Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: ONTOS on November 04, 2015, 04:59:44 PM
-
I wish for the M-26 Pershing tank. It saw action in Jan. 1945 which is a Little late, but the F4U-4 Corsair did not see action till the same time and we have it.
-
+1,, I had this same wish a few times,, including during my trip to Mecca, (HTC) but I'd forgot that danged old Scotch,, I threatened to bring root beer back if it didn't show up before I arrived again ,, they just gave me a funny look as I waived and said goodby! :noid
I sure hope it'll show up tho,, I can find that scotch, and I'll be back that way!
-
Only 20 engaged in combat of the 310 sent before VE day. But it looks like those 20 had a very busy time against everything. Even the single super Pershing had some fun.
GVing has grown in popularity with our game. Maybe it's time to revisit this one since it had matchups against the Panther and Tiger I\II. It would probably have a perk and sit on concrete as much as the Tiger II does. Or our M18 jocky's would have their heavy ride for those Oh so uncomfortable days when massengill just doesn't cut it.
-
Still more than the 87-105 Wirbles produced. The Pershing would prob end up in the same category as the T2 when it comes to Perk cost.
(I would like to see a small perk cost for the wirble too, it has a way to big impact on the gameplay. Osties and
M16 can remain perk free.)
-
Would like to see the M-36 Jackson.
http://www.austinarmorbuilders.com/meetings/..%5Cimages%5Ccontests%5CBattle_of_the_Bulge%5C2ndPlaceBOB.jpg
-
This would be a game monster with a real Achilles heel on top of the turret.
It was not until September 1944 that the vehicle first began to appear in the European Theater of Operations. About 1,400 M36s were produced during the war.
The M36 was well liked by its crews, being one of the few armored fighting vehicles available to US forces that could destroy heavy German tanks from a distance. In an engagement with a German Panther tank at 1500 yards, an M36 of the 776th TD Battalion was able to penetrate the turret armor. Crews of the M36 found that it was better to target the turret rather than the glacis plate. In addition, crews found the Panther tank to be vulnerable when hit from the side.
-
I say if it was made and used even if only for a few months before the end of the war we should have it in game,when is the mobile artillery coming?? :salute
-
It would be an interesting addition.
-
when is the mobile artillery coming?? :salute
We already have a mobile artillery platform, the LVT4(A) with its 75mm pack howitzer that can do both direct and indirect artillery fire. Though it would be nice to have either the M7 Priest or the M4A3(105) as other mobile artillery platforms that you can select in-game.
-
The M3 also have a howitzer suitable for use as artillery. But since there are no way to aim the gun for indirect fire it's pretty much useless.
-
The M3 also have a howitzer suitable for use as artillery. But since there are no way to aim the gun for indirect fire it's pretty much useless.
Same with the LVT4(A) when used in the indirect fire role, though it does have the artillery sight needed for indirect fire in the LVT4(A) skins, it's not modeled in game.
-
The M3 also have a howitzer suitable for use as artillery. But since there are no way to aim the gun for indirect fire it's pretty much useless.
There is a way to use it for indirect artillery, but I have only done it a couple times under close direction from a mission leader in the MA
-
The best artillery we have is the M4A3-75. Within 6k the rockets can kill every hangar with resupply, and I have demonstrated this on several occasions where I have closed a vehicle field in less than 3 minutes elapsed time. The 75mm gun can do the same thing as long as you are within 10k, as well as destroy all the guns. This is possible even without resupply, though a single box comes in really handy.
-
The M3 also have a howitzer suitable for use as artillery. But since there are no way to aim the gun for indirect fire it's pretty much useless.
this is not true. as many have whined about the hardcore gvers in my squadron cant hit a single building from 6miles away in M3s...I however cannot but it can be done hangers have been drop via indirect fire in the same manner with the M3
-
Yes its true. Unless you see your target it is all about luck. You can try to aim at a certain height above the horizon but its more trial and error. The gun also move a bit when you fire so you need to reaim after each shot. What we would need is a way of aiming by using direction and elevation so that we could properly adjust the fire.
-
No Zimme, you do not have to see your target and you can still put every round on target.
What I do is precisely what the Germans did in WWII. You should be able to figure it out from there.
-
Thats irrelevant. Point is that we have no means to aim when firing indirect fire besides using the fact that this is a game and that we can use FOV etc to overcome the issue.
-
Wrong. What you are saying we cannot do is precisely what I do. You have the exact same game that I do, so you could do the exact same thing and use the exact same aim that I use to score hits.
So, irrelevant is the wrong word to use.
