Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: lerxst on April 01, 2014, 08:24:08 PM
-
Is there suppose to be some or any kind of realism to this game? as the subject title describes,has there ever been any time in combat that a m4 or any other tank kills a plane be it low alt? this is the kind of thing with this game that frustrates me.plane wasnt flying right at him but in a turn.IS THIS REALLY EVER HAPPENED, :bheadANYONE??
-
Is there suppose to be some or any kind of realism to this game? as the subject title describes,has there ever been any time in combat that a m4 or any other tank kills a plane be it low alt? this is the kind of thing with this game that frustrates me.plane wasnt flying right at him but in a turn.IS THIS REALLY EVER HAPPENED, :bheadANYONE??
don't fly straight at a tank's main gun and you won't get shot down by it. But to answer your question, yes there have been recorded incidents in which a tank shot down a plane with its main gun.
This is an account from Otto Carious' book (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 seco0nd attempt, he hit one of the 'bees' in its wing. The Russian crashed behind us.
Dmitriy Loza in an interview was asked a Sherman's AA defenses. Interview source: I Remember - Dmitriy Loza interview (http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html?q=%2Ftankers%2F17-dmitriy-loza.html)
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.
In his book, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union, Loza also briefly mentions a Sherman tank in his unit shooting down a German attack plane.
ack-ack
-
Like a few other things in this game we see with regular frequency IRL it happened.. Very very VERY rarely. But it happened
-
I shoot allot of planes down with a tank. Most of the tankers do. The planes that come in really low are are at risk to being main gunned. I have had several come back 5 or 6 times and STILL come in low. I don't mind shooting them down, because they result in good perk points. :D :D
-
It should be stopped, but I don't know how to make pilots stop flying the way they do. Until we fix pilots flying in such an unrealistic manner that tanks can main gun them, we will have this goofy part of the game. ;)
-
The simple solution would be to remove GV's.
-
The simple solution would be to remove GV's.
Bout as simple as cutting off a foot to treat a hangnail. ;)
-
Bout as simple as cutting off a foot to treat a hangnail. ;)
I think the GV foot is gangrenous, the hangnail is just a small side problem.
-
I don't see what you are complaining about...a tank fires a turret in three dimensional space. Your plane flies in this three dimensional space. If a tank fires a turret and it happens to hit your plane in this three dimensional space you die. Why is this unrealistic?
-
don't fly straight at a tank's main gun and you won't get shot down by it. But to answer your question, yes there have been recorded incidents in which a tank shot down a plane with its main gun.
The best way to kill airplanes with a tank is to have your gun pointed away from them precisely 180 degrees.
Aces High does not model air burst from shooting trees, and it does not model the explosive plume from shooting the ground. That does not stop that type of fire from killing planes, though. :devil
-
thought experiment:
should tank be able to kill plane sitting still on runway? yes?
should tank be able to kill plane rolling at 20mph on runway? yes?
should tank be able to kill plane rolling at 60mph on runway? yes?
should tank be able to kill plane in air at 85mph, 5 feet above runway? yes?
should tank be able to kill plane in air at 100mph, 50 feet above runway? yes?
etc.
etc.
etc.
why anyone thinks planes should be invulnerable to tank fire is beyond me.
ps.
if it's happening to you all the time, you're flying in a very predictable manner.
-
I think the GV foot is gangrenous, the hangnail is just a small side problem.
if you fly low and straight at a tank he can shoot you....same with the plane past a gv, all a gv'er has to do is lead his target and boom :joystick:
-
I think the GV foot is gangrenous, the hangnail is just a small side problem.
There've been GVs in this game longer than you and I. I'm thinkin' Dale wouldn't share your opinion. ;) :cheers: :salute
-
if you fly low and straight at a tank he can shoot you....same with the plane past a gv, all a gv'er has to do is lead his target and boom :joystick:
It sure would be nice if tankers didn't get a laser rangefinder and commander view with no commander to strafe.. Would make this a tad bit harder.
-
by that same thought, the wirblewind should be better modelled to hit planes then it is, but that's not the case anymore either.
-
Yay Cancer! :noid
-
I had a tanker shoot me down three times in a row once. I was hunting the M3(s) and this guy got me with crossing shots; I was not flying straight at him. I didn't even see him the first two times it happened. He was deadly accurate and IMO, this is just a gamey aspect that I have to accept along with the good I enjoy.
-
I don't see what you are complaining about...a tank fires a turret in three dimensional space. Your plane flies in this three dimensional space. If a tank fires a turret and it happens to hit your plane in this three dimensional space you die. Why is this unrealistic?
Why would you be firing your whole turret at the enemy plane? You only have 1 of those. :devil
-
A tank hitting a plane not flying down into its barrel is rubbish.
We can thank AH tank viewing system for that. If you ever have been sitting in a gunners view position you know why hitting a tank only happened a handful times during a handful of years.
-
ooops
-
The simple solution would be to remove GV's.
Wrong, wrong wrong.
-
Why would you be firing your whole turret at the enemy plane? You only have 1 of those. :devil
:lol I meant shell.
-
Shooting down plnes w/main gun is one of my favorite things. Please do continue to fly low enough for me to do that.
-
I love it when I can nail that con out a range with my main gun. Quite satisfying, specially when it's the lead bomber in a set about to drop. :devil I've also been nipped by the main gun. Sometimes, I just sit there going, "WTF? That was one HELL of a shot! Woo!". Most times it's, "Damn it! Stay away from the pointy end of a turret...spits death at you. :bhead".
Learn to attack tanks properly, and you won't have the issue as much. :) Now if you are like me, and know how to do it, but still go about it half-arsed, well enjoy the hilarity. Because I do. :lol
-
Tanks need the same icon ranges as planes have against them. That would help.
-
don't fly straight at a tank's main gun and you won't get shot down by it. But to answer your question, yes there have been recorded incidents in which a tank shot down a plane with its main gun.
This is an account from Otto Carious' book (page 43).
Dmitriy Loza in an interview was asked a Sherman's AA defenses. Interview source: I Remember - Dmitriy Loza interview (http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html?q=%2Ftankers%2F17-dmitriy-loza.html)
In his book, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union, Loza also briefly mentions a Sherman tank in his unit shooting at German attack plane.
ack-ack
Fixed
Neither of those are recorded incidences they are hearsay...
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/c0985d9d-577a-451d-8302-9a1f10635efd_zps7060e95f.png)
"Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer"
:cheers:
-
I love it when I can nail that con out a range with my main gun. Quite satisfying, specially when it's the lead bomber in a set about to drop. :devil I've also been nipped by the main gun. Sometimes, I just sit there going, "WTF? That was one HELL of a shot! Woo!". Most times it's, "Damn it! Stay away from the pointy end of a turret...spits death at you. :bhead".
Learn to attack tanks properly, and you won't have the issue as much. :) Now if you are like me, and know how to do it, but still go about it half-arsed, well enjoy the hilarity. Because I do. :lol
Well, this is the thing, right? IRL, as Ack pointed out, the pilots had a healthy respect for the 50 cal and were out of the traverse range of motion of the main gun. One of the big differences b/w real life and the game is that the consequences of doing something stupid are much less severe... and so, you hav epeople flying airplanes within the range and elevation of the tank's main guns - some of which are little different from free-standing AA counterparts in all but mounting detail.
This reminds me, i meant to ask about fusing. I thought that a lot of AAA shells have an airburst capability. I presume, but don't know, that this is probably based on some pressure sensor triggerinng. Conceivably, at sufficient altitude, the pressure drop could trigger the explosive. I kind of assume we'd have conventional HE shells on a tank with some kind of impact detonator. I wouldn't, however, expect a tank to be carrying air-burst capable shells. Does anyone know anything about this?
-
I served in an Armored unit as a trainer with a 19D20 MOS so I have a good understanding of tanks and tank sights. If you ever looked through a main gun sight you would understand why no tank in the history of the world ever shot down a flying aircraft with the main gun. At least not on purpose and if they did they never knew it or never reported it and I do not except any claims of the Red Army. If you were buttoned up and driver cross country a 747 could fly right over you at a 100 feet and you may not hear it in a tank.
Here is another way to view it. Lets say you get in the truck of a car with a 22 rifle with a scope with a small hole cut it the trunk lid to put the gun through. Then have someone drive around over rough ground while you try to locate and shot a flying duck. You would have about as much luck as you would trying to hit a aircraft with a main gun. Even if it flew right at you while standing still you would still have a tough time even locating it with the sights and all you could do is fire a blind shot. I think the Russian tanker had it right by just dismounting and move away from your tank and fire at the aircraft with small arms. :cheers:
-
It sure would be nice if tankers didn't get a laser rangefinder and commander view with no commander to strafe.. Would make this a tad bit harder.
+1 on strafable commander...while in the commander position. When the player is in another position (gunner, driver) commander is buttoned up. Wonder if that could be modeled?
-
Well unfortunately my swabbies there is no good way to simulate hand cranks. So untill somebody makes usb crank wheel controllers :ahand
-
I served in an Armored unit as a trainer with a 19D20 MOS
When was this, R105? I only ask because I've read comments from M1 people, in the 2001 era, who said they were trained to use the main gun against aircraft. I've assumed they meant helicopters, and of course they were speaking of conditions 60 years after WWII, but I was just wondering.
- oldman
-
Smooth bore tanks got guided missiles they can shoot aircraft with even. Bottom line what would you have happen when a tank or artillery shell occupies the same space as an aeroplane? A long time ago I was shooting at ships in a shore battery when an nme p38 way out there like 4k flew right into the path of my shell and got cut in two.
-
The simple solution would be to remove GV's.
:headscratch: uuhhh NO!
-
you know there's only a few planes in game that can kill a tank with it's bullets-- and most of them have to use taters .why even try to shoot a tank with-.50cals or .303's or any of the regular ammo in the game..
-
A long time ago I was shooting at ships in a shore battery when an nme p38 way out there like 4k flew right into the path of my shell and got cut in two.
Real photo of a Caribou that flew into a path of a 155 mm artillery round.
(http://www.dhc4and5.org/Caribou_Ha_Thahn.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Personally I think the fix is to make it so the gun is not precisely slaved to the tank commander's view. It's too much fine coordination. I think the gun view should be somewhere within the tank scope's FOV of where the tank commander's looking, no more precise than that.
Wiley.
-
Personally I think the fix is to make it so the gun is not precisely slaved to the tank commander's view. It's too much fine coordination. I think the gun view should be somewhere within the tank scope's FOV of where the tank commander's looking, no more precise than that.
Wiley.
Planes were being killed by tanks, long before we had a commander view.
HiTech
-
I main gun planes while inside the gunners view.
Shelby told me about a method. It's his method so ask him, but if fly straight at me most likely you are going down.
On the subject of an actual confirmed WW2 tank to ftr kill, I don't believe there is one, a couple of claims yes, confirmed...not that I recall.
-
Planes were being killed by tanks, long before we had a commander view.
HiTech
Yup, but at least you'd have to look through the sight to aim at it then. The wide FOV in the commander view is what makes it too easy compared to the real world, specifically with crossing shots.
I would wager if you set R105 up in a tank gunner position and had a Lancaster drone fly straight over him 500 feet up, he'd get it within 3 tries. I bet he could hit a jug within 10.
Wiley.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/njeOuFc.jpg)
enough said
-
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/storch_zps5b9bd84e.jpg)
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/storch2_zpsedfd2ba6.jpg)
:devil
-
Only time I ever main gunned a plane was an F4U that just happened to fly right at me straight up from the tank I was shooting at. No commander view, just gunner from acquisition to detonation.
We probably get more gunnery opportunities in a week than most military pilots got in a career. Low percentage, rare, or nearly impossible things have a greater chance of happening in here.
Wiley.
-
We probably get more gunnery opportunities in a week than most military pilots got in a career.
Many times, if not most of the time, I see a tank approaching an airfield bristling with activity, I see countless fighters (and even tank busters) flying in front of his barrel in the most careless (to word it mildly) way. Trying to strafe down a tank by attacking it frontally from almost level flight. Even Il-2s I see doing this more often then not, instead of taking their time to set up a proper attack run. It's similar to the habit of attacking bomber formations by slowly crawling up their six.
-
Thanks Lusche! Now I know where to aim my sight! :devil :cheers:
-
I shoot allot of planes down with a tank. Most of the tankers do. The planes that come in really low are are at risk to being main gunned. I have had several come back 5 or 6 times and STILL come in low. I don't mind shooting them down, because they result in good perk points.
yup..I will get even lol :salute
-
It's a vicious circle. Tankers complain to be bomb tarded, but as soon as you try to have fun with a B25H or 410 50mm you get lazer shell blown. The difference in AH with RL is the amount of practice we can get, leading to perfection making that one in a lifetime shot a common occurrence. :D
-
What what in the butt
(http://www.dhc4and5.org/Caribou_Ha_Thahn.jpg)
-
Its not even about flying down a tanks main gun barrel guys use the commander view elevate the gun to it max and watch were you are going to exit your pass then fire once you fly by, its not anything to do with aim and maybe 1 out of 5 times they will get you, this is the most effective way of shooting down planes, its obviously gamey nonsense since in RL no commander in his right mind would be looking out his hatch in this situation. T34s seem to have the highest elevation of all the tanks.
-
The simple solution would be to remove GV's.
An easier solution would be to remove you. :D
-
Many times, if not most of the time, I see a tank approaching an airfield bristling with activity, I see countless fighters (and even tank busters) flying in front of his barrel in the most careless (to word it mildly) way. Trying to strafe down a tank by attacking it frontally from almost level flight. Even Il-2s I see doing this more often then not, instead of taking their time to set up a proper attack run. It's similar to the habit of attacking bomber formations by slowly crawling up their six.
Yes, but if you set up properly, some other a$%&(*% is going to get the kill that is RIGHTFULLY YOURS. Meanwhile, if you fail, Tower...
-
Last week I took out a low formation of B-17s with a shore battery, 1 hit and they all went down.
It was very satisfying :D
-
I main gun planes while inside the gunners view.
Shelby told me about a method. It's his method so ask him, but if fly straight at me most likely you are going down.
On the subject of an actual confirmed WW2 tank to ftr kill, I don't believe there is one, a couple of claims yes, confirmed...not that I recall.
I had one of these "It was impossible to hit a plane with a tank's main gun" guys trying to convince me that I could not have hit the La-7 I killed because a gunner never would have been able to see it through the gunsight when I was explaining to him that the gunsight was 100% La-7 engine when I did it. I couldn't see anything other than the spinner and engine of the La-7 flying right at me. This was before the commander's view and tank changes happened.
-
Rufer - 80 tank kills Hs-129 B. MK101 single cannon.
Rudel - 500+ tank kills. Don't know the specific number with Ju87G BK3,7. Some sources 519 tanks.
In AH because of the easy mode tank main gun ability to shoot down planes. I use the IL2 because it is slightly more maneuverable than the Ju87-G2. And easier to setup and recover from a 60-70 degree guns attack against tank engine hatches. You kill AH tanks by using full zoom to orient yourself to the engine hatch. Then dive down, and open up inside of 600. You recover almost on top of the tank while pulling off left or right to avoid the gamey arse shot. Depending on the tank type, 1-4 passes and the tank blows up.
Why did I mention Rufer and Rudel? In WW2 both men's tactics to destroy tanks were dictated by the tank armor, their gun round's penetration ability at range, and the flight maneuverability realistic restrictions of their dog rides. Not by the tank commander's computer coordinated personal view and sighting.
Both were limited to starting their firing pass at the maximum of 300m in a straight pass at the side's of Russian tanks with no sudden redirect jink on exit to foil the tank commanders main gun aim. First because the 37mm and 30mm carbide core rounds were ineffective past 300m against tank armor. Second because their rides were under powered dogs, not maneuverable fighter bombers. Neither the optics nor the tank commanders of WW2 Russian and German tanks dictated attack tactics as in our game, that the IL2 or Ju87-G2 had to perform tree top ACM maneuvers as part of their guns run to fire starting at a maximum of 300m(328yd) to avoid the tank commander's aim portal or the main gunners optic.
The existence of these dog rides and their requirement of a straight line lineup run out side of 300m, with Rufer and Rudel's kill records, showcases tanks did not skeet shoot on the tank commanders whim other than a very rare lucky exception. 80 and 519 tank kills respectively means their tactics would have become common knowledge with tank groups. Along with 599 times for a single tank commander to get lucky since the Ju87 and Hs129 were limited to straight line passes to use their guns effectively against tank armor starting at 300m and closer for maximum effect.
