Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tinkles on November 29, 2012, 06:35:10 PM

Title: GV Turnovers
Post by: Tinkles on November 29, 2012, 06:35:10 PM
All of us at one point or another have rolled over a tank. Since the ability for tanks to plow through bushes and topple over trees won't be for sometime. Could we have the ability if our tank flips over to flip it back? Considering I have never heard of a WWII tank flipping over (this is me personally, I am NOT saying that this never happened, I'm not a Historian as many of you are), so can we have the ability to flip over our tank? At least to have a counter against the all-powerful trees/terrain.

Just a thought.

Respectfully,

Tinkles

 :salute
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: The Fugitive on November 29, 2012, 06:47:42 PM
You are not driving a WWII tank. You are playing a game that to add challenge has obstacles that you must avoid..... or they will flip you.

Learn to drive !   :aok
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: redcatcherb412 on November 29, 2012, 07:46:11 PM
All of us at one point or another have rolled over a tank. Since the ability for tanks to plow through bushes and topple over trees won't be for sometime. Could we have the ability if our tank flips over to flip it back? Considering I have never heard of a WWII tank flipping over (this is me personally, I am NOT saying that this never happened, I'm not a Historian as many of you are), so can we have the ability to flip over our tank? At least to have a counter against the all-powerful trees/terrain
.
(http://i49.tinypic.com/2vxjgd5.jpg)
.
bad things happen to bad tanks    :D :salute
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: MK-84 on November 29, 2012, 08:13:43 PM
.
(http://i49.tinypic.com/2vxjgd5.jpg)
.
bad things happen to bad tanks    :D :salute

How would the crew in that tank be able to exit said tank? :confused:
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: colmbo on November 29, 2012, 08:18:00 PM
How would the crew in that tank be able to exit said tank? :confused:

A thin chance they could crawl out of the top hatch.   :devil

Some tanks had hatches in the bottom.
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: RedBull1 on November 29, 2012, 08:21:28 PM
.
(http://i49.tinypic.com/2vxjgd5.jpg)
.
bad things happen to bad tanks    :D :salute
What tank is that? Looks a little bit like a Tiger, although I know it's not..
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: MK-84 on November 29, 2012, 08:24:13 PM
I thought it was a tiger too.  It isn't?
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: MK-84 on November 29, 2012, 08:27:50 PM
How would the crew in that tank be able to exit said tank? :confused:

Do you think they(any tankers) ever had equipment to dig themselves out a hatch for just this case?
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: titanic3 on November 29, 2012, 08:38:43 PM
What tank is that? Looks a little bit like a Tiger, although I know it's not..

Looks like a Panther to me.

How would the crew in that tank be able to exit said tank? :confused:

I doubt they could, whatever knocked that tank on its side, probably killed the crew at the same time.
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: MK-84 on November 29, 2012, 09:05:46 PM
Looks like a Panther to me.

I doubt they could, whatever knocked that tank on its side, probably killed the crew at the same time.

If it was an explosion or such I suspect you're right.  With limited visibility and possibly combat conditions I see it as entirely possible to accidentally roll a tank over an embankment or into a tank trench or the like.  Was there ever a procedure that considered that possibility for anyone?  The hatch on the bottom hull sorta makes sense. I think that was more for someone outside the tank to access the inside though.
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: B3YT on November 30, 2012, 05:18:08 PM
it hit a sheep  :noid
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: icepac on December 01, 2012, 08:07:17 AM
I think HTC has a sort of "shove" used when you encounter an unmovable object.

If not for that shove, it may be possible to brush a tree and get stuck against it without the ability to move either forward or backwards.

Maybe add the same sounds planes make when touching anything to the tanks would help you to back out before you get the shove.

Some shoves are harder than others.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8298/7983376164_c35d0ce6b1_b.jpg)
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: redcatcherb412 on December 01, 2012, 08:53:01 AM
I think HTC has a sort of "shove" used when you encounter an unmovable object.

If not for that shove, it may be possible to brush a tree and get stuck against it without the ability to move either forward or backwards.

Maybe add the same sounds planes make when touching anything to the tanks would help you to back out before you get the shove.

Some shoves are harder than others.
.
that shove gives the caliope a really good rocket angle for aircraft  :lol
.
best shove I ever had was at a town maproom running into the concrete maproom perimeter and next thing I knew my perspective was under the maproom with the buildings suspended in the air above me. I have no idea how others saw my M4 from their views, but I suspect my tank was not visible to them as I was able to kill every GV that entered the maproom square.
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: waystin2 on December 01, 2012, 09:19:49 AM
Did somebody say turnovers?
(http://hostedmedia.reimanpub.com/TOH/Images/Photos/37/exps589_TH1606C68A.jpg)
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: bangsbox on December 02, 2012, 02:13:08 PM
Even modern tanks get flipped. Google flipped tanks you will see plenty. My complaint however is for heavy German tanks that don't get into gear and go 1 to 15 mph in a sec then to dead stop (why). This happens a lot to me with panther. Also funky spin outs that twist panther around also annoy me.
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: Tank-Ace on December 02, 2012, 07:36:23 PM
Yes its possible to roll tanks in real life.