-
Wrong. What you are saying we cannot do is precisely what I do. You have the exact same game that I do, so you could do the exact same thing and use the exact same aim that I use to score hits.
So, irrelevant is the wrong word to use.
well it is more difficult if you don't tell us your secret!
-
It's not a secret. You're just not trying to figure it out hard enough.
In surveying (my past career) they call it shooting a backsight. Now, because I have experience in doing that the task of indirect fire is common sense.
If you think you can just drive to any spot on the map and know where to shoot, then you would be wrong.
-
It's not a secret. You're just not trying to figure it out hard enough.
In surveying (my past career) they call it shooting a backsight. Now, because I have experience in doing that the task of indirect fire is common sense.
If you think you can just drive to any spot on the map and know where to shoot, then you would be wrong.
the majority of us don't know how to survey, much less shot a backsight,, so since you have a background in it, it would be awesome if you explained how, but if you'd rather not,, that's fine.
-
the majority of us don't know how to survey, much less shot a backsight,, so since you have a background in it, it would be awesome if you explained how, but if you'd rather not,, that's fine.
Agreed.
- oldman
-
Okay, rather than explain how to shoot a backsight (which you won't understand) I will instead explain what the Germans did in WWII.
If the Germans came upon a target that they wanted to shell but there were some structures that they needed intact, then they would recon the area and draw up a map. Then they would lay out the map with coordinate grids so that they might use math (geometry basically) to determine ranges. Then all they needed was one shot on any object in the target area, and then they would know the range to every other target (and bearing for that matter).
In Aces High we have the added benefit of the game telling you any time you destroy an object precisely which object it is that you have destroyed.
Now, as to the survey bit: When you are surveying a piece of property you use a piece of equipment called a theodolite. Today they have instruments that read GPS data, and can even map out structures by shooting millions of laser points and even determine color, but when it comes right down to it the instrument is determining bearing, and elevation. So, you take this instrument into the field and you locate known survey monuments. A monument can be a concrete marker, a nail in a road, or a steel rod in the ground. This is what a surveyor will 'tie' to when he establishes your property lines. That monument will be tied to a second monument just to establish a baseline. Once this is accomplished they will shoot a bearing a given distance according to the property description recorded at your local courthouse. Your property may have only three lines according to description, or many more, just depending on how the property line has been legally defined, but in the end the geometric lines of your property will return to the point of beginning. Then the surveyor can use math to determine if the geometric shape 'closes,' which basically means the total variation of distance around your property (geometrically) is zero (ends up where it began).
So, that's a lot of information that doesn't really help you, right? Well, here is where it does.
Once you have established the distance to a known object on your target then you try to hit the objects on the edge of the field (left and right) in order to determine the offset for your current position on the map. Once you have two known distances to objects on the field you can use Trigonometry to calculate the distance of every known object, or you can go with an estimate (experience makes a difference here). High Explosive rounds give a lot of leeway with this (up to 200 yds but at 200 yds it takes many, many more shots). You really want to get within 50 yds, and with experience you will.
Okay, so you have read a lot of stuff and you still don't know what to do. Well, this last bit I will not be precise on, because if you don't already know this about your tank then you don't deserve to know it. So, if you figure it out please don't pass it on or everyone will be shelling fields from 10k.
When you use indirect fire you do not use your gun sight. Shocking. I know.
So, in order to make this work you will have to find a way to shoot from the Commanders position that uses fixed objects to aim with while using something that will allow you to preset windage and elevation, because there are times when your center reticle will be way, WAY above the horizon. Offset windage comes in handy because there are times when you are not on level ground.
Whiskey, you should be able to figure this out without any more help.
And NO, everything you need is in the game already, so you do not need anything fancy to make this work.
-
Okay, rather than explain how to shoot a backsight (which you won't understand)
Well, Chalenge, you put up, so I will shut up. Thanks for the explanation.
- oldman
-
Thanks! :aok
-
Yes its true. Unless you see your target it is all about luck. You can try to aim at a certain height above the horizon but its more trial and error. The gun also move a bit when you fire so you need to reaim after each shot. What we would need is a way of aiming by using direction and elevation so that we could properly adjust the fire.
whos to say that this isnt avaliable in the game?
-
If you know the diameter of the commander circle in Hitech Mil and you know that say with the tiger in the gun position unzoomd. The bottom of that optical circle is 4000yds. You aim at the offline target set to 4000yds to benchmark what the commanders circle will look like when you jump back from setting up the 4000yd shot. To get the elevation you cannot be zoomed in commander mode. It helps to put out the target on a long flat plain with buildings and tanks at known ranges. Just build a tank gunnery terrain with a single island for offline only use.