At 328yds in our game where the Ju87 BK3,7 carbide round will kill the T34 early model shot in the side in a low level pass, the T34 kills you almost every pass. So how did Rudel not get killed 519 times being limited to his ride's abilities, the gun's short range penetration power, and the need for a straight startup run from past 300m? Yes Hitech in the past I was shot down by tank main guns on some occasions, few enough I admired the GV driver for his ability. Not like today if I try to use my Ju87 to the gun's strength feeding myself into computer aided optics. You might as well skin all of our tanks as M1 Abrams and issue them (DM11 or AMP)rounds since the IL2 and Ju87 tank hunters are in roughly the same speed range as modern tank hunting helicopters. Some of those Helo are more maneuverable and far more dangerous at much longer ranges than 328yds.
If Rufer and Rudel were any kind of an indicator to tank hunter gun kill success by flying in straight to line up a 328yd maximum range shot in WW2, versus the documented main gun kills of planes. I wonder how Lusche's stats look, pre commander mode optics and post for GV's killing IL2 and Ju87-G2?
-
I wonder how Lusche's stats look, pre commander mode optics and post for GV's killing IL2 and Ju87-G2?
This ain't easy:
- Ju-87G-2 was introduced long after we got the "commander mode" system.
- Il-2 stats were also significantly affected by taking away external views
- generally speaking, a huge, yet numerically unknown share of recorded plane kills by tanks are simply proxies (plane augers, tank gets kill) or pintle gun kills.
- with commander mode also the icon distance system was changed at the same time
So I could only make a general assessment of the air-ground war (k/d, kill shares and do on), but it's in my opinion about impossible for me to make any numerical statement about tanks shooting down planes with the main gun.
-
You guys need to ask Hitech about the first time they ever shot a tank round in the game during testing.
-
You guys need to ask Hitech about the first time they ever shot a tank round in the game during testing.
Why ....did he go where no mans gone before?
-
In my limited non-Ack vehicle experience with other GV, I have hit planes with the MG but, to date never outright killed any planes from that gun position. Seems to be less frequent of a way to kill planes from a "tank" other than against slow hovering storch. Unless you can cross reference assists from GV to deaths of IL2 and Ju or something like that. I have been pilot wounded numerous times by GV MG, then killed by wirbel or fighters.
I suspect you could perform a rough extrapolation using Rufer and Rudel. Against the actual documented ww2 main gun kills of planes in flight during their operational period by Russian tanks against german aircraft. As a basic ratio to effectiveness and survival of the platforms under hostile conditions. Then look at game deaths of IL2 and Ju87-G2 against AH tanks for a ratio. Rufer's actual source of destruction is under contest between ground fire from ack and a VVS pilot. I'm not arguing ack vehicles and their effectiveness in protecting tanks either.
But, then if everyone stopped dancing around the issue, it's obvious in WW2 Rufer and Rudel accomplished what they did because tanks didn't operate with the AH commander view mode. The closest to that in real life is the M1 Abrams using (DM11 or AMP)rounds and it's fire control computer.
-
I think the main advantage game tankers have is being able to control the entire gun from the movement of the mouse. Didn't tanks of that era have to crank a wheel to rotate the turret around then adjust the elevation of the gun? Could they even fire while rotating with a moving target or did the gun have to be fixed/locked before firing? We also have the ability to operate the entire tank from one key position and control input. These factors certainly don't make it harder putting game aircraft down over real life aircraft.
-
I always LMAO when it happens to me.
:cheers: Oz
-
Didn't tanks of that era have to crank a wheel to rotate the turret around then adjust the elevation of the gun?
Some tanks had powered turrets.
ack-ack
-
Last week I took out a low formation of B-17s with a shore battery, 1 hit and they all went down.
It was very satisfying :D
How? When I did it the shell didn't detonate.
-
Man this old whine again. Its simple don't ho a tank and you wont get shot down :devil
-
I don't see what you are complaining about...a tank fires a turret in three dimensional space. Your plane flies in this three dimensional space. If a tank fires a turret and it happens to hit your plane in this three dimensional space you die. Why is this unrealistic?
Let's expand on this a little bit.. The tank gunner doesn't actually hit an aircraft with the main gun.. it lobs a shell into the air and the airplane flies into it. This is the same way bombing fleets from 30k is. The bombers do not actually hit the ships with their bombs... they drop their bombs and the ships run into the bombs.
The shell and the bombs are mindlessly traversing their non-altering paths. It's up to the drivers of the planes and ships to ensure they don't try to occupy the same space at the same time.
-
Man this old whine again. Its simple don't ho a tank and you wont get shot down :devil
Since they have rotating turrets, you always HO a tank :D
-
{Man this old whine again. Its simple don't ho a tank and you wont get shot down}
Then Hitech should mount the Mk108 in the K4 in a manner that wherever you look as the pilot, the tater will fire your line of sight. Then HOing a K4 will be a 360 degree affaire regardless of the direction the pilot is flying. Ooops, some modern attack Helo almost have that with the 30mm slaved to the pilot's 21st century super TrackIR. Back to M1 Abrams and (DM11 or AMP)rounds and it's fire control computer.
But, if I were a lawyer this is moot where GV are concerned because the front page only says: Aces High takes the "art and science of vintage WW1 and WW2 air combat".....
Thus no expectation set of: Aces High takes the "art and science of vintage WW2 ground combat".....
So all we really need is to have M1 Abrams skins made for each of our tanks since only our planes are reasonably limited to WW2 technical limitations. Our tanks are in a whole other time period class when they interact with our WW2 technology limited planes due to their commander mode. I had not thought about it but, unlinking the commander view 360 from turning the turret would place them back in WW2. I watch many tanks these days from full zoom in my IL2, turn the turret in concert with my IL2 timing for the entry or exit shot. I'm more impressed by the ones who understand turning the whole GV to face my attack run with armor too thick for the NS-37 to penetrate. Tanks can turn faster than an IL2 in a tighter circle neutralizing the angle of impact of the 37mm round.
In ww2 tanks often had some form of mobile ack moving with them expecting air attacks. We have bomber formation mode at the players choice. Why not 1-2 mobile ack formation truck or half track mode for tanks. Give them the same unlimited ammo and AI aiming of field ack. But, once destroyed that's it until the player re-ups another tank. If the player is killed the drones disappear. Supplies can fix them but, one box to each vehicle, even if they don't need them. Then you can get rid of the M1 Abrams computer aided main gun shooting planes currently in force.
Some unintended consequences would be mobile ack hoards brought along to frustrate low attacking aircraft by spawn campers or spawners in their assult. Base defenders upping tanks and not wirbels so they can kill jabo while defending against tanks, even using their AI as decoys. The lone M4 rocketeer might get more buildings down in your town with his own AI ack wagons when the lone fighter ups to see why an out of the way town is flashing. Even that GV who always sneeks up to the end of your runway might just make things worse.
-
Many times, if not most of the time, I see a tank approaching an airfield bristling with activity, I see countless fighters (and even tank busters) flying in front of his barrel in the most careless (to word it mildly) way. Trying to strafe down a tank by attacking it frontally from almost level flight. Even Il-2s I see doing this more often then not, instead of taking their time to set up a proper attack run. It's similar to the habit of attacking bomber formations by slowly crawling up their six.
To add to this it is almost impossible to destroy any tank with a frontal attack from an airplane using gunfire.
-
You guys need to ask Hitech about the first time they ever shot a tank round in the game during testing.
Hitech, what happened the first time your team ever shot a tank round in the game during testing?
-
Hitech, what happened the first time your team ever shot a tank round in the game during testing?
He shot down an aircraft from a tank
-
He shot down an aircraft from a tank
Then raised a glass of scotch and released the update... :p
-
To add to this it is almost impossible to destroy any tank with a frontal attack from an airplane using gunfire.
And strafe down a cruiser doing the same ...
-
How? When I did it the shell didn't detonate.
ive done it many times, it detonates, and even does the crater animation in mid air :D
-
(http://www.dhc4and5.org/Caribou_Ha_Thahn.jpg)
"Hey guys - will this count for my ground score? Or my air score?"
-
I love it when I can nail that con out a range with my main gun. Quite satisfying, specially when it's the lead bomber in a set about to drop. :devil I've also been nipped by the main gun. Sometimes, I just sit there going, "WTF? That was one HELL of a shot! Woo!". Most times it's, "Damn it! Stay away from the pointy end of a turret...spits death at you. :bhead".
Learn to attack tanks properly, and you won't have the issue as much. :) Now if you are like me, and know how to do it, but still go about it half-arsed, well enjoy the hilarity. Because I do. :lol
:rofl :rofl That me too Volron!! :x
-
Now if you are like me, and know how to do it, but still go about it half-arsed, well enjoy the hilarity. Because I do.
That just about sums it up for me :aok
-
I'd wager most the griefers getting nailed are deck lancs and A20's.....difficult to feel sympathy there
-
Solution: the only weapon that would shoot from command view is the m4 rockets.
There would still be planes getting hit by the main gun, but only in the situations like one of the guys mentioned where the spinner fills the entire reticle view.
Its only happened to me a few times, but there's a solution. My guess I'd that it didn't happen often in the war because they were looking through the sight wherever they fired the main.
-
Hitech, what happened the first time your team ever shot a tank round in the game during testing?
The first time I tried it online for testing, pyro and I were going to make sure planes could see your bullets and turrets move correctly. Pyro was about 1500 yards out flying with me off is right wing. I thought wouldn't it be fun to shoot at him. So I shoot the first bullet fired online by a tank in AH, and nail him with a 1500 yard crossing shot. We spent the next few hours before finally verifying it was not a bug and I really got that lucky.
HiTech
-
The first time I tried it online for testing, pyro and I were going to make sure planes could see your bullets and turrets move correctly. Pyro was about 1500 yards out flying with me off is right wing. I thought wouldn't it be fun to shoot at him. So I shoot the first bullet fired online by a tank in AH, and nail him with a 1500 yard crossing shot. We spent the next few hours before finally verifying it was not a bug and I really got that lucky.
HiTech
This is a complaint ender. :salute
-
How? When I did it the shell didn't detonate.
They were quartering away from me when it happened so a pass through would account for 2 of them, but 2 of them blew instantly and the 3rd came down with half a wing so I assumed the shell detonated.
Wish I had it on film.
-
Yeah, don't fly right at em and you'll be fine!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gErBZ8lhxY
-
WOW guys,alot of good information on this subject,it wasnt soo much any whinning as it was just the possibility of the shot itself.after looking at different situations that occur during.after considering the conditions,expertise of the enemy,the happenstance of the position of your plane and the actual evidence brought to light i feel much better knowing it can and does and probably will happen again the future!! :salute
-
WOW guys,alot of good information on this subject,it wasnt soo much any whinning as it was just the possibility of the shot itself.after looking at different situations that occur during.after considering the conditions,expertise of the enemy,the happenstance of the position of your plane and the actual evidence brought to light i feel much better knowing it can and does and probably will happen again the future!! :salute
:O
Somebody changed their mind on the internet... does that mean an angel gets its wings? :angel:
Wiley.
-
I tested the Ju87-G tactics developed to kill both T-34 versions and heavier russian tanks with a single pass.
1. - Angle of attack when shooting aligns the trajectory 90 degrees to the armor.
2. - Hold fire until 50-60 yards from the tank.
Results was that I killed both T-34 in a single firing pass(one trigger tap) when I attacked the upper 60 degree armor in a 30 degree dive. I killed both tigers and panther in two passes. The panzers and M4's flying level to the ground in a single pass.
Rudel killed 519 Russian tanks using this tactic. Not a single tank commander watched him coming in his 1500 yard lineup run with the turret turning following his eyes and at 50 yards killed Rudel because Rudel flew down his gun barrel.
Our WW2 planes are limited to WW2 tech while our WW2 tanks are using computer aided target acquisition aiming tech.
-
Simple solution to many, many bbs whines about the "gamey" aspects of AH: No aircraft should be able to fire a weapon or release ords from F3 view, and no GV should be able to fire its weapons (any weapons, not just the main gun) from the commander position.
And +100 on the GV commander being able to be killed by fire if the position is occupied and the commander (who currently exists only as a ghost) is hit. Bomber gunners can be killed, pilots can be killed. GV commanders should be able to be killed as well.
-
The first time I tried it online for testing, pyro and I were going to make sure planes could see your bullets and turrets move correctly. Pyro was about 1500 yards out flying with me off is right wing. I thought wouldn't it be fun to shoot at him. So I shoot the first bullet fired online by a tank in AH, and nail him with a 1500 yard crossing shot. We spent the next few hours before finally verifying it was not a bug and I really got that lucky.
HiTech
Thats AH gold right there :rofl
-
Simple solution to many, many bbs whines about the "gamey" aspects of AH: No aircraft should be able to fire a weapon or release ords from F3 view, and no GV should be able to fire its weapons (any weapons, not just the main gun) from the commander position.
Not even the pintle mounted mg, when available?
-
Not even the pintle mounted mg, when available?
I have never been able to fire the pintle MG from the commander position...
-
Simple solution to many, many bbs whines about the "gamey" aspects of AH: No aircraft should be able to fire a weapon or release ords from F3 view, and no GV should be able to fire its weapons (any weapons, not just the main gun) from the commander position.
And +100 on the GV commander being able to be killed by fire if the position is occupied and the commander (who currently exists only as a ghost) is hit. Bomber gunners can be killed, pilots can be killed. GV commanders should be able to be killed as well.
Yes!
-
In order for GV commanders to be killed! They would first have to be able to "button up",, since they can't ,,,ect,ect,ect,,, For an air combat game some of you sure spend a lot of time shooting at stuff on the ground!
:noid
-
I have never been able to fire the pintle MG from the commander position...
Well, obviously, I don't fly GVs much. However, it seems to stand to reason to me that, if you have a "commander's position" and if the tank had a pintle-mounted mg mounted in close proximity to the commander's hatch, that that gun there is intended to be useful to the commander and that the "commander's position" is some kind of sham if it has magical powers that don't include the rather practical power of using the pintle gun intended for his use.
What the hell is this "commander's position"? It sounds like something that doesn't have a lot of real world parallel, unless you consider, let's say a middle management position in a large corporation in which you've got certain powers outside your job description and traditional role but are completely disempowered in ways that people in your position traditionally are not.
-
Solution: the only weapon that would shoot from command view is the m4 rockets.
There would still be planes getting hit by the main gun, but only in the situations like one of the guys mentioned where the spinner fills the entire reticle view.
Its only happened to me a few times, but there's a solution. My guess I'd that it didn't happen often in the war because they were looking through the sight wherever they fired the main.
I only will shoot at planes through the gun sight not commanders position, much more accurate. When I see one coming in for a run I switch to gun site and fire when he is maybe 200 out? Aim slightly above as shell drop is severe. Also using a hill as a ramp is useful or trees nearby as many will just auger trying for the kill. :ahand Try it you'll like it. :devil
-
If this isn't going to change, at least introduce the Hs 129 B2\B3.
Hs 129 B3 - BK 7.5 at 1500m(1640yd) penetrates 110mm(4.3in) of plate.
You can imagine what happens closer in since Hs 129 B3 killed Joseph Stalin tanks and blew a 3ft dia hole in the side of T-34. You won't need to perk the B3 since tankers will have computer aided target acquisition and the main gun slaved to commander mode. This will keep the B2 with MK101\103 and 30mm ammo from getting inside of 100yd where that ammo killed real world KV-1 and KV-2 tanks at 50m-60m.
The current commander mode already keeps the Ju87 G2 from getting inside of 100yd where the BK 3.7 carbide core round single salvo kills both T-34.
Anyone can test this offline. Put out a T-34 as a drone at a medium field on the runway. Up the Ju87 to 1000ft. Start your run at the T-34's side from 1500yd. At 800yd dive at the T-34. Hold fire until inside of 100yd. Shoot into the 60 degree armor above the track skirt. If you hit below it, the rounds are going into the track wheels and plate at an oblique angle doing nothing. Same problem encountered by the Ju87 and Hs129 pilots. Once you get the aim and firing range down, Both T-34 go boom in one pass like they did in WW2.
Sadly the NS-37 round in the IL2 is not good enough to accomplish this inside of 100yd. Took up to 4 passes to finally kill either T-34 with this tactic. Shooting the engine hatch from a 45-70 degree angle works, starting firing at 600, 400 is better. First pass cracks the hatch and smokes the engine. Second kills the tank. If, the commander doesn't main gun wing shoot you in bound on the first pass from being at too shallow an angle. Or on your pull up. Even on the second pass the commander can get you. Because the IL2 was not designed as a dive bomber, you have a good chance of killing yourself anyway trying to pull out of your dive. In early testing, IL2 pilots were lost discovering how poor the IL2 was at dive bombing.
