 tops. Firefly and panther would own it but it would be a great town killer
-
This is why i never post
-
NEW maps would be better than more a/c or gv's.... :rock
-
While more tanks and shorter GV friendly spawns would be great. I would settle for the old transmission we had back in our tanks. This new transmission is the worse thing that happened to tanks in the game. It will not go up a hill you can't creep forward anymore or the tank will not move at all when you need to or it takes off with you when you don't want it to. I used to GV a lot but now not so much and mostly because of this crap transmission we are stuck with. Bring back the standard transmission
-
it would only be 10-20 tops. Firefly and panther would own it but it would be a great town killer
Not too sure about that since there are instances of a single KV2 owning all tanks that tried to pass as well as the artillery the germans tried to use against it.
It finally ran out of ammo and was abandoned.
-
KV-2 was an early war tank, although it did have up to 110mm of armor in some areas, I think it would be perked.
-
no offense but that kv-2 is UGLY man giant turret on a little tank hull half the armor is on the turret I would settle for an IS or something more sleek looking lol
-
no offense but that kv-2 is UGLY man giant turret on a little tank hull half the armor is on the turret I would settle for an IS or something more sleek looking lol
quite true, I considered it one of the ugliest tanks next to Churchill tank, that oversized box would be tremendously Huge in game, offering quite a nice size target compared to something sleek like IS or Hetzer.
-
If theres a poll, the biggest, bestest, or American option will win.
I think that the only reason the Me410 won was because the Yak-3 had realy similar preformance to the Yak-9, and because people were picturing a 350mph 110G when they clicked on it.
-
If theres a poll, the biggest, bestest, or American option will win.
I think that the only reason the Me410 won was because the Yak-3 had realy similar preformance to the Yak-9, and because people were picturing a 350mph 110G when they clicked on it.
Really? Explain how the Me410 won over the Meteor which would mop it all over the sky at any alt?
-
Butcher vs Tank-Ace
Round 1326!
BEGIN!
-
Butcher vs Tank-Ace
Round 1326!
BEGIN!
Quite a valid question since his logic proves only american or the best planes will win, explain the Meteor losing? I was a bit shocked the 410 won considering it doesn't outclass any of the fighters listed in the poll, only the gun option does.
-
Quite a valid question since his logic proves only american or the best planes will win, explain the Meteor losing? I was a bit shocked the 410 won considering it doesn't outclass any of the fighters listed in the poll, only the gun option does.
Name recognition plays a role as well. Me410 = version 4 of the 110? Meteor = ??? Yak-3 = Red commie crap. Beaufighter = ???
-
Name recognition plays a role as well. Me410 = version 4 of the 110? Meteor = ??? Yak-3 = Red commie crap. Beaufighter = ???
So then basically 80% have not a clue what they are voting on then, seems reasonable - considering none of it has anything to do with base taking.
-
So then basically 80% have not a clue what they are voting on then, seems reasonable - considering none of it has anything to do with base taking.
Pretty much, yes. We've had prolific posters admit they didn't know the Japanese had any fighter other than the Zero before playing AH. If I recall correctly, another guy said he thought the Typhoon was a made up fictional airplane at first because he'd never heard of it until seeing it in this game.
I wouldn't say it is 80%, but it is a substantially influential number where the in game polls are concerned.
-
Pretty much, yes. We've had prolific posters admit they didn't know the Japanese had any fighter other than the Zero before playing AH. If I recall correctly, another guy said he thought the Typhoon was a made up fictional airplane at first because he'd never heard of it until seeing it in this game.
I wouldn't say it is 80%, but it is a substantially influential number where the in game polls are concerned.
I knew most of the planes before I joined AH or Airwarrior rather, not in complete detail and I still don't, but still baffles me some wouldn't take the time to at least look at what they are voting on, only reason I voted on the Me-410 is it was one of the very first wishlist posts I made next to G.55 -
I kind of figured the usual "Ki-43 and beaufighter" would of been added long time ago given how significant they fought in WW2, why they continue to elude being added in game amazes me.
Meteor I was sure to win the voting poll, i can see every 2 weeker screaming "ZOMG JET" without realizing how many perks it would be and few years from now still trying to gather enough for it.
Then again I realized apparently nobody even knows what a Meteor was, given the history channel and such - they would vote on a perked P-51 mustang before a meteor.
-
+1
We need some turretless "assault guns", characterized by a larger gun than contemporary tanks, but with limited gun traverse and worse hull-defilade performance (harder to shoot while hiding most of the hull, as is possible with most taniks). This means better performance at long range, but significant disadvantages at shorter ranges or against aircraft. These unique characteristics should introduce additional interesting game play elements. By the above, I am implying that the ENY/perk cost should not be based solely on that of tanks with an equivalent gun/armor, but should be discounted from that ENY/perk cost due to the significant disadvantages of not having a turret.
Good candidates might include SU100 (T34 hull 3D model spin-off), Jagdpanther (Panther hull 3D model spin-off and King Tiger gun; would need to be perked), and Panzer IV/70 (Improved Jagdpanzer IV with panzer IV hull 3D model spin-off and Panther gun). The popular Sturmgeschutz III would not be a good candidate, as it's gun is no better than AH "Panzers", has no turret, and requires a Panzer III chassis to be 3D modeled.
MH
Once again my favorite GV flaw shows it's ugly head . Shooting down a/c with a main gun is utterly gamey . No gun mounting <other than of course purpose built aa tanks> was capable of tracking an aircraft no matter how low or how little deflection . No sight could acquire let alone track an a/c .To those who are going to jump in with the tired arguments, show me one single instance of this happening . No tank crew would be so foolish with main gun rounds , to even try . Never happened ,because it is impossible .
The lower profile of the turret less TD was it's best advantage . It lacked the flexibility of a turret , but was marginally compensated for it by being harder to spot , better armored , and having less of it exposed to enemy fire than turreted AFV's .
-
Once again my favorite GV flaw shows it's ugly head . Shooting down a/c with a main gun is utterly gamey . No gun mounting <other than of course purpose built aa tanks> was capable of tracking an aircraft no matter how low or how little deflection . No sight could acquire let alone track an a/c .To those who are going to jump in with the tired arguments, show me one single instance of this happening . No tank crew would be so foolish with main gun rounds , to even try . Never happened ,because it is impossible .
The lower profile of the turret less TD was it's best advantage . It lacked the flexibility of a turret , but was marginally compensated for it by being harder to spot , better armored , and having less of it exposed to enemy fire than turreted AFV's .
You are correct. No tank in the history of the world ever shot down an aircraft on less it was a total accident and the tank crew never knew it happened . I had an Army MOS of 19D30 (Cavalry Scout) We were cross trained as drivers loader and gunners in the M-48s and M-60 tanks and I had plenty of range time at Ft. Know KY. Anyone who has ever looked through a main gun sight would understand why you most like would not even see a plane with it much less track and fire at one. This is a sore subject with me in the game and I would like that aspect of tank gunnery gone along with that new transmission.
-
I vote for a new tank moratorium for at least two years. We (meaning: me :D ) need some new fighters and the updates of all the old models before any more tanks. :aok
-
You are correct. No tank in the history of the world ever shot down an aircraft on less it was a total accident and the tank crew never knew it happened . I had an Army MOS of 19D30 (Cavalry Scout) We were cross trained as drivers loader and gunners in the M-48s and M-60 tanks and I had plenty of range time at Ft. Know KY. Anyone who has ever looked through a main gun sight would understand why you most like would not even see a plane with it much less track and fire at one. This is a sore subject with me in the game and I would like that aspect of tank gunnery gone along with that new transmission.
Would disallowing the guns to be fired from the commander's view resolve this?
That said, many years ago I did shoot down two aircraft in one Panzer IV H sortie using the gunsight. The first was an La-7 that flew directly at the barrel, I didn't even have to adjust the aim and there was no tracking needed. The second was a C-47 at range that was heading mostly at me because I was near the town. I hit it with the 3rd HE round I fired at it. While the C-47 kill was a bit gamey, I didn't see anything wrong with the La-7 kill. He fed himself to the gun.
-
You are correct. No tank in the history of the world ever shot down an aircraft on less it was a total accident and the tank crew never knew it happened . I had an Army MOS of 19D30 (Cavalry Scout) We were cross trained as drivers loader and gunners in the M-48s and M-60 tanks and I had plenty of range time at Ft. Know KY. Anyone who has ever looked through a main gun sight would understand why you most like would not even see a plane with it much less track and fire at one. This is a sore subject with me in the game and I would like that aspect of tank gunnery gone along with that new transmission.
I too was a 19D for the last and best part of my career . Cross trained on M-60 and M-1 . Just as you do I know for a fact that it can not be done . 105 while in Korea for Team Spirit 89 . I had the opportunity to "play" with an M-26 , including a live fire . I have also got to operate <alas no live fire> an M4A3E8 owned by a local private collector . So I have a very limited amount of experience with era equipment . I once tried to give an example of trying to track a swallow or a bat while feeding with a soda straw . The reply I got was it could be done . I was also asked " what you don't think a 76mm projectile will bring down a plane ?". Well of course it could . If you could hit anything with it . I wonder what they think about how the shell would be fused , or did they think complex timed fuses and proximity fuses were just for fun ? I wonder what they thought about the development of purpose built AA vehicles was all about . Need drives advancement . These AA AFV are around because they are needed . If an MBT could do the job its self we wouldn't have them . I once again challenge anyone to show any proof it was even attempted , let alone succeeded . An AAR , biography , anything ?