As for 10,000yds, that's 5 miles and I just need to add a building to my 7mile tank range at 5 miles for test shooting. Then keep track of where the commander circle is. An overlay acrylic strip that you mark while taped to your monitor will be helpful.
Before we had the hash ladder and Shift-Q for the cruiser and shore batteries, I ranged with the cross then the circle and sank ships out to 24k. At given percentages of zoom the height up my monitor for the cross or ring was a given range. Judging lead was another problem. I was always too lazy to put a movable acrylic sheet with a vertical line to judge lead from. Before the hash ladder I sank one cruiser at 25k in 10 years by turning off the horizon. AHIII won't let us do that.
The map for any given base type will be in known dimensions and destroyable objects can be mapped. Then you keep that next to you with all of the objects labeled from the object app in the arena settings. If you don't know the distances then open the terrain editor and lay down one of the bases and use the coordinates to give you accurate distances between objects. Use the alt setting for each base icon to tell you relative differences in your respective heights from sea level. The bases are pretty much laid out in a standardized grid.
Knowing that a sector is 25mile x 25mile I guess you zoom into some point that you have a base line grid to tell miles, yards maybe feet within 50ft. Or you create an offline terrain where you setup marker objects and you export that to print. I think back in AW Hitech wrote a program that let him drop shells on the back side of the mountain with pinpoint accuracy on an airfield.
One knight player just sat for days in TT offline learning how to indirect fire with the M4 and it's rockets to take down vBases.
-
Bustr, you are making this much harder than it really is. You don't need an acrylic strip or anything else outside of the game itself.
After working this out it should take no more than an hour to master dropping any field. It still helps to have a squaddie with a rearm crate.
-
That's ok, I'm covering everything possible since you like to lead everyone into the desert and leave them there to find the oasis only you seem to know the location. I hope you aren't one of those parents who makes their wife and kids guess what the presents are on Christmas morning before letting them open them only if they guess correctly.
I've known players who use overlays on their monitor, pulled up the bases in the terrain editor and mapped them by the foot, spent hours offline on their favorite GVing maps practicing on the terrain, and players who Kentucky windage like they had a fire control computer and a GPS in their head. And some who worked with friends as bailed pilots forward spotting their rounds for them. And a small few who either walk the maps offline to know all the field orientations or keep a laptop running with a second account playing on the side they are attacking. Big thing is knowing which of the 8 possible orientations the "base object" was set down relative to north by the terrain builder. Once you have that reference point, the rest is on a known unchanging grid.
-
I'm sure Hitech is laughing his butt off right now.
-
bah... the Pershing would be no better than the Panther. It was NOT a wonder tank. It brought the US up to par, barely, with what the Germans and Soviets were doing.
I'm confident HTC will IGNORE the wish and bring in the numerous other tanks that saw lots of action that are obviously missing from the roster. :aok
-
I'm not a Pershing expert by any means, but I do know that the reality of the Panther is not what the modern fan boys pretend it was. I also know that in AH one of the best tanks is the T-34/85, at least among those players that are really good with tanks. It is not without problems, obviously. With that in mind when you read about the kill ratios of Pershing tanks in Korea versus the T-34/85 (albeit against crews that were not as well trained), the Pershing most certainly looks better than your comments imply.
The Panther sucked in WWII. It had great armor, a proven gun, but it could not operate for more than 150 miles without destroying itself. Even the M4 could manage ten times that, and I see no reason to think the Pershing breakdown rate was any worse than the M4.
The real reason to add the M-26 is for the "Super" version of the tank. That tank could penetrate Panther armor at 2600 yds. Of course, it would be a perk whiners nightmare.
-
The Corsair f4u-4 did see action until Feb. '45, the La-7 ,very few ( around 300 I think)were made and saw action late and we have them. At the Battle of Kursk, the Panther was a miserable failure. What other tanks need to be obviously added before the Pershing Mr. Smokinloon ?
-
The Corsair f4u-4 did see action until Feb. '45, the La-7 ,very few ( around 300 I think)were made and saw action late and we have them. At the Battle of Kursk, the Panther was a miserable failure. What other tanks need to be obviously added before the Pershing Mr. Smokinloon ?
Hopefully in the upcoming update we'll finally see the regular Pershing tank, just not the Super Pershing since only 2 of those were field tested in the ETO and had extensive field modifications to the armor. I'd like to see the Soviet super heavy tanks as well some day.
