Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: skorpx1 on October 29, 2012, 09:58:45 PM
-
So as we all know, the Axis tanks are dominant in the GV fights due to superior firepower and armor, now this can be matched by only a few Allied tanks and that number is 3 I think. On the other end of the spectrum, Allied bombers rule the skies and Axis bombers hardly show on the radar. Right in the middle Axis/Allied planes are tied except for one country - Russia. It seems as if we want a Russian plane we have to choose one that either gets us called a LALATARDLOLZTROLLLLLLZ or a smelly Yak. If we're feeling brave then we take the I-16 pea shooter out for a run and hope we don't forget our lube. As a solution we can choose to ignore it like we've been doing and just scraping along but there are some open minded people out there who wouldn't mind a change in the forces. Including myself.
My first wish is this - The British Cromwell tank.
Specs:
Weight 27.6 long tons (28 tonnes)
Length 20 ft 10 in (6.35 m)
Width 9 ft 6 1⁄2 in (2.908 m)
Height 8 ft 2 in (2.49 m)
Crew 5 (Commander, gunner, loader, driver, front gunner)
Armour 3 inches (76 mm)
Main
armament Ordnance QF 75 mm
with 64 rounds
Secondary
armament 2 x 7.92 mm Besa machine gun
with 4,950 rounds
Engine Rolls-Royce Meteor V12 petrol
600 horsepower (450 kW)
Power/weight 21.4 hp/tonne
Transmission Merritt-Brown Z.5 gearbox (five forward and one reverse gear) driving rear sprockets
Suspension Improved Christie
Ground clearance 16 inches
Fuel capacity 110 gallons + optional 30 gallon auxiliary
Operational
range 170 miles (270 km) on roads, 80 miles cross country[2]
Speed 40 miles per hour (64 km/h)
A speedy tank with an average gun, average armor and a slightly bigger profile than most tanks by about one foot. I think this would make a great new addition mainly due to the fact that it's a completely British tank and totally new. The Sherman VC Firefly is only half-British and is the only tank in game that resembles a small bit of the island who held off Heetlas army.
My next wish consists of two planes. Both bombers, both Axis. The HE-111 and the JU-188
Specs: He-111H6
Normal Crew of Four to Six
Two Junkers Jumo 211F Engines
Liquid-cooled Inverted V-12 Inlines
1,340 hp @ 2,600 rpm
Seven 7.9mm Machine Guns
One 20mm Cannon
Up to 5,510 lbs of Bombs
or two LT 950 Torpedos
Max. Speed 258 mph @ 16,400 feet
Cruise Speed 224 mph
Climb to 13,000 ft in 16.8 minutes
Service Ceiling 25,500 ft
Length 54' 6"
Height 13' 9"
Wing Span 74' 2"
Max. Weight 27,400 lbs
Empty Weight 14,400 lbs
Normal Range 760 miles
Maximum Range 1,740 miles
Second plane: JU-188E1
Specs:
Wingspan Length Height
72 ft 4 in 49 ft 1 in 14 ft 7 in
Weight Ceiling
30756
Crew
4
Engine
2 BMW 801 D-2, 14-cylinder radial, air-cooled, 1,700 hp each
Armament
1 x 20 mm cannon; 3 machine guns; 6,622 lbs of bombs
Now the last wish I have, two Russian fighters. El Yakketh 3 and the LaGG-3.
First up is the Yak-3.
Specs:
Crew: 1
Length: 8.5 m (27 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 9.2 m (30 ft 2 in)
Height: 2.39 m (7 ft 11 in)
Wing area: 14.85 m² (159.8 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,105 kg (4,640 lb)
Loaded weight: 2,692 kg (5,864 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Klimov VK-105PF-2 V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine, 970 kW (1,300 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 655 km/h (407 mph)
Range: 650 km (405 miles)
Service ceiling: 10,700 m (35,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 18.5 m/s (3,645 ft/min)
Wing loading: 181 kg/m² (36.7 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.36 kW/kg (0.22 hp/lb)
Armament
Guns:
1 × 20 mm ShVAK cannon,
2 × 12.7 mm Berezin UBS machine guns
And now the LaGG-3.
Specs:
Crew: One
Length: 8.81 m (28 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 9.80 m (32 ft 1.75 in)
Height: 2.54 m (8 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 17.4 m² (188 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,205 kg (4,851 lb)
Loaded weight: 2,620 kg (5,764 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 3,190 kg (7,018 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Klimov M-105PF liquid-cooled V-12, 924 kW (1,260 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 575 km/h (357 mph)
Range: 1000 km (621 mi)
Service ceiling: 9,700 m (31,825 ft)
Rate of climb: 14.9 m/s (2,926 ft/min)
Wing loading: 150 kg/m² (31 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 350 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)
Armament
2× 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Berezin BS machine guns
1× 20 mm ShVAK cannon
6× RS-82 or RS-132 rockets up a total of 200 kg (441 lb)
Discuss thy matter!
-
I'd prefer the faster Ju188A-1 over the Ju188E series. The Ju188Es were not more advanced that the Ju188As. The Es came about because the intended engine wasn't ready yet. Once the intended engine was ready, the more advanced Ju188A series was introduced.
-
Not sure why people continue to use Wikipedia... but if someone wishes to research for 2 minutes then they shall get scolded.
LaGG-3 had quite a few modifications throughout it times, originally to be developed with a 23mm through nose and twin 12.7's, however the recoil was a serious issue and never added.
Series 1 had 2x7.62 mm and 3 x 12.7 mm
Series 4 had 2x7.62 mm and 1 x 12.7 mm and single 20mm.
Not sure where this twin 12.7mm and single 20mm comes from, never seen any records of it period other then wikipedia. Last version built ended production in 1944 had a single 12.7mm and single 20mm. Early war versions had the same engine problems as Hurricanes/Spitfires - they starved for fuel in a dive. In a one on one match with a German Me-109E4 its horribly outmatched period. One good thing is it was fitted with a M-82 radial engine, which led to the design of the La-5. Problem was once this engine finally solved the problems of the LaGG-3, the La-5 took over production, however it remained in service.
