Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Zacherof on May 23, 2013, 10:58:48 AM

Title: R4M for 262's
Post by: Zacherof on May 23, 2013, 10:58:48 AM
262's carried 24 of the R4M rockets on wooden racks

Fired in salvos or all at once. Similar trajectory to the MK-108 tater so the standard Revi gunsight was retanied


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R4M
http://stormbirds.com/warbirds/tech_r4m_rocket.htm
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: gyrene81 on May 23, 2013, 11:04:32 AM
may as well make them available to the 190-d9 as well...

http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2012/06/r4m-rocket-toting-fw-190-dora.html (http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2012/06/r4m-rocket-toting-fw-190-dora.html)

as if you really need the firepower...  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Zacherof on May 23, 2013, 11:07:59 AM
may as well make them available to the 190-d9 as well...

http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2012/06/r4m-rocket-toting-fw-190-dora.html (http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2012/06/r4m-rocket-toting-fw-190-dora.html)

as if you really need the firepower...  :rolleyes:

since the 262 cost 250 everytime I go to use it I might as well take all the poof makers I can get.

And I'll happily take them on a D-9
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: gyrene81 on May 23, 2013, 11:11:47 AM
considering the perk cost...don't get into a turn fight...learn to pick better...and use a 152 to practice killing bombers before you use a 262 for bomber hunting.
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: hotcoffe on May 23, 2013, 11:16:41 AM
+1
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Zacherof on May 23, 2013, 12:29:00 PM
considering the perk cost...don't get into a turn fight...learn to pick better...and use a 152 to practice killing bombers before you use a 262 for bomber hunting.
who said anyhing about turn fighting. I have a 21 to 1 kill death ratio in that bird. I know how use it reasonably well, and aim the taters Most kills are someone taking off or landing , or bombers below 15k.
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: gyrene81 on May 23, 2013, 12:49:07 PM
who said anyhing about turn fighting. I have a 21 to 1 kill death ratio in that bird. I know how use it reasonably well, and aim the taters Most kills are someone taking off or landing , or bombers below 15k.
are you saying most of your kills are from vulching and picking?
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Zacherof on May 23, 2013, 01:11:08 PM
are you saying most of your kills are from vulching and picking?

vulching no. If your more than 2k away from your field I consider you fair game. Say what you want, call it what you want. My other kill come fromBelow them.

If your low, or slow not my problem. This game is not about fairness.
If your SA is bad not my problem. I'm an oppurtunist. Yes I love getting down and dirty placing skill against skill, but If I see a free kill with minimum risk involved I'm a bad guy?

And in the rare case that I do vulch, not my problem that guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Plain and simple, I use the 262 to bust hordes, kill the goons, and kill them if I can get a gun solution.

I'm sorry for being unfair and not giving someone(bish for example) a fair fight cause given the chance they ho and only ho and run for ack.
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: LCADolby on May 23, 2013, 01:40:44 PM
I feel we are being cheated. Get 'em on our lufty birds that carried them.

+1
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: waystin2 on May 23, 2013, 02:24:04 PM
vulching no. If your more than 2k away from your field I consider you fair game. Say what you want, call it what you want. My other kill come fromBelow them.

If your low, or slow not my problem. This game is not about fairness.
If your SA is bad not my problem. I'm an oppurtunist. Yes I love getting down and dirty placing skill against skill, but If I see a free kill with minimum risk involved I'm a bad guy?

And in the rare case that I do vulch, not my problem that guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Plain and simple, I use the 262 to bust hordes, kill the goons, and kill them if I can get a gun solution.

I'm sorry for being unfair and not giving someone(bish for example) a fair fight cause given the chance they ho and only ho and run for ack.