So Aces High tank busting has been turned into playing Russian roulette with who kills you first. The main gun from commander mode, a wirbel just spawned in, or your guns run dive angle to defeat either defenses. Wirbles were designed to kill planes. Tanks were not with the caveat that the germans respected the M2 on M4 so much, they made sure to release their bombs from the vertical and pull out above it's effective range.
-
Give the B-25H the 5 rounds of AP they carried for the pumpkin chucker.
-
I've shot down so many aircraft with a tank main gun I can't count them and not once have I done so in commander view. I've always been in the gun turret as my accuracy there is significantly higher. After all these years of practice the likelyhood of a plane flying straight at me within my elevation range and escaping alive is somewhere in the 10-20% range.
From the main turret I've also gotten kills an several crossing shots. The most memorable was while sitting on an enemy airfield hidden in a hanger. I killed a fighter on the crossing runway just after wheels up, sort of like taking a hip shot at a bird with a rifle. Lucky.
One other memorable experience was on Trinity. I was at one of the V-bases at the end of a canyon on the south side of the map. Lancasters had just made a run and were turning for home just over the mountain tops. I kept firing and missing, adjusting my shots and trying again and just as they flew out of icon range, BOOM... a Lanc goes down.
The advent of the Storch has allowed me to further refine my ability at hitting on crossing shots as they are slow and typically low enough to be in elevation range, turning what, in the past, might have been a lucky shot into a more predictable outcome.
Again, I NEVER use commander view. I simply practice practice practice and take advantage of those pilots who are idiots. I highly doubt real life WWII tank crews as a whole had the opportunity to put as much time into this as, even I as a single individual, have been able to in game.
-
You were probably the rare person who shot down my IL2 years ago before commander mode. Before commander mode, pretty much every tank I attacked who didn't have an ack panzer to cover it, I could fly my IL2 into it without being main gunned. Top machine gun was a real threat like in the real war if I was not careful.
Commander mode links the commander and main gun to your joystick or mouse with your feet steering from your rudder pedals. So the least skilled GV driver today is pointing his main gun at you at all times. So then it's hit Key_2 or have your elevation set and fire. Since commander mode almost all GV I watch from full zoom are tracking my IL2 or Ju87 while I circle waiting to dive in. I watch other planes and tanks from full zoom and see this along with planes left and right being main gunned during their attack runs.
Attack runs against tanks require committing to at least 1000yds of straight flight at the tank. Part of this is to straighten the flight path so there is no yaw and a steady AoA for the cannon rounds or rockets. There is no fancy ACM jinking possible to address the BS being thrown around these days of, "just don't fly straight into their main gun". With the commander mode and main gun linked together, any direction you make your run from is flying into the main gun. That is the same as M1 Abrams computer aided target acquisition and optics for our tanks, while attack planes are limited to WW2 manual controlled tech and the current shortened GV icon ranges.
Then in WW2 the commander buttoned up the hatch when planes were around because like the pilot of a plane he was vulnerable to gun fire and proximity explosions or like the Russians evacuated the tank all together and fired at the tank busters from the bushes as they passed by on their run. And then there were the Americans in their M4 with M2 mounted on the top.
-
I fly Il-2's a lot and get shot down by tank main guns occasionally. I don't come diving down in steep angles on tanks to fire on them for several reasons. First is that I need to be firing at close range to see the target, to hit it, and to penetrate, and pulling out under those conditions isn't usually too workable. Second is that if I'm not down in among the trees, Wirbles can nail me easily as I'm scouting around for things. Third is that it takes a while to climb back up, position, etc., compared to staying low.
Not all tankers hit me going in. Some are very good (like BaldEagle and Tyfoo as a couple examples), but most people are not perfect shots. Still, if the guy is a good shot, on my next life, I'm more careful and try feinting or jinking in, waiting for the shot, then trying to get in before they reload, or I try harder to come in with a larger angle, or I try to coordinate with another attacker.
I do suspect it was not as easy in real WWII tanks to shoot airplanes out of the sky, especially in tanks that are maneuvering as they shoot at you. But I don't know for sure, and it doesn't bother me much. It's still fun to go after tanks with Il-2's, flying around at treetop level.
-
Commanders position should be "woundable." I have said this for years. If HTC bothers to model the pilot space as a "woundable" area, the same should go for the physical space occupied by the tc. Not more ridiculous then strafing a gv with an il2s cannon and getting pilot wounded by a 7mm Pinole gun. Iirc you have to hit the gun itself and get x damage to put it out of action. A bit much. I have always been of the opinion that the tc must go to position 2 to spare himself from being pw.
On tanks shooting down planes... I doubt any tanker has fired has many rounds as even some of the moderately experienced ah'rs. If you have fired tens of thousands tank rounds, you could probably do what we do in the game, but like flying a corsair inverted at 200feet with full flaps and gear out, there is no first hand record of this being a standard practice. Do not go down the gun target line of a tank. If you are a tanker... always load he for ac and for the heavy tanks so you can knock their track off and then pick them to pieces.....
Dirtdart
-
Commanders position should be "woundable."
I don't disagree, but then HTC would have first to provide "buttoned up" stations to all tanks, which is a lot of additional work.
-
If this is a Air or WWII combat simulator?.... what part of WWII air or war combat is tanks shooting planes with their main gun simulating?
You can't simulate something that didn't happen.
You have 2-3 real life tankers in the game saying that it is hog wash.
:rolleyes:
-
Cause it did happen :cheers:
-
If this is a Air or WWII combat simulator?.... what part of WWII air or war combat is tanks shooting planes with their main gun simulating?
You can't simulate something that didn't happen.
You have 2-3 real life tankers in the game saying that it is hog wash.
:rolleyes:
No, this is a air combat or WWII GAME. If it was meant to simulate WWII we'd have Axis and Allies and real maps and when you logged on you'd have to wait to be assigned a role in a scenario.
Real life tankers had real life considerations, like not wasting thousands or even tens of thousands of rounds learning how to shoot down aircraft. Here the ammo is unlimited. You either get resupplied or get a new tank.
-
If this is a Air or WWII combat simulator?.... what part of WWII air or war combat is tanks shooting planes with their main gun simulating?
You can't simulate something that didn't happen.
You have 2-3 real life tankers in the game saying that it is hog wash.
:rolleyes:
I have been the 'victim' of been shot down by tanks while in a plane. However, it was my own stupidity that got me killed, not what the other player did or the tool he used. Just because it didn't happen on a daily basis doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible in the game. It wouldn't happen "so often" if players would fly and attack tanks correctly and attack from high angles, rather than rush in and wonder why they died. Don't blame the mechanics, blame the player!
We as the players get multiple tries to attack the same target. If we fail one way we can try another way until we succeed. It isn't HTC's fault that players decided to go around the same mountain and get bored or annoyed, it is the player's fault for not broadening their scope and trying out new methods and ways of gameplay.
-
I have been the 'victim' of been shot down by tanks while in a plane. However, it was my own stupidity that got me killed, not what the other player did or the tool he used. Just because it didn't happen on a daily basis doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible in the game. It wouldn't happen "so often" if players would fly and attack tanks correctly and attack from high angles, rather than rush in and wonder why they died. Don't blame the mechanics, blame the player!
It's not a matter of arguing whether it should be possible. It's a matter of whether the game is artificially making it easier than it should be. IE, the tank commander's position making it too easy to track incoming air attackers and aim the gun, optics that are much clearer than they should be making it easier to line up on an air target, or turrets that aren't operating under historical motion restrictions (someone I believe pointed out that some tanks couldn't adjust elevation and rotation simultaneously, or that for others the turret had to be locked for firing). And I find it hilarious you're talking about players for not attacking tanks "correctly," when they're using the same tactics dictated BY ACTUAL TANK BUSTERS DURING THE WAR (IE, low-level strafing passes firing into the side armor at close range).
It's not that different from the arguments about BUFF gunners having it easier than they ought to. It's more than just us as players having more practice time; bombers in the game are much more stable gunnery platforms in the game than they should be (no turbulence, static environment, the camera set perfectly on the iron sights of waist positions and never wavering).
-
The gamey bit is when the tanks shoot HE into the ground 2 feet away from them killing the strafing aircraft while they go undamaged.
-
It is amazing to me that poor SA on the pilots part is blamed on the non flying tank trying not to get killed by an AIRPLANE, don't like getting shot at by tanks!! Stay away from the ground!
Tanks can't fly, they can't bomb, they can't go very fast,, they have one defensive tool, their guns,, and you want to nerf that as well? You have the whole sky to avoid them, and yet you come here and whine about them shooting you down because you were to close to the ground!
if your complaining about getting shot up on the runway while taking off I'm guessing you forgot to look around and see why the base was flashing to start with,
The trains in this game will shoot you down quick enough but no one complains about that, we need more trains,more armed convoys, more town and factory defenses,, keep the planes at alt, fighting each other instead of vulching tanks and whining about it when it doesn't work out!
Well that's my rant for the day!
-
Killed my first plane today on my 5th try ,,, on a 90 degree deflection shot non the less. I like that gamy stuff, the satisfaction was i n t e n s e :t
Forget other tanks, I'll hunt airplanes in GVs.
-
It is amazing to me that poor SA on the pilots part is blamed on the non flying tank trying not to get killed by an AIRPLANE, don't like getting shot at by tanks!! Stay away from the ground!
Tanks can't fly, they can't bomb, they can't go very fast,, they have one defensive tool, their guns,, and you want to nerf that as well? You have the whole sky to avoid them, and yet you come here and whine about them shooting you down because you were to close to the ground!
if your complaining about getting shot up on the runway while taking off I'm guessing you forgot to look around and see why the base was flashing to start with,
The trains in this game will shoot you down quick enough but no one complains about that, we need more trains,more armed convoys, more town and factory defenses,, keep the planes at alt, fighting each other instead of vulching tanks and whining about it when it doesn't work out!
Well that's my rant for the day!
Whiskey makes a good point. If you up a flashing base you will either get vulched or killed by a GV. That's the risk you take.
Tank turrets cannot aim very high. Get some altitude and the tanks will not hit you. I'd be more concerned with ant Wirbles or ostwinds down there.
:salute
-
Whiskey makes a good point. If you up a flashing base you will either get vulched or killed by a GV. That's the risk you take.
Tank turrets cannot aim very high. Get some altitude and the tanks will not hit you. I'd be more concerned with ant Wirbles or ostwinds down there.
:salute
Can't believe I've missed this thread so far.
Shooting down planes trying to strafe me is one of my favorite things to do. and since we have impenetrable trees made of the strongest thing on Earth in the game, I also enjoy putting a HE shell in the top of a tree as a plane flies low over it. Same works for putting an HE in the ground right in front of you if a plane is making a low pass over you.
-
I always smile when I see some guy strafing a tank while skimming the trees. Bad practice. If the tanks don't shoot 'em, the trees claim many.
Never attack a GV at less than a 45 degree angle. The exceptions are M3s and Jeeps. Even then, they have a machine gun and the trees can be a surprise.
If the GV is a Wirbelwind or Ostwind, I prefer to dive bomb almost vertically. This makes it hard for them to get guns on you. Shooting straight up is the toughest shot for the Wirbel and Osti.
When possible, double-team the Wirbel and Osti. One draws fire while the other attacks.
-
So all of you tank gods, tell us how Rudel pulled off killing 519 tanks in WW2 with his BK 3.7 cannons with a Ju87 inside of 100m. Let alone AH tankers snap shoot that slow moving coffin from the air left and right since the introduction of commander mode. While all of you are at it, Do I need to start calling out WW2 writers, researchers, and historians for not consulting you about it? And all of the diaries of all the WW2 pilots who were there with Rudel? Are you tacitly saying they are all lieing?
This is a game using ww2 equipment. In ww2 the tanks did not shoot down airplanes like our tank gods in AH do. Or is Rudel's record a lie?
Which is it guys?
And Widewing,
Rudel and Ruffer both fired inside of 100yds at a 30 degree angle to pierce the 60 degree upper side armor of the T-34(s). Hitech has modeled the BK 3.7 carbide round correctly, which I proved in testing. The Ju87 G2 is modeled just fine to kill tanks in the same manner Rudel killed 519 tanks in ww2. The game is not modeling ww2 tanks as faithfully(restrictively) as the aircraft are modeled.
So Widewing have you tested the BK 3.7 offline in the manner I outlined from the real war tactics used by Ju87 and Hs 129 pilots in Russia?
-
Can't believe I've missed this thread so far.
Shooting down planes trying to strafe me is one of my favorite things to do. and since we have impenetrable trees made of the strongest thing on Earth in the game, I also enjoy putting a HE shell in the top of a tree as a plane flies low over it. Same works for putting an HE in the ground right in front of you if a plane is making a low pass over you.
At the same time, tree branches protect your tank from just about anything. The leaves are made of kevlar and the wood is filled with concrete it seems.
We would not have to strafe GVs if the ords in A-bases were not kept in camping-tents that can be strafed down with machine guns. If BS like tanks firing at planes is to stay in the game, the proper counter is bombs on the planes. If GVs dont want to be bombed by planes they should attack V-bases. If someone attacks an A-base, I have a special little thing filled with 4000 lbs of explosives and dirty underwear ready for the perked tanks. As long as I have that, please, fire away with the main gun.
The problem is that a single P-51/LA7 will come along in a suicide run and strafe down the ord bunkers, completely disabling ordnance in one fell gamy swoop. There's also a twist on that that involve a B17/24 at 20,000 feet with laser guided bombs. The appropriate gamy balancy thingy to do is that destroying ord bunker also disable ammo for the main guns of tanks (and put an ord bunker in V-fields). How about that? It is only logical that tank shells are kept in the same tent as the 500 lbs bombs.
-
The tanks would have their basic load out regardless. Ammo resupply should not be possible. There is no distinction between repair parts and ammunition.
Snailman, I do not really know how the programming works. But, if a player is being shot at and they go to position 2, could that void them from position 1? In bombers, the gunners I guess are never wounded, they weapon is destroyed or not.
Widewing, I started flying the gun stuka toward the end of my playing time. If there were no WWs, you could probably pull off angled attacks. If there were, dodging the "Kevlar/steel/unobtanium" lined trees was generally very effective. With other airplanes in the air, WW gunners typically scan in a arc oriented up, not sideways. So, had a pretty good MO flying around on the deck poping tanks and WWs. Come charging out of the woods pow pow pop! Or, pow pow tower!
Dirtdart
-
Bustr and dirtdart, I wasn't commenting on Ju 87s and IL-2s. I should have been more specific. I was referring to the guys in fighters who strafe low. Many don't pull off, but overfly.
Strafing with MGs is usually not productive on tanks, except for the Hetzer and M18. Both can be killed by MG fire concentrated on the top armor. Cannon armed fighters can disable a track or engine on heavier tanks. Against heavier tanks, the 40mm in the Hurricane IID is the most effective, with the 37mm in the Yak-9T next. Both are most effective against top armor. I find the 37mm on the P-39 is marginally useful. It will kill lightly armored vehicles, but is largely useless against the typical tank.
Now, to the WWs. I'll up a WW for base defense. I have tracers turned off. Why show everyone that you're there, or exactly where you are? For me, low level attackers are toast... I get a lot of kills on passing high angle deflection shots (no doubt aided by 30 years of trap, skeet and sporting clays). Again, for me, the toughest attack to spot and to meet is a pure vertical dive bomb run. I figured if it's hard for me to defend, it should be hard for others too. I can't recall the last time I even took damage from a WW when attacking this way. Especially, if I corkscrew the dive a bit. I use that tactic if I'm defending alone. I'll drop one bomb from about 1k up. If there are multiple WWs and they are supporting each other, I'll drop at least two from a higher altitude. The other day, I found four WWs lined up in almost perfect spacing. I pickled off 4 bombs in sequence. Killed #1, #2, #3 and tracked #4. A friendly GV killed him a few minutes later.
Naturally, the best way to deal with WWs is to double-team them. In this scenario, you don't want or need pure vertical attacks. It takes some cooperation, but two properly armed aircraft can kill any WW easily if they work the tactics right. One rolls in first. The second rolls in a few seconds later, from the opposite direction. The WW driver has to choose one or the other. Which ever one he fires on, that plane pulls off and jinks. The second aircraft, unopposed, kills the WW.
Many WW drivers fail to recognize the coordinated attackers and re-up over and over, with the same result every time. If both are in bombers like the A-20 or Tu-2, when out of bombs, one of the pair goes to rearm. The second harasses the enemy and keeps him occupied. When rearmed, they switch. When the second aircraft returns, the routine is once again implemented. If it's one A-20 and a Stuka or IL-2, rearming will depend on what is expended.
