Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

P4G and P4h


stankyus
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, fidd said:

It seems to me that the predominant problem with the Tiger is terrain related. It isn't. by and large, operated in terrain where it can be considered safe from sappers/PIATs etc, due to colliderless hedges, it's easily flanked, and can be seen over hedgerows, and the general tank v tank engagement ranges are under 750m, at which range, neither the optics, guns reach and lethality, nor the armour, is of much use to the better allied weapons, from the 6pdr upwards. In other words our terrain greatly pulls the Tiger's teeth, so to speak, in flat terrain. In hillier terrain, where the engagement ranges are 1500m plus, then it can do some real damage. The problem is the rest of the time, it's more of a handicap than an advantage, doubly so because the vanilla axis TOE's for garrisons and armoured Bde's mean there's a penalty in more ordinary tanks such as the IVH, because the Tiger's are so relatively expensive. The axis need more cheap TD's, and the same "3 Korps" (countries in effect) arrangement as the allies have. 

Ive never had an issue playing the tiger. Maybe it's just me, but my general rule unless I have trusted infantry support is if I'm closer than 1k and not angling my hull I'm doing it wrong. I'm use to m10 optics and the tigers are far better, so I just use my commander to spot shells. Have had several known kills at 2500m frontally without an issue. Maybe it's just too difficult for some, But then again, the right environment and player makes a difference. You can bet if I know I have to get close right off the bat I'm using a stug. Even then. Terrain, support etc, and comms. And never had an issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, delems said:

*** It seems to me that the predominant problem with the Tiger is terrain related. 

Uhm, no.

It is that the frontal armor should not be penetrated in most cases.

And the 88mm gun should shred nearly anything it hits.

That is the problem.......

Absolutely WRONG by multiple ballistic tables relating to known penetration at closer ranges. 800m or closer us plain 76 ap from Sherman is capable of exceeding that thickness and always potentially was. M10 76mm had even higher punch at farther ranges ( same calibre different charge behind it) and you are veering into myth vs reality again. As far as 88 the higher the velocity the more obliquity is going to matter. Allied tanks other than Matty are bait on the flanks for anything, but the absence of armor but with much better angles can make a real difference compared to a flat slab. Although I agree there could be potential room to wiggle some numbers, at the same time it's not that far off from reality as far as MYTH and reputation vs reality and science as well as research.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

undercova

this conversation is useless because the critical hit calculation is borked ... and as it looks like it wont be fixed

so axis still need like 10+ Tiger rounds to kill a simple Vickers ... or 30+ HEAT rounds to kill a Matty ... 

 

No response within 6 hours ... although I had posted pictures and videos about it ... how to replicate it ...  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, undercova said:

this conversation is useless because the critical hit calculation is borked ... and as it looks like it wont be fixed

so axis still need like 10+ Tiger rounds to kill a simple Vickers ... or 30+ HEAT rounds to kill a Matty ... 

 

No response within 6 hours ... although I had posted pictures and videos about it ... how to replicate it ...  :rolleyes:

You know what on the Vicky I kind of agree. Had plenty of wtf on that little beer can. On the heat with the Matty I can agree too but I never fight them Head on if I can avoid it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

undercova
1 hour ago, daokoth1 said:

You know what on the Vicky I kind of agree. Had plenty of wtf on that little beer can. On the heat with the Matty I can agree too but I never fight them Head on if I can avoid it.

even when you manage to sneak up on the Matty ... it will just insta kill you ... because your 15+ HEAT rounds at any distance cant really hurt it ... mainly because of that critical hit component calculation failure. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, undercova said:

even when you manage to sneak up on the Matty ... it will just insta kill you ... because your 15+ HEAT rounds at any distance cant really hurt it ... mainly because of that critical hit component calculation failure. 