The tank appears to be a panther. Looks to have either been flipped by blast (although it seems a bit unlikely that the only visible result of being near a blast capable of flipping [and presumably moving a fair distance] 45 tons of steel, is a crushed turret, which likely was a result of being flipped upside down.), or rolled into an AT ditch, or when the driver drew too near to the edge of a hill.


If it wasn't blast (and it doesn't look to be), crew would most likely be alive, and would have had to scrape away some dirt before they could wriggle out of there,
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: skorpx1 on December 02, 2012, 07:58:23 PM
.
(http://i49.tinypic.com/2vxjgd5.jpg)
.
bad things happen to bad tanks    :D :salute

If you ask me this is an early version of the Tiger 1. It has a smaller gun and a slightly different turret. Original Tigers were fitted with a 75mm HV cannon.
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: Tank-Ace on December 02, 2012, 10:18:26 PM
If you ask me this is an early version of the Tiger 1. It has a smaller gun and a slightly different turret. Original Tigers were fitted with a 75mm HV cannon.

Actually, none of us were right; its actually a Tiger II  :lol. Count the road wheels; its got 9, while both the Tiger I and Panther had 8.


Would also explain why it has the flat turret front, and bell style gun mantlet. That was bugging me.


Quote
Original Tigers were fitted with a 75mm HV cannon.
Uhhh.... source  :huh?


If it just says a 75mm HV cannon, then I'm not so sure about its reliability. I haven't heard the early models mounted a 75mm, if they dug deep enough to find the information they probably would have listed what gun it was (the only one that it could possibly be is the KwK 42 L/70), the entire damn turret was designed to house the 88mm, and they already had the Panther in the works, which was going to mount the 75mm L/70, so the Tiger I mounting the same gun would not only be redundant, but stupid, considering the Panther was a better tank overall.


Just saying, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, aside from something like a prototype, so you can test the chassis while you're trying to cram the 88 into it.
Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: skorpx1 on December 02, 2012, 10:28:51 PM
Actually, none of us were right; its actually a Tiger II  :lol. Count the road wheels; its got 9, while both the Tiger I and Panther had 8.


Would also explain why it has the flat turret front, and bell style gun mantlet. That was bugging me.

 Uhhh.... source  :huh?


If it just says a 75mm HV cannon, then I'm not so sure about its reliability. I haven't heard the early models mounted a 75mm, if they dug deep enough to find the information they probably would have listed what gun it was (the only one that it could possibly be is the KwK 42 L/70), the entire damn turret was designed to house the 88mm, and they already had the Panther in the works, which was going to mount the 75mm L/70, so the Tiger I mounting the same gun would not only be redundant, but stupid, considering the Panther was a better tank overall.


Just saying, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, aside from something like a prototype, so you can test the chassis while you're trying to cram the 88 into it.
The gun doesn't look like an 88mm off of a Tiger 2.

 Also the early Tiger 1's were fitted with 75mm cannons, only about 20-ish made it out until Heetla  (or some other Wehrmacht officer) decided they needed 88mm cannons. I couldn't find the source of where I saw it, mainly because I saw it about a year ago.

Could have been a prototypes, or it could have been an actual design. Who knows.

Title: Re: GV Turnovers
Post by: Tank-Ace on December 02, 2012, 10:58:03 PM
The gun doesn't look like an 88mm off of a Tiger 2.
And so? It doesn't look like the Tiger I's 88mm, or the Panther's 75mm. Based solely on the apperance of the gun barrel, it most closely resembles a Panzer III, and only because its the only tank in the German inventory to mount a gun of even close to the length of the one in the picture without a muzzle break as standard.

Considering that hull and turret shape, and style of gun mantle both support it being a Tiger II, and the road wheel configuration insists rather loudly that its a Tiger II, I'm going to say that the gun barrel broke, and that its a Tiger II.

Quote
Also the early Tiger 1's were fitted with 75mm cannons, only about 20-ish made it out until Heetla  (or some other Wehrmacht officer) decided they needed 88mm cannons. I couldn't find the source of where I saw it, mainly because I saw it about a year ago.

Could have been a prototypes, or it could have been an actual design. Who knows.

So you saw a photograph of a Tiger I labled as a Tiger I mounting a 75mm (with the lable on the picture itself and probably hand-written mind you, not typed on the web page you saw the picture on, or in the image code)? And you can't find the source, which isn't too suprising.


Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and chalk it up to either a prototype, or mislabled photograph.