Tanks rounds shooting down aircraft.

[Ack-Ack]

Show me one instance of a tank shooting down an aircraft at speed with it's main gun during WWII while in flight. No I would not make HTC do anything I only posted a wish on the wish list forum.

While he doesn't mention if any German aircraft were shot down, but in an interview Dimitriy Loza (tank battalion commander in the 6th Guards) mentions using the main gun on a Lend-Lease Sherman to shoot at German aircraft.

- 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.

Source

ack-ack

[Chalenge]

Lyric you have been shot down twice in the A20 once by a Panzer once by a LVT2 (no main gun) and three times in an IL2 by (one each) M4A3(75) M4A3(76)W and Tiger 1.

[Nemisis]

The M4's could be nose on strafing runs. I would venture a guess that the Panzer was one of the long shots, along with the tiger. The LVT is just unexplainable unless it was a proxy or if the gunner got lucky and killed his pilot.

[Megalodon]

But you have not given any physical reason as to why it should not happen and that is due to the fact that if a projectile is fired at a moving target and the path of the projectile intersects with the moving target ... the moving target will get hit by the projectile ... doesn't matter if your shooting tank rounds at a plane or shooting arrows at ducks ... somewhere along the line, someone is gonna get lucky coupled with some good aiming sense and their gonna hit the target. Just because you say "it should not happen" doesn't dismiss the fact that it can happen.

Total bollocks ... your embellishing to make your point.

Karaya or Zazen will light you up with unbelievable consistency in flak guns or ostwinds, but I doubt strongly that they could be as prolific in a tank. They just might get you in a tank, but your chances of survival is much better with them in a tank as opposed to flak/ostwinds.

When we want a plane we have to prove it out as to why it should be. You want to shoot planes with a tank's main gun prove it happened. Show us five times it happened in real life.

[Ack-Ack]

When we want a plane we have to prove it out as to why it should be. You want to shoot planes with a tank's main gun prove it happened. Show us five times it happened in real life.

Well, I just posted an interview with a former Soviet battalion commander in the 6th Guards that said they'd use their main guns on their Shermans to fire at airplanes but much preferred using the .50 caliber for that job.  Pretty much validates that tanks did use their main guns to fire on low flying planes, regardless if they actually hit anything is inconsequential. 

ack-ack

[Beefcake]

When we want a plane we have to prove it out as to why it should be. You want to shoot planes with a tank's main gun prove it happened. Show us five times it happened in real life.

 

Wow. Talk about comparing grapes to 500lbs pumpkins.

[kvuo75]

The M4's could be nose on strafing runs. I would venture a guess that the Panzer was one of the long shots, along with the tiger. The LVT is just unexplainable unless it was a proxy or if the gunner got lucky and killed his pilot.

lvt gotta 50.. it can do the job.

[Megalodon]

Well, I just posted an interview with a former Soviet battalion commander in the 6th Guards that said they'd use their main guns on their Shermans to fire at airplanes but much preferred using the .50 caliber for that job.  Pretty much validates that tanks did use their main guns to fire on low flying planes, regardless if they actually hit anything is inconsequential. 

ack-ack

Fired at and hitting are two different things.... Prove it!

[Megalodon]

Wow. Talk about comparing grapes to 500lbs pumpkins.

 I dont think so... you have to jump through hoops just to get a skin in the game. Show us where a tank ever shot a plane with its main gun?
You cant. It didnt happen.

[Ack-Ack]

Fired at and hitting are two different things.... Prove it!

Don't need to prove they hit anything.  The whole basis of this thread was basically whether or not tanks fired at planes with their main gun in real life.  Guess what?  Tanks actually did fire their main guns at planes.  So, players in game firing at attacking planes in their tanks is not unrealistic or "gamey" in any sense of the word. 

I also highly doubt that Lyric1 was shot at 2,000+ yards by a tank's main gun and since he has nothing to prove that he was, it will always remain highly doubtful he was shot down at that range. 

ack-ack

[lyric1]

Don't need to prove they hit anything.  The whole basis of this thread was basically whether or not tanks fired at planes with their main gun in real life.  Guess what?  Tanks actually did fire their main guns at planes.  So, players in game firing at attacking planes in their tanks is not unrealistic or "gamey" in any sense of the word.  

I also highly doubt that Lyric1 was shot at 2,000+ yards by a tank's main gun and since he has nothing to prove that he was, it will always remain highly doubtful he was shot down at that range.  

ack-ack

Do you doubt Skuzzy then & his post?

[Megalodon]

Don't need to prove they hit anything.  The whole basis of this thread was basically whether or not tanks fired at planes with their main gun in real life.  Guess what?  Tanks actually did fire their main guns at planes.  So, players in game firing at attacking planes in their tanks is not unrealistic or "gamey" in any sense of the word. 

I also highly doubt that Lyric1 was shot at 2,000+ yards by a tank's main gun and since he has nothing to prove that he was, it will always remain highly doubtful he was shot down at that range. 

ack-ack

No it wasnt ...the basis of this thread is weather or not tanks hit planes with there main gun. You can talk as many circles as you want ...It didnt happen. <---period....and its totaly gamey

[Ack-Ack]

Do you doubt Skuzzy then & his post?

I don't doubt that HiTech did it at all.  If you had seen my reply to Skuzzy, I asked him to ask HiTech about his stories of vulching planes with a T-34 in AW.  I'm sure that HiTech had it all ranged out before hand when he shot down Pyro like he used have it all ranged out in AW.

ack-ack

[Beefcake]

No it wasnt ...the basis of this thread is weather or not tanks hit planes with there main gun. You can talk as many circles as you want ...It didnt happen. <---period....and its totaly gamey

Oh dear gawd I think my IQ just went into negative numbers. Make it stop make it stop!

Megalodon can you please name one pilot that was killed in action that came back to life seconds later in a new airplane?

If you cannot prove this then I feel that HTC should close accounts after you die in game.

[Ack-Ack]

No it wasnt ...the basis of this thread is weather or not tanks hit planes with there main gun. You can talk as many circles as you want ...It didnt happen. <---period....and its totaly gamey

How do you know it didn't happen?  If tanks did use their main guns to defend against air attack, it is very possible that one of those tanks did get lucky and score a hit.  While Hans Rudel didn't think very highly of the Sherman tank, he hated to attack them over T-34s because the Sherman crews would not only fire their .50 calibers at the low flying Stukas but also their main gun as well.

What does this mean?  It means that you're absolutely incorrect that a plane being shot down by a tank's main gun is gamey in any sense of the word.  Those of you that claim it is do so because of the embarrassment of being shot down by a tank's main gun and if you claim it's "gamey" and "unrealistic", it makes the embarrassment a little less painful.

It would be "gamey" if tanks never fired their main guns at planes in real life.


ack-ack