-
Would disallowing the guns to be fired from the commander's view resolve this?
That said, many years ago I did shoot down two aircraft in one Panzer IV H sortie using the gunsight. The first was an La-7 that flew directly at the barrel, I didn't even have to adjust the aim and there was no tracking needed. The second was a C-47 at range that was heading mostly at me because I was near the town. I hit it with the 3rd HE round I fired at it. While the C-47 kill was a bit gamey, I didn't see anything wrong with the La-7 kill. He fed himself to the gun.
Karnak there are several things you need to think about . First off is the field of view for the gun sight of a tank is much much less than in here . So even if you are not dealing with a crossing shot . You simply can not see enough of the sky at any one time to to acquire a target . Even when flying straight at you . You still had to do some tracking . You have to shoot where the target is going to be not where it is . Karnak I hope I don't sound rude . I respect you and do not want to offend you . Another thing . In here you have one man doing all four job's . This allows a level of coordination that no amount of training and time with a four man will ever begin to match . I guess in these tanks it would mostly be five man crews . Think of it this way try to find an aircraft ,even one flying straight at you with a telescope . Do not use just your eyes to get you in close then bring the scope up to get it on target do it with one eye closed and the other eye in the scope . I think you will find you need to first find it with just your eyes . Then with the scope up to one eye open the other to get target in view of the scope . Visually trained AA must be an open affair otherwise you would not be able to get the gun sight on target at all . The only fully enclosed AA AFV's must use another form of targeting , usually radar . R105 can you think of anything else ? Go to your local airport and try it on a plane landing .
-
Actually, in the case of the La-7 I didn't have to do any tracking at all. He flew straight down the cross hairs. I didn't move the gun at all from the position I had it in to use against the tanks I was fighting. It doesn't matter how small the field of view was unless you're going to claim it is 0 degrees as he literally put himself in my sight and held himself there as he flew at me firing his 20mm cannons. There was no lead to pull, I just put a 75mm AP round straight through his engine at a range of about 100 yards.
Don't mistake "extremely unlikely" for "impossible" as they are infinitely far apart. The fact is that in the right circumstances it is possible, but generally requires significant assistance from the pilot of the aircraft.
-
Still have the problem of acquisition tell me how did you acquire the La7 ? You basically had a telepathically linked TC and Gunner who could compare notes in an instant . Try to acquire a landing airplane coming straight at you with a 13 power rifle scope , using only the scope . No Karnak you are right it is only unlikely . About the same chance as everyone on this bbs winning a megabucks jackpot 3 times . In Aces High it happens how often ? I watched a guy shoot down several planes last night including tracking shots .Not a lot of deflection but some . If it could be done why go to the trouble of building purpose built machines ? How big a percentage of strafing runs do you think are made like the one you just described ? Shallow angle long approach ? I only noe Your turret makes it so you will always have a 0 deflection shot if you are the target . Surely if it is possible then the countless tanks that have been attacked by aircraft it has happened . There has to be a mention of it somewhere . If not from Datman's point of view then surely something from the pilots point of view . Training literature , debriefing on how so and so got it from this or that tank . Something . Look everyone that has spent any time in an AFV with a turret has tried . Have TC use his over ride to get you close and try to acquire the target . When you do have that super rare occasion you glimpse a plane <never had it happen to me> . It is fleeting in the extreme . a black something in field of view for a small fraction of a second . You don't take long to quit trying . The only thing I can think of to correct this would be to have the gun move a few degrees/mils in both deflection and elevation when you jump from TC to Gunner . I know it can be done in here . I can prove it can and has been done . I have practical knowledge of the fact . I also have practical knowledge in the real world . It can't be done !!! Unfortunately I can't prove a negative . You are great at research show me one instance where it was tried . Karnak basically I see your argument as this . I did it in AH2 so it is possible if not probable in RL . If it is possible . Then it was tried . If it was tried very much , there is documentation on it . If it happened even a few times some type of training material on how it was done and what you need to learn to be able to do it too.
-
I acquired the La-7 when he dropped into my gunsight's cross hairs while I was aiming at enemy tanks. It was sorta hard to not notice the big 'ol La-7 filling the sight and blocking my view of the tanks I was engaged with. I never saw him in any view other than from the gunsight.
Obviously this was a very specific situation and by no means a blanket whitewash of the problem of using the main guns against aircraft.
-
Actually, in the case of the La-7 I didn't have to do any tracking at all. He flew straight down the cross hairs. I didn't move the gun at all from the position I had it in to use against the tanks I was fighting. It doesn't matter how small the field of view was unless you're going to claim it is 0 degrees as he literally put himself in my sight and held himself there as he flew at me firing his 20mm cannons. There was no lead to pull, I just put a 75mm AP round straight through his engine at a range of about 100 yards.
Don't mistake "extremely unlikely" for "impossible" as they are infinitely far apart. The fact is that in the right circumstances it is possible, but generally requires significant assistance from the pilot of the aircraft.
And in AH the pilots frequently give us that assistance, then complain when they fly low, slow, and straight at a tank.
-
I've shot down enough aircraft in GV's, a decent gunner will know the Arc and distance to fire, crossing shots are much much harder but not impossible.
Even shot down a Jug at 5-6k diving straight down on me, climbed a hill in a panther so my gun would fire straight upward, scored a hit at 1.5k.
-
Germans flew high to keep from taking main gun shots from T-34's on the eastern front,,, or was it the other way around? anyway there is another thread devoted to this and links to documents disproving the myth that it couldn't be done!
now weather it was done or not is a different story, and yes the coordination between commander and gunner would have to be almost telepathic, but many in game fly strait and level right down the barrel of a tank and then blow steam because they got killed? if I go to the gunner position and it is full of b-17,,, all i have to do is pull the trigger!
I can hit a moving tank at 4 k out on a hillside,,, why wouldn't I be able to hit a low flying, unwary pilot?
-
The Gv's are here for the Planes.
Very true. Saved my tail more than once. :rock
Coogan
-
And in AH the pilots frequently give us that assistance, then complain when they fly low, slow, and straight at a tank.
I can just about grantee you I could put you in a WWII tank of your choice and fly a 747 straight at you at 500 feet and you would not only not hit it with the main gun you would not even find it in the sights. Think of it this way. Drill a small hole in a wall looking into another room placing you eye up to it like Norman Bates. All you will see is what pasts right in front of you and then only for a moment. Now let go one more step. Drill a hole in the side of a u-haul truck and have it drive over rough ground at 30mph while you try to pick out that 747 flying right at you. It is like driving a car looking through a paper towel tube. Shooting flying aircraft is gamey and should be done away with. Just make it so rounds don't hit flying planes kind of like the friendly collision model we have now.
-
I've killed a plane with every gun in the sim including the shore battery.
The one thing in common in all of the kills was the plane flying straight down the barrel.
You can't miss when the attacking pilot has zero skill.
-
I can just about grantee you I could put you in a WWII tank of your choice and fly a 747 straight at you at 500 feet and you would not only not hit it with the main gun you would not even find it in the sights. Think of it this way. Drill a small hole in a wall looking into another room placing you eye up to it like Norman Bates. All you will see is what pasts right in front of you and then only for a moment. Now let go one more step. Drill a hole in the side of a u-haul truck and have it drive over rough ground at 30mph while you try to pick out that 747 flying right at you. It is like driving a car looking through a paper towel tube. Shooting flying aircraft is gamey and should be done away with. Just make it so rounds don't hit flying planes kind of like the friendly collision model we have now.
If you fly straight at the gunsight you will see it and that is what we are discussing here. The gunsight does not have a magical "don't display aircraft in the field of view" effect.
-
If you fly straight at the gunsight you will see it and that is what we are discussing here. The gunsight does not have a magical "don't display aircraft in the field of view" effect.
You guys with no real life military experience just don't get it. If tanks could shoot down aircraft with the main gun don't you think it would have happened by now? From 1916 to date. I am not talking about video games. It is like trying to shoot a flying bird with a rifle while sighting through a drinking straw from the trunk of a move car. What part of this don't you understand? I can't explain it any simpler than this.
-
You guys with no real life military experience just don't get it. If tanks could shoot down aircraft with the main gun don't you think it would have happened by now? From 1916 to date. I am not talking about video games. It is like trying to shoot a flying bird with a rifle while sighting through a drinking straw from the trunk of a move car. What part of this don't you understand? I can't explain it any simpler than this.
How many of us do you think don't have military experiance?