I've had some success nailing the barrel if the turret is turned, other than that, point blank side near sprocket at rear or the rear at under 100m up to a 45 degree angle are the only real spots I have found yet. It's on my personal list when I have a better pc than the current frankenlaptop I'm using so I don't get autokicked from training, if I do find any more areas I ofcourse will share it with axis just like I do with allies with equipment weakness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me get  my head  wrapped aroudn this..

axis lmg  was   stoped form mosign and shotting becus eof alies   crys,   BUT eh bar can sitlll do this??  it is ALSO ap and  cna NOW kill  our  g's and l ????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, delems said:

*** It seems to me that the predominant problem with the Tiger is terrain related. 

Uhm, no.

It is that the frontal armor should not be penetrated in most cases.

And the 88mm gun should shred nearly anything it hits.

That is the problem.......

The frontal armour of the Tiger is only 100mm, and near vertical, with 60mm side plates, again near vertical. That's only 22mm thicker on the front hull than a Matilda from 2 years earlier, and the Matilda had more area of the front sloped (albeit with some vertical areas). The Tiger had thick armour by the standards of 1942, but it's by no means immune even to the (rather underated) 6pdr, especially from the flanks, let alone 17pdrs. The reason I suggested that the "Tiger problem" is predominantly terrain related (on the flat) is because the terrain implementation provides:

  1. Ample cover for ei sappers and PIATS/Bazookas
  2. Reduced tank v tank typical engagement range to well under 750m
  3. Easy flanking for an enemy tank to approach from the side. Given the Tiger is infallibly marked, can be seen over the hedges, and has a slow traverse speed, and it's chances of survival in these conditions are very poor indeed.

 

There are further issues impelling it's poor survival in flat terrain: the optics of 17pdrs be they field-guns or in the Firefly or Achilees are all pretty poor, relative to the optics on the Tiger. There are two problems, one is that the Green allied Shermans & Achillees are relatively hard to spot, and secondly, at fairly short typical engagement ranges, on the flat, the British 17pdr sights are "good enough" to achieve some accuracy at circa 750m. In other words, on the flat, the Tiger cannot capitalise on it's armour, or it's optics, or indeed it's gun, which although it can achieve 1st hit kills, so can the 17pdr, and there are necessarily more of them.

All of which leads me to the almost inescapable conclusion that the problem is not the vehicle, or it's gun, or it's optics, it is first and foremost the implementation of the terrain that make this, statistically speaking, a less than successful weapon in flat terrain as currently modelled. 

In hilly terrain, or the river valleys, where it can stand-off, and the optics, armour and reach of the 88mm all work in it's favour, the reverse is true.

The inference that one can draw from this is that there is no possible "ideal" vanilla TOE for Tigers. If you were to have "lots" of them, then in flat terrain they'd remain just as vulnerable as now, and would further lower the stable of medium PzIV's and Stugs. I think few would dissent from the view that the PzIV's armour is essentially worthless v most allied tanks by tier 3. But it still costs, in terms of how many PzIVg's and H's are left in the list when the Tigers have been lost. In hilly terrain "lots" of Tigers would be truly formidable, possibly even very hard or impossible to beat. So, it therefore follows that the "vanilla" axis Garrison and Bde TOE's have to be got rid of, in favour, I suggest, of the 3 Korps model. Finally, more dev effort needs to be made for axis vehicles in the medium term, than allied, because the upshot of all the preceding, assuming the terrain remains the same, is that the axis need a larger and more diverse pool of vehicles from which to draw, in order that 3 different TOE's for the 3 korps (and the garrisons belonging to each Korps) can be optimised for the terrain types.

Likely contenders are a couple of different Marders, the Hetzer and the 251/Pak40 portee. Not "sexy" I grant you, but decidedly necessary if the axis are to have any depth, in terms of numbers of gun-tubes, to those Bde's deployed in flat terrain.

My worry here is that when the Panther is modelled, if nothing else changes, in respect of the end of vanilla TOE's or improvements to the terrain to raise tank v tank engagement ranges to greater than 750m and flanking being harder due colliders in linear features, then the Panther will simply make a bad situation even worse, in the flat terrain especially. 