I love early war aircrafts, if I had to vote I would jump all over a Yak-1 or Yak-3. In my opinion I am willing only go so early war - but I would rather fly a Hurricane I then Mig-3 or Lagg-3.
-
For the Soviets, the MiG-3 and Tu-2 should be the next 2 aircraft added.
Regarding the Cromwell, it ultimately would be like driving around the T34/76 with slightly worse armor, double the reload rate (same 75mm as the US M4 Sherman), and no HVAP for a chance of victory vs the heavy armor. I almost think an EW design might be worth while. Maybe the Valentine or Crusader? Both could have the 6 Pdr which would deal with the Pzr IV well enough, and if HTC have the 6 Pdr some HVAP ammo it would stand a chance at less than 600 yards vs the heavy stuff. The Pzr III would be good to add also, but the Germans have plenty of tanks the way it is. ;)
An Axis bomber you say??? The He111 is the next Axis bomber coming our way. :aok
-
The He111 is the next Axis bomber coming our way. :aok
Where are you getting this from?
-
Where are you getting this from?
He's dreaming, see the large prediction thread in GD
-
The HE-177 would be a good heavy bomber
-
The HE-177 would be a good heavy bomber
It was a horrible bomber in reality. Lets get things that actually worked into the game first.
-
In his defense, it WOULD be a good bomber, since we don't have random failures in AH.
However, I agree, we should get some more historically significant and reliable things in the game first.
-
In his defense, it WOULD be a good bomber, since we don't have random failures in AH.
However, I agree, we should get some more historically significant and reliable things in the game first.
I'm not sure how the He111 was not historically significant to the Germans? It was in use throughout the war on all fronts. Same ord as the B26, same or better defensive guns as Ju88, speed is same of B25, climb rate similar to Ju88, range slightly better than B26. No, I don't think it will be a dud in the MA's, no more than the Ju88, B25, G4M, Boston, or Ki67.
Oh... and keep watching... the He111 will be added. :aok
-
SmokinLoon,
They are talking about the He177, not the He111.
-
Yeah, I'm all for the He-111, provided we get later models like the H6 or H11.
-
speed is same of B25
I've had the b25 up to 290mph in level flight with full bombload I don't think the He-111 can match that :rock :ahand
-
I've had the b25 up to 290mph in level flight with full bombload I don't think the He-111 can match that :rock :ahand
FWIW, I just upped a B25C with full fuel and 3k ords and the fastest I could get was 279mph ( w/ MIL power) at it "prime" altitude of 14,500ft. Weight was 32,200 lbs. That is as fat as it can get and the fastest it can get under those circumstances. The chart shows 285-ish when the B25C has a weight of 28,000 lbs.
The He111 is shown to be able to fly 273 mph when loaded to 26,000 lbs which is a typical combat loading, but not max evidently. My sources are not accurate enough to give me specifics as to what exact weights are with specific loadings, only end result weights are listed. Evidently the He111 stopped using the internal bay to carry the 8/50 kg bombs and instead used external mounts to carry 4/500kg or 4/250kg bombs instead as a "standard" load out.
-
So as we all know, the Axis tanks are dominant in the GV fights due to superior firepower and armor, now this can be matched by only a few Allied tanks and that number is 3 I think. On the other end of the spectrum, Allied bombers rule the skies and Axis bombers hardly show on the radar. Right in the middle Axis/Allied planes are tied except for one country - Russia. It seems as if we want a Russian plane we have to choose one that either gets us called a LALATARDLOLZTROLLLLLLZ or a smelly Yak. If we're feeling brave then we take the I-16 pea shooter out for a run and hope we don't forget our lube. As a solution we can choose to ignore it like we've been doing and just scraping along but there are some open minded people out there who wouldn't mind a change in the forces. Including myself.
Discuss thy matter!
do you even have an aces high account
-
FWIW, I just upped a B25C with full fuel and 3k ords and the fastest I could get was 279mph ( w/ MIL power) at it "prime" altitude of 14,500ft. Weight was 32,200 lbs. That is as fat as it can get and the fastest it can get under those circumstances. The chart shows 285-ish when the B25C has a weight of 28,000 lbs.
The He111 is shown to be able to fly 273 mph when loaded to 26,000 lbs which is a typical combat loading, but not max evidently. My sources are not accurate enough to give me specifics as to what exact weights are with specific loadings, only end result weights are listed. Evidently the He111 stopped using the internal bay to carry the 8/50 kg bombs and instead used external mounts to carry 4/500kg or 4/250kg bombs instead as a "standard" load out.
I nver said anything about max fuel did I............................ .....nope so there ya go
-
FWIW, I just upped a B25C with full fuel and 3k ords and the fastest I could get was 279mph ( w/ MIL power) at it "prime" altitude of 14,500ft. Weight was 32,200 lbs. That is as fat as it can get and the fastest it can get under those circumstances. The chart shows 285-ish when the B25C has a weight of 28,000 lbs.
The He111 is shown to be able to fly 273 mph when loaded to 26,000 lbs which is a typical combat loading, but not max evidently. My sources are not accurate enough to give me specifics as to what exact weights are with specific loadings, only end result weights are listed. Evidently the He111 stopped using the internal bay to carry the 8/50 kg bombs and instead used external mounts to carry 4/500kg or 4/250kg bombs instead as a "standard" load out.
If you ask me, the He-111 and B-25 are about the same. Bomb loads differ of course but they're both good bombers for their time period. The He-111 was around since the beginning of the war and it could be a nice addition to the EW plane set. I'd add it to the list of planes that need to get into the game.
-
If you use them both as level bombers maybe, although I think the B-25 gets the edge in defensive fire. As an attack aircraft there is
no comparison.
-
If you use them both as level bombers maybe, although I think the B-25 gets the edge in defensive fire. As an attack aircraft there is
no comparison.