I used to fly target drones for the US Army , we did infantry qualifacation for small arms all the way up to live fire missiles at Creete and everything in between, I've watched m-60 and M1 main guns track aircraft
I've read of the WW2 accounts of aircraft on the eastern front having to fly high to avoid main gun rounds and the tanks that would Park "gun up" to be able to fire on them , a new tactic at the time to stop the planes from coming in low to avoid detection for fear of getting hit by a main gun round, if I wasn't at work, I'd dig it up for you to read! If I can hit a plane on the ground, then I can hit it on the move, if I can hit it on the move, then there is no reason why I wouldn't be able to hit above the ground, if it is flying into the gun and I side of an arc that would prevent the round from going anywhere but strait, flat and true, and my gun sight is full of plane, it would be a physical impossibility to miss it!
If I were aiming at the 6th story of a building and 2k out and could hit it, there is no reason I couldn't hit it if it were moving 200 mph, strait at me, may e not the sixth floor but whatever part of the building is still infront of my gun when I fire, is going to get a round put thru it!
-
Is there an actual picture of the view you would get looking through the main gunsight?
-
How many of us do you think don't have military experiance?
I used to fly target drones for the US Army , we did infantry qualifacation for small arms all the way up to live fire missiles at Creete and everything in between, I've watched m-60 and M1 main guns track aircraft
I've read of the WW2 accounts of aircraft on the eastern front having to fly high to avoid main gun rounds and the tanks that would Park "gun up" to be able to fire on them , a new tactic at the time to stop the planes from coming in low to avoid detection for fear of getting hit by a main gun round, if I wasn't at work, I'd dig it up for you to read! If I can hit a plane on the ground, then I can hit it on the move, if I can hit it on the move, then there is no reason why I wouldn't be able to hit above the ground, if it is flying into the gun and I side of an arc that would prevent the round from going anywhere but strait, flat and true, and my gun sight is full of plane, it would be a physical impossibility to miss it!
If I were aiming at the 6th story of a building and 2k out and could hit it, there is no reason I couldn't hit it if it were moving 200 mph, strait at me, may e not the sixth floor but whatever part of the building is still infront of my gun when I fire, is going to get a round put thru it!
Show me where you have seen accounts of this on eastern front . Just show me, all of this I have read I have seen, not one source . Yes the main gun is the only large caliber cannon that doesn't need a fuse ? One source ?
-
Show me where you have seen accounts of this on eastern front . Just show me, all of this I have read I have seen, not one source . Yes the main gun is the only large caliber cannon that doesn't need a fuse ? One source ?
Russian Guard unit that used M4's
- I do not know why, but a lot of tanks came with machine guns, and the other - no. This gun we used against aircraft against ground targets. Against aircraft used infrequently because the Germans, too, are not fools were bombed or from a height or a steep dive. The machine gun was good for 400-600 meters. The Germans bombed, probably, from 800 meters and above. He threw a bomb and quickly left. Try it, the dog Shoot down! So used, but inefficiently. We even used a gun against the airplane: you put the tank on the slope of the hill and shoot. But the overall impression - a good gun. These guns helped us a lot in the war with Japan - against suicide bombers. They fired so many guns that glowed and began to spit. I'm still sitting in the head piece of the anti-aircraft machine gun.
http://iremember.ru/tankisti/loza-dmitriy-fedorovich/stranitsa-3.html (http://iremember.ru/tankisti/loza-dmitriy-fedorovich/stranitsa-3.html)
-
What gun is he referring too . I would prefer a source in a language I can read . You claim it was and can be done . Show me something in either German or English I can't read Russian . I really am not sure what gun he is talking about ? If it was US M4 is he stating M2 is only effective to 600 yards ? To illustrate my point about attacks against tanks . Here is a link , note shallow angle . Your source is claiming suicide bombers were common against Soviet tanks ? They don't even invade Manchuria until 2 days before Japan accepts terms of Potsdam ? He says they helped alot ? Really ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOn-Jt7J6Tk
-
What gun is he referring too . I would prefer a source in a language I can read . You claim it was and can be done . Show me something in either German or English I can't read Russian . I really am not sure what gun he is talking about ? If it was US M4 is he stating M2 is only effective to 600 yards ? To illustrate my point about attacks against tanks . Here is a link , note shallow angle . Your source is claiming suicide bombers were common against Soviet tanks ? They don't even invade Manchuria until 2 days before Japan accepts terms of Potsdam ? He says they helped alot ? Really ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOn-Jt7J6Tk
Use Google Chrome and translate the page, it's quite clear the main guns were used against aircraft, since you can't figure out how to translate a webpage here's what it says - Its an interview from an aging Russian who was a tanker during WW2, he gives detail on how he used the main gun against german aircraft and Japanese, There are a few german/russian accounts of using main guns against aircraft's - there simply isn't a book that specifically points out someone who shot down multiple aircrafts against them.
One account I have read was the German 6th Panzer Army early in the War, Russian IL-2s were still developing tactics at the time and used to have a long drawn out dive, this was latter changed to a steeper dive after a few IL-2s were shot down in 41/42, only problem is again its in Russian and I have a hard enough time trying to translate the information.
There are enough accounts it could be done, Since we have Icons also it makes tracking aircraft a hell of a lot easier then without, without it would be infact extremely rare to see an aircraft shot down by main gun.
-
You guys with no real life military experience just don't get it. If tanks could shoot down aircraft with the main gun don't you think it would have happened by now? From 1916 to date. I am not talking about video games. It is like trying to shoot a flying bird with a rifle while sighting through a drinking straw from the trunk of a move car. What part of this don't you understand? I can't explain it any simpler than this.
Your claim here is that if the bird flies straight at your straw, no tracking or movement of the straw needed, it is magically invisible to it. That is absurd.
-
Use Google Chrome and translate the page, it's quite clear the main guns were used against aircraft, since you can't figure out how to translate a webpage here's what it says - Its an interview from an aging Russian who was a tanker during WW2, he gives detail on how he used the main gun against german aircraft and Japanese, There are a few german/russian accounts of using main guns against aircraft's - there simply isn't a book that specifically points out someone who shot down multiple aircrafts against them.
One account I have read was the German 6th Panzer Army early in the War, Russian IL-2s were still developing tactics at the time and used to have a long drawn out dive, this was latter changed to a steeper dive after a few IL-2s were shot down in 41/42, only problem is again its in Russian and I have a hard enough time trying to translate the information.
There are enough accounts it could be done, Since we have Icons also it makes tracking aircraft a hell of a lot easier then without, without it would be infact extremely rare to see an aircraft shot down by main gun.
OK give me source for German account . I am highly skeptical of any source that says Soviet tankers faced Kamikaze attacks . So I don't know how to translate a webpage . What would it matter . Your source says that this helped alot against Japanese suicide bombers . Total combat loss of Japanese aircraft against Soviets was 10 . So how does alot apply ? Enough accounts it could be done ?
-
Your claim here is that if the bird flies straight at your straw, no tracking or movement of the straw needed, it is magically invisible to it. That is absurd.
Karnak once again you ignore the problem of acquisition . You are enclosed in a turret with a field of view of about 8 degrees . How do you find it ?
-
OK give me source for German account . I am highly skeptical of any source that says Soviet tankers faced Kamikaze attacks . So I don't know how to translate a webpage . What would it matter . Your source says that this helped alot against Japanese suicide bombers . Total combat loss of Japanese aircraft against Soviets was 10 . So how does alot apply ? Enough accounts it could be done ?
Here's the problem you are looking for -
American's and British didn't face an exclusive war against the Germans across a 2,500 mile front - Finding an American/British tanker who shot at aircraft is going to be quite troublesome. Russian information/source is extremely NARROW to come by, this is just one tankers experience and trying to remember details from 50+ years earlier, some information might be off correct - do you remember every detail of what you did last week? I give the kamikaze info to be a little far fetched, but it doesn't determine everything is a lie and made up, he does have a book and I cannot get my hands on an english copy of it.
Now look for German sources - how do you extract information from dead tankers? Its extremely hard to find AAR's of german tankers something i've been searching for years now. Simple details like one time a German Panzer had to shoot the barrel of a KV-1 tank because its rounds simply wouldn't penetrate the tanks armor, so the gunner aimed for the barrel and hit it instead making the tank useless.
I've given two accounts, and pretty sure there are far many more out there of what you are asking, problem is I don't have access to every information there is, I have to consider it source since it was an actual Russian tanker whose book details were pulled from.
I can give you the name of his book, perhaps you can find an english copy and prove otherwise?
-
You guys with no real life military experience just don't get it. If tanks could shoot down aircraft with the main gun don't you think it would have happened by now? From 1916 to date.
The difference is, they had limited ammunition for that gun that their lives depended on. They weren't sitting on a mountain of ammo and time in a barca lounger like we are. The one time I've main gunned an aircraft in this game, I was looking through the scope for the tank he flew over at about 200 feet when I elevated and shot him.
I am not talking about video games. It is like trying to shoot a flying bird with a rifle while sighting through a drinking straw from the trunk of a move car. What part of this don't you understand? I can't explain it any simpler than this.
I've hit more than one bird in flight with a rifle, arrows too. The easiest shots were when they were coming straight on. Much like in the game.
Karnak once again you ignore the problem of acquisition . You are enclosed in a turret with a field of view of about 8 degrees . How do you find it ?
So are you both saying the field of view on the tanks through the scope is too wide ingame?