-
You know, for all the talk about numbers you really need to do a little research. For instance, there were many, many times when the Allied units (particularly Americans) would encounter an armor unit and the cry would go up "Tiger!" How many times did Americans actually encounter Tiger tanks?
There would ne absolutely nothing wrong with adding the Pershing. It suffers the same weakness of every other tank. One bomb and it's goodbye!
-
You know, for all the talk about numbers you really need to do a little research. For instance, there were many, many times when the Allied units (particularly Americans) would encounter an armor unit and the cry would go up "Tiger!" How many times did Americans actually encounter Tiger tanks?
There would ne absolutely nothing wrong with adding the Pershing. It suffers the same weakness of every other tank. One bomb and it's goodbye!
in saving pvt ryan there were 2. in band of brothers there was 1 that I can recall.
semp
-
That already exceeds the actual number of incidents with Tigers.
-
The Panther sucked in WWII. It had great armor, a proven gun, but it could not operate for more than 150 miles without destroying itself. Even the M4 could manage ten times that, and I see no reason to think the Pershing breakdown rate was any worse than the M4.
The real reason to add the M-26 is for the "Super" version of the tank. That tank could penetrate Panther armor at 2600 yds. Of course, it would be a perk whiners nightmare.
So youre really saying is that the panther is amazing in game :banana:. we do not have crappy steels or mechanical defects modeled as you know.
-
What I am saying is that the Panther in AH has all of the advantages of the real tank, but lacks several of its pitfalls.
"Amazing" is something I reserve for things a little more miraculous than a video game.
-
How many times did Americans actually encounter Tiger tanks?
I don't think there is an exact number you can find but to try and claim like your insinuating that the US forces rarely, if at all, encountered any kind of Tiger tank (whether it be a Tiger I or Tiger II), is wrong.
You should read the book on the 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion (American Knights), units of that battalion ran into the Tiger a few times in Italy, France and Germany. US forces during the Battle of the Bulge also ran into the Tiger I and Tiger II tanks (A Time For Trumpets - The Untold Story Of The Battle Of The Bulge by Charles MacDonald).
-
You know, for all the talk about numbers you really need to do a little research. For instance, there were many, many times when the Allied units (particularly Americans) would encounter an armor unit and the cry would go up "Tiger!" How many times did Americans actually encounter Tiger tanks?
No ME-163s ever went up against B-29s during the war, I've no knowledge of any 262 encounters with M-18s,( yet I've fought both sides of that battle in game)
no zekes ever fought 109s either, and T-34s never fought M-4s during the war. Many encounters that happen in the game never happened in real life,but that doesn't mean those vehicles or planes shouldn't be here!
-
The people reading the books written by our returning troops were innocent of war and accepted what they read. Who could dispute it? More recently, though, the actions have been examined and aligned with the records of opposing forces and that reveals a different image of the engagements. We now know that there were precisely two, and only two incidents in which Tigers engaged American armor. Two.
The British on the other hand . . . well, the desire to even the score with Wittman had the code breakers sifting through piles of communiques looking for "007," which stuck with Ian Fleming for some time to come.
-
No ME-163s ever went up against B-29s during the war, I've no knowledge of any 262 encounters with M-18s,( yet I've fought both sides of that battle in game)
no zekes ever fought 109s either, and T-34s never fought M-4s during the war. Many encounters that happen in the game never happened in real life,but that doesn't mean those vehicles or planes shouldn't be here!
t-34 had a very good chances of fighting M4... Germans captured and used both on eastern front.
-
You are wrong again about the Panther sucking, you are stuck with the Kursk failure of the first Panthers in action, crawling through meter deep mud.
We have been through this topic in another thread.
Later versions of the Panther had many problems ironed out, however Panthers did require more maintenance than the M4 (most tank designs did require more).
Im only aware of one single super Pershing that did shoot in anger in ww2.
The Panther sucked in WWII. It had great armor, a proven gun, but it could not operate for more than 150 miles without destroying itself.
The real reason to add the M-26 is for the "Super" version of the tank. That tank could penetrate Panther armor at 2600 yds. Of course, it would be a perk whiners nightmare.
-
Your sad devotion to this ancient myth is noted. If I am wrong then it is because I have been led to that conclusion by reading dozens of books about the tanks in service, a comparison of the M4 and Panther (specifically) by Zaloga, and been to museums in America and across Europe where I have spoken with the men that maintain these tanks today.
Several of those sources stated just what I have word-for-word, which is why I repeated those same statements here.
-
crawling through meter deep mud.
...and a minefield and prepared anti-tank defences. It also did have issues of reliability that is true.