If you consider these views flawed, take a moment to explain where and why you differ, as I regard this analysis as being a pretty fair representation of the issues. YMMV of course.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you're saying the axis 1942 tanks stand no chance against the allied 1944 tanks?

I agree, when will axis get 1943 and 44 tanks?

Armor warfare is so completely lopsided it is incredulous.

Not only do allies get 30 tanks, vrs 14 to axis.......  they are 1944 vrs 1942.

It is a complete farce imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, fidd said:

The frontal armour of the Tiger is only 100mm, and near vertical, with 60mm side plates, again near vertical. That's only 22mm thicker on the front hull than a Matilda from 2 years earlier, and the Matilda had more area of the front sloped (albeit with some vertical areas). The Tiger had thick armour by the standards of 1942, but it's by no means immune even to the (rather underated) 6pdr, especially from the flanks, let alone 17pdrs. The reason I suggested that the "Tiger problem" is predominantly terrain related (on the flat) is because the terrain implementation provides:

  1. Ample cover for ei sappers and PIATS/Bazookas
  2. Reduced tank v tank typical engagement range to well under 750m
  3. Easy flanking for an enemy tank to approach from the side. Given the Tiger is infallibly marked, can be seen over the hedges, and has a slow traverse speed, and it's chances of survival in these conditions are very poor indeed.

 

There are further issues impelling it's poor survival in flat terrain: the optics of 17pdrs be they field-guns or in the Firefly or Achilees are all pretty poor, relative to the optics on the Tiger. There are two problems, one is that the Green allied Shermans & Achillees are relatively hard to spot, and secondly, at fairly short typical engagement ranges, on the flat, the British 17pdr sights are "good enough" to achieve some accuracy at circa 750m. In other words, on the flat, the Tiger cannot capitalise on it's armour, or it's optics, or indeed it's gun, which although it can achieve 1st hit kills, so can the 17pdr, and there are necessarily more of them.

All of which leads me to the almost inescapable conclusion that the problem is not the vehicle, or it's gun, or it's optics, it is first and foremost the implementation of the terrain that make this, statistically speaking, a less than successful weapon in flat terrain as currently modelled. 

In hilly terrain, or the river valleys, where it can stand-off, and the optics, armour and reach of the 88mm all work in it's favour, the reverse is true.

The inference that one can draw from this is that there is no possible "ideal" vanilla TOE for Tigers. If you were to have "lots" of them, then in flat terrain they'd remain just as vulnerable as now, and would further lower the stable of medium PzIV's and Stugs. I think few would dissent from the view that the PzIV's armour is essentially worthless v most allied tanks by tier 3. But it still costs, in terms of how many PzIVg's and H's are left in the list when the Tigers have been lost. In hilly terrain "lots" of Tigers would be truly formidable, possibly even very hard or impossible to beat. So, it therefore follows that the "vanilla" axis Garrison and Bde TOE's have to be got rid of, in favour, I suggest, of the 3 Korps model. Finally, more dev effort needs to be made for axis vehicles in the medium term, than allied, because the upshot of all the preceding, assuming the terrain remains the same, is that the axis need a larger and more diverse pool of vehicles from which to draw, in order that 3 different TOE's for the 3 korps (and the garrisons belonging to each Korps) can be optimised for the terrain types.

Likely contenders are a couple of different Marders, the Hetzer and the 251/Pak40 portee. Not "sexy" I grant you, but decidedly necessary if the axis are to have any depth, in terms of numbers of gun-tubes, to those Bde's deployed in flat terrain.

My worry here is that when the Panther is modelled, if nothing else changes, in respect of the end of vanilla TOE's or improvements to the terrain to raise tank v tank engagement ranges to greater than 750m and flanking being harder due colliders in linear features, then the Panther will simply make a bad situation even worse, in the flat terrain especially. 

If you consider these views flawed, take a moment to explain where and why you differ, as I regard this analysis as being a pretty fair representation of the issues. YMMV of course.