Wiley.
-
Karnak once again you ignore the problem of acquisition . You are enclosed in a turret with a field of view of about 8 degrees . How do you find it ?
The Russian tanker specifically said he left his hatch open unless bombs were overhead or he was in a city, then he'd keep the hatch closed, then again this is one tankers actual account.
- Does the German aircraft materiel significant damage? What can you say about the Henschel HE-129?
- Not every time, but it happened. Henschel do not remember, maybe this was. Sometimes managed to dodge the bombs. Bomb because you can see how it flies. Opened hatches, pokes his head and said to his driver, say "Bomb tears to come." But in general there were cases when burned tanks. The losses did not exceed 3.5 tanks per battalion. Often burned a tank. It is much more we got it in the settlements of faustpatronnikov. In Hungary, I remember once I was tired before he had said to his deputy, lead battalion of you, and I sleep. And I fell asleep right in the fighting compartment Sherman. Under the Balti we dumped munitions from aircraft by parachute. We currently have a parachute. That's it, I fell asleep. The parachute silk, and silk head lice do not start. And I'm so fast asleep! Suddenly I woke up. Why not? From the silence woke up. What is it, why the silence? It turns out, flew planes, burned two tanks. During the march on the tank a lot of things in bulk - crates, tarpaulins. Here are two tanks and set on fire. The battalion has stopped, choked the engines, and all was quiet. And I woke up.
- Have you locked the hatches during the fighting in the city?
- We always locked the hatches. I am of such an order did not hear anything. That's me when I was in Vienna broke, threw grenades into the tank from the upper floors of buildings. I ordered the drive all the tanks in the arches of bridges and buildings. But his tank was forced to withdraw from time to time into the open, to spread shtyrevuyu antenna and communicate by radio with the command. Radio operator and driver were working inside the tank, but left the door open. And on top of someone threw a grenade into the hatch. It exploded at the back of a radio operator, and both were killed. So we are in the city closed the hatches necessary.
-
Shooting flying aircraft is gamey and should be done away with. Just make it so rounds don't hit flying planes kind of like the friendly collision model we have now.
It actually isn't gamey and it was done in real life. This is what a former Soviet battalion commander (6th Guards), Dimitriy Loza said about defending their Lend-Lease Shermans from air attack.
Q: The Sherman had an antiaircraft machine gun Browning M2.50 caliber. Did you use it often?
- I don't know why, but one shipment of tanks arrived with machine guns, and another without them. We used this machine gun against both aircraft and ground targets. We used it less frequently against air targets because the Germans were not fools. They bombed either from altitude or from a steep dive. The machine gun was good to 400–600 meters in the vertical. The Germans would drop their bombs from say, 800 meters or higher. He dropped his bomb and departed quickly. Try to shoot the bastard down! So yes, we used it, but it was not very effective. We even used our main gun against aircraft. We placed the tank on the upslope of a hill and fired. But our general impression of the machine gun was good. These machine guns were of great use to us in the war with Japan, against kamikazes. We fired them so much that they got red hot and began to cook off. To this day I have a piece of shrapnel in my head from an antiaircraft machine gun.
Again, while there might not be any records confirming planes were shot down by a main gun on a tank, it is quite clear that tankers did use their main guns on occasion to defend themselves from low attacking planes. What would make it gamey is to do what you suggested, now that would be gamey and rather lame.
ack-ack
-
The Russian tanker specifically said he left his hatch open unless bombs were overhead or he was in a city, then he'd keep the hatch closed, then again this is one tankers actual account.
- Does the German aircraft materiel significant damage? What can you say about the Henschel HE-129?
- Not every time, but it happened. Henschel do not remember, maybe this was. Sometimes managed to dodge the bombs. Bomb because you can see how it flies. Opened hatches, pokes his head and said to his driver, say "Bomb tears to come." But in general there were cases when burned tanks. The losses did not exceed 3.5 tanks per battalion. Often burned a tank. It is much more we got it in the settlements of faustpatronnikov. In Hungary, I remember once I was tired before he had said to his deputy, lead battalion of you, and I sleep. And I fell asleep right in the fighting compartment Sherman. Under the Balti we dumped munitions from aircraft by parachute. We currently have a parachute. That's it, I fell asleep. The parachute silk, and silk head lice do not start. And I'm so fast asleep! Suddenly I woke up. Why not? From the silence woke up. What is it, why the silence? It turns out, flew planes, burned two tanks. During the march on the tank a lot of things in bulk - crates, tarpaulins. Here are two tanks and set on fire. The battalion has stopped, choked the engines, and all was quiet. And I woke up.
- Have you locked the hatches during the fighting in the city?
- We always locked the hatches. I am of such an order did not hear anything. That's me when I was in Vienna broke, threw grenades into the tank from the upper floors of buildings. I ordered the drive all the tanks in the arches of bridges and buildings. But his tank was forced to withdraw from time to time into the open, to spread shtyrevuyu antenna and communicate by radio with the command. Radio operator and driver were working inside the tank, but left the door open. And on top of someone threw a grenade into the hatch. It exploded at the back of a radio operator, and both were killed. So we are in the city closed the hatches necessary.
So what if he said he left the hatch open ? M4 does not have a hatch for the gunner . I have spent the last few hours looking for any reference to any main gun engagement vs AC . Only thing I found was in reference to games .
-
So what if he said he left the hatch open ? M4 does not have a hatch for the gunner . I have spent the last few hours looking for any reference to any main gun engagement vs AC . Only thing I found was in reference to games .
Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza (http://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Red-Armys-Sherman-Tanks/dp/0803229208)
ack-ack
-
It actually isn't gamey and it was done in real life. This is what a former Soviet battalion commander (6th Guards), Dimitriy Loza said about defending their Lend-Lease Shermans from air attack.
Again, while there might not be any records confirming planes were shot down by a main gun on a tank, it is quite clear that tankers did use their main guns on occasion to defend themselves from low attacking planes. What would make it gamey is to do what you suggested, now that would be gamey and rather lame.
ack-ack
The fix I think is to move the sight about 20 degrees in deflection and 20 in elevation when you switch to gunner from TC .
He says they used them against Kamikaze . What Kamikaze attacks ? Kamikaze pilots had a hard time hitting ships because of poor training . This I don't know about but I find it a little hard to believe any Kamikaze attacks were launched against tanks .
The Soviet Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, 1945: "August Storm" by David M. Glantz.
Another 20 transport and liaison types were in the flying section of 2 nd Air Army Hq. and Kwantung Army Hq. There were also a number of unserviceable planes at each repair depot.
During operations against the Soviet Union about 10 aircraft were lost in combat and about 50 to other causes.
Approximately 10 hq. recon planes and 6 transports (Type M.C.) [Ki-57/ MC-20] were transferred to the Soviets. Other planes were handed over to the Chinese Communist Army, which later entered Manchuria, the CCA established the Air Training School in Manchuria. At that school approximately 40 Japanese Fighters (Type 4) are [written in immediate postwar period] employed in training. However, just after the end of the war the Chinese Nationalist Army advanced to southern Manchuria, and it is presumed they captured some Japanese planes at the Mukden and Changchun airfields
-
Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza (http://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Red-Armys-Sherman-Tanks/dp/0803229208)
ack-ack
How would having a hatch open for the TC help a gunner acquire an aircraft ?
-
How would having a hatch open for the TC help a gunner acquire an aircraft ?
Is what we see from the scope in game too wide a field of view?
Wiley.
-
Here's the problem you are looking for -
American's and British didn't face an exclusive war against the Germans across a 2,500 mile front - Finding an American/British tanker who shot at aircraft is going to be quite troublesome. Russian information/source is extremely NARROW to come by, this is just one tankers experience and trying to remember details from 50+ years earlier, some information might be off correct - do you remember every detail of what you did last week? I give the kamikaze info to be a little far fetched, but it doesn't determine everything is a lie and made up, he does have a book and I cannot get my hands on an english copy of it.
Now look for German sources - how do you extract information from dead tankers? Its extremely hard to find AAR's of german tankers something i've been searching for years now. Simple details like one time a German Panzer had to shoot the barrel of a KV-1 tank because its rounds simply wouldn't penetrate the tanks armor, so the gunner aimed for the barrel and hit it instead making the tank useless.
I've given two accounts, and pretty sure there are far many more out there of what you are asking, problem is I don't have access to every information there is, I have to consider it source since it was an actual Russian tanker whose book details were pulled from.
I can give you the name of his book, perhaps you can find an english copy and prove otherwise?
Even you have trouble believing the Kamikaze attacks yet you want us to believe the other stuff . Experiencing a suicide attack and remembering where I bough cigarettes is entirely different .Wrong . German documentation was extremely good right up until the war was over . They can account for every single Tiger tanks fate right up until the end .
-
Is what we see from the scope in game too wide a field of view?
Wiley.
I am not sure Wiley . Field of view should be about 8 degrees .
-
Karnak once again you ignore the problem of acquisition . You are enclosed in a turret with a field of view of about 8 degrees . How do you find it ?
I am not ignoring that, I am describing a specific circumstance that has actually happened to me in the game in which no acquisition step was needed. You acquire it when, through no effort of your own, it flies into your gunsight. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. You're pretending that when it does that you magically still can't see it.