It continues until the GVs either quit or decide to get an aircraft to either pork the ordnance or attack the aircraft. Killing the ord doesn't always help much, because we can still rearm.
-
I don't disagree, but then HTC would have first to provide "buttoned up" stations to all tanks, which is a lot of additional work.
Re: "buttoned up"
when you are not in the commander's position, i.e. you're looking through the gunsite..... the commander's position is buttoned up. Every GV in this game can be driven from that position if aircraft are in the area.
maybe it's just me, but if I can be insta-towered by a single shot pilot kill in an aircraft, the same should apply to GVs. If you are driving from the commander's position and you take a .50 cal to the head, it should be insta-tower, not just loss of that crew position.
-
So all of you tank gods, tell us how Rudel pulled off killing 519 tanks in WW2 with his BK 3.7 cannons with a Ju87 inside of 100m. Let alone AH tankers snap shoot that slow moving coffin from the air left and right since the introduction of commander mode. While all of you are at it, Do I need to start calling out WW2 writers, researchers, and historians for not consulting you about it? And all of the diaries of all the WW2 pilots who were there with Rudel? Are you tacitly saying they are all lieing?
This is a game using ww2 equipment. In ww2 the tanks did not shoot down airplanes like our tank gods in AH do. Or is Rudel's record a lie?
Which is it guys?
...The difference is, our lives don't depend on the limited ammunition we're carrying to defend us from other tanks/complete our mission. We have unlimited ammunition and nothing at stake, so we can afford to take the low percentage shot at the aircraft. They couldn't. Couple that with the limited traverse things Saxman mentioned, and that's the reason.
I hadn't realized there were limitations IRL on how the turret could move. I'm guessing it's not in the game for the same reason engine management isn't in the planes, it's not fun.
Wiley.
-
Also, . . .
I think everyone confuses the presence of a commander's position with the presence of an un-buttoned commander turret. Instead, you might consider that it is compensation for the lack of modeling of the turrents (where turrents exist they would be the glass views at the commander's cupola position), or periscopes. Since the driver positions have been removed it would be extremely prejudicial to decide to make vehicles subject to a single bullet kill.
-
Widewing, I think the topic at end is not the bombing part. It's the use of planes like the 410 with the 50mm or the B25H that are rendered useless in AH against a descent tanker. Kind of like torpedo planes that are blown up by a 5" gunner before they can even get in range from the fleet. It's restricting the range of "things to do" to have fun in Aces High.
-
Widewing, I think the topic at end is not the bombing part. It's the use of planes like the 410 with the 50mm or the B25H that are rendered useless in AH against a descent tanker.
Absolutely not. I never had any problems using any tank buster, be it Il-2, B25H or even the 410 (though it's somewhat more limited due to it's HE ammo) against even "decent tankers", because in about any plane you can stay out of the main gun's limited vertical arc of fire.
It's been extremely rare for me to be main gunned, and usually it's just because of a very sloppy approach on my part, for which a good tanker can make me pay.
-
Rudel and Ruffer both fired inside of 100yds at a 30 degree angle
BS
-
some weather would be nice, a good solid cloud layer @1000 foot agl every now and then.
-
Absolutely not. I never had any problems using any tank buster, be it Il-2, B25H or even the 410 (though it's somewhat more limited due to it's HE ammo) against even "decent tankers", because in about any plane you can stay out of the main gun's limited vertical arc of fire.
It's been extremely rare for me to be main gunned, and usually it's just because of a very sloppy approach on my part, for which a good tanker can make me pay.
Nice you are much better than me, I have trouble diving with a B25 and 410. Diving is easy, recovery is scary and usually brings me low enough to get mainguned. To be noted, Tanks are rarely alone when you attacking one you are often in some's elevation of a nearby one. :)
-
Despite the danger, it is a lot of fun to be flying an Il-2 around at treetop level, using the terrain for cover, working to shoot GV's in their sides. :aok
-
To be noted, Tanks are rarely alone when you attacking one you are often in some's elevation of a nearby one. :)
But even if you are, you are only very rarely blown out of the sky, because most players won't hit you at all if you are not riding down the barrel. In my years of hunting tanks in tankbusters, I found that being essentially a non issue. I die to wirbels, by augering next tot he tank (doh!) and occasionally to an enemy fighter. I'm very rarely maingunned by a tank I'm attacking, and being hit by another tank further out happened maybe like 3 or 4 times to me.
-
Despite the danger, it is a lot of fun to be flying an Il-2 around at treetop level, using the terrain for cover, working to shoot GV's in their sides. :aok
That's in fact something I try to do when the Gv attacking the town is a Wirbel or Ostwind ... tense stuff :aok
-
That's in fact something I try to do when the Gv attacking the town is a Wirbel or Ostwind ... tense stuff :aok
Indeed. They usually get me, but it is so much fun when I'm able to sneak around some hills, use trees for cover, so that the Wirb can't see me, then pop up for a quick shot close in.
-
I hadn't realized there were limitations IRL on how the turret could move. I'm guessing it's not in the game for the same reason engine management isn't in the planes, it's not fun.
You guess wrong. The turret limitations are modeled.
HiTech
-
Bah bah bayham! :devil
-
You guess wrong. The turret limitations are modeled.
HiTech
Maybe you should start some small technical news post on the website on what/how you model. It could go a long way in educating/promoting?
-
Nice you are much better than me, I have trouble diving with a B25 and 410. Diving is easy, recovery is scary and usually brings me low enough to get mainguned. To be noted, Tanks are rarely alone when you attacking one you are often in some's elevation of a nearby one. :)
Well, diving an B-25 can be exciting.... 410s, not so much. Still, a vertical attack in a B-25 will often result in an auger or the missing of important parts....
-
Well, diving an B-25 can be exciting.... 410s, not so much. Still, a vertical attack in a B-25 will often result in an auger or the missing of important parts....
I'd still love to see the 5-round AP mix added for the 75mm. I'd imagine that would make a huge difference for the B-25H as an anti-tank platform.
-
I'd still love to see the 5-round AP mix added for the 75mm. I'd imagine that would make a huge difference for the B-25H as an anti-tank platform.
It means I don't have to spend a year getting into a position that doesn't have me hitting the ground or trees after making my attack run. :)
-
BS
So kvuo please explain to our audience how the Hs129 and Ju87 pilots did it then. When their training tactics required shooting under 100m, generally 50m-60m, so their carbide core rounds had enough energy to breach the side armor of Russian tanks. The point of the 30 degree attack angle was the penetration of the armor at 90 degrees.
I believe Hitech has modeled the BK 3.7 carbide round faithfully. Since I can only get a one shot kill on both T-34 from a 30 degree angle against the upper 60 degree sloped armor from 50-60 yards away. Any farther out, and it's repeated passes as I tick down the damage counter on the armor.
But, please kvuo tell us how the Hs129 and Ju87 pilots really accomplished.
-
At the same time, tree branches protect your tank from just about anything. The leaves are made of kevlar and the wood is filled with concrete it seems.
We would not have to strafe GVs if the ords in A-bases were not kept in camping-tents that can be strafed down with machine guns. If BS like tanks firing at planes is to stay in the game, the proper counter is bombs on the planes. If GVs dont want to be bombed by planes they should attack V-bases. If someone attacks an A-base, I have a special little thing filled with 4000 lbs of explosives and dirty underwear ready for the perked tanks. As long as I have that, please, fire away with the main gun.
The problem is that a single P-51/LA7 will come along in a suicide run and strafe down the ord bunkers, completely disabling ordnance in one fell gamy swoop. There's also a twist on that that involve a B17/24 at 20,000 feet with laser guided bombs. The appropriate gamy balancy thingy to do is that destroying ord bunker also disable ammo for the main guns of tanks (and put an ord bunker in V-fields). How about that? It is only logical that tank shells are kept in the same tent as the 500 lbs bombs.
If GV's don't want to get bombed......attack v bases? Where have you been? GV's always get bomb****ied at v-bases. bomb****ies spend thirty minutes getting altitude to kill the GV in the crater in Grebo's new terrain. Many of them are tankers that haven't put in the time to learn GV's. Others cannot dogfight so they find something much easier to learn...bomb the tanks. :D.
Many tankers take the time to go and take down ords at the nearby airfields for one reason.....to enjoy the tank fights without the bomb****ies. I hope the new terrain engine gives GV's more cover and camofauge.
If you are tired of tanks main gunning your plane spend some time with a trainer. They are there to help.
:salute
-
I hadn't realized there were limitations IRL on how the turret could move. I'm guessing it's not in the game for the same reason engine management isn't in the planes, it's not fun.
Some tanks have a really slow moving turret like the Panzer F and the Tiger 1, while both T-34's versions have very fast moving turrets. One of the reasons I use the T-34/85 is because I and can swing the turret around and hit a low flying plane in the six with an HE round. I have done it more times than I can remember.
:salute
-
If GV's don't want to get bombed......attack v bases? Where have you been? GV's always get bomb****ied at v-bases. bomb****ies spend thirty minutes getting altitude to kill the GV in the crater in Grebo's new terrain. Many of them are tankers that haven't put in the time to learn GV's. Others cannot dogfight so they find something much easier to learn...bomb the tanks. :D.
Many tankers take the time to go and take down ords at the nearby airfields for one reason.....to enjoy the tank fights without the bomb****ies. I hope the new terrain engine gives GV's more cover and camofauge.
If you are tired of tanks main gunning your plane spend some time with a trainer. They are there to help.
:salute
Two things.... People should not fly planes to tank town. Let them have their fun in peace. Not every map has a dedicated tank town. So, there are well know locations where the GVs will have a big brawl. For the most part, flyers should stay away from those places.
Second, where I see no effort to capture the bases, I sometimes talk with the red guys and if they are just looking for a tank fight, I let them have their fight. If I believe that the GVs are going for a base capture.... No soup for them.
There are exceptions of course. One or two tanks shooting up a remote base isn't looking for a fight. Those boys will be sent home....
-
What AH needs is a special tank radar that will illuminate tanks at ground and then homing bombs, fire and forget. Best solution to gv problem ever.
-
Well, diving an B-25 can be exciting.... 410s, not so much. Still, a vertical attack in a B-25 will often result in an auger or the missing of important parts....
I'd still love to see the 5-round AP mix added for the 75mm. I'd imagine that would make a huge difference for the B-25H as an anti-tank platform.
The 75mm gun in the B25 is now very effective against armor. HE ammunition I believe. Did they use AP rounds in it historically?
What I'd really love to see in the game is the Mossie XVIII (Tze-Tze) with the Mollins 57 mm cannon. This is a proper anti-tank auto-cannon that seen extensive use as a ground weapon before being installed in the Mossie. Very high muzzle velocity, accurate, and good armor penetration. The XVIII mossie was initially meant for the tank busting role, but ended up busting ships and U-boats instead. Only something like 45 were in service, but they all saw a lot of action. The XVIII was a converted VI with extra armor, so modeling wise it can probably use a lof of the VI parts we have. It will not be a hot rod as our VI due to the extra weight, but will be more durable with the added armor, and still out perform any other heavy AP cannon bird that we have in speed and climb.
-
I like the idea of those (Tilt is going to kill me, I cannot recall the model #) Russian shaped charge bomblets the IL-2 carried. Those would be a game changer for GVs and possibly the best field defense weapon.
-
So kvuo please explain to our audience how the Hs129 and Ju87 pilots did it then. When their training tactics required shooting under 100m, generally 50m-60m, so their carbide core rounds had enough energy to breach the side armor of Russian tanks. The point of the 30 degree attack angle was the penetration of the armor at 90 degrees.
I believe Hitech has modeled the BK 3.7 carbide round faithfully. Since I can only get a one shot kill on both T-34 from a 30 degree angle against the upper 60 degree sloped armor from 50-60 yards away. Any farther out, and it's repeated passes as I tick down the damage counter on the armor.
But, please kvuo tell us how the Hs129 and Ju87 pilots really accomplished.
you tell us how an airplane can fire at a tank, and pull out of a 30 degree dive from 50 meters away.
-
you tell us how an airplane can fire at a tank, and pull out of a 30 degree dive from 50 meters away.
Even if the plane was only doing 200mph, 50m distance means less than 0.6 seconds to impact...
-
Even if the plane was only doing 200mph, 50m distance means less than 0.6 seconds to impact...
exactly
-
The 75mm gun in the B25 is now very effective against armor. HE ammunition I believe. Did they use AP rounds in it historically?
It's been posted several times that the B-25H did carry 5 AP rounds in their loadout. I'd have to dig through threads to find the source supporting it, though.
-
I like the idea of those (Tilt is going to kill me, I cannot recall the model #) Russian shaped charge bomblets the IL-2 carried. Those would be a game changer for GVs and possibly the best field defense weapon.
PTAB.......... And your history :devil
IL-2 against Panzers
Despite some success in gun armament the main combat weapon against German panzers starting from 1943 became anti-tank cumulative air bomb. New air bomb was designed in ZKB-22 under management of I.A. Larionov Effect of a new bomb was as follows: while hitting the tank armor detonator worked out, which through detonating charge resulted in charge explosion. When charge detonation, owning to so called hollow cone, cumulative spurt was created, which resulted in piercing the armor of up to 60mm under angle of 30’ with subsequent destruction effect like annihilation of tank crew, detonation of tank ammunition, inflaming of fuel or its vapor. This was confirmed by polygon testing. The minimum altitude, accounting for bomb alignment to a tank armor surface was 70 meters.
IL-2 could carry up to 192 air bombs (PTAB-2, 5-1,5) in four cassettes (48 units per cassette) or up to 220 units when rationally placed in four bomb compartments.
When dropping PTAB bomb from the altitude of 200 meters under horizontal flying with the speed of 340-360 km/h, a bomb was hitting an area of 15 square meters in average. Depending on bomb load the total destruction area of PTAB bomb was 15x 190-210 square meters that ensured almost guaranteed destruction of any German panzer located in that area. In fact, the area occupied by one tank was approx. 20-22 square meters and even one bomb hit was well enough to put a panzer out of operation, in most cases for good.
Thus, PTAB bomb was a rather formidable weapon for that time. By the way, the Chief Designer of ZKB-22, I.A. Larionov was awarded by the Lenin Order for creation of PTAB-2, 5-1,5 AND AD-A detonator and later in 1946 was awarded USSR State Premium.
In the very first day of the Kursk Battle, on July 5th, 1943, the Red Army Air Force applied new anti-tank cumulative bombs PTAB-2, 5-1,5 for the first time. The flyers of the 2nd Guards and 299th Air Divisions of 16th Air Army acting against German panzers in the area of Maloarchangelsk, Yasnaya Polyana tested the new air bomb first. There enemy’s panzers and grenadiers conducted up to ten attacks during the day. Mass application of PTAB anti-tank cumulative air bombs had a devastating effect of tactical surprise and strong morale impact on enemy. German panzer crew, as well as their Russian opponents, by the third war year gets used to relatively low efficiency of the air strikes. Therefore in the beginning of the Kursk Battle Germans didn’t use scattered marching and pre-combat orders for tanks movement or in other words in the routes of tank motion in columns in the assembly areas and were severely punished for that. Fragmentation area of PTAB bomb covered 2-3 tanks situated in the distance of 60-75 meters from each other and because of that Germans suffered significant casualties even under conditions of lack of massed application of IL-2.
So, flyers of just one 291st Air Division of Colonel A.N. Vitruk while applying PTAB bombs destroyed and disabled up to 30 German panzers only on July 5th 1943.
Sturmovik-flyers of 3rd and 9th Air Corps of 17th Air Army by the end of July 6th 1943 reported of destruction or damaging by PTAB bombs up to 90 units of German armored vehicles on the battlefield and in the area of North Donetz river crossings. In the Oboyan direction on July 7th 1943, IL-2 of the 1st Air Corps of the 2nd Air Army while supporting the 3rd Mechanized Corps of the 1st Tank Army in the period from 4.40 a.m. to 6.40 a.m. in two groups of forty six and thirty three aircrafts covered by sixty six fighters inflicted targeted strikes at the assembly areas of German panzers in the areas of Syrzevo-Yakovlevo concentrated for an assault in the direction to Krasnaya Dubrava (300-350 panzers) and Bolshie Mayachki (about 100 panzers).
Air strikes of the 1st Air Corps and active actions of the 3rd Mechanized Corps were successful: Germans failed to breakthrough the second line of defense of the 1st Tank Army. Decipherment of the battlefield photographs at 13.15 o’clock showed over two hundred (200) knocked out German panzers and SP guns.