I agree with all of this but bear in mind the 17pdr field gun optics are an older design and less powerful than those of the later tier armored vehicles possessing them. Which, iirc was intentionally done by the British to give comparable stand off range and visual distance, they are/ were in fact on those vehicles better than the tiger 1s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, delems said:

So, you're saying the axis 1942 tanks stand no chance against the allied 1944 tanks?

I agree, when will axis get 1943 and 44 tanks?

Armor warfare is so completely lopsided it is incredulous.

Not only do allies get 30 tanks, vrs 14 to axis.......  they are 1944 vrs 1942.

It is a complete farce imo.

So what your saying is model panther, tiger 2 and jagdpanther td. Fair enough but that's about as far as axis armor went as far as fielded units, the Panthers gun should and was a beast of a weapon with very little drop til 700m and had a higher velocity than the tiger 1s 88. I'm all for it being in. As far as lop sided atm though I've never felt it that was playing axis, the stug sights and it's ability to lob a shell at range for a flatter hit to me more than make up for it, and at close range I love turning on dimes. Yes axis armor gets thrashed from flank. So does allied. Now that being said. Sure, jagdpanther would be awesome but no stronger on flank than panther, which although sloped is weaker on flank than tiger. Tiger 2 would be awesome to see. But that means you would again be seeing the likes of the m36 Jackson appear. With a power turret but a very leather counter in it's gun/late optics, some of which including the B1 variant would be on the Sherman a3 hull. I guess it's just me but when I run into an issue with the other side I practice, find ways to kill it, share, and implement. Half of the times a player doesn't die when they should has nothing to do with gun/armor it's the ping, hell lest week I lost a church7 at 800m frontally to a stug because round didn't render until it was inside my tank and from prospective he didn't fire until after it did. But I digress. This is all part of a greater build in the game. These things will come. Sure, I would even say, and this may make a few enemies on allied, but go as far as to remove the firefly. Things will still have the same result, some of us, are crack shots at range and will kill whatever whoever is using on either side 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, drkmouse said:

let me get  my head  wrapped aroudn this..

axis lmg  was   stoped form mosign and shotting becus eof alies   crys,   BUT eh bar can sitlll do this??  it is ALSO ap and  cna NOW kill  our  g's and l ????????

No lmg can any longer move and shoot. B.a.r. is rated as an auto rifle, just like stg. The big difference. It actually fired ap standard. And actually COULD penetrate some are.or. I fell the point is being missed here about the fact that the top oz armor is THICKER than it should be. But most don't complain about that, and bringing up the old lmg debate is beating a dead horse. Realistically ball ammunition ( non ap) was what was used by axis inf weapons period.  And I'm not so sure that the "cries" cause as much change as you think. Rats 2.0 are busting their behind fixing stuff one by one and frankly this kind of "counter" argument is bad for players. Bad for game, and quite contrary to progress

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dre21 said:

Hmm

STU can't be tracked from the front with pak36 or pnz 3h  , is not enough detail ?

You needed what exactly to make you guys look at it ? Apparently it was videos . Cause my countless posts about exactly that issue were ignored till I finally posted a video , which in earlier years I had not the chance to do so cause no 2 accounts .

You guys have testers right? 

Again what detail did I miss ?

I get it if I report a player that doesn't  die in his Armor when shot into the same spot where everybody else dies , hard to replicate that ,I doubt I can ask the guy to just let me test on him , that's why doing a . Report on stuff like that is rather pointless,  but the before mentioned is actually pretty clear cut and dry. Expect it took a few years while other stuff gets looked at right away.

You know it's actually a pretty nifty thing when you can track a enemy tank way before he gets into combat range or close to town , and because a lot of engagements are frontal yes YES it would be great if that would get the same fast response as Allied issues being posted. Again OPTICS  , and because the 3h comes in with the Stuart yes it should have been fixed long time ago.

As much as some players don't like me, I would be more than happy at any time I'm available to meet you on training and work with you on anything you would like to test/ debunk/ or figure out. I would do the same for any player regardless of side

5 hours ago, Dre21 said:

Hmm

STU can't be tracked from the front with pak36 or pnz 3h  , is not enough detail ?