-
I am not ignoring that, I am describing a specific circumstance that has actually happened to me in the game in which no acquisition step was needed. You acquire it when, through no effort of your own, it flies into your gunsight. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. You're pretending that when it does that you magically still can't see it.
Karnak did you do this before or after the new sights came in ? I think the field of view is right now . I am pretending nothing . You were engaging ground targets and an La7 flew into your view is that right ? If that is the case your field of view was too large . The only reference I can find about this is in relation to games . The only reference anyone else can find the source mentions it being used against Kamikaze attacks against Soviet tanks "alot" . Total combat loss against Soviets in 1945 was 10 aircraft . Was every loss of AC by Japanese Kamikaze attacks against one battalion . Karnak I have seen you when asking for sources . You have pretty high standards of what you will accept . Mine are not so high but come on . You also said you fired 3 rounds at a C-47 . So you also have tracked a plane in AH2 from gunners position ?
-
OK hlbly, lets reverse the argument, can you show absolute proof with source that tanks did NOT fire on aircraft?
You have an actual tanker here who said it would be quite possible.
-
Well, that seems to be the crux of the argument. I get what you guys are saying about the telepathic commander/gunner link, and I agree.
However, as I said before, I've gone all the way from acquisition to making the shot from the gunner site. It was pure luck that I was oriented the right way, but it did happen exactly like that.
The reason it happens for us in game is repetition, and the fact that we don't care about expending a round frivolously. We take more shots in this game in a week than a lot of people in the war took in their entire careers. That's IMO why it didn't happen much if at all in real life. They weren't going to expend a round on a low percentage shot.
Wiley.
-
The fix I think is to move the sight about 20 degrees in deflection and 20 in elevation when you switch to gunner from TC .
He says they used them against Kamikaze . What Kamikaze attacks ? Kamikaze pilots had a hard time hitting ships because of poor training . This I don't know about but I find it a little hard to believe any Kamikaze attacks were launched against tanks .
He was just mentioning that the M2 .50 cal on the Sherman was effective against kamikazi attacks, not that he or his 6th Guards were fighting Japanese. He served in the 6th Guards which was on the Eastern Front. As for kamikazi attacks againsts tanks, yes that is true. During the last months of the war, Japanese pilots serving in Manchuria and pilots of the Manchukuo Imperial Air Force were trained to use kamikazi attacks against tanks and employed such tactics against the Soviets though not to much success.
ack-ack
-
Karnak did you do this before or after the new sights came in ? I think the field of view is right now .
Before, but it is irrelevant. I never moved the turret or gun at all to kill the La-7. I did not see him in any other view. I did not track him or lead him at all. I was firing at an enemy tank when the La-7 put himself in the way. All I had to do was wait for the right moment and pull the trigger, the entire time of which he was centered, by his own actions, in my gunsight.
-
OK hlbly, lets reverse the argument, can you show absolute proof with source that tanks did NOT fire on aircraft?
You have an actual tanker here who said it would be quite possible.
A negative can not be proven . When ever a claim is made about anything in here it is up to the person making the claim to prove it . With a reliable source .
So you think a tank is the only thing with a turret that can't track a plane ? Take a look at the M2 Bradley . I have actually been a TC in one . Your actual tanker also has a fantasy about using main guns against Kamikazes .
-
Before, but it is irrelevant. I never moved the turret or gun at all to kill the La-7. I did not see him in any other view. I did not track him or lead him at all. I was firing at an enemy tank when the La-7 put himself in the way. All I had to do was wait for the right moment and pull the trigger, the entire time of which he was centered, by his own actions, in my gunsight.
Irrelevant ? If field of view is way too large how do you figure it is irrelevant ? You were firing at a tank and plane flew into your view . Would not happen if you had realistic sight picture .
-
A negative can not be proven . When ever a claim is made about anything in here it is up to the person making the claim to prove it . With a reliable source .
So you think a tank is the only thing with a turret that can't track a plane ? Take a look at the M2 Bradley . I have actually been a TC in one . Your actual tanker also has a fantasy about using main guns against Kamikazes .
Seems you don't read other comments, I was using a Russian website and translating it - as you quoted the russians did NOT fight the Japanese, is akak lying now too? Read below:
He was just mentioning that the M2 .50 cal on the Sherman was effective against kamikazi attacks, not that he or his 6th Guards were fighting Japanese. He served in the 6th Guards which was on the Eastern Front. As for kamikazi attacks againsts tanks, yes that is true. During the last months of the war, Japanese pilots serving in Manchuria and pilots of the Manchukuo Imperial Air Force were trained to use kamikazi attacks against tanks and employed such tactics against the Soviets though not to much success.
ack-ack
-
A negative can not be proven . When ever a claim is made about anything in here it is up to the person making the claim to prove it . With a reliable source .
So you think a tank is the only thing with a turret that can't track a plane ? Take a look at the M2 Bradley . I have actually been a TC in one . Your actual tanker also has a fantasy about using main guns against Kamikazes .
Dimitriy Loza doesn't mention firing his main gun at kamikazi planes, he mentioned that the M2 .50 cal machine gun was very effective against them. His experience was on the Eastern Front and the part I posted reflects that.
ack-ack
-
Irrelevant ? If field of view is way too large how do you figure it is irrelevant ? You were firing at a tank and plane flew into your view . Would not happen if you had realistic sight picture .
He flew down the middle of the sight. I don't care if the field of view was .0001 degrees he still would have been seen.
How are you not understanding this?
Planes are not magically invisible in a tank's gunsight.
I DID NOT MOVE THE TURRET AT ALL IN ORDER TO HIT THE PLANE WHICH PLACED ITSELF DEAD CENTER IN MY GUNSIGHT!
-
Ok new scenario ,I'm sitting 500 yards off the end of a runway staring down the gunsight
Can we all agree that any of us can hit a plane sitting on the runway?
If that plane starts rolling towards me can I still hit it?
Once it lifts off flying strait at me still, how long will it be before I can not hit it?
And last but not least why?
-
He flew down the middle of the sight. I don't care if the field of view was .0001 degrees he still would have been seen.
How are you not understanding this?
Planes are not magically invisible in a tank's gunsight.
I DID NOT MOVE THE TURRET AT ALL IN ORDER TO HIT THE PLANE WHICH PLACED ITSELF DEAD CENTER IN MY GUNSIGHT!
Okay let's get this straight . You were engaging a tank correct ? While you are aimed directly at a tank an La7 comes into view so into view you dont need to adjust to kill it ?
-
Okay let's get this straight . You were engaging a tank correct ?
Yes.
Then there was suddenly an La-7 blocking my view of the tank. The La-7 got larger and larger as it flew towards me with its guns spitting 20mm rounds at me. My crosshairs were centered on his propeller hub. At a range of about 100 yards I pulled the trigger and sent the 75mm AP round that had been intended to go down range to the tank straight through the La-7's engine. If it had been reality it probably would have exited the La-7 somewhere near the rudder and elevators.
The larger field of view played no role as the La-7 placed himself exactly in my crosshairs without me having to adjust the aim at all. If the field of view had been smaller I simply wouldn't have seen him as early, but given his approach profile it would not have changed the outcome a single bit.
You see, when you say things like "Would not happen if you had realistic sight picture." you are flat out wrong. The larger field of view would make it more likely to be able to aim at an aircraft and would certainly make leading one a lot easier, but the difference is not between "would not happen" and "might happen" it is between "x% chance of happening" and "y fraction of x% chance of happening".
-
Yes.
Then there was suddenly an La-7 blocking my view of the tank. The La-7 got larger and larger as it flew towards me with its guns spitting 20mm rounds at me. My crosshairs were centered on his propeller hub. At a range of about 100 yards I pulled the trigger and sent the 75mm AP round that had been intended to go down range to the tank straight through the La-7's engine. If it had been reality it probably would have exited the La-7 somewhere near the rudder and elevators.
The larger field of view played no role as the La-7 placed himself exactly in my crosshairs without me having to adjust the aim at all. If the field of view had been smaller I simply wouldn't have seen him as early, but given his approach profile it would not have changed the outcome a single bit.
You see, when you say things like "Would not happen if you had realistic sight picture." you are flat out wrong. The larger field of view would make it more likely to be able to aim at an aircraft and would certainly make leading one a lot easier, but the difference is not between "would not happen" and "might happen" it is between "x% chance of happening" and "y fraction of x% chance of happening".
So the La7 was taxiing then ?
-
So the La7 was taxiing then ?
No, he was flying at low altitude. I could see the ground as well as the the La-7. I was on a slight rise exchanging shots with a tank about 2000 yards away.
-
So the La7 was taxiing then ?
So... Quick googlage shows a FOV of 8 degrees displays 14.1 meters at 100 meters. That means at 1000 meters, you've got a 141m field of view. If you're engaging the enemy tanks at distance, having the scope elevated so 3/4 of the circle is above the horizon is pretty common. That means if the aircraft is below about 300 feet it can be seen.
