• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
redoak84

Shermans

39 posts in this topic

Bombs are the suxxor.

Well.. if they do what I hope they'll do, this'll be a nerf alright, but not one for or against one particular side. Rather it'll nerf tanks vs planes.

Will have to wait and see what the results will be, but if bombs will become as powerful as I think they should be, it will probably also mean a re-evaluation of inf-vs-tanks balance would be in order.

Infantry seem OP-ed vs tanks as it is, but if tanks get more vulnerable to planes, it might be time to take some of the inf's AT-toys away or limit them further.

*shrug*

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last thing the airwar needs is ground pounders being easier targets. need SPAA and multi barrel AA in realistic ratios. meaning, in terms of gun barrels capable of throwing something at planes the combined SP/AA force in this game should be 20:1.

it has always been WAY to easy to kill ground targets with said targets having far to few options to do anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10087000a.jpg

Notice the gun-shield. Should give some protection against MG-caliber bullets at least. Being self-propelled should mean it's a bit more survivable than our highly immobile flaks we have today. And it they model it correctly (meaning with its full complement of loaders) this thing would throw out a wall of lead.

Late war:

latest?cb=20121224171944

For the Allies:

M16_Half_track.jpg

Added mobility would also mean that tankers would have few excuses if they get raped by air. If we had SPAA, one or two of those should always be part of your tank-column.

The beauty of it is that most of the components for all these vehicles are in-game already. Except for the US HT, but having that thing wouldn't be a bad addition in itself.

S.

Edited by sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS previously has said that gunshields would not be included in any autocannon/HMG units so that if such units were used against infantry, rifle and sniper infantry would have the potential to shoot directly back.

In prior CRS discussions, the planned SPAA weapon set was to be:

1. FlaKVierling (two twin FlaK 38s on a common platform) on a flatbed halftrack

2. Bofors 40mm on a Morris 4x4 stripped truck

3. Hotchkiss twin 25mm (1940J design, naval version) on a Laffley S25TL flatbed truck

4. Quad Browning M2HB .50 cal MG on an M16 halftrack

An alternative to the Bofors for the British would be a quad or triple Oerlikon or Polsten 20mm on a Morris flatbed truck.

In comparing the AA lethality and thus effectiveness of such SPAA vehicles, you definitely want to consider their firing duration in a typical engagement vs. how the gun is loaded.

The Bofors was fed via an open-ended gravity guide slot. A pair of loaders could feed it shell-clips at a rate equal to its continuous RoF, so it could fire as long as needed and engage as many targets as needed until there was no more ammo, the gun melted or the enemy ran out of planes. In a long engagement, two or four more loaders would be needed to replenish the ready-reach ammo store of the two on-gun loaders.

The German FlaK 36 37mm AA gun had a generally similar feed system and capability.

The German FlaK Vierling (FlaK 38 quad mount as used on SdKfz 7/1 and several later platforms, as well as in naval and fixed-ground service) was fed with a 20 round box magazine for each gun. That's about six seconds of firing. Hypothetically a crew of eight very good loaders could reload a FlaK Vierling system in heavy firing in five seconds. That's only about 55% of continuous fire.

Six seconds of firing isn't long enough for a typical engagement, so reloading had to occur during combat time. The FlaK Vierling design usually is thought of as a four barrel gun, but it was actually designed to manage its reloading problem by being fired two guns at a time. It had two foot-pedal triggers, each of which fired diagonally opposing guns. One pair of guns would be fired until empty, then while those were being reloaded by a four man reload crew (two on each side of the gun platform), the other two guns were firing. Thus in practice the FlaK Vierling was actually a 2x20mm continuous fire gun system.

If fired four barrels at a time, it took roughly ten seconds to reload one pair of guns, then the other pair of guns with no firing going on. There wasn't room alongside the FlaK Vierling to add more loaders so as to be able to reload the top and bottom guns on each side simultaneously.

Reloading of the FlaK Vierling was slower in the armored-turret Wirbelwind because of the very crowded conditions.

The reason why the FlaK 38 and FlaK Vierling were never equipped with a larger magazine size is that 20 rounds was about as many as they could fire continuously without jamming due to internal part heating and clearances changing. That design and manufacturing problem was never fixed because the demand for guns was so great that production couldn't be stopped.

The Hotchkiss 1940-model single-triggered 2x25mm gun fired at about 450 rpm, but used box magazines holding only 15 rounds. Thus its firing time was only about two seconds, making it very much a sharpshooter's gun, with an extremely high destructive power in its short-duration shell stream. Its reload time was similar to that of the FlaK Vierling, about five seconds, so its fire-continuity was less than 30% and reloading had to occur during combat time.