The He-111 is easy prey for anything with a few .50 cals or even a single cannon. The .303's suck in game and only do major damage if you manage to hit a vital part of the plane. I know that it takes a good 700-900 rounds from a Spit1/Hurri1 to take down a Ju-88. I'd imagine the He-111 would be slightly less or the same.
However I do think the B-25 is a bit better in attack terms. The load out is better but not by much and it can be loaded up with a bombsite or multiple .50 cals instead.
-
The He-111 was actually a pretty durable plane.
-
The He-111 was actually a pretty durable plane.
Defensive armament sucked so hard that Paris Hilton would be jealous. The armor is useless if you don't have the guns to back it up. It's like putting a 1930's 50mm gun on a M60 and making it fight against T-72's.
-
Or its like having a twin .50 mount on a bomber in a possition that is rarely usefull in the defense of the aircraft..... like the B-25C for example.
Oh, and 7.92's aren't entirely useless. I've defended myself succesfully with them before in the Ju-88. Hell, I've done it in the G4M, and thats a lot tougher to do.
Skorpx, I get the feeling you don't quite know what you're talking about here.
-
Or its like having a twin .50 mount on a bomber in a possition that is rarely usefull in the defense of the aircraft..... like the B-25C for example.
Oh, and 7.92's aren't entirely useless. I've defended myself succesfully with them before in the Ju-88. Hell, I've done it in the G4M, and thats a lot tougher to do.
Skorpx, I get the feeling you don't quite know what you're talking about here.
Ju-88/G4M have all but one gun in the back, that's at least 5/6 guns in the rear. Not to mention the Betty has a 20mm cannon that puts the hurt on attackers. Iv'e tried gunning against competent fighters in both planes, rarely have I won the fight but its still hard to do. In a real life scenario even a .45 cal pistol was something to worry about. In game you're lucky if you take damage from a .45/deal damage with one. What you're saying is that you can fight off P-51's, Spit's and La-7's in a Ju-88 without any problems then i'd love to see the films. I never said the guns were useless, they're just incompetent of proper defense.
-
Ju-88/G4M have all but one gun in the back, that's at least 5/6 guns in the rear. Not to mention the Betty has a 20mm cannon that puts the hurt on attackers. Iv'e tried gunning against competent fighters in both planes, rarely have I won the fight but its still hard to do. In a real life scenario even a .45 cal pistol was something to worry about. In game you're lucky if you take damage from a .45/deal damage with one. What you're saying is that you can fight off P-51's, Spit's and La-7's in a Ju-88 without any problems then i'd love to see the films. I never said the guns were useless, they're just incompetent of proper defense.
Uhhhh..... yeah, and you do realize you're incredibly lucky if you can get all 4 guns on target in the Ju-88, right? Theres a ridiculously small zone where it can happen, but the enemy has to be DIRECTLY to your six, and cannot be above or below your tail.
As for the betty, if you didn't notice, I'm talking about the 7.92's/7.7mm's. Yeah, the betty has a 20mm, so what? Its not that difficult to avoid, and the balistics are pretty poor. Kill was made with the 7.7's.
Hell man, I've shot down Il-2's with the pair of 7.92mm's on the SdKfz 251. They are adequet if you aim carefully.
-
Uhhhh..... yeah, and you do realize you're incredibly lucky if you can get all 4 guns on target in the Ju-88, right? Theres a ridiculously small zone where it can happen, but the enemy has to be DIRECTLY to your six, and cannot be above or below your tail.
As for the betty, if you didn't notice, I'm talking about the 7.92's/7.7mm's. Yeah, the betty has a 20mm, so what? Its not that difficult to avoid, and the balistics are pretty poor. Kill was made with the 7.7's.
Hell man, I've shot down Il-2's with the pair of 7.92mm's on the SdKfz 251. They are adequet if you aim carefully.
Like I said, I want to see the films of you "easily" bringing these planes down with the 7.7's on the G4M/Ju88. Especially the kill in the 251 against the Il-2.
-
I never said it was easy, kid. I said it was possible; don't put words in my mouth.
You need to be skilled and lucky. And I'm not playing right now, but I'll see if I still have some of the films.
If I had to take a guess, I'd say you would be lucky if you could nail being lucky.
-
I never said it was easy, kid. I said it was possible; don't put words in my mouth. I like how you call me kid when you're 16? 17? A year or two older than me. does it make you feel like a big boy? Or is CoD not cool anymore?
You need to be skilled and lucky. And I'm not playing right now, but I'll see if I still have some of the films. Luck doesn't exist - Its just a term that weak minds use to explain things beyond them.
If I had to take a guess, I'd say you would be lucky if you could nail being lucky. If I had to take a guess, it'd be skill over luck.
I'm not playing now either, but from prior experience I know that .303's and small caliber guns like that suck hard against other planes. Ever try to take down an enemy plane with the dual .30's in a TBM? If the guns were aimed right, like at the engine/cockpit or possibly the wing-fuselage merging area then yes you could take down another plane. Iv'e stated that, but you say that you have done it successfully (Meaning only moderate damage done and no loss of a drone) in a Ju-88 and a G4M. If you have a dual .30 cal and you're shooting at an enemies engine from 600 yards away and hes pounding you with 6+ .50 cals or 4+ 20mm's do you think you'd win that fight at that distance? Even if you do manage to knock out his engine the superior firepower and range will kill you before you kill him (provided the enemy knows what he's doing.)
-
I'm not playing now either, but from prior experience I know that .303's and small caliber guns like that suck hard against other planes. Ever try to take down an enemy plane with the dual .30's in a TBM? If the guns were aimed right, like at the engine/cockpit or possibly the wing-fuselage merging area then yes you could take down another plane. Iv'e stated that, but you say that you have done it successfully (Meaning only moderate damage done and no loss of a drone) in a Ju-88 and a G4M. If you have a dual .30 cal and you're shooting at an enemies engine from 600 yards away and hes pounding you with 6+ .50 cals or 4+ 20mm's do you think you'd win that fight at that distance? Even if you do manage to knock out his engine the superior firepower and range will kill you before you kill him (provided the enemy knows what he's doing.)