According to the German sources, 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf which underwent several massed air strikes by the IL-2 of the 2nd Air Army in the area of the Bolshiye Mayachki lost in total two hundred and seventy (270) panzers, SP guns and armored vehicles. Density of air bombs coverage was so great that it was fixed over 2000 direct hits of PTAB-2,5-1,5.
Having recovered from first shock, German panzer crews in a few days after the beginning of the battle shifted exclusively to scattered marching and pre-combat orders. Naturally it strongly hampered management of tank formations & units, increased their deployment & relocation time and made interaction between units more difficult. The efficiency of the IL-2 air strikes using PTAB decreased approx. in 4-4.5 times. However it was on average in 2-3 times higher then when using explosive and explosive-fragmentation air bombs.
-
Even if the plane was only doing 200mph, 50m distance means less than 0.6 seconds to impact...
Looking at what all's been said in this thread, I would suggest a likely explanation could be, 30 degree dive in to a point 100-200 yards short of the tank, pull levelish, line up shot, guns hot at 50m, pull up?
Wiley.
-
I like the idea of those (Tilt is going to kill me, I cannot recall the model #) Russian shaped charge bomblets the IL-2 carried. Those would be a game changer for GVs and possibly the best field defense weapon.
Asked for them a long time ago in wishlist.
Think the idea was vetoed pretty much instantly due to the fact they may be used to kill tanks in an attack that would not leave the Il2 as open to main gun rounds :bolt:
-
Looking at what all's been said in this thread, I would suggest a likely explanation could be, 30 degree dive in to a point 100-200 yards short of the tank, pull levelish, line up shot, guns hot at 50m, pull up?
Wiley.
The guns were fired at 30°, because that gave a resulting strike angle of 90° for maximum penetration (due to the sloped T-34 armor):
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/HS129attack_zpsdc77b327.jpg)
(Pegg, Simon: HS 129 Panzerjäger. Classic Publications, 1997, page 80)
However, i have some troubles with the pilot's claim stated in the same book (page 182):
"We would normally open fire at a distance from the target between 45(sic) and 60 metres, and from such a close range the 30 to 45 degree diving angle brought the plane dangerously close to the target"
And this would be dangerously close indeed. Even at a slow 200 mph (360 km/h) dive 45m means there's 0.5 seconds left to impact. I can imagine frantically pulling up at that last split second, but opening fire at that range, shooting a few rounds and then pulling out?
I have serious problems to understand how that could work...
Addendum: Just did a few test in the Ju-87G. I couldn't even dive that slow... more to follow
-
The guns were fired at 30°, because that gave a resulting strike angle of 90° for maximum penetration (due to the sloped T-34 armor):
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/HS129attack_zpsdc77b327.jpg)
(Pegg, Simon: HS 129 Panzerjäger. Classic Publications, 1997, page 80)
However, i have some troubles with the pilot's claim stated in the same book (page 182):
"We would normally open fire at a distance from the target between 45(sic) and 60 metres, and from such a close range the 30 to 45 degree diving angle brought the plane dangerously close to the target"
And this would be dangerously close indeed. Even at a slow 200 mph (360 km/h) dive 45m means there's 0.5 seconds left to impact. I can imagine frantically pulling up at that last split second, but opening fire at that range, shooting a few rounds and then pulling out?
I have serious problems to understand how that could work...
Addendum: Just did a few test in the Ju-87G. I couldn't even dive that slow... more to follow
Wow. Reason #4,142,231 why I'm glad I didn't have to do this stuff for real.
Wiley.
-
The guns were fired at 30°, because that gave a resulting strike angle of 90° for maximum penetration (due to the sloped T-34 armor):
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/HS129attack_zpsdc77b327.jpg)
(Pegg, Simon: HS 129 Panzerjäger. Classic Publications, 1997, page 80)
However, i have some troubles with the pilot's claim stated in the same book (page 182):
"We would normally open fire at a distance from the target between 45(sic) and 60 metres, and from such a close range the 30 to 45 degree diving angle brought the plane dangerously close to the target"
And this would be dangerously close indeed. Even at a slow 200 mph (360 km/h) dive 45m means there's 0.5 seconds left to impact. I can imagine frantically pulling up at that last split second, but opening fire at that range, shooting a few rounds and then pulling out?
I have serious problems to understand how that could work...
Addendum: Just did a few test in the Ju-87G. I couldn't even dive that slow... more to follow
Dang, that's awesome.
-
That's why the fw190f8 makes crappy dive bomber against tanks. Pulling out of a low speed dive at very low alt.. we all know what happens when you pull back on the stick of a slow 190.
-
Addendum: Just did a few test in the Ju-87G. I couldn't even dive that slow... more to follow
your not doing it right
you missed this
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/8834b432-2235-4426-be87-e435cb30c2cf_zps87cdc264.png)
:cheers:
-
Any model of T34 are tough for a Stuka, I usually find the best way is to hit the top hatch on the turret in a near vertical dive, a WW1 classic immelmann being the set up, I doubt it was done this way in RL as there is a big danger of pancaking the plane, maybe why its wheels stay out though :D
-
Gunsights are the same as reality to a one-eyed man.
Sorry to go a bit off topic, and maybe someone noticed this before.
Wow. Reason #4,142,231 why I'm glad I didn't have to do this stuff for real.
Wiley.
But, every time this guy puts a message on this board...
it's a WILEY POST!
-
Any model of T34 are tough for a Stuka, I usually find the best way is to hit the top hatch on the turret in a near vertical dive, a WW1 classic immelmann being the set up, I doubt it was done this way in RL as there is a big danger of pancaking the plane, maybe why its wheels stay out though :D
IF I want to risk getting main gunned, the the standard attack pattern will work oh so nicely. Problem though, as mentioned, is it puts you WELL with in traversal range of the main gun. I still find that sweet spot behind the turret, front of the engine, does nicely when coming in high. :)
-
Illustration:
The following picture, drawn to scale shows a Hs 129 in a 30° dive about 55m (180ft) distance. 45m would be about one full plane length further down that path. The trees have approximately the height of our AH cartoon world trees.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/scaleHS129_zps7b4defaf.jpg)
-
Illustration:
The following picture, drawn to scale shows a Hs 129 in a 30° dive about 55m (180ft) distance. 45m would be about one full plane length further down that path. The trees have approximately the height of our AH cartoon world trees.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/scaleHS129_zps7b4defaf.jpg)
The trees are easily half the kills on me.. :lol
Getting them in the trees is half the fun sometimes it takes me 5-6 passes just to find a tiny little gap where I can see just a portion of the tank hiding in the trees .... you have to really snip them.
Fun stuff,
:cheers:
-
See rule #4
-
Is there data about the max turret elevation of Pz/T34/JPZ and all the stuff that's shooting at canon attack planes?
-
Is there data about the max turret elevation of Pz/T34/JPZ and all the stuff that's shooting at canon attack planes?
Go to http://www.tarrif.net/
WWII vehcile database with comprehensive data
-
For quote of a rule #4
-
Any model of T34 are tough for a Stuka, I usually find the best way is to hit the top hatch on the turret in a near vertical dive, a WW1 classic immelmann being the set up, I doubt it was done this way in RL as there is a big danger of pancaking the plane, maybe why its wheels stay out though :D
I can't even see the top hatch, if I could I certainly wouldn't have the time to line up a shot and then pull out. Perpetually baffled by posts like this.
E.g. "hit between the turret and hull"???? Really, I can barely make out the model of tank :bhead
-
you tell us how an airplane can fire at a tank, and pull out of a 30 degree dive from 50 meters away.
Try it offline with the Ju87. It was the only way I could make a one shot kill on both T-34. I followed the tactics developed by the end of 1943. It was the only way the Hs129 and Ju87 pilots could find to make the carbide core rounds penetrate the T-34 armor. Carbide was in short supply so these units had to come up with a way to make one pass kills.
In my offline testing I rammed one tank and snapped my tail off on another. Just like the memoirs of the german pilots described happened to some. I was forced just like the WW2 pilots to make a straight approach run so I could time my 30 degree dive, shoot, and pull out. In our game as it is, the computer aided tank commander will kill almost every Ju87 that tries this. The Russians by the time this tactic was developed, were throwing hundreds of tanks into battle with more available ammo than the germans. All Russian tank units knew the tactic the Hs129 and Ju87 would use when attacking them. So why didn't they just rotate the turret and blow the Hs129 and Ju87 out of the air point blank like we do?
If the forum members taking screen captures from the 300 page book that I've been referencing would put up a download link, it has all of the info. They lost Hs129 and Ju87 pilots to miscalculating their pull up. The german unit commander who finally developed the shooting inside of 100m tactic, when teaching the tactic during a demonstration against a captured T-34. Miscalculated his pull up, snapped his tail off and got shipped home in a small wooden box. But, it was the only way to make the carbide rounds pass through the T-34 and other tank's armor to kill the crew or the engine.
The NS-37 AP round doesn't have carbide as the core, so cannot penetrate T-34 and heavier armor in one pass. It shoots at 880m\sec versus the german rounds with carbide core. 30mm 960m\sec and 37mm 1150m\sec.
So have you performed my test offline with the Ju87 yet?
-
So have you performed my test offline with the Ju87 yet?
Oh, I have.
I did a few approaches, though they didn't all ended up at exactly 30°, not easy to hold a specific angle in a plane you are not used to that much (Hurri D being my main tank buster).
I found it very well possible to pull up from a ~20-25 deg dive at 45m, but that was very close. I could do so at the end of a attack run (my Hurri D attacks sometimes get as close), but there's no way I'm going to start shooting at that range and then pulling up. Even from my comfy chair with with a top of the line that's a incredible cartoon risk. 45m (~150yards) is about the "pull up" limit to me.
While there is no doubt there might be some pilots better than me with better reflexes, but I'm not exactly new to this tank busting stuff either... ;)
-
How many notches of flaps you got out on our attack run, and what throttle setting?
hint: getting well slower than 200 ias is easy on the attack run, even at -30 deg AoA.
-
I can't even see the top hatch, if I could I certainly wouldn't have the time to line up a shot and then pull out. Perpetually baffled by posts like this.
E.g. "hit between the turret and hull"???? Really, I can barely make out the model of tank :bhead
I would be lying if I said I was aiming specifically for a spot playing on a laptop the res just is not high enough and barely enough time to line up for a shot before having to pull up, I usually zoom only to 600 ft on icon then have to get the nose down and aimed and pull up :joystick: I view getting 2 hit splashes on a top profile and aim my piper in the middle between the end of the tank and the turret the convergance at 600 yds will hit the engine and top of the turret.
IF I want to risk getting main gunned, the the standard attack pattern will work oh so nicely. Problem though, as mentioned, is it puts you WELL with in traversal range of the main gun. I still find that sweet spot behind the turret, front of the engine, does nicely when coming in high. :)
If I can see it I will have to give that a try :aok
-
Thank you Lusche for keeping this thread somewhat interesting but can someone start a more interesting one?
-
Sorry grizz that we aren't talking about the MK108.
But, it's useless against T-34 even if Hitech modeled a Type E or X AP. 500m\sec would do nothing but scratch the paint on a tank. The program was dropped because any chance of penetration against aircraft armor would require being inside of 100m with a perfect angle of impact. 20mm AP worked better air to air. Even good for up to light tanks in Russia and why the Hs129 had 2, and used those for strafing ack positions, truck columns, and other light ground targets.
Guys you need a 1500yd run from 1000ft, dive at 800 as you approach on "Full Zoom". Use a small dot reticle. Hold it center of the side 60 degree sloped armor. If you are not careful your nose will dip lower. You want full throttle.
This was not any easier for the WW2 pilots either. But, it was the only way to do the job with what they had. If the Hs129 B3 BK 7.5 gets introduced, you can stand off at 1000yds and blow holes in everything but the tigers. Until then, inside of 100yds is how you get a single pass kill on tanks except for the panther and tigers in the side with the BK 3.7. Even the Fw pilots from the groups assigned to the same command as the Ju87 and Hs129 tank destroyers. Attacked using rockets in about the same way from 300m and closing to kill tanks on the eastern front. As for moving in areas with too many trees. Then the Fw and regular Ju87 bombed them like we do.
-
don't fly straight at a tank's main gun and you won't get shot down by it. But to answer your question, yes there have been recorded incidents in which a tank shot down a plane with its main gun.
This is an account from Otto Carious' book (page 43).
Dmitriy Loza in an interview was asked a Sherman's AA defenses. Interview source: I Remember - Dmitriy Loza interview (http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html?q=%2Ftankers%2F17-dmitriy-loza.html)
In his book, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union, Loza also briefly mentions a Sherman tank in his unit shooting down a German attack plane.
ack-ack
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence is it ?
-
It's testimonial evidence.
-
I have been the 'victim' of been shot down by tanks while in a plane. However, it was my own stupidity that got me killed, not what the other player did or the tool he used. Just because it didn't happen on a daily basis doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible in the game. It wouldn't happen "so often" if players would fly and attack tanks correctly and attack from high angles, rather than rush in and wonder why they died. Don't blame the mechanics, blame the player!
We as the players get multiple tries to attack the same target. If we fail one way we can try another way until we succeed. It isn't HTC's fault that players decided to go around the same mountain and get bored or annoyed, it is the player's fault for not broadening their scope and trying out new methods and ways of gameplay.
Not one single instance of verified main gun kill of AC in WWII. Did not happen. I eagerly await any confirmation. Otto Carius Tiger in the mud is one possible instance that does not pan out with research. Far more likely Russian AC was destroyed by conventional AAA. Simply a case of a man claiming a kill that he did not make. Frequent occurrence in WWII. Until there is Tanker Wounds. Optics are more realistic. A buttoned up view. It will simply be too easy to acquire attacking AC for a main gun shot to succeed. All of these are mechanics not player issues. Does not matter how many people that have been in period armor and KNOW it is impossible. The round hitting an AC is not the big part of the problem. The ease of acquisition and tracking is. I have played inM-26's and an M4A3E8. What we do here can not be done. ROK Army reserve units still had the old Pershing in inventory when I was in. My last name being Lee and my obvious attempt to learn and speak their language opened many doors to satisfy my curiosity of WWII related equipment.
-
It's testimonial evidence.
Testimonial evidence is not accepted in AH2 to my knowledge. Brew would fly entirely different if that was the case.
-
...The difference is, our lives don't depend on the limited ammunition we're carrying to defend us from other tanks/complete our mission. We have unlimited ammunition and nothing at stake, so we can afford to take the low percentage shot at the aircraft. They couldn't. Couple that with the limited traverse things Saxman mentioned, and that's the reason.
I hadn't realized there were limitations IRL on how the turret could move. I'm guessing it's not in the game for the same reason engine management isn't in the planes, it's not fun.
Wiley.
Turret speed is accurate in game. Gun elevation and depression is as well. Field of view is not, ability to adjust accurately and easily elevation and traverse simultaneously is not. Complete coordination between Commanders unbuttoned view and gunner is not.
-
HLBLY,,,
Not one single instance of a main gun kill verses far more likely? Apples to oranges,, if your gonna go by (far more likely) you've got to leave out the ( not one single instance)
There are accounts of tanks shooting down planes, they have been posted here many times, you not believing them, then deciding on your own, A FAR MORE LIKELY THEORY, is ludicrous
I've never had a tanker tell me he couldn't kill something,
As long as the commander and gunner have a good ability to comunicate, anything is possible
-
Probability is so low IRL you would not waste ammo on it.
our cartoon view make it much much higher probability than RL
in Real life you would shoot with top mg. we trained on that during my tank service in the early 80's.
btw the mk103 in the me410 is excellent to kill tanks with.
-
I've never had a tanker tell me he couldn't kill something,
As long as the commander and gunner have a good ability to comunicate, anything is possible
A classic case of overconfidence. Also, I consider it very likely that most claims of tank shooting down a plane are "last action is the cause" effect. This is why buff gunners were claiming huge number of kills. When 20 gunners are shooting at a plane, every one of them is certain that his bullets are the ones that connected. Why wouldn't they? "I pulled the trigger and the FW190 burst into flames, ergo I am the one to hit it" each of them will claim. Same thing with a plane attacking a ground division with hundred of people shooting at it with anything from hand guns, through proper AA guns, to tank main guns: "I pulled out my 45, pointed it in the general direction the sound was coming from, closed my eyes, pulled the trigger, and that IL2 crashed right behind me". They are not lying, this is just human psychology.
The main problem is not communication. The gunner can't see anything. The commander has to rotate the turret and set elevation accurately enough to bring the plane into the gunners quite narrow-field optics. Unless the plane is diving down the barrel and therefore stationary from the tanker POV, this is no easy task. More over, in combat conditions when things are exploding around the tank the commander will be inside with a closed hatch, unless he is very brave or plain stupid. In that case, none of them can see the plane coming. If the commander is exposed, large caliber AP rounds are not required in order to kill him.