-
it doesnt matter how whichever tank did in ww2. we arent in ww2.
semp
-
I think that's been stated before also.
-
Not only do I have a number of books and magazines written both in english and german about the subject, there are a number of museum's here in Europe I have visited that have a Panther, and yes during my National Service as a tank platoon commander, we had retired tank commanders speakers both from USA , Israel and Germany and England giving thoughts about tanks in general and specifics tanks.
I even used to have the keys for one tank museum for a while ( we mostly had swedish stuff, but also a swiss hetzer).
Yes tank break down, so did our tanks - how many depended on various conditions, how hong they where put out of action depended more on supply routes and logistics than anything else. Most repairs can be done in very short time if you have the spare parts.
Your sad devotion to this ancient myth is noted. If I am wrong then it is because I have been led to that conclusion by reading dozens of books about the tanks in service, a comparison of the M4 and Panther (specifically) by Zaloga, and been to museums in America and across Europe where I have spoken with the men that maintain these tanks today.
Several of those sources stated just what I have word-for-word, which is why I repeated those same statements here.
-
no, not enough saw action.....however, yes to the JS2 soviet tank
-
Most repairs can be done in very short time if you have the spare parts.
Not in the middle of combat. If you have all these books than you know what Zaloga said in comparing the two (specifically).
The number one reason it sucked is that it was hard to manufacture, and so Germany was never able to produce enough to make a difference, and they broke down too quickly to affect a difference in combat.
-
you have to take account of the situation Germany was in, and compare with other German tanks. If you dont have an important spare part the Tank could be useless (or used as a static antitank gun if gun system was ok.
Percentage Operational At The Front:
EASTERN FRONT WESTERN FRONT
% Pz IV Panther Tiger Pz IV Panther Tiger
31 May44 84 77 79 88 82 87
15 Sep44 65 72 70 80 74 98
30 Sep44 65 60 81 50 57 67
31 Oct44 52 53 54 74 85 88
15 Nov44 72 66 61 78 71 81
30 Nov44 78 67 72 76 71 45
15 Dec44 79 69 79 78 71 64
30 Dec44 72 61 80 63 53 50
15 Jan45 71 60 73 56 45 58
15 Mar45 54 49 53 44 32 36
Overall 68 62 70 71 65 65
-
No, I don't consider that to be part of the problem. The problem is the tank was too complex to repair in the field and they broke down a lot. The problem of complexity prevented Germany from producing enough of them to be effective at all. Sherman tanks didn't have that problem.
-
If you claim the Panther was too unreliable because of breakdowns, you at the same time claim all 1943- german tanks where too unreliable, look how close the figures are between designs mid-44 onwards.
They all fall into the same category of mechanical realibility mid-44 onwards, the Panther did not stand out compared.
I would like to know the realibility of the Pershing, compared with the German designs.
-
As far as how much action the Pershing saw, I can't say. I don't think the 163 saw that much action, could be wrong yet we have it. The fact of the matter, the Pershing saw action.
-
In the AVA we use the panther as a substitute for the M26 pershing. while not perfect, it does the job for us.
-
WWII film.
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675075904_United-States-soldiers_M-4-tank_M-26-tank_hold-rifles
-
you have to take account of the situation Germany was in, and compare with other German tanks. If you dont have an important spare part the Tank could be useless (or used as a static antitank gun if gun system was ok.
Percentage Operational At The Front:
EASTERN FRONT WESTERN FRONT
% Pz IV Panther Tiger Pz IV Panther Tiger
31 May44 84 77 79 88 82 87
15 Sep44 65 72 70 80 74 98
30 Sep44 65 60 81 50 57 67
31 Oct44 52 53 54 74 85 88
15 Nov44 72 66 61 78 71 81
30 Nov44 78 67 72 76 71 45
15 Dec44 79 69 79 78 71 64
30 Dec44 72 61 80 63 53 50
15 Jan45 71 60 73 56 45 58
15 Mar45 54 49 53 44 32 36
Overall 68 62 70 71 65 65
Nice chart! Do you have any figures on how many tanks they had on a similar chart?
-
Achtung panzer gives strenght figures for panzer at the bottomg of this page.
I do not know how reliable these figures are or the source.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/divis.htm#ger
-
I'm afraid that without some sort of reference that figures like that cannot be relied upon.
-
Someone less lazy than me has assembled some German OKW order of battle snapshots:
http://ww2-weapons.com/Armies/Germany/Wehrmacht/Dec-1943.htm
What is interesting they have a breakdown of tank designs for the 1rst of January 1 1944.