Yeah. I used to be a pretty good shot with the bomber guns. Start shooting at D1000, you get hits on the cocpit, and by D800, you can have them limping off with a PW or engine damage, or even be rewarded with that satisfying explosion that marks a kill.
I called you kid, because you're refusing to accept that 1) 7.92's can be effective if well-manned, and 2) the He-111 is not significantly worse than the B-25. You blatantly ignore all evidence saying you're wrong, and the word of everyone who has played longer than you. Generally, you are acting like a child. And if 16 is 2 years older than you, then you're 4 years younger than me. Considering that would put you at 9th grade this year, yeah, theres a fairly significant difference in age and experience.
Luck exists. Why? The projectile trajectory is randomized slightly. Since you can't perfectly predict where exactly they will go, that introduces some element of chance. Thus, you can be lucky. On top of that, a difference in aim point so small as to be nearly unnoticable can be the difference between hitting the pilot, and putting a bunch of holes in the plane all around him. So, yeah, luck definitely exists.
Now, do lucky charms, and bad luck from breaking a mirror, and crap like that exist? No, but thats an entirely different subject, and is only tangently related to luck in the sense that we're using it.
And finally, yes, skill makes up a larger component than luck, but skill is most likely beyond you.
-
Back before there were formations I once took out an F4U-1C, P-51D, Bf109G-10 and N1K2-J with the guns on a Ju88A-4. The N1K2-J did finish me off as well though.
-
Yeah. I used to be a pretty good shot with the bomber guns. Start shooting at D1000, you get hits on the cocpit, and by D800, you can have them limping off with a PW or engine damage, or even be rewarded with that satisfying explosion that marks a kill. (If damage is being done at 1000 yards then you are probably aiming right. Most people don't know that this happens. .30's are accurate but they aren't terribly damaging if shot at the tougher parts such as the mid-fuselage area.)
I called you kid, because you're refusing to accept that 1) 7.92's can be effective if well-manned, and 2) the He-111 is not significantly worse than the B-25. You blatantly ignore all evidence saying you're wrong, and the word of everyone who has played longer than you. Generally, you are acting like a child. And if 16 is 2 years older than you, then you're 4 years younger than me. Considering that would put you at 9th grade this year, yeah, theres a fairly significant difference in age and experience.
(I'm 15 here, I said you were probably 1 or 2 years older, Also nobody else has spoken a word on the matter of guns other than Karnak.)
Luck exists. Why? The projectile trajectory is randomized slightly. Since you can't perfectly predict where exactly they will go, that introduces some element of chance. Thus, you can be lucky. On top of that, a difference in aim point so small as to be nearly unnoticable can be the difference between hitting the pilot, and putting a bunch of holes in the plane all around him. So, yeah, luck definitely exists.
Now, do lucky charms, and bad luck from breaking a mirror, and crap like that exist? No, but thats an entirely different subject, and is only tangently related to luck in the sense that we're using it. (Luck doesn't exist. Never has, never will.)
And finally, yes, skill makes up a larger component than luck, but skill is most likely beyond you.
I never said the plane wasn't tough, and I never said 7.92's were useless. I stated that guns such as .30's and 7.92's are useful if aimed right. They just aren't reliable. Its like using a 109F4 without a cannon. Do the rounds do damage? Yes. Will you get far with only the 700-ish rounds you have? No. You might get 2 or 3 kills but in the end there was a reason why other planes have better guns. Armor on planes gets better and thus guns have to get better.
As for luck there is no such thing. Random encounters/coincidences are to blame here. The rounds do get sent in different directions but its hardly noticeable. A "lucky chance" isn't really luck, its just that the round has cycled through a random flight path option set and it just happens that you got a round that went where it was supposed to. Mathematics and science have a large part here - its like flipping a coin. 50/50 shot of landing heads or tails, you don't control what it does after you flip it and while its in the air. If it lands on heads and you called tails well it wasn't bad luck - it was just what happened when the force of the flip and the air resistance did when it landed. Like I said, luck is for the weak minded.
-
I never said the plane wasn't tough, and I never said 7.92's were useless. I stated that guns such as .30's and 7.92's are useful if aimed right. They just aren't reliable. Its like using a 109F4 without a cannon. Do the rounds do damage? Yes. Will you get far with only the 700-ish rounds you have? No. You might get 2 or 3 kills but in the end there was a reason why other planes have better guns. Armor on planes gets better and thus guns have to get better.
Then quit your whining about the He-111's performance. Its probably more usefull than the B-25C's just you can use it far more often.
Wouldn't matter if you could somehow replace the 7.92's with a FlaK 36 without a loss of performance; if it could only fire foreward, it would still have weaker defensive firepower than the B5N.
As for luck there is no such thing. Random encounters/coincidences are to blame here. The rounds do get sent in different directions but its hardly noticeable. A "lucky chance" isn't really luck, its just that the round has cycled through a random flight path option set and it just happens that you got a round that went where it was supposed to. Mathematics and science have a large part here - its like flipping a coin. 50/50 shot of landing heads or tails, you don't control what it does after you flip it and while its in the air. If it lands on heads and you called tails well it wasn't bad luck - it was just what happened when the force of the flip and the air resistance did when it landed. Like I said, luck is for the weak minded.
Its not a fixed number of set trajectories. Its random; you cannot predict where the next round will be thrown out, and it does not follow a pattern.
You can flip a coin 50 times and get 50 tails. The odds are so small as to be nearly impossible, but it could happen. For any given flip, you have exactly the same odds of getting heads or tails. So, anyone who manages to accomplish that feat would be said to be 'lucky'. That doesn't mean they have good luck in life, and good things just happen to them because the planets happened to align. In that usage, it simply means he beat the odds.
We're not talking 7 years for breaking a mirror, four leaf clover, BS luck. We're talking about winning at roulette letting it ride and winning again, beating the odds, fortuitious and improbable, falling out of a plane and survivng because you landed in 50 feet of soft powdery snow luck.
