Gloster Meteor

[SAS_KID]

im not sure but i read the gloster actually flipped over some uzz bombs or something not real combat but it did something. then again spitties would go up to them and hit them with their wing.

[Krusty]

Whether or not Ar234s got kills is one thing, but they WERE killed themselves, which is the same as combat. Hell even the He163 Salamander got shot down at least once! That qualifies as "combat" -- hey, nobody said it had to win the combat lol.

[Bronk]

So I guess the pilot who risked his life  killing buzz bombs don't count as combat. Guess he was just up for a joy ride then.







Bronk

[Billy Joe Bob]

good god what happened here!?




i just had to add to the chaos

[/IMG]

[Furball]

Originally posted by Pooface
true, but i think it did actually do some damage. im really not sure though. bombers are going to be diffeent to fighters, and we need a perk bomber. i dunno. maybe some day but the idea's been turned down so much:(

Originally posted by SAS_KID
im not sure but i read the gloster actually flipped over some uzz bombs or something not real combat but it did something. then again spitties would go up to them and hit them with their wing.

Originally posted by Krusty
Whether or not Ar234s got kills is one thing, but they WERE killed themselves, which is the same as combat. Hell even the He163 Salamander got shot down at least once! That qualifies as "combat" -- hey, nobody said it had to win the combat lol.

Meteor's were used as ground attack aircraft when they could not find the Luftwaffe.  They performed strafing missions for the 2nd TAF, and among their claims they also killed a mini sub.  There is also the incident when they found some FW190's, started to engage, then got chased off by allied aircraft thinking they were german jet aircraft.

Ask the mini sub crew if the Meteor saw combat.... oh wait, you cant.

When i said earlier that Meteor III's were based on the continent looking for trouble, i didnt mean they were there to get some sunshine

[Pei]

Not sure why so many people are anti the Meteor: it served operationaly with the RAF duing the war. It may not have seen air to air combat but it certainly did ground attack work. I don't think it is anything other than low priority but there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be included.

[Pooface]

Originally posted by Furball
There is also the incident when they found some FW190's, started to engage, then got chased off by allied aircraft thinking they were german jet aircraft.

i forgot about that lol









no, its a good point, there is no reason not to add it. its just HT seems to be concentrating on other things:(

[Hoarach]

Originally posted by Westy
"it never saw combat"


 How many enemy planes did the Ar-234 shoot down?

If I remember correctly according to my reading that the arados participated in Operation Bodenplatte.

[Westy]

Ah, but the Meteor participated in air operations over the continent in 1945.

I just have to chuckle at players like Krusty that keep moving the fieldgoal or define one that is so narrow it's beyond silly.    Getting shot down is now the same as combat?    lol


Or the worst being " is no air-to-air combat, thus should not be added" in which case there'd be no navy, ground vehicles, most of the bombers and certainly no C-47 in AH.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Westy
Ah, but the Meteor participated in air operations over the continent in 1945.

I just have to chuckle at players like Krusty that keep moving the fieldgoal or define one that is so narrow it's beyond silly.    Getting shot down is now the same as combat?    lol


Or the worst being " is no air-to-air combat, thus should not be added" in which case there'd be no navy, ground vehicles, most of the bombers and certainly no C-47 in AH.

Westy you twist things around.

I did not come up with the "It must have seen combat" rule, HTC did. Seeing combat means being in a fight (win or lose) and frankly the Meteors were never in a fight against sentient enemy aircraft. Buzz bombs don't count because there were no pilots aboard. They might as well have been shooting target drones (very fast, very explosive ones, but drones nonetheless).

I have not "moved the field goals"... I have merely restated them from the other point of view (being shot down is a part of combat, if you were shot down, you were in combat to begin with, thus any plane that was shot down could be said to have seen combat).

How the hell can you, with a straight face, say that bombers never saw air combat? That GVs never saw ground combat? That PT boats didn't see naval combat? Are you serious, or just a troll?

[viper215]

[Karnak]

Actually I have never seen HTC define what "saw combat", it is players who persistantly try to wheedle it one way or another.

The one thing I recall seeing HTC say was that it had to be a production aircraft and in squadron service.  The Meteor Mk I does not meet the first qualification, but the Meteor Mk III meets them both.

There may have been an added requirement for it to have been in a combat zone, which the Meteor Mk III once again meets.

[Krusty]

Karnak I believe somebody at HTC made some comment somewhere. However it was about other late war planes, perhaps the bearcat or the tigercat?

[Furball]

the bearcat and tigercat are not really comparable to the meteor, as the jet was in service over a year before.

[Krusty]

The MkIII was only in service for 2-3 months at the end of the war, from what I understand.