The single-triggered British/Canadian 20mm Oerlikon/Polsten systems had a similar rate of fire to the FlaK Vierling, and were fed from 30 round box or 60 round drum magazines. Thus they provided either about nine or eighteen seconds of firing. Nine seconds was shorter than many engagements, but eighteen seconds often wasn't, so in some cases the British/Canadian systems could fire three or four guns continuously through an engagement. That's a huge advantage compared for instance to the FlaK Vierling.

The single-triggered American M2HB quadmount used "tombstone" magazines holding 200 rounds. At a typical RoF of 500 rpm, that provided up to 24 seconds of continuous fire. That was plenty for the longest plausible engagement against a single target, and even allowed engaging two, three or more targets before reloading.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you didn't use "system" and "platform" enough, the americans won't understand anything you said, for example

The German FlaK 36 37mm AA gun had a generally similar feed system and capability.

should be:

The German FlaK 36 37mm ground based anti aircraft force projecting weapon platform system's reloading platform system had a generally similar replacement procedure system.

i brought this up a few times no but im still not satisfied with the answer, why do you Americans say "system" and "platform" soo much?

all the ex-commonwealth, general english speaking, and translated jargon use the correct nouns and verbs, like chassis and scope/optic.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few months back, someone posted stats about the actual historical number of bombs dropped per tank kill. I believe the number was really high. I remember thinking how much easier it must be to kill tanks in the game, given the number of tanks that get destroyed by bombs and the relatively few bombers. I would say, if anything, it's still much easier to destroy a tank in the game than it was in RL.

----------

Example, from historical sources:

Take for instance one of the most famous shooting galaries for Allied fighter bombers in France, the "Falaise Pocket". After the break out by Allied forces in Normandy in August 1944 a large number of German forces were trapped in an area known as the "Falaise Pocket". As German forces tried to exit this area they were attacked by allied fighter bombers. The British 2nd Tactical Airforce, and American 9th Airforce flew over 12,000 missions in this area. Together they claimed the destruction of 391 armored vehicles (tanks, self propelled guns, and armored cars) and 5,861 motor vehicles. The area was inspected by teams from the airforce after the battle. In fact aircraft had only destroyed 33 armored vehicles. And they had only destroyed 325 motor vehicles.

----------

12,000 missions and only 33 armored vehicles and 325 cars and trucks destroyed? That kind of makes the game seem easy, doesn't it?

-Irish

I think you need to taker into account a few things.

1. Many of our game pilots have more sorties under their belt than any real life pilot ever managed.

2. Our pilots can learn how to do stupid things without fear of death.

3. AA is much less a threat than real life.

4. Weather/fog/haze/cover is much less a problem for pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our intent is to do an audit of both ballistics and armor. We've started the process of drawing our plans and getting a bit more organized on this. To be continued...

TAP TAP TAP did we not see this bit ????

Second best news ive heard XOOM after the changes coming in 1.36,i might stick around mate the future might be rid of all the BS in this game,the future looks very bright.. S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CRS previously has said that gunshields would not be included in any autocannon/HMG units so that if such units were used against infantry, rifle and sniper infantry would have the potential to shoot directly back.

lets hope after year of coddling the infantry this new team expects infantry to learn how to flank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your flawed logic can be applied to all weapons in this game. of all weapon systems artillery accounted for some 70% of casualties. a very small percentage of infantry even fired their weapon. how about every time you spawn an infantry 3 out of 4 times you're too scared to shoot your gun?

terrible argument is terrible.

*ROTFLMAO!*

1) We don't have artillery. The game is basically infantry-oriented. Bring in artillery and kill a ton of the enemy! The other side does the same. We'll be left with five on five battles over towns. Is that what you want? This does not apply.

2) We don't have 50,000 men attacking an area at one time. We ARE the small percentage. Again, this does not apply.

Your terrible argument is pathetic.

I think you need to taker into account a few things.

1. Many of our game pilots have more sorties under their belt than any real life pilot ever managed.

2. Our pilots can learn how to do stupid things without fear of death.

3. AA is much less a threat than real life.

4. Weather/fog/haze/cover is much less a problem for pilots.

1) So? That should make tanks automatically die when a plane flies over? One plane could not destroy an armored column in RL. With many attacks ingame only consisting of two or three tanks at a time, why make it easier for one pilot to destroy them all in one mission? Tanks are NOT overpowered in this game. Why nerf them by making them die more easily?

