Put Planes back in the GV game

[Ack-Ack]

I think it points out just the opposite Ack

 He says that he could  be hit bye the shell while crossing thru tanks shooting at each other.. hence the accident was flying thru the fire  not at the fire.... and certainly not tanks shooting at him.......... you don't read to well.

He said getting hit by a tank was either an accident (i.e. inadvertently flying into a tank shell) or a mistake made by the pilot, which could mean that the pilot made the mistake of flying in an area where he could be hit by a tank shell or attacking at an angle that made him vulnerable to be being shot down by tanks main gun. 

Edit:Ya Know Ack.... There are many things in my post that go to the merit of this thread. I'll point out, when hit by a flak he didn't drop like a rock and was able to land/crash-land somewhere close to his line..... why? ... because he was close to begin with.

He made at least what 3-4 flights a day maybe more? he was able to do that because he was so far from the action?

The reason why Rudel was close to the action was because a large number of Luftwaffe bases were within minutes of flying time from the front line.  If the bases were farther back, his flight time to the action would have been longer.  It wasn't because he was stationed with the tank units and took off from tank depots. 

Why not make a map or ask someone to make a map with the vehicle bases and spawns closer to the airfields so you can have the short flight times to the action?

I think it also points out that the tanks weren't worried about the planes while enemy tanks were on the battle field. They had ack that was dealt with by the bomb carrying stuka's 

That in no way proves your point that tanks never fired at attacking aircraft.  Your desire to have the ability for it to happen in game removed is not based on anything historical but rather an attempt on your part to get something nerfed so you won't be shot down while you're in your Stuka.  It's time to be honest, you know it's the reason, and we all know it's the reason.

ack-ack

[hitech]

While HTC are very meticulous with the plane modeling and proud of the level of physics, the tank modeling became more arcade than a sim.

You may wish to reconsider this thought process, when it comes to ballistics, sights, turret traverse rates, method of track control, armor penetration, armor thickness,angle of impact calculations, you will find lots of very detail simulation, on par and in some respects more detailed the planes.

But just like bombers, tanks have a crew. And some method must be made to allow a single user , some of the same SA that a crew has.

HiTech

[Tinkles]

You may wish to reconsider this thought process, when it comes to ballistics, sights, turret traverse rates, method of track control, armor penetration, armor thickness,angle of impact calculations, you will find lots of very detail simulation, on par and in some respects more detailed the planes.

But just like bombers, tanks have a crew. And some method must be made to allow a single user , some of the same SA that a crew has.

HiTech

Which is why bombers have F3, F4 and F5 modes to simulate having a crew looking outside the bomber.

[Randy1]

You may wish to reconsider this thought process, when it comes to ballistics, sights, turret traverse rates, method of track control, armor penetration, armor thickness,angle of impact calculations, you will find lots of very detail simulation, on par and in some respects more detailed the planes.

But just like bombers, tanks have a crew. And some method must be made to allow a single user , some of the same SA that a crew has.

HiTech

That explains why a tank guy says he hits another tank he thinks is a one hit tank but nothing happens.  Angle impacts calculation is something that I would never guessed is included in the tank damage calculation.  Much more sophisticated than I thought.

[Tank-Ace]

That explains why a tank guy says he hits another tank he thinks is a one hit tank but nothing happens.  Angle impacts calculation is something that I would never guessed is included in the tank damage calculation.  Much more sophisticated than I thought.

Of course angle of impact calculations are taken into account. That's why sloped armor works in the game, and glancing hits deflect rather than penetrate.

Unless you've never really done much tanking, it should be fairly evident.

[Tinkles]

Unless you've never really done much tanking, it should be fairly evident.

Play nice, no need to get snippy.

That is interesting on the armor though, it sort of explains why a panzer took 22 rounds from my m4 before he died... although I still don't really know why

Will have to find the film sometime and send it in (need to go through my library of films  )

[Tank-Ace]

Not trying to be snippy. Just saying that if you're paying attention, its fairly evident that angle of impact is factored into GV combat.

[Megalodon]

He said getting hit by a tank was either an accident (i.e. inadvertently flying into a tank shell) or a mistake made by the pilot, which could mean that the pilot made the mistake of flying in an area where he could be hit by a tank shell or attacking at an angle that made him vulnerable to be being shot down by tanks main gun.  


The reason why Rudel was close to the action was because a large number of Luftwaffe bases were within minutes of flying time from the front line.  If the bases were farther back, his flight time to the action would have been longer.  It wasn't because he was stationed with the tank units and took off from tank depots.  

Why not make a map or ask someone to make a map with the vehicle bases and spawns closer to the airfields so you can have the short flight times to the action?

That in no way proves your point that tanks never fired at attacking aircraft.  Your desire to have the ability for it to happen in game removed is not based on anything historical but rather an attempt on your part to get something nerfed so you won't be shot down while you're in your Stuka.  It's time to be honest, you know it's the reason, and we all know it's the reason.

ack-ack

 I have quoted him directly read it again  

 Oh and becuase he was close to the action makes my point for Planes at GV bases thanx

[Tank-Ace]

I have quoted him directly read it again  

 Oh and becuase he was close to the action makes my point for Planes at GV bases thanx

It actually doesn't.

[Ack-Ack]

 Oh and becuase he was close to the action makes my point for Planes at GV bases thanx

He wasn't close to the action because he was taking off from tank depots, he was close to the action because his airfield was close to the front lines.

ack-ack

[Megalodon]

It actually doesn't.

 you have the book?

[Megalodon]

He wasn't close to the action because he was taking off from tank depots, he was close to the action because his airfield was close to the front lines.

ack-ack

 Sorry about your comprehension problem....

[Tank-Ace]

you have the book?

Can you not read what you both quoted AKAK saying, and what he just said in the post above you?


Besides, you're already minutes from a GV base. 5-10 minutes maybe, but minutes are still the best unit to measure that amount of time. Minutes does not imply 2-3 minutes.

[Megalodon]

Can you not read what you both quoted AKAK saying, and what he just said in the post above you?


Besides, you're already minutes from a GV base. 5-10 minutes maybe, but minutes are still the best unit to measure that amount of time. Minutes does not imply 2-3 minutes.

Do you have the Book? "Stuka Pilot"

[Ack-Ack]

Sorry about your comprehension problem....

You're saying that he was stationed on the front lines with the tank units and didn't take off from an airfield?

ack-ack