Seems to me that's a pretty decent sized circle to see a low flying aircraft with, and if it's coming right down your throat, to track it. This is all using your own numbers, explain why it can't be done again?
Wiley.
-
so you fired at the tank and the la-7 that was on the deck flew into your shot. To help people visualise Imagine a pitcher throwing the ball to home when a bird intercepts said ball on the way to catcher.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwpRHrAh3pk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwpRHrAh3pk)
No tracking involved the plane was wrong place art wrong time right? So la-7s shouldnt buzz friendly tanks when ther are bad guys around. I think this is the point being made.
-
No, he was flying at low altitude. I could see the ground as well as the the La-7. I was on a slight rise exchanging shots with a tank about 2000 yards away.
Flat out wrong ? I said it would not happen , implying in real life . It would not happen in real life . No fighter is going to attack a tank at, using height of a sherman ,less than 8 feet off the ground . Come on Karnak use some degree of realism . You are saying that a fighter or any aircraft would make an attack at less than 10 feet altitude ? Does that even happen in here ? How do you get guns on target for a shot at > 10 feet ? I state again it WOULD NOT HAPPEN . I say again NO PLANE DURING WW2 WAS EVER SHOT DOWN WITH A MAIN GUN . The approach profile of almost every strafing attack in WW2 on tanks would have allowed it to happen all the time IF THINGS worked as they do here . They don't your complete lack of any reference to it ever happening speaks volumes . Your argument that you did it in game is meaningless . I grant it can happen in game . That was my whole point . I say it can't happen in rl . It hasn't happened in real life . IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE . Once again show me a GOOD reference where it has happened .
-
also you guys are just copying other GAMES forums with this purse figth
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/42806-Killed-by-Tank-Main-Gun-Forums (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/42806-Killed-by-Tank-Main-Gun-Forums)
-
Flat out wrong ? I said it would not happen , implying in real life . It would not happen in real life . No fighter is going to attack a tank at, using height of a sherman ,less than 8 feet off the ground . Come on Karnak use some degree of realism . You are saying that a fighter or any aircraft would make an attack at less than 10 feet altitude ? Does that even happen in here ? How do you get guns on target for a shot at > 10 feet ? I state again it WOULD NOT HAPPEN . I say again NO PLANE DURING WW2 WAS EVER SHOT DOWN WITH A MAIN GUN . The approach profile of almost every strafing attack in WW2 on tanks would have allowed it to happen all the time IF THINGS worked as they do here . They don't your complete lack of any reference to it ever happening speaks volumes . Your argument that you did it in game is meaningless . I grant it can happen in game . That was my whole point . I say it can't happen in rl . It hasn't happened in real life . IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE . Once again show me a GOOD reference where it has happened .
You still have not answered my question!
-
I estimate that the La-7 was about 30ft above the ground when he died. Remember, I was on a slight rise and was engaged with a tank 2000 yards away requiring some elevation of my gun.
All your talk about realism is irrelevant in the game. People do all sorts of unrealistic and suicidal things in the game because you don't really die. Thus your claim that it would not happen doesn't bear.
-
Flat out wrong ? I said it would not happen , implying in real life . It would not happen in real life . No fighter is going to attack a tank at, using height of a sherman ,less than 8 feet off the ground . Come on Karnak use some degree of realism . You are saying that a fighter or any aircraft would make an attack at less than 10 feet altitude ? Does that even happen in here ? How do you get guns on target for a shot at > 10 feet ? I state again it WOULD NOT HAPPEN . I say again NO PLANE DURING WW2 WAS EVER SHOT DOWN WITH A MAIN GUN . The approach profile of almost every strafing attack in WW2 on tanks would have allowed it to happen all the time IF THINGS worked as they do here . They don't your complete lack of any reference to it ever happening speaks volumes . Your argument that you did it in game is meaningless . I grant it can happen in game . That was my whole point . I say it can't happen in rl . It hasn't happened in real life . IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE . Once again show me a GOOD reference where it has happened .
Regardless if a plane was actually shot down in real life still doesn't change the fact that tanks firing at planes in game is not some gamey aspect with no basis in historical fact. There is ample evidence that tanks did shoot at low flying attacking planes, whether or not they were successful is irrelevant, the fact is they did shoot at them is really all that matters.
ack-ack
-
My advice is to drive into dense growth and when planes fly over shoot the tops of the trees with HE. There will be a LOT more aircraft killed that way. I have fought my way out of enough real pickles to know.
-
Lets not forget that the "idiot/newb:skilled" ratio is immeasurably higher in AH than it is in real life. Why? Because in AH, idiots and newbs get a second chance, in real life they don't. In real life, if you're stupid or just make a mistake, you don't often get a second chance to learn. In low-altitude flying, I would be amazed if anyone got a second chance. This means that in real life, there would be much fewer idiots flying strait down your gun barrel than is true in the game.
Also, because we get second chances in Aces High, people often get careless. So theres even MORE stupid-attacks being made than the ratio would suggest.
So, in game, we have more people being stupid, and more being careless than is true in real life. We have more engagments than in real life. We have an easier time of aiming, now that we can conn. the turret from the commander's possition.
Take all that into account, and it would be an absolute mirical if somebody HADN'T been shot down by a tank's main cannon by now.
-
Take all that into account, and it would be an absolute mirical if somebody HADN'T been shot down by a tank's main cannon by now.
While not a tank gun, this Caribou was shot down by a 105mm howitzer.
(http://www.patricksaviation.com/files/photos/full/23544_17776.jpg)
A U.S. twin-engine transport Caribou crashes after being hit by American artillery near Duc Pho on August 3, 1967. U.S. artillery accidentally shot down the ammunition-laden plane, which crossed a firing zone while trying to land at the U.S. Special Forces camp. All three crewman died in the crash.
ack-ack
-
without range icon , you dont hit anything flying around, with a tank.
I've scored one helicopter "kill" using bt-41 laser system, during a drill, using target computer at closer range with a 90mm tank gun.
we shot targetpractising with mg's against flying targets towed by c47's flying straight close nearby.
There are many reasons you do not hit planes with main gun in tanks IRL.
Crew workload, if you do not have a shot ready in the barrel , not even think about it.
Gunner view arc is VERY limited, also he will not be supplied with range for adjustment to range at something flying ( icons are rare IRL :cool:)
If you finally track the flying target with main gun , still not knowing range , and you see through magnification , I say chances are close to 0.
Gun traversals and preciseness using electrics tricky ww2.
If tank is not exactly level in all axis difficulty are increased even higher.
-
Why has this degenerated into a "I want to kill more GVs" thread??
MH
-
How many of us do you think don't have military experiance?
I used to fly target drones for the US Army , we did infantry qualifacation for small arms all the way up to live fire missiles at Creete and everything in between, I've watched m-60 and M1 main guns track aircraft
I've read of the WW2 accounts of aircraft on the eastern front having to fly high to avoid main gun rounds and the tanks that would Park "gun up" to be able to fire on them , a new tactic at the time to stop the planes from coming in low to avoid detection for fear of getting hit by a main gun round, if I wasn't at work, I'd dig it up for you to read! If I can hit a plane on the ground, then I can hit it on the move, if I can hit it on the move, then there is no reason why I wouldn't be able to hit above the ground, if it is flying into the gun and I side of an arc that would prevent the round from going anywhere but strait, flat and true, and my gun sight is full of plane, it would be a physical impossibility to miss it!
If I were aiming at the 6th story of a building and 2k out and could hit it, there is no reason I couldn't hit it if it were moving 200 mph, strait at me, may e not the sixth floor but whatever part of the building is still infront of my gun when I fire, is going to get a round put thru it!
Eastern front? It must be a Russian account and Joe Stalin and his crowd would never make something up lol. Like I said if a tank hit a plane in flight it was an accident and nothing that could be done by design. I don't know about the M-1 Abram tank but I know no one tracked a plane with the sights in an M-48 or M-60 tank sight. Shooting tanks in this game is just that a game effect and has no relation to the real world.
-
I don't know about the M-1 Abram tank but I know no one tracked a plane with the sights in an M-48 or M-60 tank sight. Shooting tanks in this game is just that a game effect and has no relation to the real world.
Why? What's the FOV?
An additional question I've been wondering about for a while: What was the procedure for the gunner to move the gun in these tanks? Was it a wheel for rotation and a wheel for elevation? Was it some kind of joystick? Google appears to be failing me in answering this question.
Wiley.
-
Eastern front? It must be a Russian account and Joe Stalin and his crowd would never make something up lol. Like I said if a tank hit a plane in flight it was an accident and nothing that could be done by design. I don't know about the M-1 Abram tank but I know no one tracked a plane with the sights in an M-48 or M-60 tank sight. Shooting tanks in this game is just that a game effect and has no relation to the real world.
Then answer my question
. Ok new scenario ,I'm sitting 500 yards off the end of a runway staring down the gunsight
Can we all agree that any of us can hit a plane sitting on the runway?
If that plane starts rolling towards me can I still hit it?
Once it lifts off flying strait at me still, how long will it be before I can not hit it?
And last but not least why?
-
I have a solution to both side's bickering.