You needed what exactly to make you guys look at it ? Apparently it was videos . Cause my countless posts about exactly that issue were ignored till I finally posted a video , which in earlier years I had not the chance to do so cause no 2 accounts .

You guys have testers right? 

Again what detail did I miss ?

I get it if I report a player that doesn't  die in his Armor when shot into the same spot where everybody else dies , hard to replicate that ,I doubt I can ask the guy to just let me test on him , that's why doing a . Report on stuff like that is rather pointless,  but the before mentioned is actually pretty clear cut and dry. Expect it took a few years while other stuff gets looked at right away.

You know it's actually a pretty nifty thing when you can track a enemy tank way before he gets into combat range or close to town , and because a lot of engagements are frontal yes YES it would be great if that would get the same fast response as Allied issues being posted. Again OPTICS  , and because the 3h comes in with the Stuart yes it should have been fixed long time ago.

As much as some players don't like me, I would be more than happy at any time I'm available to meet you on training and work with you on anything you would like to test/ debunk/ or figure out. I would do the same for any player regardless of side

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, delems said:

So, you're saying the axis 1942 tanks stand no chance against the allied 1944 tanks?

I agree, when will axis get 1943 and 44 tanks?

Armor warfare is so completely lopsided it is incredulous.

Not only do allies get 30 tanks, vrs 14 to axis.......  they are 1944 vrs 1942.

It is a complete farce imo.

No, I was expressly saying that only in certain conditions, ie in flat terrain, the Tiger will struggle due to the short engagement ranges and other factors I went into. The problem is that in Hilly terrain, all those issues largely disappear. Consequently there is no uniform number of Tigers (or Panthers) that will work >>both<< well in flat terrain, and tolerably fairly, in hilly terrain. And that's the problem right there. If Tiger (and Panther) numbers in a vanilla TOE were optimised for flat terrain, then those numbers would completely obliterate allied units facing them in hilly terrain. Conversely, if the vanilla list is optimised for hilly terrain, then axis Bde's on the flat will get completely creamed once the Tigers/Panthers are relatively easily killed in the flat terrain. (For reasons extensively previously quoted.

Put more simply, there is no fixed TOE profile that will work for the axis in both flat and hilly terrain. Therefore vanilla TOE's for the axis need to go, and the simplest and most equitable way of doing this would be to split the axis into 3 Korps, each in function the same as allied countries. In order to correct the deficiencies of the axis vanilla TOE in flat terrain you probably need to lose most of the Tigers and Panthers, and "spend" their value on light TD's such as Marders, Hetzers, and the 251/Pak40.

I hope that clarifies. My estimate is, that if axis go to the 3 Korps model, and can employ Panthers/Tigers/jagdpanthers and the like only in terrain suited for said deployment, and use much more numerous "cheap and cheerful" TD's and a sufficiency of PZIV's/Stugs in the flatter terrain, your experience of using Tigers/Panthers will greatly improve, because you won't be forced to use them in terrain where they cannot do well, whilst having few remaining weapons left after the Tigers are killed, because TD's less expensive than PZIV's and StugG's havn't yet been devved.

That's a bit more nuanced than "axis 1942 tanks stand no chance against the allied 1944 tanks". In the right terrain/TOE composition, Tigers and Panthers can shine. The real problem is that the current terrain implementation, for numerous reasons, prevents that whenever they are used in flat terrain, whilst simultaneously leaving the axis "vanilla" Bde's (IE a single TOE composition for every axis armoured Bde all across the front) very fragile once those Tigers are lost.

Edited by fidd
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fidd said:

No, I was expressly saying that only in certain conditions, ie in flat terrain, the Tiger will struggle due to the short engagement ranges and other factors I went into. The problem is that in Hilly terrain, all those issues largely disappear. Consequently there is no uniform number of Tigers (or Panthers) that will work >>both<< well in flat terrain, and tolerably fairly, in hilly terrain. And that's the problem right there. If Tiger (and Panther) numbers in a vanilla TOE were optimised for flat terrain, then those numbers would completely obliterate allied units facing them in hilly terrain. Conversely, if the vanilla list is optimised for hilly terrain, then axis Bde's on the flat will get completely creamed once the Tigers/Panthers are relatively easily killed in the flat terrain. (For reasons extensively previously quoted.

