Axis vs. allied planes... -1 reply

Please wait...

[CoUk]niu

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

12th March 2004

0 Uploads

2,110 Posts

0 Threads

#31 14 years ago
130.Pz Nacht LW

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

19th June 2004

0 Uploads

25 Posts

0 Threads

#32 14 years ago

Well lets just get a Hurricane with 2 250kg bombs that can outmanuever a 109, now theres alot balance there on El Alemein.... And this chart may help for the Realism aspect. http://tailslide.firelight.dynip.com/atchart.asp




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#33 14 years ago

Anlushac11One thing I have noticed is that most maps have bombers but very few if any dedicated fighters to hunt for enemy bombers.

A few bombers is OK but more mappers need to put more dedicated fighters on the map to counter the bombers.

I agree with that......there were fighters used in ground attack role, but most of them were as they are designed to be air supriority fighters.

Besides that, if all fighters carry bombs, then what is the purpose of (dive)bombers in FH ?

I would be happier if none, or very few fighters had bombs. That decreases aircraft camping by people that stand no chance against another fighter but only are looking for a few cheap bomb kills on tanks.

If FH devs want to prevent players starting kamikaze attacks with "useless planes" ( that is what nOObs call them if there are no bombs on them ) again, simply add real bombers to that side.

Bombers have weaknesses, wich counters their bombing power over ground units. Fighters with bombs have no weakness, exept the skill of their pilot. If you want to prevent aircraft raping tanks, ( a much heard complaint ) then only give real bombers bombs, and do not give fighters bombs !

A good fighter pilot is able to rack up lots of groundkills anyway, without bombs......the only vehilcles he cannot touch are tanks and ships then......but infantry, tanks, bombers, field guns, mines and artillery can kill tanks too, there no need whatsoever fighters should be able to kill tanks aswell.




FF|cihset

GF makes me horny

50 XP

4th May 2004

0 Uploads

97 Posts

0 Threads

#34 14 years ago

Except for the fact that 20mm - 30mm cannons should be able to take out lighter tanks from above, atleast with the APHE rounds in the German planes.

But I'm beginning to lean towards your opinion Beast, thanks to fighterbombers airpower has once again returned to F.H. I-ll go and continue that trail of thoughts in your other thread.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#35 14 years ago

FF|cihsetExcept for the fact that 20mm - 30mm cannons should be able to take out lighter tanks from above, atleast with the APHE rounds in the German planes.

But I'm beginning to lean towards your opinion Beast, thanks to fighterbombers airpower has once again returned to F.H. I-ll go and continue that trail of thoughts in your other thread.

Except that most German fighters that had a 30mm cannon used the 30mm Mk.108 which fired almost exclusively a HE round since the muzzle velocity was so low.

Mk.103 was the one which fired a AP shell and they were more rare than the Mk.108

And it is a common misconception that all G models that were supposed to get a 30mm had them. The Mk.108 was in short supply throughout the entire war and when the Mk.108 was not available the 20mm MG151 was used.