Whoever thinks planes being shot down by a tank's main gun is gamey, offer up a solution that is:
1) realistic (none of the stupid "tank rounds do no damage to aircraft" bull crap)
2) fair to both sides (its hard to shoot down aircraft with a tank, but tank's are not negatively affected in tank vs tank combat. This means no reduced turret rotation speed, no removal of tank control from the commander's possition, etc)
3) effective
Because honestly, if YOU are making a correct attack-run, you shouldn't be running into a problem with your aircraft losing in a game of chicken with a 75mm HE shell.
Basically, if you get shot down by a tank's main gun, 1) you're being stupid. 2) the shell just had your name on it, and it had nothing to do with 'gameiness'. 3) any combination of the 2
-
I disagree, if you can't figure out how to kill a tank without getting killed by a tank, you probably need more training.
Step one: Learn to kill a tank
Step two: learn to not get killed by a tank.
Step three: Learn both Above and repeat.
Here's some helpful tips: If you are not in a tank buster, and your tank is not soft skinned, you have no chance to kill it. (minus yak-t and B-25H).
Strafing a tank over and over may or may not get you the kill, but it can get you killed.
Just because you can't kill <insert tank here> doesn't mean its cheating, it just means you haven't read rule one.
Lets recap:
Learn to kill Tank.
Learn not to die from tank.
Rinse, and repeat.
-
so you fired at the tank and the la-7 that was on the deck flew into your shot.
No, I quite intentionally shot the La-7, but it placed itself in the sight to receive the 75mm AP round that had just loaded. The opportunity presented itself and I pulled the trigger in order to shoot the La-7.
-
Then answer my question
yes you can hit a plane on the runway like any stationary target. You could track and hit it at low speed on take off. However a plane in full flight would only be an accident to hit it at all. If you ever have a chance to look through a tank sight from the gunners position in the turret you will understand what I am talking about. Now start the engine and drive over uneven terrain. The tank is so loud you would not hear a plane The tank commander standing in an open hatch would have to tell the gunner on the head set there was a plane at all.
The gunner would have no point of reference to fire the main gun at the plane. If the hatch was buttoned up no one in the tank would know there was a plane attacking it period. Tanks in WWII had a problem hitting other tanks on the move as they had no computerized controlled lock on target fire control systems like the M-1 Abrams and other modern tanks. Even the M48-A5s and M-60s we had in the 60s 70s and 80s did not have that. I had the opportunity to clime all over WWII tanks both German and Allied at the Patton Museum at Ft. Knox KY in 78 in an afters hours tour so I have an understanding of the sighting systems and I spent 10 years in the US Cavalry with a 19D20 MOS.
-
yes you can hit a plane on the runway like any stationary target. You could track and hit it at low speed on take off. However a plane in full flight would only be an accident to hit it at all. If you ever have a chance to look through a tank sight from the gunners position in the turret you will understand what I am talking about. Now start the engine and drive over uneven terrain. The tank is so loud you would not hear a plane The tank commander standing in an open hatch would have to tell the gunner on the head set there was a plane at all.
The gunner would have no point of reference to fire the main gun at the plane. If the hatch was buttoned up no one in the tank would know there was a plane attacking it period. Tanks in WWII had a problem hitting other tanks on the move as they had no computerized controlled lock on target fire control systems like the M-1 Abrams and other modern tanks. Even the M48-A5s and M-60s we had in the 60s 70s and 80s did not have that. I had the opportunity to clime all over WWII tanks both German and Allied at the Patton Museum at Ft. Knox KY in 78 in an afters hours tour so I have an understanding of the sighting systems and I spent 10 years in the US Cavalry with a 19D20 MOS.
What is your suggestion to make the game more realistic, without hurting the tanks' ability to kill other tanks?
-
yes you can hit a plane on the runway like any stationary target. You could track and hit it at low speed on take off. However a plane in full flight would only be an accident to hit it at all. If you ever have a chance to look through a tank sight from the gunners position in the turret you will understand what I am talking about. Now start the engine and drive over uneven terrain. The tank is so loud you would not hear a plane The tank commander standing in an open hatch would have to tell the gunner on the head set there was a plane at all.
The gunner would have no point of reference to fire the main gun at the plane. If the hatch was buttoned up no one in the tank would know there was a plane attacking it period. Tanks in WWII had a problem hitting other tanks on the move as they had no computerized controlled lock on target fire control systems like the M-1 Abrams and other modern tanks. Even the M48-A5s and M-60s we had in the 60s 70s and 80s did not have that. I had the opportunity to clime all over WWII tanks both German and Allied at the Patton Museum at Ft. Knox KY in 78 in an afters hours tour so I have an understanding of the sighting systems and I spent 10 years in the US Cavalry with a 19D20 MOS.
Or, you know, the plane could fly straight down the sight as in my La-7 example over the last few pages.
Or you could pretend, like the other guy, that tank gunners magically can't see airplanes that enter the field of view of the gunsight.
-
I disagree, if you can't figure out how to kill a tank without getting killed by a tank, you probably need more training.
Step one: Learn to kill a tank
Step two: learn to not get killed by a tank.
Step three: Learn both Above and repeat.
Here's some helpful tips: If you are not in a tank buster, and your tank is not soft skinned, you have no chance to kill it. (minus yak-t and B-25H).
Strafing a tank over and over may or may not get you the kill, but it can get you killed.
Just because you can't kill <insert tank here> doesn't mean its cheating, it just means you haven't read rule one.
Lets recap:
Learn to kill Tank.
Learn not to die from tank.
Rinse, and repeat.
If you have already learned the first two why would you need to learn them again?
-
What is your suggestion to make the game more realistic, without hurting the tanks' ability to kill other tanks?
What is the point. Guys like Karnak can't grasp why you can't see a plane with a tank sight. The drinking straw in a car truck analogy or rifle scope stick out of a wall is lost on him and other. Just leave the gamey sighting system as is. However the rifle scope stick through a wall is more correct. The field of view on a rifle scope in a fixed position with about 75% less field of vision as now is the correct model. Once I win the lotto and buy out HTC I will fix it I promise lol. I am sorry I ever tried to explain it to start with.
-
What is the point. Guys like Karnak can't grasp why you can't see a plane with a tank sight. The drinking straw in a car truck analogy or rifle scope stick out of a wall is lost on him and other. Just leave the gamey sighting system as is. However the rifle scope stick through a wall is more correct. The field of view on a rifle scope in a fixed position with about 75% less field of vision as now is the correct model. Once I win the lotto and buy out HTC I will fix it I promise lol. I am sorry I ever tried to explain it to start with.
I understand exactly what you are saying. You can't understand that there are exceptions. You simply insist it is impossible when in rare circumstances it most certainly is possible.
I cannot understand how you cannot grasp the situation I am describing the the point that you insist it is impossible.
-
The mere fact that a tank commander is not going to be distracted from an enemy ground force threat, either real or perceived, to have the main gun chase a plane that he can not visually see. Sure, the TC can give him a bearing and approximate elevation but the chances of the gunner being able to traverse fast enough and accurately enough to get to that point are so minute. Also, being able to judge speed, altitude, etc, vs that plane is completely different that vs an enemy ground target. On and on. Etc, etc.
If there was a way HTC could combat such inaccuracies I believe they would fix it. Although, they are still allowing flights of Lancasters the ability to hover over a gv spawn at 800ft and carpet bomb gv's. So who knows. ;)
-
Using the Blind hog finding a turnip principle you may get lucky and hit a plane. Here find yourself a good size cardboard box and a rifle scope. Make a hole in the box just big enough to push the scope through it with no day light around the scope. Place the box over you head look in the scope. Now try to find and track a flying bird. Heck try to find plane flying over you head and track it. Remember a cardboard box is not a tank turret restricted to a ring gear and no loud engine running near you and it ain't bouncing over hill and dale. Anything is possible when firing large projectiles down range. I even saw a bird hit by a 105 round once but it don't mean the gunner can go duck hunting with the 105. It is what it is in the game and there is an end to it.
-
I say how about if someones in commander view and an aircraft strafes the tank, then the Tank commander is killed and you are stuck in gunner mode.
If the person switches to gunner position then he's "buttoned" up and commander won't be killed, want more realism? this will cause whines to go through the roof (but but before we didn't have this!)
-
I have a solution to both side's bickering.
Whoever thinks planes being shot down by a tank's main gun is gamey, offer up a solution that is:
1) realistic (none of the stupid "tank rounds do no damage to aircraft" bull crap)
2) fair to both sides (its hard to shoot down aircraft with a tank, but tank's are not negatively affected in tank vs tank combat. This means no reduced turret rotation speed, no removal of tank control from the commander's possition, etc)
3) effective
Because honestly, if YOU are making a correct attack-run, you shouldn't be running into a problem with your aircraft losing in a game of chicken with a 75mm HE shell.