There is no science or math to that. Its purely random and coincidental. The odds against you falling out of the plane precisely above the spot that would let you survive the impact are litterally incalcuable. By this I mean that we don't know exactly what all went into the guy that managed to survive, and your system likely doesn't have the nessecary computing power to display all the zeros if we could calculate it.
Here, wikipedia actually has it right. Read the very first paragraph in the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck)
-
Then quit your whining about the He-111's performance. Its probably more usefull than the B-25C's just you can use it far more often.
Wouldn't matter if you could somehow replace the 7.92's with a FlaK 36 without a loss of performance; if it could only fire foreward, it would still have weaker defensive firepower than the B5N.
Its not a fixed number of set trajectories. Its random; you cannot predict where the next round will be thrown out, and it does not follow a pattern.
You can flip a coin 50 times and get 50 tails. The odds are so small as to be nearly impossible, but it could happen. For any given flip, you have exactly the same odds of getting heads or tails. So, anyone who manages to accomplish that feat would be said to be 'lucky'. That doesn't mean they have good luck in life, and good things just happen to them because the planets happened to align. In that usage, it simply means he beat the odds.
We're not talking 7 years for breaking a mirror, four leaf clover, BS luck. We're talking about winning at roulette letting it ride and winning again, beating the odds, fortuitious and improbable, falling out of a plane and survivng because you landed in 50 feet of soft powdery snow luck.
There is no science or math to that. Its purely random and coincidental. The odds against you falling out of the plane precisely above the spot that would let you survive the impact are litterally incalcuable. By this I mean that we don't know exactly what all went into the guy that managed to survive, and your system likely doesn't have the nessecary computing power to display all the zeros if we could calculate it.
Here, wikipedia actually has it right. Read the very first paragraph in the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck)
I never said the bullet had a selected flight path option, I said it was a random flight path option with different sets. And the "falling out of a plane and surviving" thing isn't luck either. Wind resistance, speed, trajectory, point of impact, item of impact, density of item which was landed on and human endurance. Math and science is able to prove these things possible without luck, and with logical reasoning. The odds of that happening are calculable, you just need to know what to do, how to do it and you need to be a math whiz with a high-tech out of this world computer that has the ability to calculate everything to the exact point of which let you live. If one was able to re-create everything but with selective speed (like watching a video) from their point of view and a 3rd person 360 degree point of view you could possibly find everything that went into the equation.
And for the last time, Luck is for the weak minded and for those who cant explain a turn of events with reasons. Luck is an excuse. Not a reason.
-
You're an idiot Skorpx.
You fail to comprehend what I've said, that there is luck, that if there is any element of randomization than there will be luck by the definition of the words luck and random.
You also probably have failed to comprehend that you don't comprehend all those things.
At the smaller levels of particles, we can't predict their motion, or even their location in some cases. Its not that we lack the technology or knowledge, its merely that the motion is truely random, and therefore unpredictable.
However, you will reject this, and blindly claim that science can solve anything. Point is you are wrong with regards to the He-111. Deal with it.
-
You're an idiot Skorpx. Lol. Insults? You call me the kid.
You fail to comprehend what I've said, that there is luck, that if there is any element of randomization than there will be luck by the definition of the words luck and random.
You also probably have failed to comprehend that you don't comprehend all those things.
At the smaller levels of particles, we can't predict their motion, or even their location in some cases. Its not that we lack the technology or knowledge, its merely that the motion is truely random, and therefore unpredictable.
However, you will reject this, and blindly claim that science can solve anything. Point is you are wrong with regards to the He-111. Deal with it.
Coincidences, randomness and luck are 3 different things. Luck is the one that doesn't exist. You use it as an excuse for explaining things beyond your own comprehension. It is possible for one to find out the motion of particles, you just gotta find out where they started, what they've bounced off of, the initial speed, the increases/decreases, the resistances/accelerating elements and such to do it. Sure, the number is probably a million miles long if written in .5 font on a computer but its still possible to find out what it is.
Lets take roulette as an example. You place your bet on the 1st set of 12. The velocity of the ball is 15 FPS clockwise, the wheel is spinning at 10 FPS counterclockwise, you take all the numbers around the table and see what number the ball got sent out on, and then the numbers that are within the 1-12 area. If you calculate all the probabilities you'll find out whether or not you made a good decision on your bet.
Bullets are another example. In real life a .30 cal bullet is effected by wind, windspeed, speed of the bullet itself and all of those good things. You have to factor in all of those and get all of the numbers to find out where it will land and how fast it's going to get the damage done to the plane. A .50 cal would do more damage because its effected less by most of those variables. In return it will do more damage and will go farther than a .30 cal would. The armor also plays a big factor. If a .30 cal goes through 10mm of armor at 1000 yards with about 12mm of penetration power, it'll do damage but not a lot. If a .50 cal does the same but with 20mm of penetration power, it does more damage. From what is placed here and what you could find out you'd notice that all the factors of the bullet have a good area on where the bullet will land upon impact.
The 7.92 guns in game aren't effected by a few of those things but if you crunched the numbers and aimed right, its possible to shoot down a plane with a single bullet. Would it be hard? Yes. Would it be luck? No. You'd just have to hope the random flight path that's been pre-selected is within reasonable distance of the calculations. Are the 7.92's and .30 cals as reliable as a .50 or a 20mm cannon? No. You get a better chance of hitting vital parts with a .50/20mm than you do with a 7.92 or a .30 cal. That's what this was about - Not the He-111 durability or its performance compared to a B-25.
Science can solve anything given its within human capabilities. In the end, its a human who had to design the computer so its got human limits.
I take it you're one who follows a religion?
-
*Drivle*
I'm using the word luck in sense that I was unlucky if I was struck by lightning when in proximity to a taller object. Its out of my control, I can't keep myself from being struck by lighting, it was unlikely to happen.
I beat the odds by being struck by lighting 9 times inside of 2 weeks, so was unlucky.