In AH our "lives" mean nothing. An AA field-gunner, or a gunner in an open ostie/wirble will keep shooting at the plane coming right at him spewing 20mm from two to four cannons at the gunner. A real live person will hit the ground and seek cover. This is why flak ships were as good as suppressed if a plane managed to rake it with 20mm. From that moment, the people on board were more busy with self preservation, putting out fires, and dragging the wounded below decks then they cared about shooting at the planes. Bullets bounce right off the AH tank commanders and they cannot be killed unless the tank explodes beneath them.
-
Reading this and having shot my share of planes out of the sky with a tank has me curious who the games most prolific tank to air shooters are...... Lusche?? Would that be difficult o master statistician? I suppose it would only be fair for the Rudel wannabe's to be recognized while at it. :D. We can leave the bomb****s unrecognized.....since what they do doesn't represent much of a challenge at all. :devil.
I'll concede that the practice that I have become fairly adept at may be a tad gamey, but not any more than the bomb****s using the ever-so-gamey F3 view to do their dastardly deeds or any other of the numerous examples of gamesmanship decried ad naseum on these boards. This is after all a game is it not? Should we have every tedious detail of the true WW2 experience modeled for us in our "game"? I think not.
Besides who's to say that actual ww2 tank crews were they given unlimited lives, tanks and munitions, wouldn't become as good or better at the practice as us reenactors? Seems Ive read somewhere of a successful tank crew having devised a system of communication between a tank commander and his gunner whereby the commander would guide the gunner given his limited FOV to the target using the commanders knee on the gunners back and foot on the gunners backside to relay traverse and elevation approximations to his gunner.... I imagine were they able to get as much practice as we get in game.... they too couldve in time easily acquired at the very least... tanks flying right down their barrel. I also tend to believe that our hypothetical tank commander would get pretty good at "buttoning up" pretty quick once he saw the lumbering G stuka commiting to his gun run.
I have tried my hand at tank plicking in a G stuka and have managed to get kills and avoid being main-gunned in the process so I fail to see what all the fuss is about.
~S~ Nish
-
Turret speed is accurate in game. Gun elevation and depression is as well. Field of view is not, ability to adjust accurately and easily elevation and traverse simultaneously is not. Complete coordination between Commanders unbuttoned view and gunner is not.
Thank you. I had understood and agreed with the coordination, but was wondering what the issues with the rest were.
One other question, referring to the field of view do you mean looking through the main gun sight?
Wiley.
-
Thank you. I had understood and agreed with the coordination, but was wondering what the issues with the rest were.
One other question, referring to the field of view do you mean looking through the main gun sight?
Wiley.
I think he is and I'd bet ,,he's wrong,,HTC modeled,, or remodeled the main gun sights to more accurately represent the actual tanks a few years back,, HLBLY's complaint is that the TC and gunner couldn't have a good enough communication ability to facilitate the turret following the commanders instruction to the letter as it is in game,,
There is no way to model the ability or inability of different tank crews,, some were good,, some were great, some just made it to the fight,, I posted a picture of an external sight for the m4 a long time ago , it was for the commander to fire the main gun when the gunner couldn't see the target, so the commander could aim and fire the weapon ,
This debate has gone on for years, look at some past threads for more info!
-
I think he is and I'd bet ,,he's wrong,,HTC modeled,, or remodeled the main gun sights to more accurately represent the actual tanks a few years back,, HLBLY's complaint is that the TC and gunner couldn't have a good enough communication ability to facilitate the turret following the commanders instruction to the letter as it is in game,,
There is no way to model the ability or inability of different tank crews,, some were good,, some were great, some just made it to the fight,, I posted a picture of an external sight for the m4 a long time ago , it was for the commander to fire the main gun when the gunner couldn't see the target, so the commander could aim and fire the weapon ,
This debate has gone on for years, look at some past threads for more info!
I've read quite a few of them as they occurred. Never seen the simultaneous traverse/elevation being difficult to do together point before. To me that would probably be the single biggest departure from reality if so. I had thought the gunner position's FOV was designed to be accurate. Clarity might be much better than RL if the actual FOV is indeed right, and that could be a significant advantage.
I am just deeply against gamily making things impossible in game. If you can put a bullet where it should be, it should do damage. To me making planes immune to tank rounds is roughly equivalent to making aircraft MG rounds disappear at 600 yards because people pretty much didn't shoot that far successfully in the war.
-
another thing you have to realize is, not everyone has large flat screen monitors,, or at least they didn't when i started, some players can't see nearly as much as others so some concessions must be made to keep player from getting totally frustrated with only seeing little blips on screen,,, while other have 42 inch led's and thousands of dollars in equipment! :noid and can clearly see the blender hidden behind the seat of the P-38's :bolt:
It is not a perfect game,, best bet is to fight planes with planes and leave the tanks alone,, or accept the consequence of dieing every now and then and learning new tactics to keep from doing so,, the game is not like real life, things happen here that never happened in the real world or at least not on a common basis,, yet you get to try again here,, in real life, you die and that's all! no whining about getting ho'ed, no complaining about tanks firing main gun rounds at your AC
-
I really have to get into a tank one day. I feel like I'm missing out on all the fun! :)
FYI - I've never been shot out of the air by a tank main gun...but I've sure been killed by one while on a rearm pad or taking off. Maybe there are no recorded instances of that happening during WWII...but I think a shot from a Panther would ruin any pilots day if it did occur :lol
-
The more important aspect of the argument isn't "if" it happened in real life but if it "could" have happened. There are things that are done on a daily basis in aces high that never happened in real life. Did fighter pilots land 6 air to air victories in one sortie regularly or ever? Did jets fly around NOE like a snake in the grass? When the planes are free, no lives are lost, the rules of engagement change entirely. :aok
-
Exactly! :joystick:
-
The more important aspect of the argument isn't "if" it happened in real life but if it "could" have happened. There are things that are done on a daily basis in aces high that never happened in real life. Did fighter pilots land 6 air to air victories in one sortie regularly or ever? Did jets fly around NOE like a snake in the grass? When the planes are free, no lives are lost, the rules of engagement change entirely. :aok
Thats fine if the "could" is modelled, can you imagine the tears if someone in say a storch was able to disable a tank's commander view by rear gunning him at the hatch? The reality is if the commander was modelled the way the views are presented in game he would be very vunerable even to something as lowly as a storch, even a bailed pilot could kill him with a 45!
-
It is not a perfect game,, best bet is to fight planes with planes and leave the tanks alone,, or accept the consequence of dieing every now and then and learning new tactics to keep from doing so,, the game is not like real life, things happen here that never happened in the real world or at least not on a common basis,, yet you get to try again here,, in real life, you die and that's all! no whining about getting ho'ed, no complaining about tanks firing main gun rounds at your AC
This debate has gone on for years, look at some past threads for more info!
Don't bet on it
The debate will have to go on because their is no proof this ever happened period!! You don't see tanks running around the battle field with Planes in their kill markings do you?
No officially recorded evidence from any country has been produced...to date .........So...in a game that is specific down to the skins, projectiles, turret timing, trajectory, model and scale that is real and backed by facts, data, illustrations and history.....why would sufficient evidence not have to be produced that says as much for this action?
I don't get it :headscratch: and why do you fervently defend, with the lack of facts too back you up, when you know, if so, the possibilities were so minute?
This is the part that blows me away <pun intended> not because Tanks can main gun folks in the damn game, its the double standard of accuracy (historicaly) that tweaks me on this subject. :bhead
If this guy is shooting his 50 and gets strafed
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/8f771c74-fca0-44c1-9493-75917160e7c9_zpsa310d951.png)
..game over your dead..or you should be...... but in game you sit firing away then fire the main gun at the same time while turning the turret and adjusting elevation while communicating to all 3 positions at once. :rolleyes:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/aa01fa00-7ca0-4643-9842-62702ceb0546_zpsbb1cf596.png)
Out,
-
But there are accounts of it happening, your disregard for them is no more or less important than my accepting that it did, I do however base my thought on the facts,
Fact 1,,, a large round fired from a gun hitting an Aircraft while in flight will destroy or disable it, that is undisputeble! The only thing left to figure out is how to make it happen !
-
Don't bet on it
The debate will have to go on because their is no proof this ever happened period!! You don't see tanks running around the battle field with Planes in their kill markings do you?
No officially recorded evidence from any country has been produced...to date .........So...in a game that is specific down to the skins, projectiles, turret timing, trajectory, model and scale that is real and backed by facts, data, illustrations and history.....why would sufficient evidence not have to be produced that says as much for this action?
I don't get it :headscratch: and why do you fervently defend, with the lack of facts too back you up, when you know, if so, the possibilities were so minute?
This is the part that blows me away <pun intended> not because Tanks can main gun folks in the damn game, its the double standard of accuracy (historicaly) that tweaks me on this subject. :bhead
If this guy is shooting his 50 and gets strafed
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/8f771c74-fca0-44c1-9493-75917160e7c9_zpsa310d951.png)
..game over your dead..or you should be...... but in game you sit firing away then fire the main gun at the same time while turning the turret and adjusting elevation while communicating to all 3 positions at once. :rolleyes:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/aa01fa00-7ca0-4643-9842-62702ceb0546_zpsbb1cf596.png)
Out,
If planes can interact and destroy tanks. Then the opposite must be true as well, otherwise you have a one-sided battle. And if you fly correctly, you don't have to worry of being one-shotted by enemy tanks.
-
I think he is and I'd bet ,,he's wrong,,HTC modeled,, or remodeled the main gun sights to more accurately represent the actual tanks a few years back,, HLBLY's complaint is that the TC and gunner couldn't have a good enough communication ability to facilitate the turret following the commanders instruction to the letter as it is in game,,
There is no way to model the ability or inability of different tank crews,, some were good,, some were great, some just made it to the fight,, I posted a picture of an external sight for the m4 a long time ago , it was for the commander to fire the main gun when the gunner couldn't see the target, so the commander could aim and fire the weapon ,
This debate has gone on for years, look at some past threads for more info!
This argument has no basis in reality, the commander as per the commander views in Aces High is not modelled, the hatch is quite clearly down and you cannot sustain commander dead as damage, thus losing your views, for something like say a Tiger you would have a few slits and certainly not the ability to look and track a plane from above.
The majority of the times I was main gunned was on the other side of the attack run diving nearly vertical on the target, so what they do is line up the back of the turret in the direction of the attack and press the trigger as you pass them, I doubt they even have time to look at the shot as it will maybe take 4-5 shots before they connect if they even do but I can hear the main gun shooting on each pass as my plane bottoms out of its dive.
It is certainly true that if I fly straight down a gun barrel and get shot its my own fault, and that constant practice argument holds weight there, but not with the method I have described above and that is the most common I run into.
-
If planes can interact and destroy tanks. Then the opposite must be true as well, otherwise you have a one-sided battle. And if you fly correctly, you don't have to worry of being one-shotted by enemy tanks.
This isn't the United Nations fair play committee, in real life tanks vs airpower is a no contest, I understand your point about concessions but honestly were will that all stop? With a new game just for tanks? This will appear rude although it is not intended as such, but why did you join a game called Aces High to sit in a tank? :headscratch:
-
Unteroffizeier Kramer in a Tiger I was being harassed repeatedly by a squadron of La7 fighters. When he finally had enough he fired at them with the main gun and on his second shot knocked the wing off of one La7.
Tigers in the Mud - Otto Carius.
-
But there are accounts of it happening, your disregard for them is no more or less important than my accepting that it did, I do however base my thought on the facts,
Fact 1,,, a large round fired from a gun hitting an Aircraft while in flight will destroy or disable it, that is undisputeble! The only thing left to figure out is how to make it happen ! :rofl
Yes, well you get your facts together ...we'll be waiting :lol
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerKillTally.jpg)
:cheers:
-
An HE round detonating near a low flying AC would defenatly not be good for an aircraft! Either flying egress or ingress!,
most missile systems that detonate near an aircraft destroy them, that's how they are designed, HE blows up and planes die, if you fire an HE round into the ground near an aircraft as it flies by, why wouldn't the impact destroy it?
Firing into the ground would also direct the blast upward more so than an airblast so. Somewhere their should be a chart or graph to show the radius of a missile blast, it wouldn't be hard to figure out the blast radius of an HE round and it's similar effects on an AC
If you drop bombs to low from your plane, you blow yourself up, if that same explosion came from the barrel of a tank it wouldn't ?
-----------------------------------------------------
And megladon,,, they are already here,, challenge just posted one, but their are others In this forum,
go find proof it's not possible,,, I'll be waiting!
-
Unteroffizeier Kramer in a Tiger I was being harassed repeatedly by a squadron of La7 fighters. When he finally had enough he fired at them with the main gun and on his second shot knocked the wing off of one La7.
Tigers in the Mud - Otto Carius.
Otto Carius Tiger in the mud is one possible instance that does not pan out with research. Far more likely Russian AC was destroyed by conventional AAA. Simply a case of a man claiming a kill that he did not make. Frequent occurrence in WWII.
AH Bulletin Board-- HillBilLee
:aok
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/BillHilly_zps068c39dc.png)
:cheers:
-
An HE round detonating near a low flying AC would defenatly not be good for an aircraft! Either flying egress or ingress!,
most missile systems that detonate near an aircraft destroy them, that's how they are designed, HE blows up and planes die, if you fire an HE round into the ground near an aircraft as it flies by, why wouldn't the impact destroy it?
Firing into the ground would also direct the blast upward more so than an airblast so. Somewhere their should be a chart or graph to show the radius of a missile blast, it wouldn't be hard to figure out the blast radius of an HE round and it's similar effects on an AC
If you drop bombs to low from your plane, you blow yourself up, if that same explosion came from the barrel of a tank it wouldn't ?
-----------------------------------------------------
And megladon,,, they are already here,, challenge just posted one, but their are others In this forum,
go find proof it's not possible,,, I'll be waiting!
You go find it
-
I also did not mention the Russian M4A3-76 use of canister rounds to destroy Ju87s. The success of the Ju87 against the T-34s is one thing, but against canister its like shooting sparrows with a 12-gauge. The British had canister, the Americans used canister primarily against infantry, but if we wish for that then the Ju87s at 30 feet are going to have a real problem!
-
I also did not mention the Russian M4A3-76 use of canister rounds to destroy Ju87s. The success of the Ju87 against the T-34s is one thing, but against canister its like shooting sparrows with a 12-gauge. The British had canister, the Americans used canister primarily against infantry, but if we wish for that then the Ju87s at 30 feet are going to have a real problem!
:rofl
Next thing you know you'll want fire :rolleyes: "we cant hit them because the mechanics of our tank won't let us ....So lets burn the witches in their planes"
(http://media.desura.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/7edfadca92170039_large.jpg)
-
Otto Carius Tiger in the mud is one possible instance that does not pan out with research. Far more likely Russian AC was destroyed by conventional AAA. Simply a case of a man claiming a kill that he did not make. Frequent occurrence in WWII.
AH Bulletin Board-- HillBilLee
:aok
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/BillHilly_zps068c39dc.png)
:cheers:
far more likely is not proof, it's speculation,, speculate all you want!
The laws of physics is on my side, two objects traveling in different directions or different speeds cannot occupy the same space without damage , the rounds travel thru air, the plane travels thru air, when they get into the same space, bad things happen
-
When the tank commander'buttoned up' his view was restricted by the viewing/prisms field. These could be damaged under fire, and in many tanks spares would be fitted 'in combat'. A commanders field of view while not 'buttoned up' was un-restricted..he could even use binoculors(of high mag..if he had them.
Why a commanders FOV was limited by HTC....in my humble opinion..was because some could sit of at good distance, mag view and direct main gun fire past HTC's 'comfort level'....yet this would be historically accurate. Now, you NEED 2nd unit/tank/person/jeep to do the same. Not historic??
A tank commander would 'button-up' at first sign of small arms/machine-gun fire if it was from air or ground.
So HE wouldn't die.
The Soviets 'learned' w/HS-129 to get out of tank when that plane attacked...learned is key word.
The commanders view 'buttoned-up' was and IS now, differant than when not. Even in Abrahms..or a Stryker...
Might be impossible or too hard to code.
Current commander-view he is impervious to small arms/machine gun fire. Not realistic, now or than.
And YES..I was one who would stand off and direct my main gun fire at realistic distances for that gun, EVEN when the gunners sights could not be brought to bear on target.
My 14.99.... JGroth
-
I would take Otto Carius' word (someone who was there) over someone that was not even born until many years later.