Put more simply, there is no fixed TOE profile that will work for the axis in both flat and hilly terrain. Therefore vanilla TOE's for the axis need to go, and the simplest and most equitable way of doing this would be to split the axis into 3 Korps, each in function the same as allied countries. In order to correct the deficiencies of the axis vanilla TOE in flat terrain you probably need to lose most of the Tigers and Panthers, and "spend" their value on light TD's such as Marders, Hetzers, and the 251/Pak40.

I hope that clarifies. My estimate is, that if axis go to the 3 Korps model, and can employ Panthers/Tigers/jagdpanthers and the like only in terrain suited for said deployment, and use much more numerous "cheap and cheerful" TD's and a sufficiency of PZIV's/Stugs in the flatter terrain, your experience of using Tigers will greatly improve, because you won't be forced to use them in terrain where they cannot do well, whilst having few remaining weapons left after the Tigers are killed, because TD's less expensive than PZIV's and StugG's havn't yet been devved.

That's a bit more nuanced than "axis 1942 tanks stand no chance against the allied 1944 tanks". In the right terrain/TOE composition, Tigers and Panthers can shine. The real problem is that the current terrain implementation, for numerous reasons, prevents that whenever they are used in flat terrain, whilst simultaneously leaving the axis "vanilla" Bde's (IE a single TOE composition for every axis armoured Bde all across the front) very fragile once those Tigers are lost.

So it's not the size or number it's how you use it :D

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, daokoth1 said:

So it's not the size or number it's how you use it :D

LOL. It's perhaps more a case of where you use it, and not being forced to use it where it has no business being! <he said carefully>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fidd said:

LOL. It's perhaps more a case of where you use it, and not being forced to use it where it has no business being! <he said carefully>

Darn! I almost pulled you into my twisted world but on a more serious note I totally agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fidd, I'm not sure you are correctly remembering how easy it was to pop 4gs back in the day.  You did not have to hit one at an extreme angle (maybe 45 degrees) and you didnt have to pull any sort of extreme gs to get out of it.  Most people just did a simple loop over the top and hit them on the way down.  That being said, I am not in favor of going back to that sort of gameplay. We lost too many players based on that tactic alone and in not sure we want to put that sort of pressure back on one side of the player base.

Edited by halsey
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, daokoth1 said:

Darn! I almost pulled you into my twisted world but on a more serious note I totally agree

Nice try! <g> You'll need to get up very early in the morning to slip one past me like that. I am quite a fan of the elliptical insult, and "collect" old-English epithets like others collect bird's eggs or lead-soldiers! <grin>

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, halsey said:

Fidd, I'm not sure you are correctly remembering how easy it was to pop 4gs back in the day.  You did not have to hit one at an extreme angle (maybe 45 degrees) and you didnt have to pull any sort of extreme gs to get out of it.  Most people just did a simple loop over the top and hit them on the way down.  That being said, I am not in favor of going back to that sort of gameplay. We lost too many players based on that tactic alone and in not sure we want to put that sort of pressure back on one side of the player base.

Er, I was advocating that the addition of roof armour to the PzIV was perfectly acceptable to me, in order specifically to design out such maneuvres as the P38 looping and hitting the PzIV's 10mm roof armour vertically. In other words, I fully recall the issue and regard it in exactly the same light as the pirouetting MG42. Exactly the same problem - a wholly unrealistic repeatable manoeuvre having a large in game effect. Such exploitation of unrealistic manoeuvres, be they in flight, or spinning an LMG to clear a room, are both crap.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bombtruck

Looping is a simple combat manuver, nothing extreme about it

 

Lol just saw I posted from my tow acct-halsey

Edited by bombtruck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bombtruck said:

All I'm saying is that a simple loop is not any sort of unrealistic maneuver.  It is well within the capabilities of any combat aircraft and any trained combat pilot.