Basically, if you get shot down by a tank's main gun, 1) you're being stupid. 2) the shell just had your name on it, and it had nothing to do with 'gameiness'. 3) any combination of the 2
Tank rounds can and did damage aircraft in real life
-
Using the Blind hog finding a turnip principle you may get lucky and hit a plane. Here find yourself a good size cardboard box and a rifle scope. Make a hole in the box just big enough to push the scope through it with no day light around the scope. Place the box over you head look in the scope. Now try to find and track a flying bird. Heck try to find plane flying over you head and track it. Remember a cardboard box is not a tank turret restricted to a ring gear and no loud engine running near you and it ain't bouncing over hill and dale. Anything is possible when firing large projectiles down range. I even saw a bird hit by a 105 round once but it don't mean the gunner can go duck hunting with the 105. It is what it is in the game and there is an end to it.
Completely irrelevant to the situation with the La-7.
-
Tank rounds can and did damage aircraft in real life
Yeah, thats what I said, genius.
Using the Blind hog finding a turnip principle you may get lucky and hit a plane. Here find yourself a good size cardboard box and a rifle scope. Make a hole in the box just big enough to push the scope through it with no day light around the scope. Place the box over you head look in the scope. Now try to find and track a flying bird. Heck try to find plane flying over you head and track it. Remember a cardboard box is not a tank turret restricted to a ring gear and no loud engine running near you and it ain't bouncing over hill and dale. Anything is possible when firing large projectiles down range. I even saw a bird hit by a 105 round once but it don't mean the gunner can go duck hunting with the 105. It is what it is in the game and there is an end to it.
You still can't track an aircraft anywhere close to you with the gunsight. You have to do it in commander's view.
Why its easier to shoot down aircraft with our current view/aiming system is quite simple; while each individual aspect is reasonably correct, it represents a perfect level of coordination between the crew members. So, unless you want to make the gunner start screwing up, and moving the gun too far to the right, or pausing to scratch himself before he fires the gun, then we really can't do a whole lot about it.
-
I understand exactly what you are saying. You can't understand that there are exceptions. You simply insist it is impossible when in rare circumstances it most certainly is possible.
I cannot understand how you cannot grasp the situation I am describing the the point that you insist it is impossible.
If a tank shoots down one plane in 500 sorties that is called blind luck. If a tanker is shooting down a plane it his tank every thirds shot that is called a video game.
-
If a tanker is shooting down a plane it his tank every thirds shot that is called a video game.
Do you have film of this superman? I'd like to see a guy that can track and hit aircraft every third shot.
It will be less amazing, but still worth seeing that much dumb in the air at once if they're flying right at him.
Wiley.
-
Do you have film of this superman? I'd like to see a guy that can track and hit aircraft every third shot.
It will be less amazing, but still worth seeing that much dumb in the air at once if they're flying right at him.
Wiley.
There was quite a few of those scenarios right after the Storch's release. :) I think I myself downed at least two Storchs with the main gun. And I GV maybe once a month, if at all.
-
Do you have film of this superman? I'd like to see a guy that can track and hit aircraft every third shot.
It will be less amazing, but still worth seeing that much dumb in the air at once if they're flying right at him.
Wiley.
If a plane is flying around a tank you only need to know how to judge the distance, its not entirely complicated to shoot one down with a main gun, it does take practice.
Last night shot down a stuka straight above my M4, as he was starting his dive on me I dropped down a hill and had my barrel pointing straight up in the air, one reason I sit around hills so much is because leading upward exposes my front armor for one thing, also my main gun.
I can go back a few tours where I shot down 4-5 planes in one sortie with a Panther, one which was a P47D-40 which dove from 10k down on me (before the change in distance for ground vehicles) and popped him at 1.5k in a dive.
a good tanker, will most likely pop you with a main gun, however I can only name 10-15 top tankers that can do this 1 outa 3 shots.
-
Yes , also a shot down plane can crash and destroy a tank or 2, in the process.
IRL , one pilot claimed 3 tanks kill with 2 shot down spitfires in one mission ( JG26 war diary volume II).
This should be as common as getting shot down by a tank not flying over runway.
So should I expect this to be implemented in AH ?
Tank rounds can and did damage aircraft in real life
-
If a plane is flying around a tank you only need to know how to judge the distance, its not entirely complicated to shoot one down with a main gun, it does take practice.
Last night shot down a stuka straight above my M4, as he was starting his dive on me I dropped down a hill and had my barrel pointing straight up in the air, one reason I sit around hills so much is because leading upward exposes my front armor for one thing, also my main gun.
I can go back a few tours where I shot down 4-5 planes in one sortie with a Panther, one which was a P47D-40 which dove from 10k down on me (before the change in distance for ground vehicles) and popped him at 1.5k in a dive.
a good tanker, will most likely pop you with a main gun, however I can only name 10-15 top tankers that can do this 1 outa 3 shots.
Could you do that if they removed the ability to fire the main gun from the commander's position?
-
first we should poll all the players to see if they would like to have a poll. one must be done for tanks another for fighters and another for bombers. but in order for the poll to be fair, we just really ask first after the first poll to poll the players to see if they want a poll done, if adding planes by country would be good. well after the first poll to ask if it's ok to have a poll, then after the poll to ask if we should add by country, the we can have the poll to ask for a specific plane. which brings us back to the "to be fair" thing.
ah forget it, I am confused already.
semp
Don't want a poll.
-
Could you do that if they removed the ability to fire the main gun from the commander's position?
I don't think they should remove that ability, under any circumstances.
The ability to control the tank from the TC possition just represents giving commands to the various crew members. If you want to remove the ability to fire from TC possition, you would also have to remove the ability to traverse the turret, steer, accelerate, switch ammunition loadouts, and basically anything but looking around.
It would also follow that you shouldn't be able to turn WEP on/off or steer the plane from a gunner possition, as communicating across a plane over the loud 1000hp + engines would be more difficult than talking across a tank through speaking tubes/intercom over the sound of a 420hp engine and tracks.
-
While not a tank gun, this Caribou was shot down by a 105mm howitzer.
(http://www.patricksaviation.com/files/photos/full/23544_17776.jpg)
A U.S. twin-engine transport Caribou crashes after being hit by American artillery near Duc Pho on August 3, 1967. U.S. artillery accidentally shot down the ammunition-laden plane, which crossed a firing zone while trying to land at the U.S. Special Forces camp. All three crewman died in the crash.
ack-ack
A 105 mm is not enclosed unless it was an SP gun . Highly doubt it .
-
Could you do that if they removed the ability to fire the main gun from the commander's position?
main gun could be fired from TC position at least in M4 series . There is even a crude sight . No I am still looking at the problem .
-
Do you have film of this superman? I'd like to see a guy that can track and hit aircraft every third shot.
It will be less amazing, but still worth seeing that much dumb in the air at once if they're flying right at him.
Wiley.
I can do you one better stud . I got a film of me going 3 shots 3 kills . That good<gamey> enough for you ?
-
So... Quick googlage shows a FOV of 8 degrees displays 14.1 meters at 100 meters. That means at 1000 meters, you've got a 141m field of view. If you're engaging the enemy tanks at distance, having the scope elevated so 3/4 of the circle is above the horizon is pretty common. That means if the aircraft is below about 300 feet it can be seen.
Seems to me that's a pretty decent sized circle to see a low flying aircraft with, and if it's coming right down your throat, to track it. This is all using your own numbers, explain why it can't be done again?
Wiley.
And at roughly 160 meters per second speed you still have a tracking and acquisition problem . I now have a film of me going 3 shots 3 kills in an M4 against B-25 . I only had to actually hit the target once LOL .
-
Since we have a Poll for planes to be added why dont we do a tank poll. We need Brit tanks and russki tanks.
Na
-
Tank rounds can and did damage aircraft in real life
While in flight ? Prove it .
-
Here you go. It is in this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Red-Armys-Sherman-Tanks/dp/0803229208
-
http://www.amazon.com/Tigers-Mud-Commander-Stackpole-ebook/dp/B004GGTAQE/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1
The incident is on page 43:
"On the other hand, we had a lot of trouble with Russian fighters. They 'lurched' past us, almost without a break. That's really the way one has to describe that type of flying. My gunner, Unteroffizier Kramer, can take credit for a deed which was probably unparalleled on the Eastern Front. That is, he succeeded in shooting down a Russian fighter with the tank cannon. Of course, he was also helped by chance. This was how it happened. Kramer, upset by the unrelenting nuisance of these guys, elevated his cannon along the approach route. I talked him in. He took a chance and pulled the trigger. On the second attempt, he hit one of the 'bees' in its wing. The Russian crashed behind us."
-
http://www.amazon.com/Tigers-Mud-Commander-Stackpole-ebook/dp/B004GGTAQE/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1
The incident is on page 43:
"On the other hand, we had a lot of trouble with Russian fighters. They 'lurched' past us, almost without a break. That's really the way one has to describe that type of flying. My gunner, Unteroffizier Kramer, can take credit for a deed which was probably unparalleled on the Eastern Front. That is, he succeeded in shooting down a Russian fighter with the tank cannon. Of course, he was also helped by chance. This was how it happened. Kramer, upset by the unrelenting nuisance of these guys, elevated his cannon along the approach route. I talked him in. He took a chance and pulled the trigger. On the second attempt, he hit one of the 'bees' in its wing. The Russian crashed behind us."
Thank god!!!!!!! :bolt:
-
If that was true why change the icon range?
TRUE! :aok