-
WHY this is sooo obtuse is mystery to me. Make the 'commander view' killable...not kill tank, just unavaible to 'CREW'... there's still, gunner(driver/pilot??)
JGroth
-
Like bombader view in 'bomber' w/no bombader position..black screen...and note"Commander Incapacitated'...
If player can 'duck down'/'button-up' while being small armed he 'escapes' incapacitation...
JGroth
-
I would take Otto Carius' word (someone who was there) over someone that was not even born until many years later.
+1
-
Like bombader view in 'bomber' w/no bombader position..black screen...and note"Commander Incapacitated'...
JGroth
He is the commander akin to the Pilot..not the gunner.... he gets popped ... tower!
1 guy gets to control the whole tank ....gunners dont runn from the back of the plane and take over.
-
IF that's the reason......fine.
IS that the reason? Thought driver 'flew' the GV....ie:'we' can switch thru all diff positions.....
Any other opinions??
JGroth
-
One person fills all rolls on the plane and the GV,, gunners die, that position is lost in both planes and GVs, the turret gets knocked out,maybe the gunner is dead, rear plane gunner is dead,same thing.
The commander veiw is relatively new, we used to have a drivers position instead of the commanders position, this makes more sense than that did tho I loved the old way and would love to have all positions back,, if we did, I could see killing the commander and controlling the tank from the gunner or driver position but that's not possible today.
-
Same here, WWhiskey....
Any more?? JGroth
-
The more important aspect of the argument isn't "if" it happened in real life but if it "could" have happened. There are things that are done on a daily basis in aces high that never happened in real life. Did fighter pilots land 6 air to air victories in one sortie regularly or ever? Did jets fly around NOE like a snake in the grass? When the planes are free, no lives are lost, the rules of engagement change entirely. :aok
Agreed on all counts.
-
If a round penetrates hull and kills all...your dead...but commander can button-up or leave his self exposed..killing him doesn't kill tank...just his view...
Thoughts??
JGroth
-
If a round penetrates hull and kills all...your dead...but commander can button-up or leave his self exposed..killing him doesn't kill tank...just his view...
Thoughts??
JGroth
great,,, but the driver cannot button up as it is, so sacrifices must be made, a request for such could be made in the wish list forum,, other than that, it is as it is!
I would imagine the plane people wouldn't be to happy about all the extra resourses needed to change all the GV models to represent this,, I and others would be much happier to see the new graphics, subs, ect,ect,ect, before new tank views were installed,
-
If a round penetrates hull and kills all...your dead...but commander can button-up or leave his self exposed..killing him doesn't kill tank...just his view...
Thoughts??
JGroth
Cool we'll have the bombardier or co-pilot to fly the plane home when the pilot dies then?
-
Must be me.... when I started you were in 'drivers' position....can YOU fly plane from bombader/gunner position?? Remarkable ability.I hope my sarcasim only reaches your level, no more.
Wish list?
And I thought I was extrapolating on discussion at hand....TY soo much..
Anyone else?
JGroth
-
I've tried to postulate a median, a middle ground in discussion at hand.
JGroth
-
I would 'imagine' aircraft would like to cripple a tank by killing commander...?
JGroth
-
I would 'imagine' aircraft would like to cripple a tank by killing commander...?
JGroth
Well according to you another guy will just pop up in his place?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/Santeno/176120-20animated_gif20cat20whack_a_kitty20whack_a_mole.gif)
Pardon my sarcasm,
-
Cool we'll have the bombardier or co-pilot to fly the plane home when the pilot dies then?
apples to oranges,,, in a GV the driver is not the commander or the gunner and in many cases a driver might survive were a commander and or gunners don't ,, to be more accurate you could say a tank that has no guns left is basically been driven home by the driver, not the commander, the fact that he drives it from the commanders position is not relevant A plane, bombers,can be flown from the gunners position and in F-3 now when the pilot is wounded and blacking out,, not very well mind you, but I've landed them before from the gunners view while the pilot was blacked out,, not realistic at all mind you but still possible in game . Adapt, overcome, live to fight another day!
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/Santeno/176120-20animated_gif20cat20whack_a_kitty20whack_a_mole.gif)
:rofl
-
Nice Whiskey...still like my solution...gunner/driver can't 'unbutton'....if commander dead...can't 'climb in' commander position.
JGroth
-
:rofl
Next thing you know you'll want fire :rolleyes: "we cant hit them because the mechanics of our tank won't let us ....So lets burn the witches in their planes"
:lol
-
Reading this and having shot my share of planes out of the sky with a tank has me curious who the games most prolific tank to air shooters are...... Lusche?? Would that be difficult o master statistician?
We can't find that out.
-
Again..I think my postulation is good...might be too hard to do..might be hard to find that Tiger 1 firing from heights on your base..up even fighter he would cause 'Commander' to button-up or die...or if planes with Heavy Cannons were up and opposing he would have to decide to button-up or die trying to main-gun shoot plane...
Thoughts?
JGroth
-
Some "Utility" testing for one pass, or one shot kills on tanks inside of 200 to the side of the tank.
B-25H - All tanks until the T-34 76\85, Panther and Tigers. Fly at the tank 90 degree to it's side 100ft or lower. Shoot inside of -200 into the tank's side under the track skirt. One round kill. T34's and Panther took up to 6 passes. Gave up on the Tigers at 6.
Me410 - Mk103 questionable effect against undamaged tanks. BK 5 could damage tanks from T-34 76 down with high angle to engine hatch. Pull out was 70\30 a death dive or stall because effective range for breaking the hatch inside of 300. Questionable as a tank killer unless the tank is already damaged.
IL2 - Pulled convergence down from 650 to 275. T-34's required 4-5 guns passes shooting at -200 under the track skirt to kill them. Panther and TigerI, cracking the engine hatch is a better strategy. Panther is weak in the rear armor. TigerII bring Lancasters.
Ju87-G2 - All shots taken sub 100. T34's one tap at 30 degree into upper side armor, one shot kill. Panther and Tigers two passes single tap into the side. Panzers and M4 1 tap into the side.
Even tested rockets. The poor accuracy makes rockets only marginally effective. Since they shoot straight out from the wing, you need to aim favoring a wing. Or salvoing all rockets while favoring one wing over the other wing, you might hit the tank. Bombs are superior, while 3 Lancasters laying a carpet are awesome.
With the current commander mode, might as well use Lancasters and carpet bomb tanks. The commander cannot get all three Lancaster generally.
-
With the current commander mode, might as well use Lancasters and carpet bomb tanks. The commander cannot get all three Lancaster generally.
If you fly a tank buster with a bit of brains, the commander won't get you either. You are constantly presenting tank busters in AH almost as useless and easy to kill by the tank... which they aren't at all.
Of course they need more skill and patience than just lobbing a big bomb at a tank... but that's not entirely unlike RL either.
-
Or just dive bomb them in a lanc.
-
B-25H - All tanks until the T-34 76\85, Panther and Tigers. Fly at the tank 90 degree to it's side 100ft or lower. Shoot inside of -200 into the tank's side under the track skirt. One round kill. T34's and Panther took up to 6 passes. Gave up on the Tigers at 6.
For the T-34, Tiger, Tiger II and Panther tanks you need to aim at the top of the engine compartment, ideally where the turret ring is but usually on top of the engine compartment is enough to get a kill in a single shot with the B-25H.
ack-ack
-
Re: "buttoned up"
when you are not in the commander's position, i.e. you're looking through the gunsite..... the commander's position is buttoned up. Every GV in this game can be driven from that position if aircraft are in the area.
maybe it's just me, but if I can be insta-towered by a single shot pilot kill in an aircraft, the same should apply to GVs. If you are driving from the commander's position and you take a .50 cal to the head, it should be insta-tower, not just loss of that crew position.
Negative. There's several other guys still in the tank unlike a fighter. Loss of commander sending you to the tower would be like getting sent to the tower for losing a gunner in a bomber. Your logic is very flawed.
-
If the commander is lost and replaced by crew would not reload time suffer?
-
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2324230/hulk-demolishes-tank-o.gif)
I think the original post was conveying his feeling on being main gunned by a tank.
-
We can't find that out.
Maybe we can't - but isn't it just aggregated killed in/killed from data? I mean: when I pop up an individual's stats for the tour, I can get data about what he was in and what he killed as well as what he was in when killed by what. If HT has that for an individual, it is surely summable across all individuals. Is this just an access issue? Or, bear in mind, my statement is just for aircraft. I honestly don't recall if there was any breakdown on the ground platforms that killed me or that I killed...
In any case, please elaborate.
-
Maybe we can't - but isn't it just aggregated killed in/killed from data? I mean: when I pop up an individual's stats for the tour, I can get data about what he was in and what he killed as well as what he was in when killed by what.
Yes, that's available. But that doesn't tell us which player has been the most prolific tank to air (maingun) shooter, which has been the original question. The kill numbers encompass also pintle and proxy kills, the latter one being the vast majority of aircraft "kills" by tanks.
I have, for example, almost 900 recorded plane 'kills' in tanks and tank destroyers, but certainly not more than two, maybe three dozen of these were actually hit by my main gun.
-
Yes, that's available. But that doesn't tell us which player has been the most prolific tank to air (maingun) shooter, which has been the original question. The kill numbers encompass also pintle and proxy kills, the latter one being the vast majority of aircraft "kills" by tanks.
I have, for example, almost 900 recorded plane 'kills' in tanks and tank destroyers, but certainly not more than two, maybe three dozen of these were actually hit by my main gun.
Assuming most avid tankers would end up with a similar percentage of proxies, I would think a ballpark tally could be arrived at..... by arbitrarily calling all kills above and beyond that percentage "main gun kills" likewise I would think that the only plane to have a disporportionate number of pintle deaths would be the storch. Basically just saying that if getting the total tank to air kills isnt too hard of a number to get at..... we could get a general idea of who's good at main gunning after some good ole Sherlock Holmes deducing. :old:
-
If the commander is lost and replaced by crew would not reload time suffer?
No, you would lose the ability to fire from that position, same as a bomber.
-
Assuming most avid tankers would end up with a similar percentage of proxies,
In my opinion that would be too much of an assumption to derive any individual conclusions from it. The individual range of main gun kill percentage will vary immensely, so it's rather pointless to declare a "top gunner" from such a feeble foundation. Especially if you consider that compiling that data would mean big investment in work and time ... ;)
-
Yes, that's available. But that doesn't tell us which player has been the most prolific tank to air (maingun) shooter, which has been the original question. The kill numbers encompass also pintle and proxy kills, the latter one being the vast majority of aircraft "kills" by tanks.
I have, for example, almost 900 recorded plane 'kills' in tanks and tank destroyers, but certainly not more than two, maybe three dozen of these were actually hit by my main gun.
Yes, I can see the difficulty of separating out pintle and proxy. However, certainly the most prolific ground-to-air data is available. Perhaps as a wish list item we could request HT to separate the "platform" into its different gun positions? That might make for some interesting bomber stats as well.
DALE: Make it SO... kidding, of course. Still, I'd sort of like to see that. In fact, I'd like to see, for example, 999's numbers on the different B-17 gun positions. That way, it'd be possible to make some hypostheses about which avenue of approach is best, in his case, and perhaps across the board with this most salamanderly of bombers. That way, when I'm falling out of the sky, oiled and sans a wing, I can know that I've stumbled across a relatively new way to get shot down by a B-17.
-
A tank tried to main gun me last night while I was trucking some ordinance to a customer. Well he became a preferred customer and got his shipment first. :ahand
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g222/D_J_W/NZ%20AFVs/Sherman/NZSherman4Aug44.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/D_J_W/media/NZ%20AFVs/Sherman/NZSherman4Aug44.jpg.html)
-
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2324230/hulk-demolishes-tank-o.gif)
I think the original post was conveying his feeling on being main gunned by a tank.
:lol
-
In my opinion that would be too much of an assumption to derive any individual conclusions from it. The individual range of main gun kill percentage will vary immensely, so it's rather pointless to declare a "top gunner" from such a feeble foundation. Especially if you consider that compiling that data would mean big investment in work and time ... ;)
A perfectly understandable determination to make, Hence the caveat "if getting the total tank to air kills isnt too hard of a number to get at" was added. :aok. Not being privy to the inner workings of the software you use and how much of the work load it bears, I plead ignorance regarding how much of an investment I'm asking you to make.
As always :salute and thank you for your many contributions to this game.
-
Not being privy to the inner workings of the software you use and how much of the work load it bears,
There's not that much 'inner workings' at all, I use small homebrew Python scripts to grab the data from the webpage.
80 minutes is a rough estimate for grabbing the tank->plane kills player data for just one tour (time for writing the program as well as processing, editing and publishing of the data not included).
As always :salute
:salute
-
Negative. There's several other guys still in the tank unlike a fighter. Loss of commander sending you to the tower would be like getting sent to the tower for losing a gunner in a bomber. Your logic is very flawed.
Nope. Just because you don't understand my position doesn't make it flawed.
Commander = pilot in bomber
Lots of other guys in a bomber other than the pilot, but it the pilot takes a direct hit, you're dead. Towered.
Should be the same in a GV, in my opinion.
-
Nope. Just because you don't understand my position doesn't make it flawed.
Commander = pilot in bomber
Lots of other guys in a bomber other than the pilot, but it the pilot takes a direct hit, you're dead. Towered.
Should be the same in a GV, in my opinion.
Yep! I have pointed this out as well!
1 pilot behind the monitor,
-
We can't find that out.
I'm sure you could extrapolate from my scores in the JU87-G2......... just take 1/2 of the tank kills on me and add those in the tree column.... take a 1/3 of whats left and add to the ground column ...... from the remaining subtract 1/4 and add to the proxy column..... finally remove 1/8th add to the Pintle column. :lol
Whats left,
My half cent
:cheers:
-
I don't think you guys get it, its not like HTC wouldn't think of modelling the commander, it was made that way to make things easier for guys in GVs much like Sups and Wirbles minus a crew, icons etc.
I guess the bigger question is what happens when the guys playing predominately in GVs outnumber the plane guys? I mean what I have listed there are quite big concessions for a sim that prides itself on the fidelity of its modelling. You already have guys in the wishlist asking for a20's to be perked and other please make this a GV game nonsense :rofl
-
I don't think you guys get it, its not like HTC wouldn't think of modelling the commander, it was made that way to make things easier for guys in GVs much like Sups and Wirbles minus a crew, icons etc.
There has been one major reason for adapting the commander position system we do have now: Less workload for HTC to model new GV's.
I guess the bigger question is what happens when the guys playing predominately in GVs outnumber the plane guys?
There is no indication that we will see this happen unless the whole game, in all aspects, would go through some fundamental changes surpassing everything we have seen in the past 15 years.
-
See rule #4
-
The only aircraft I can see at GV bases would be the Stork, 87G and the HurriD. nothing too bonkers.
-
Nope. Just because you don't understand my position doesn't make it flawed.
Commander = pilot in bomber
Lots of other guys in a bomber other than the pilot, but it the pilot takes a direct hit, you're dead. Towered.
Should be the same in a GV, in my opinion.
Disagree.
Big difference between a pilot at the controls of an aircraft and a gunner and driver. If the tc dies, big deal you can still fight. If the pilot dies you are all screwed.
-
Disagree.
Big difference between a pilot at the controls of an aircraft and a gunner and driver. If the tc dies, big deal you can still fight. If the pilot dies you are all screwed.
Where's our Co-pilot?
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/copilot.jpg)
-
Disagree.
Big difference between a pilot at the controls of an aircraft and a gunner and driver. If the tc dies, big deal you can still fight. If the pilot dies you are all screwed.
Then I revert back to my original position: GV commander dead, then you go on fighting...from the main gun position. :)
-
That's why we need Tank busters at GV bases :) Put planes back in the GV Game!
Look the Gv'ers are a lazy bunch they most would rather just sit at some spawn blasting away <why take the base when there coming to us> what difference does it make if planes are there or not?
:cheers:
Sounds like someone is too lazy to spend 5 minutes flying to a GV base to me, kinda. I could be wrong though. Maybe you only have an hour to live and want to get in as many sorties as possible before your shed your earthly bonds.
-
Zoney has apparently never flown an entire sector in a JU87.....
When you take off you're like :banana: then you're :airplane: and then a half hour later you finally get there and you're :old:
:)
-
Zoney has apparently never flown an entire sector in a JU87.....
When you take of you're like :banana: then you're :airplane: and then a half hour later you finally get there and you're :old:
:)
Sorry Zoney, gotta agree with Reaper. Flying a tankbuster any more than... well honestly to town takes a long, long time.