2) That makes absolutely no point I can discern, even if it is a true statement. :)

3) We also have a lot fewer planes and a lot fewer tanks. EVERYTHING is scaled down. Make AA better and we'll have no one flying because they'll die from ground fire, everytime they get into battle.

4) So, you're saying we should make weather MORE of an issue? The pilots will love you for this.

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*ROTFLMAO!*

1) We don't have artillery. The game is basically infantry-oriented. Bring in artillery and kill a ton of the enemy! The other side does the same. We'll be left with five on five battles over towns. Is that what you want? This does not apply.

2) We don't have 50,000 men attacking an area at one time. We ARE the small percentage. Again, this does not apply.

Your terrible argument is pathetic.

your ability to be completely obtuse is extremely impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) So? That should make tanks automatically die when a plane flies over? One plane could not destroy an armored column in RL. With many attacks ingame only consisting of two or three tanks at a time, why make it easier for one pilot to destroy them all in one mission? Tanks are NOT overpowered in this game. Why nerf them by making them die more easily?

2) That makes absolutely no point I can discern, even if it is a true statement. :)

3) We also have a lot fewer planes and a lot fewer tanks. EVERYTHING is scaled down. Make AA better and we'll have no one flying because they'll die from ground fire, everytime they get into battle.

4) So, you're saying we should make weather MORE of an issue? The pilots will love you for this.

-Irish

I think you are missing my point. It is easier to kill tanks in this game than in RL because of what I listed despite bombs having less actual effect against tanks from near misses.

If we ramp up bombs to a more realistic effect. IE. Killing tanks by hitting within ten meters. Then armour deaths from air dropped ordnance will skyrocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lets hope after year of coddling the infantry this new team expects infantry to learn how to flank.

Yeah... the exaggerated vulnerability of the 88 is kinda silly.

The game pretty much forces you to get much too close to your intended targets. Hard enough to find a spot that is at least 2km out, doesn't have a whole bunch of trees/shrubbery blocking your view, has a halfway flat area to set up on (otherwise your sight will be useless) and offers some sort of concealment for your gun.

And even if you do find a spot where a single infantry-dude can't easily run towards you to end your sortie with 2 9mm rounds (because your crew is unarmed and frozen in place), the enemy can simply spawn AAA and start spraying your position. Or ETs that should've been out of action after a few hits from your 88 simply will not die and start spraying you with HE and/or MG fire.

At anything under 2.5k you are vulnerable in this way, and you can't rely on opening up the distance, because your shots will disappear after around 3km, just like everyone's. The difference here being that you are a soft target while your usual customers are armored and can sometimes take some hits at these ranges - even though they shouldn't be able to.

So basically, the way the game is designed, you're forced to sacrifice a lot of your own strengths (basically: your deadly AT-punch at extreme range) and fight on the terms of the enemy who have much shorter range weaponry than yourself.

And while the gun-shield wouldn't turn the 88 into a "hard" target, it would at least force infantry to get close and/or flank to be able to kill you. Getting sprayed by an LMG or a AAA at ridiculous range and taking random hits is kinda frustrating when it took you 10 or 15 minutes to drive your gun into its intended ambush-spot.

The shielded FlaK36 existed in RL and all other ATGs in the game have a shield - so I don't see why the 88 shouldn't have one. It would also keep the 88 sorta competitive once the PaK40 comes out. I mean... ideally Axis should get the PaK43 (Tiger II's long 88) in Tier3 as the Flak36's successor, but I don't see that one happening anytime soon.. :/

pak43.jpg

S.

Edited by sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in real life "killed" vehicles and guns could be re-crewed and repaired for light damage. the RAF probably did get several thousand vehicles but not enough to make them unrepairable, or they just killed the driver.

in our game a dead gunner or flat tire is a complete write-off.

this is something i'm hoping the sequel addresses, picking up weapons and making guns and vehicles recrewable. killed a 88 crew? jump in and use it against panzers!:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't need even mention technical equipment, what is lack in game, like spaa-s, searchlights and many other things, we can see that main thing is terrain and vegetation and their possibilities of the concealment.

And next thing is GPS map. It is understandable, why it is in the hands of infantrymen and tankers, they must find CP-s in "the cities without streets". Which would be a

nightmare without such map.

But at same time this GPS map in the hands of pilots make them very "uber". So "uber", that they even don't need to find FBs, ABs, bridges, roads, railroads etc.

IMHO, proper harmony might come after we remove GPS from pilots. They will have steady maps and direction to targets and to home airfield. Again, imho.

Edited by lemkeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.