It's one thing to loop a WWII fighter, even a P38 commencing at 3 or 4 thousand feet, it is an entirely different proposition, with due regard to your own safety from flak or hitting the ground, to commence the loop at a few hundred feet so that you pull out mere feet above the ground. The margin of safety in such a manoeuvre is terrifyingly small:

P-38 Lightning Crash at Duxford Airshow - Bing video

This pilot had thousands of hours on WWII fighters, and was by means inexperienced either in the manoeuvre or the aircraft, unlike that idiot who pranged the Hunter at Shoreham.

My point is that if the manoeuvre required to kill tanks in this way is so potentially lethal that no pilot in his right mind would attempt it, let alone practice it on a battlefield teaming with light AAA, then we should probably design it out as a possibility in game...

Edited by fidd
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, daokoth1 said:

No lmg can any longer move and shoot. B.a.r. is rated as an auto rifle, just like stg. The big difference. It actually fired ap standard. And actually COULD penetrate some are.or. I fell the point is being missed here about the fact that the top oz armor is THICKER than it should be. But most don't complain about that, and bringing up the old lmg debate is beating a dead horse. Realistically ball ammunition ( non ap) was what was used by axis inf weapons period.  And I'm not so sure that the "cries" cause as much change as you think. Rats 2.0 are busting their behind fixing stuff one by one and frankly this kind of "counter" argument is bad for players. Bad for game, and quite contrary to progress

um was calisief by  the maericns as a  auto riffle ANd a LMG

s SHOULD have the SAMe limitation as teh axis LMG.. PERIOD..  

hm i think  the main  ammo was  a abl NOt a  armro peircing.. bellow  THat is a BALL ammo not a ap...

he primary variant of the BAR series was the M1918, chambered for the .30-06 Springfield rifle cartridge military service, the 30-06 was used in the bolt-action M1903 Springfield rifle, the bolt-action M1917 Enfield rifle, the semi-automatic M1 Garand rifle, the semi-automatic M1941 Johnson rifle, the Famage Mauser, the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), and numerous machine guns, including the M1917 and M1919 series. It served the United States in both World Wars and in the Korean war, its last major use was during the Vietnam war.

 

he U.S. Army, in practice, used the BAR as a light machine gun, often fired from a bipod (introduced on models after 1938).[4] A variant of the original M1918 BAR, the Colt Monitor Machine Rifle, remains the lightest production automatic firearm chambered for the .30-06 Springfield cartridge, though the limited capacity of its standard 20-round magazine tended to hamper its utility in that role.[4]lthough the weapon did see some action in World War I, the BAR did not become standard issue in the US Army until 1938, when it was issued to squads as a portable light machine gun. The BAR saw extensive service in both World War II and the Korean War and saw limited service in the Vietnam War. The US Army began phasing out the BAR in the 1950s, when it was intended to be replaced by a squad automatic weapon (SAW) variant of the M14, and as a result the US Army was without a portable light machine gun until the introduction of the M60 machine gun in 1957.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, halsey said:

That wasnt looping.

The first minute or so is the exact tactic used in game

Yep, and there was no flak about, or LMG's nor hundreds of little hun infantry potting away furiously with small arms. You'd be a few sandwiches short of a picnic to do that in a combat zone. I'm not saying the flight model in game is unrealistic to perform the manoeuvre, I'm saying that very few pilots would attempt it, let alone perfect it, and even if the did, they wouldn't likely do it for any length of time, owing to being, well, dead. If our lack of fear of death and endless re-upping after being killed trying to perfect such manoeuvres allows such methods to be repeatably successful in game - then they should be designed out. IMHO of course. As CRS couldn't de-rate the 0.50 cal to prevent top-down attacks on pzIV's, without screwing with the air to air effectiveness of the weapon (I surmise) they went with increasing the PzIV's roof armour. A perfectly sensible solution in my view.

Edited by fidd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BMBM locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...