Wiley.
-
Deleted for quote of a rule#4 violation.
-
Sorry Zoney, gotta agree with Reaper. Flying a tankbuster any more than... well honestly to town takes a long, long time.
Wiley.
Fair enough. I'm just used to not worrying about how much time I'm taking to get to do what I want. Climbing to alt to be in a position to intercept and therefore defend a base has never been a problem. I think of the time as an investment that is paid back with fun. I think if I could air spawn and not have to climb to intercept the reward would not be the same because I have risked less as the time invested is now at risk.
-
Fair enough. I'm just used to not worrying about how much time I'm taking to get to do what I want. Climbing to alt to be in a position to intercept and therefore defend a base has never been a problem. I think of the time as an investment that is paid back with fun. I think if I could air spawn and not have to climb to intercept the reward would not be the same because I have risked less as the time invested is now at risk.
Yeah but with the tank busters you're putt putting along in the weeds at 200mph with a depressingly short clip. Far too many threats to run into on the way there to make it worthwhile. I wouldn't do it unless I had an extraordinarily good reason to do so.
Wiley.
-
For me in aerial combat even from an extreme disadvantage I still feel I will always have a chance to give a good account of myself and at least make them work for the kill, but this camping...its just text on a screen, worthless, death is the life blood of Aces High, in order that others enjoy the game we all have to die to varying degrees of course, I personally feel GVing fits with a culture of no risk to me please, that is non participation in the game in my eyes.
What wisdom :salute
-
For the T-34, Tiger, Tiger II and Panther tanks you need to aim at the top of the engine compartment, ideally where the turret ring is but usually on top of the engine compartment is enough to get a kill in a single shot with the B-25H.
ack-ack
OK ack-ack I'll test this for one shot "utility". Against undamaged tanks. I wish you had given your dive angle. I performed a 45 degree dive on the Panther's rear with the 410 BK 5. Ended up with the light saber ricochet rather than an exploding 50mm Mine shell explosion for some reason. Also ended up dead in the ground attempting to recover from the dive.
I'm going to have to make a short range one shot tank busting gunsight for the B-25H. I doub't shooting at tanks anyone needs to know at 4000yds the 75mm HE from 3000ft altitude drops 353yds(1059ft) or 88Mil. And takes 9 seconds to hit the target. But then that's why the reflector glass in the B-25H is so long to respond to that large tilt dial moving the pipper down 88Mil.
-
Sounds like someone is too lazy to spend 5 minutes flying to a GV base to me, kinda. I could be wrong though. Maybe you only have an hour to live and want to get in as many sorties as possible before your shed your earthly bonds.
If I Gv'ed I could prolly die 50-100 times in that same hour. :aok
Put the planes where they belong :)
-
Sorry Zoney, gotta agree with Reaper. Flying a tankbuster any more than... well honestly to town takes a long, long time.
Wiley.
About as long as it takes to fly a 109k4 to an enemy base on grinder map.
:old: :old: :old:
-
The best way to avoid this tank main-gun issue is to take up an Me 262 and come screaming in at about 10 ft altitude, 500 mph, and smash your 262 right into the side of the tank. Then, you taunt the tank driver thusly: "Ha! You didn't stop that one with your main gun, did you, Mr. Tank?" This is best done while wearing an expression of smug superiority. Sure, it does nothing to the tank, but you have the satisfaction of having defied his main-gun prowess. I hereby name this the "Brooke Maneuver" and highly recommend it to any others who wish to get the moral upper hand. :aok
-
The best way to avoid this tank main-gun issue is to take up an Me 262 and come screaming in at about 10 ft altitude, 500 mph, and smash your 262 right into the side of the tank. Then, you taunt the tank driver thusly: "Ha! You didn't stop that one with your main gun, did you, Mr. Tank?" This is best done while wearing an expression of smug superiority. Sure, it does nothing to the tank, but you have the satisfaction of having defied his main-gun prowess. I hereby name this the "Brooke Maneuver" and highly recommend it to any others who wish to get the moral upper hand. :aok
You can't name that as your own, I've done that rucks of times :neener:
-
You can't name that as your own, I've done that rucks of times :neener:
Drat. I have been scooped. Maybe the "Danny76 Maneuver"? Do I owe royalties?
-
Drat. I have been scooped. Maybe the "Danny76 Maneuver"? Do I owe royalties?
Nah, keep it buddy, never did me any good, tried it in every other plane in the game with the same result too :bhead
-
Nah, keep it buddy, never did me any good, tried it in every other plane in the game with the same result too :bhead
CC. I will give proper tribute, though, in the future, typing "You've been Danny76ed!" upon completion of the maneuver. :aok
-
CC. I will give proper tribute, though, in the future, typing "You've been Danny76ed!" upon completion of the maneuver. :aok
Thou doth honour me greatly kind Sir. Would thou care to partake of a turnip, by way of remmittance? :rock
-
The best way to avoid this tank main-gun issue is to take up an Me 262 and come screaming in at about 10 ft altitude, 500 mph, and smash your 262 right into the side of the tank. Then, you taunt the tank driver thusly: "Ha! You didn't stop that one with your main gun, did you, Mr. Tank?" This is best done while wearing an expression of smug superiority. Sure, it does nothing to the tank, but you have the satisfaction of having defied his main-gun prowess. I hereby name this the "Brooke Maneuver" and highly recommend it to any others who wish to get the moral upper hand. :aok
I am gratified smugly. This new maneuver shall be just the thing for my Aces High outings, which I enjoy immensely when I'm not out fox hunting or playing the Grand Piano.
This should keep the riff-raff in line.
Harumph.
As ever, Lethbridge-Stewart, Brigadier (retd.)
-
I've been reading this thread since it started, and after some online and offline practice with the game's tankbusters I've reached a conclusion. And it's probably entirely wrong, but bear with me :x .
Tankers want to be left alone. I've experienced this many times, as I was driving my purty Hetzer and got hit by a Lancaster's bomb which is probably bigger than my toy tank. But it's ok, I die much more often by the hand of another tank. It's rare enough to see a tank buster, but if he's attacking you can simply ping him to death with the AA mount (yes, most tanks have one of those!) or main gun him if he gets close enough to really hurt you. He won't see you until he's really close, but you can be tracking him with your turret as soon as he enters 6K.
About the GV killers:
Il-2: great against Panzers from the rear (and close), M3 and little else. You can bust some other tanks hitting engine compartment/turret from the top, but it's quite tricky in any substantial dive. Quite suicidal on a moving target.
Ju-87G: will bust most things from the side and rear if you shoot the armor at almost 90º and under 100y. With flaps it can turn a little, so it'll probably take a fighter two passes to kill you instead of one :rofl . Don't chase a Jeep, they'll outrun you.
Me-410: yes, it's a dog. Yes, it handles like a pregnant whale. But it's got a big gun which can pierce a Panzer or any Sherman with a single shot to the side, and any other tank hitting the rear/top. It also can make 318mph on the deck carrying the Bk5, and has dive brakes which help a lot when attacking the top armor.
Is hitting an attacking airplane with your main gun gamey? Yes, totally. But it's done very often because players can exploit the commander position. Some tankers will argue that otherwise they're defenceless. Well, aren't all the attack planes I mentioned sitting ducks? They won't survive a minute without air cover. I personally think that we should keep the commander position, but players shouldn't be allowed to shoot from it. GVs already have reduced icon range, what else could they have? F3 and turn it into WoT?
If we want to kill tanks without resorting to bomb****ing, we have to get someone to make an effective air cover. And even then, nobody can protect a plane from a tank main gunning him. Why shouldn't tankers have to do the same? You're being attacked by a plane? Well, some of your 8 squadmates rushing the VB with Panzers just up a Wirbelwind and he'll be gone in a jiffy. Or, you know, use the AA mount. AA...what could it stand for? Anti-Aircraft? How silly, that's the name of the main gun! :rofl
Those are my two cents. I think we shouldn't be able to shoot from the commander's position (it wasn't made for it), or we'll see more and more Lancasters carpet bombing from 1K feet. :old:
-
Il-2: great against Panzers from the rear (and close), M3 and little else. You can bust some other tanks hitting engine compartment/turret from the top, but it's quite tricky in any substantial dive. Quite suicidal on a moving target.
Ju-87G: will bust most things from the side and rear if you shoot the armor at almost 90º and under 100y. With flaps it can turn a little, so it'll probably take a fighter two passes to kill you instead of one :rofl . Don't chase a Jeep, they'll outrun you.
Me-410: yes, it's a dog. Yes, it handles like a pregnant whale. But it's got a big gun which can pierce a Panzer or any Sherman with a single shot to the side, and any other tank hitting the rear/top. It also can make 318mph on the deck carrying the Bk5, and has dive brakes which help a lot when attacking the top armor.
No offense, but I think your experience in tankbusters is rather limited. You even left one out the Hurricane D while mentioning the Me 410 which actually ain't one ;)
The Il-2, Ju-87G and Hurri D, (the three truly dedicated tankbusters in game) can kill about any tank in game with a proper set up attack. Yes, with a bomb it's way easier but that's just the nature of the beast. But it's still possible, very much so. And while doing so, the pilot can stay almost completely out of the main gun arc of the tank he's attacking, and for a huge part even avoid pintle fire. As I have stated earlier, I'm almost never shot down by tank main guns, and I am only rarely hit by pintle guns to a degree that I have to abort my attack (mostly just losing a part or two, like oil, a machine gun or a flap).
It is not easy to achieve success in a tankbuster, no doubt about that (again, if you want the easy way just drop a 1000lb bomb on GV's). But most deaths of TB's by tanks, and also the reason why the tanks don't die to the TB's fire are just cause by a single bad decision and impatience on the pilot's part.
It is very similar with fighters attacking bombers - Player spending 10 minutes to catch up with a bomber and then abstain from spending another 2 minutes setting up a proper attack ... instead they come in low and slow on the bomber's six and scream bloody murder about overmodeled buffs. after being blown out of the sky. You can see that day in, day out in the MA.
No matter if attacking bombers or tanks: Don't rush your attack unnecessarily! Assess the situation, decide on the best approach, set up your attack properly and then conduct it aggressively.
For giggles, I looked up my own anti tank stats of the past years:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/antitanklusche_zps164e1185.jpg)
Almost all of my recorded deaths by tanks are caused by faceplanting next to them, or hugging a tree.
Of course I don't claim that everybody will be that good (though undoubtedly some will actually be much better than me), but I think it's shows quite well, that TB planes can kill tanks with good success and without being maingunned by them all the time
-
Of course I don't claim that everybody will be that good (though undoubtedly some will actually be much better than me), but I think it's shows quite well, that TB planes can kill tanks with good success and without being maingunned by them all the time
I think those stats show an aversion to danger, were is the Ju 87 G2 you pansy? :rofl or do you only fly them quivering offline? New challenge for Snailman, no more easymode tankbusters for the rest of this tour, the only thing you bust tanks in is a Ju 87 G2 at the end of the tour you come in here and post your results :D
-
I think those stats show an aversion to danger
As if you didn't know that already :old:
, were is the Ju 87 G2 you pansy? :rofl or do you only fly them quivering offline? New challenge for Snailman, no more easymode tankbusters for the rest of this tour, the only thing you bust tanks in is a Ju 87 G2 at the end of the tour you come in here and post your results :D
Never liked that plane, and the constant linking of it with that name "Rudel" here on the boards doesn't help it much either ;)
Gimme the HS 129 and we have a deal :old:
And easymode Hurricane... In the first three months of 2014 the HurriD had a K/D of 0.68 vs tanks, the A-20 had 6.65. Sooo.... :P
-
Get rid of Icons for enemy tanks, problem solved. :aok
-
As if you didn't know that already :old:
Never liked that plane, and the constant linking of it with that name "Rudel" here on the boards doesn't help it much either ;)
And easymode Hurricane... In the first three months of 2014 the HurriD had a K/D of 0.68 vs tanks, the A-20 had 6.65. Sooo.... :P
You might as well print that stat page out and make a paper airplane with it and throw it out the window, it will then have surpassed you in the danger stakes :old:
Easymode is relative to...well go fly the G2 and find out. I've said it before most seagulls will outperform a Stuka G2 its really bad with those 2 guns on it
I do find it incredible that you somehow think its wrong for you to fly a Stuka because of Rudel could you explain to me why that is.
I still expect you to take up the challenge.
-
No offense, but I think your experience in tankbusters is rather limited. You even left one out the Hurricane D while mentioning the Me 410 which actually ain't one ;)
Yes, my experience in TB is rather limited, and I don't put as many hours in the game as I'd like to...I left out the Hurri IID because I've barely used it, on the other hand I've tested the 410 in a TB role, mostly offline. I'm going to test the hurri offline and see how well it fares! :salute
-
Yes, my experience in TB is rather limited, and I don't put as many hours in the game as I'd like to...I left out the Hurri IID because I've barely used it, on the other hand I've tested the 410 in a TB role, mostly offline. I'm going to test the hurri offline and see how well it fares! :salute
Don't feel bad Xavier sounds like you left out the easymode planes and thus you actually do have more experience than Snailman :old:
-
You might as well print that stat page out and make a paper airplane with it and throw it out the window, it will then have surpassed you in the danger stakes :old:
That would require opening the window .. but I'm far too afraid of that outside world to take such a risk :uhoh
Easymode is relative to...well go fly the G2 and find out.
Been here, done that.
I do find it incredible that you somehow think its wrong for you to fly a Stuka because of Rudel could you explain to me why that is.
I sait "It doesn't help either", not that it's the sole reason. ;)
I still expect you to take up the challenge.
I fly what I like, not what other's expect me to fly :old:
-
That would require opening the window .. but I'm far too afraid of that outside world to take such a risk :uhoh
Been here, done that.
I sait "It doesn't help either", not that it's the sole reason. ;)
I fly what I like, not what other's expect me to fly :old:
So lets hear the reason then why it doesn't help regards Rudel? You haven't really answered my question just avoided it.
If thats the case I can't really take your opinion on tankbusting seriously anymore, certainly professing to be hot s$%t at tankbusting and trying to prove a point in a debate whilst leaving out the most difficult plane cannot really be taken seriously.
I would guarantee you would get main gunned alot more in a Ju 87 G2 I for the most part come in from a high angle but I will still get reversed gunned. Prove me wrong Snailman...
-
:rolleyes:
-
:rolleyes:
All your reasoning and intelligence and the best you could come up with is a rollseyes emotion as a response, clearly it is powerless in the face of the prospect of an impending Internet death :rofl
-
So lets hear the reason then why it doesn't help regards Rudel? You haven't really answered my question just avoided it.
Purely a guess, but perhaps due to Rudel's politics rather than his fighting prowess. Purportedly being acquainted with Josef Mengele in S.America after the war tends to leave a bad taste in people's mouths.
:salute Nishizwa
-
Purely a guess, but perhaps due to Rudel's politics rather than his fighting prowess. Purportedly being acquainted with Josef Mengele in S.America after the war tends to leave a bad taste in people's mouths.
:salute Nishizwa
I am thinking its more to do with the fact that he doesn't want to undertake a risky?? :lol venture in cartoon land to be fair :D Hes was fine using the Stuka offline to test it against tanks by his own admission.
Since I've been flying the Stuka I have been thinking more about Nazism, :uhoh seems kinda right, ya know, :uhoh or maybe its the power of Nazism corrupting me through a cartoon airplane.
Ahh sounds a bit crazy when I say it that way, lets stick with the Stuka isn't that good and he would risk ruining his score in game from getting main gunned or jumped on by enemy fighters.
I doubt Snailman would be able to set up his attack runs as described against a real player in a Stuka :D
-
I doubt Snailman would be able to set up his attack runs as described against a real player in a Stuka :D
I thought we were talking about attacking a real player in a tank - but that's just me trying to eschew obfuscation.
Anyway, hasn't this thread gone on long enough?
And what about my request: that HiTech provide the additional tracking of individual kill stats from individual platforms in the case of multi-platform weapons? E.g. kills from the waist gun position in a B-17 or kills from the pintle of a tank, etc?
If f we had that, we'd have data on how common is the phenomena.
-
All your reasoning and intelligence and the best you could come up with is a rollseyes emotion as a response, clearly it is powerless in the face of the prospect of an impending Internet death :rofl
Supa Stuka Rape League? :lol
Yeah perhaps Lusche has personal issues about this matter which we should respect mate.
-
where be the gold pervert?!!
-
where be the gold pervert?!!
In the pages of the book Stuka Ace :old: thats where
Supa Stuka Rape League? :lol
:rofl Its usually me getting raped in a Stuka rather than dishing it out :rofl
-
Distasteful.