No worries Zach.  Kill em all and let HTC sort it out. :aok
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Zacherof on May 23, 2013, 02:29:34 PM
No worries Zach.  Kill em all and let HTC sort it out. :aok
exactly! :banana:
 :joystick: pew pew!!!
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Rino on May 23, 2013, 05:34:50 PM
     Problem with the R4Ms is the same one the 262s have.  There are no prectical limits to the numbers you can deploy.
The logistical concerns that they had to deal with in real life don't exist in AH. 
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: gyrene81 on May 23, 2013, 05:47:28 PM
logistical concerns can be "simulated" with eny and perks...
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: HawkerMKII on May 23, 2013, 06:06:28 PM
262's carried 24 of the R4M rockets on wooden racks

Fired in salvos or all at once. Similar trajectory to the MK-108 tater so the standard Revi gunsight was retanied


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R4M
http://stormbirds.com/warbirds/tech_r4m_rocket.htm


- no. Like the 163 the 262 did not play a big enough roll in WW2 so neither should really be in the game to start with
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Zacherof on May 23, 2013, 06:56:33 PM
- no. Like the 163 the 262 did not play a big enough roll in WW2 so neither should really be in the game to start with

true, but they are icons of a desperate nation at war.

I'm not making a ridiculous  wish saying a want the shadow cell 50mm rockets on a 163, but a weapon that was used and helped to achieve kills. And might as well give them to the other aircraft that carried them. 
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Butcher on May 24, 2013, 08:40:55 AM
My only issue with R4M is that you shouldn't be able to fire one or two rockets, you would only have a one time shot as in real life.
As for accuracy - you would be extremely lucky to get one hit if any on a bomber as they made a shotgun cone effect.

However like everything else, it would be perked even more - and the rocket rails would degrade the 262 - so beware what you wish for.
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: ReVo on May 24, 2013, 08:59:27 AM
- no. Like the 163 the 262 did not play a big enough roll in WW2 so neither should really be in the game to start with

Translation: I don't like luft birds so make them go away.
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: HawkerMKII on May 24, 2013, 09:43:42 PM
Translation: I don't like luft birds so make them go away.

No only 8 kills for a 163 in WW2....and why is that a game changer in the war....can you answer that????? The birds and gv's in this game are based on.....how many made, and impact on the war. 262 not much better!
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Zacherof on May 25, 2013, 01:50:54 PM
No only 8 kills for a 163 in WW2....and why is that a game changer in the war....can you answer that????? The birds and gv's in this game are based on.....how many made, and impact on the war. 262 not much better!
163 not a game changer. But the 262 was not to be taken lightly. Somedays only 20 262's would attack 1000 bombers, and like 750 mustangs.

Had there been more 262's things would be different.
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Wmaker on May 25, 2013, 02:58:45 PM
    Problem with the R4Ms is the same one the 262s have.  There are no prectical limits to the numbers you can deploy.
The logistical concerns that they had to deal with in real life don't exist in AH.  

I suggest you familirate yourself with this perk system that AH has. I'm sure you find it very facinating and that it addresses this "concern" you have.
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: HawkerMKII on May 26, 2013, 06:13:36 AM
163 not a game changer. But the 262 was not to be taken lightly. Somedays only 20 262's would attack 1000 bombers, and like 750 mustangs.

Had there been more 262's things would be different.

"HAD" there been and only 542 kills. Like I said not a good argument for having either in the game. I thought to have a a/c or gv in game it had to have mass production, service time, not some end of the war experimental thing :salute
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: alpini13 on May 26, 2013, 10:18:26 AM
 :aok, they had em, they used em, we should have em too
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Zacherof on May 26, 2013, 10:36:00 AM
"HAD" there been and only 542 kills. Like I said not a good argument for having either in the game. I thought to have a a/c or gv in game it had to have mass production, service time, not some end of the war experimental thing :salute
mass production is not a requirement.  Combat and seeing squadron strength is, hense why we have the jets.
But I'm an idiot for posting this in the wrong Forum again :bhead

btw Germany had a bunch of fighters at in 1945, matter of fact, correct me if I'm wrong, bu I believe their production output was at an all time high. Just no av-gas :aok
 :salute

I'm simy wishing for an additional atribute for a tool some of like to use. Curveball for scenarios to boot.

Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: ReVo on May 26, 2013, 11:37:52 AM
"HAD" there been and only 542 kills. Like I said not a good argument for having either in the game. I thought to have a a/c or gv in game it had to have mass production, service time, not some end of the war experimental thing :salute

Then also remove the P47M, F4U-1C and if memory serves me correctly there weren't a whole lot of Tempests or Spit16's by the end of the war. :)
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Butcher on May 26, 2013, 11:46:35 AM
"HAD" there been and only 542 kills. Like I said not a good argument for having either in the game. I thought to have a a/c or gv in game it had to have mass production, service time, not some end of the war experimental thing :salute

Hitech hasn't stated clearly, but the general idea has always been "seen combat" If you look at the F4u-1C only 200 or so were made? TA-152 less then that.

I say leave the 163 alone for Aces High - its not a game changer, rather its a Rocket powered interceptor that stops idiots from porking HQ every hour - imagine if we didn't have the 163? the 163 also has enough short comings - Lack of range and ammo - not everyone can hit with twin 30mms - and if you are not gentle with the throttle you are out of fuel in 7 minutes.

262 on the other hand is not a game changer either - for the perks involved - how many people exclusively fly the me-262? Very few. Now I have in the past flew dozens of 262 sorties back to back, if you stick around one area to long, 262s start hunting you. On top of that the 262 seems to me to be extremely weak when it comes to taking hits, you will lose an engine or oil almost automatically - trying to land on one engine is extremely risky, let alone if you lose both engines as the 262 does NOT glide, secondly if a 262 loses an engine, its best speed can be caught by most midwar fighters.
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: LCADolby on May 26, 2013, 12:25:24 PM
let alone if you lose both engines as the 262 does NOT glide


I have found it to be a very good glider.
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Karnak on May 26, 2013, 12:31:46 PM
Then also remove the P47M, F4U-1C and if memory serves me correctly there weren't a whole lot of Tempests or Spit16's by the end of the war. :)
Those, and the Me262 and Me163, all had mass production.  There are no units in this game that were not produced in an industrial manner.

"Winners" of the low production awards in AH:

Ta152H-1 (less than 50)
Ostwind (less than 50)
Wirbelwind (less than 50)
Brewster (less than 100)
P-47M (100)
F4U-1C (200)
C.205 (250)
Me163 (370)
N1K2-J (416)

Everything else is well over 500 so far as I know.  Me262 was about 1200 (only a couple hundred were used though), Tempest was was about 700 and the Spitfire Mk XVI was about 1200, or about 4300 if you merge it with the Spitfire LF.Mk IX.
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: hotcoffe on June 18, 2013, 09:50:30 AM
+1
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Arlo on June 18, 2013, 10:26:59 AM
btw Germany had a bunch of fighters at in 1945, matter of fact, correct me if I'm wrong, bu I believe their production output was at an all time high. Just no av-gas :aok
 :salute

Sorry, I have to correct you since you're wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Zacherof on June 18, 2013, 10:31:27 AM
Sorry, I have to correct you since you're wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II

oi 1944 it is :cheers:





Btw were just hunting for a post to correct me? :neener:
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: Arlo on June 18, 2013, 10:37:07 AM
oi 1944 it is :cheers:

Btw were just hunting for a post to correct me? :neener:

Yes. It took a lifetime and was painful.  ;)
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: RedBull1 on June 18, 2013, 01:28:05 PM
oi 1944 it is :cheers:





Btw were just hunting for a post to correct me? :neener:
No need to hunt :old:

 :noid
Title: Re: R4M for 262's
Post by: MrKrabs on June 18, 2013, 02:04:58 PM
Nothing like the idea of vulching at 800mph