Someone arbitrarily chose to slash my tires, when I was parked next to 3 identicle vehicles, a corvette, and the truck who cut off the guy who slashed my tires on the freeway, so I was unluky.
I won the lottery, so I was lucky, because I beat the odds.
Does 'luck' exist as this stupid mystical force that dictates things beyond our controll? Hell no, and you're brain dead if you think I'm saying it does. But luck DOES exist in the sense that someone is either lucky or unlucky if they beat the odds, depending on if doing so helps or hinders them.
And yes, I am a religious man. Do I take it you've lost your way?
-
lol 2 guys that don't even play the game are arguing over planes to add to the game :noid
-
lol 2 guys that don't even play the game are arguing over planes to add to the game :noid
And the funny thing is when it comes to planes, both don't know squat.
ack-ack
-
The He-111 is easy prey for anything with a few .50 cals or even a single cannon. The .303's suck in game and only do major damage if you manage to hit a vital part of the plane. I know that it takes a good 700-900 rounds from a Spit1/Hurri1 to take down a Ju-88. I'd imagine the He-111 would be slightly less or the same.
However I do think the B-25 is a bit better in attack terms. The load out is better but not by much and it can be loaded up with a bombsite or multiple .50 cals instead.
The .30 caliber MG's in AH do not "suck", in comparison to the 200 or 30mm cannon armed with HE then yes they are at a disadvantage but when fired accurately enough they do the same thing to a wing as .50 cals. Remember they have about 3 times the rate of fire as are cause aout 1/3rd the damage. The issue is at what range the .30 cals are being fired at vs the .50 cals. And no it certainly does not take 700-900 rounds of .30 cal to bring down a Ju88, maybe if you miss alot but otherwise no it doesn't.
If you're comparing the B25H vs the He111, then yes the B25 will win in a direct attack roll thanks to massed .50 cals and the 75mm cannon. But if you're comparing the B25C vs the He111 then I do believe the He111 would have the edge thanks to a heavier bomb loading. Until the He111 is put in to AH we wont know how it handles but it wouldnt be too difficult to beat the B25, it is one of the worst handling bombers in AH.
-
I think, tank-wise, an IS-2 or the STuG series would make for some good times. Aircraft wise my hat is tipped to the ruskies, albeit not many will be more popular than current aircraft already in the game, they are lacking quite a bit.
-
I think, tank-wise, an IS-2 or the STuG series would make for some good times.
If you want something with heavy firepower for the Russians, Su-100 is about the only way to go. The IS-2 would have penetration simmilar to the 88 L/56, one-shot anything this side of a Tiger II when it penetrates, and fire the most effective HE shell of any tank-mounted weapon in the game.
However, it very well might fire less than 3 rounds in a minute.
-
Well on a side note this argument kept myself entertained for a fraction of my college geography class. :D
-
Ban hammer round 2!
-
IS-2 can knock out most tanks including the Tiger and Panther without having to actually penetrate the armor. I.e few cases the turret was enough to become disabled from it.
But as Tank-Ace stated, Su-100 was a tank hunter, IS-2 was simply a breakthrough tank - i.e not designed to attack tanks, but rather fortifications so swarms of T-34s can kill tigers.
Su-100 was put together since the Su-85 was lacking against Tigers/Panthers, the IS-2 was considered for the same gun as the Su-100, however Russians simply didn't need more tank killers since very FEW panthers/tigers existed.
I never really liked the StuG, it was designed as an early break through tank then pressed into anti tank roles to fill gaps in the Panzer Divisions, something it was not designed for, but rather it was effective early/midwar.
I always had an interest in the JagdPanzer, midwar versions had a 75mm L/48 while late war had the 75mm L/70, as if the Germans need another Tank killer added in game, much rather see other countries.
-
ok as some one who loves flying the hurricane 1 it takes only a short 1.5 - 2 sec burst to bring down a JU88 . .303 should only ever be used at distances below 250yrds with all guns set to hit at the same point. target areas are , engine block , cockpit , wing roots and tail section. For B24's you aim for the inner wing section where the fuel tank is. 2 sec burst and it's a candle. the .303 is a buzz saw at less than 250 yrds.
-
IS-2 can knock out most tanks including the Tiger and Panther without having to actually penetrate the armor. I.e few cases the turret was enough to become disabled from it.
Too bad that the spalling from the crappy LW armor isn't modeled, and the potential in real life is entirely irrelevent without a fairly major overhaul of the system.
KV-2 might actually be a useful addition then, as would the SU-152.
-
Too bad that the spalling from the crappy LW armor isn't modeled, and the potential in real life is entirely irrelevent without a fairly major overhaul of the system.
KV-2 might actually be a useful addition then, as would the SU-152.
I wouldn't mind the KV-2 or SU-152 just for a town killer, but it would be perked due to destructive power of its gun, Maybe like 6 perks where a 105mm would be 1 perk? Instead of multiple hits to take a building out, blast range wise a 105 could take out more then one, while a 152 would just level places
-
I think the biggest issue with perking the KV-2 is that its anti-armor capabilities are essentially nil.
The balistics of the gun would be crap, optics would probably be crap, ROF would be just terrible, and AP rounds wouldn't penetrate a whole lot of armor. However, you would one-shot a Tiger II if you penetrated.
-
I think the biggest issue with perking the KV-2 is that its anti-armor capabilities are essentially nil.
The balistics of the gun would be crap, optics would probably be crap, ROF would be just terrible, and AP rounds wouldn't penetrate a whole lot of armor. However, you would one-shot a Tiger II if you penetrated.
Hit on the front end of an Elephant/Ferdinand (whichever one it is) with a 152mm AP shell, launched by a KV-2
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MXu96taKq-Y/S_IfUsWF5qI/AAAAAAAAMCM/AWJJsfekT5s/s1600/13.jpg)
You wouldn't need to penetrate, if you just hit the enemy tank you pretty much killed everyone inside. Had that been a HE round i'm sure that the whole front end of the tank would be gone.
