Author Topic: Damage update  (Read 964 times)

Offline FYB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1074
Re: Damage update
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2009, 06:26:57 PM »
i never had the same outcome twice  weather in bombers defending or fighters attacking bombers except that someone dies its
Agreed... but i had that outcome once at least no?
Also, here is a Tiger Tank that had an explosion in the inside.


-FYB
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 06:46:32 PM by FYB »
Most skill based sport? -
The sport of understanding women.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Damage update
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2009, 07:35:25 PM »
Agreed... but i had that outcome once at least no?
Also, here is a Tiger Tank that had an explosion in the inside.
(Image removed from quote.)

-FYB

I wonder if that Tiger crew cried about the crappy damage modeling.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline 10thmd

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1872
Re: Damage update
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2009, 02:32:10 AM »
Here's my one complaint. The armor on the M4 is a bit to durable in my opinion. The Sherman's armor was effective against most early war tank guns. The frontal thickness was 91 mm for the gun mantlet, 76 mm for the turret front, and 63 mm for the front of the hull. The Sherman's frontal armor was designed to withstand the lower velocity 50mm Kwk 38 L/42 gun, which was a common German anti-tank gun and the gun on the Panzer III medium tank during the North African Campaign in 1942. However, the Sherman's armor, while good for an early war tank, was inadequate against the German 75mm KwK 40 L/48 used by the later Panzer IV's, the higher velocity 75mm KwK 42 L/70 used by the Panther tank, and the infamous 88mm KwK 36 L/56 used on the Tiger tanks. It was this deficiency in its frontal armor that made the Sherman very vulnerable to most German anti-tank rounds in 1944.My Panzer IV should penetrate this thing any angle at 2k at least.

- Der Wander Zirkus -
“You can all go to hell; I will go to Texas

Offline FYB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1074
Re: Damage update
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2009, 06:37:33 PM »
I wonder if that Tiger crew cried about the crappy damage modeling.


ack-ack
Doubt it  :D

-FYB
Most skill based sport? -
The sport of understanding women.

Offline Oleg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Damage update
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2009, 06:07:39 AM »
Keep in mind that perhaps the majority of Luftwaffe pilots shooting at these buffs were *not* as good a shots as you or I, lacking the hundreds of hours of shooting experience AHers have.

Same is true for gunners, isnt it?

Also, afaik, regular Luftwaffe attack was several fighters on single bomber, while regular AH bomber interception is one fighter on 3 bombers.

btw, commenting such stupid statements like "bombers can take hundreds of rounds of cannon fire from perfect firing position at 6 o'clock and the fighter takes a few hits of 30 or 50 cal rounds while attacking from 3 or 9 o'clock and the plane falls apart?" or "history says the tiger was hard to kill so why does it seem like they can't stand more than 1 or 2 rounds from anywhere inside 1.5k." just plain senseless.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2009, 06:18:32 AM by Oleg »
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
Maya Angelou