-
Did you completely miss the part about all of that being entirely irrelevent to AH?
Damage through spalling, cracking armor, breaking welds, etc IS NOT MODELED, and for good reason; its inconsistent in real life, and so you can't model that in a game without being ridiculously unfair to the players.
Also, thats an Elephant; theres the port for the machine gun. But its entirely irrelevent, since that was the only real difference between them. Not really two different vehicles, just two names for the same thing.
-
Did you completely miss the part about all of that being entirely irrelevent to AH?
Damage through spalling, cracking armor, breaking welds, etc IS NOT MODELED, and for good reason; its inconsistent in real life, and so you can't model that in a game without being ridiculously unfair to the players.
Also, thats an Elephant; theres the port for the machine gun. But its entirely irrelevent, since that was the only real difference between them. Not really two different vehicles, just two names for the same thing.
That wasn't my point. My point was that if HE did what it does in real life and it reflected into the game, we wouldn't have to worry about penetrating armor. In game HE bounced off of almost every tank, if it were realistic it'd explode each time it hit something solid. The only way it could bounce is if the armor angling was so extreme that the charge didn't detonate on impact.
-
You miss my point.
1) we don't have that modeled, and it would be a major change, including major additions and adjustments to the damage model itself, as well as chaning what makes an HE shell go boom.
2) we really can't do it perfectly (or even very) realistically, because our armor isn't actual steel, and our tanks aren't actually there.
3) HE rounds didn't always cause spalling, or kill the crew, or didn't always do anything. Having them always damage tanks in AH would be monsterously unfair, and essentially turn it into WoT, where a 37mm weapon could eventually kill a King Tiger given enough time and HE rounds. If we don't make it 100% of the time, then we introduce an random number generator that decides if your crew will be killed by spalling or not.
4) It would result a HUGE degredation of skill amongst GV'ers. There would be no encouragment to use tactics and ambush more powerful vehicles, or use the M18 to sprint in around the flanks, when you can just spam HE at enemies you lack the skill to deal with.
5) All perks for all tanks would have to be completely redone. The Tiger II would need a FAR smaller perk price if HE rounds can take it out from the front. The Panther would likely be dropped to the high single digits, and the firefly would go back to 4-5 perks.
So come up with a system that adresses all those issues, and then submit it to AH. If not, then don't bother; it wouldn't work well even assuming people don't get lazy, and it would destroy the GV aspect of the game when they do.
-
This Russian tank would be nice JS2 hvy tank saw service from Jan 1944 to the end of war in 1945 it had a 122mm main gun :D :banana: :banana: :airplane: :joystick: :old: :bolt:
-
how hard would it be to modle the HE shell just exploding when it hit the tank I don't understand how that could be game changing and FYI there Tank ace a 37mm with nothing but HE can NOT penetrate a tiger 2
-
He is suggesting we let HE damage or even kill tanks when they hit, regardless of if they penetrate the armor (presumably through spalling, cracking the armor with the blast, or whatever else might result in real life).
The HE rounds simply exploding on impact (and doing nothing but maybe breaking a track if it does enough damage, or knocking off the pintle gun), I would be fine with. But what I'm not fine with is adding the tactic of HE spamming at tanks that you lack the skill or gun to kill otherwise.
So, yeah, if we let HE do that, then an M8 could kill the Tiger II given enough HE and time.
-
You miss my point.
1) we don't have that modeled, and it would be a major change, including major additions and adjustments to the damage model itself, as well as chaning what makes an HE shell go boom.
2) we really can't do it perfectly (or even very) realistically, because our armor isn't actual steel, and our tanks aren't actually there.
3) HE rounds didn't always cause spalling, or kill the crew, or didn't always do anything. Having them always damage tanks in AH would be monsterously unfair, and essentially turn it into WoT, where a 37mm weapon could eventually kill a King Tiger given enough time and HE rounds. If we don't make it 100% of the time, then we introduce an random number generator that decides if your crew will be killed by spalling or not.
4) It would result a HUGE degredation of skill amongst GV'ers. There would be no encouragment to use tactics and ambush more powerful vehicles, or use the M18 to sprint in around the flanks, when you can just spam HE at enemies you lack the skill to deal with.
5) All perks for all tanks would have to be completely redone. The Tiger II would need a FAR smaller perk price if HE rounds can take it out from the front. The Panther would likely be dropped to the high single digits, and the firefly would go back to 4-5 perks.
So come up with a system that adresses all those issues, and then submit it to AH. If not, then don't bother; it wouldn't work well even assuming people don't get lazy, and it would destroy the GV aspect of the game when they do.
When did I say that HE would always do damage? Its kinda obvious that a dinky 37mm with some firecrackers in the shell isn't going to hurt a KT, let alone a Panther. The fact is that HE should be modeled at least to a certain degree of realism. The 30mm cannons in game have a mix of AP/HE shells and the fact is that if they do penetrate a tank, they hardly do any damage anyways. If you think you're gonna kill a KT with a M8 lobbing 37mm HE at him, think again. It'd take over 400 shells and by that time, you've run out of ammo.
This Russian tank would be nice JS2 hvy tank saw service from Jan 1944 to the end of war in 1945 it had a 122mm main gun :D :banana: :banana: :airplane: :joystick: :old: :bolt:
The JS-2's main gun could easily punch through the front end of a Panther without much trouble, but the gun accuracy wasn't amazing, still it'd have to be a perked tank.
-
That wasn't my point. My point was that if HE did what it does in real life and it reflected into the game, we wouldn't have to worry about penetrating armor.
Heres where you implyed it would do damage to tanks. And it would have to be 100% of the time, or randomized. HTC seems reluctant to implement random mechanical failure on aircraft that were notorious for such things (B-29 and Me 163), so why would they implement randomized damage to tanks from HE shells? And beyond HTC's reluctance to do so, its still incredibly unfair. The player in the Tiger II could be doing everything right, he could have made the sortie without a single mistake being made, and he could still lose over 200 perks because you thought it was a good idea to let HE shells randomly do damage to tanks.
And in either case, it would still encourage HE spamming instead of being competent in a tank, and would have the result of largely killing tactics in the GV game, screwing up the perk values, and you run the risk of turning the GV fights into nothing more than giant tard-fests like WoT.
Now this might sound good to someone from the lower-end of the skill spectrum, who doesn't have much prospect of driving a Tiger II any time soon. I mean an M4 being able to kill a Tiger II from the front would mean easy perks, right, and nothing being too big or tough to engage head on? What could be better for a such a twit than easy kills, easy perks, and no skill required, right?
But to the more skilled players, the idea is unattractive (and rightly so), because it means their skill dimishes the importance of skill. Personally I find the idea repugnant.
-
EITHER YOU TWO START PLAYING NICE OR SO HELP ME GOD i'LL PULL THIS CAR OVER....
-
EITHER YOU TWO START PLAYING NICE OR SO HELP ME GOD i'LL PULL THIS CAR OVER....
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
EITHER YOU TWO START PLAYING NICE OR SO HELP ME GOD i'LL PULL THIS CAR OVER....
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:
-
I personally think the idea of perking tanks has many flaws. Unlike aircraft, where you have to put yourself out there and run the risk of dying at any moment, GVs can sit on pads for base defense and tower when they are going to be killed. A better GV perk mechanism would be to simply lose the perks once you up the tank. Now losing a 100 perk Tiger 2 would be extreme, so possibly drop the numbers down to a more reasonable level.
This does 2 things:
1.) Allows for a higher number of perked vehicles to enter into the game, as well as non, while not upsetting the balance as much.
2.) Allows for less perked GVs to be rolled, and more older GVs since every time you up one, you automatically lose perks just for using it. Lets face it, who would want to use a 75mm Sherman when you can have a 76mm for 1 perk? That seems very flawed, personally.
Aside from that, perks in GVs are pretty easy to generate as well, many have thousands upon thousands and not enough Tiger 2's to burn them all. It puts more lower level, older tanks out there and helps to level the playing field, since not everyone who has been playing for 6 months+ will be rolling high perked tanks around like nothing.
Comments?
-
I personally think the idea of perking tanks has many flaws. Unlike aircraft, where you have to put yourself out there and run the risk of dying at any moment, GVs can sit on pads for base defense and tower when they are going to be killed. A better GV perk mechanism would be to simply lose the perks once you up the tank. Now losing a 100 perk Tiger 2 would be extreme, so possibly drop the numbers down to a more reasonable level.
This does 2 things:
1.) Allows for a higher number of perked vehicles to enter into the game, as well as non, while not upsetting the balance as much.
2.) Allows for less perked GVs to be rolled, and more older GVs since every time you up one, you automatically lose perks just for using it. Lets face it, who would want to use a 75mm Sherman when you can have a 76mm for 1 perk? That seems very flawed, personally.
Aside from that, perks in GVs are pretty easy to generate as well, many have thousands upon thousands and not enough Tiger 2's to burn them all. It puts more lower level, older tanks out there and helps to level the playing field, since not everyone who has been playing for 6 months+ will be rolling high perked tanks around like nothing.
Comments?
If you ask me, that's a fairly solid idea. However the extreme tanks like the Panther and Tiger's would have to keep the same perk price, but have a catch to it if you want to keep the perks after you end your fight. You don't loose the perks if you kill 5 or more tanks and move out of the "safe zone" at a base.
-
Are you kidding? You can kill 20+ tanks with a Panther and still lose perks.
If its an automatic non-returned price, then the Firefly would be about 7, the Panther would be about 14. Tiger I would be 20-30, and the Tiger II would be 50-75 perks.
-
Are you kidding? You can kill 20+ tanks with a Panther and still lose perks.
If its an automatic non-returned price, then the Firefly would be about 7, the Panther would be about 14. Tiger I would be 20-30, and the Tiger II would be 50-75 perks.
Are you constantly dying in the Panther when you kill those 20+ enemies?
If that's the case, then you might have a problem.
-
Are you kidding? You can kill 20+ tanks with a Panther and still lose perks.
The goal of such a system would be to make the use of a perk tank an occasional special, not something that you're supposed to be able to sustain as your main ride. Trying to balance it so that the average sortie earns as many perks as it loses would break the idea of controlling the populations of perk tanks.
-
Are you constantly dying in the Panther when you kill those 20+ enemies?
If that's the case, then you might have a problem.
In my prime I would kill 1 to 3000 tanks per tour and lose hundreds of panthers and never lose perks. You will lose perk tanks, just question how fast you can regain them, a decent tanker with Pz4f can get enough perks for few panthers in under an hour.
-
If you ask me, that's a fairly solid idea. However the extreme tanks like the Panther and Tiger's would have to keep the same perk price, but have a catch to it if you want to keep the perks after you end your fight. You don't loose the perks if you kill 5 or more tanks and move out of the "safe zone" at a base.
Then it gets too complicated, give someone an inch and they want a mile. Goal of this system is to make tanking more balanced and keep it simplistic.
-
Are you constantly dying in the Panther when you kill those 20+ enemies?
If that's the case, then you might have a problem.
Dynamics of the game make it so if you stay out, you will die. I don't retreat untill the fight is done, or I'm out of ammo/damaged with no resupply.
That being said, if you feel you have to run away in a Panther, so you can drive it again later, you're doing it wrong.
The goal of such a system would be to make the use of a perk tank an occasional special, not something that you're supposed to be able to sustain as your main ride. Trying to balance it so that the average sortie earns as many perks as it loses would break the idea of controlling the populations of perk tanks.
And I'm fine with that. But the Panther can't earn even 5 perks in 20 kills under typical conditions, and the people who get even 40+ kills are rarities. If the Panther is perked at 12-15, that means they won't earn perks unless they make something over 50 kills or so.
Now think about how many kills the Tiger II would have to make to break even. We're talking over 400, depending on price.
No harm in reducing the perk prices a bit.