Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Epic anyone??

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:27 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 1675
Location: Australia
What matters isn't the fact that it's an 'aircraft', what matters are all the relevant factors such as size, range speed, engaging weapon system, etc.
Just because something is airborne shouldn't mean that it all of a sudden gains a bunch of absolute yes/no immunities. The relevant factors should be taken into account.

_________________
Warhammer 40,000 5th edition
The least worst rules for 40K.

The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity.
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog, behind which halftruths and untruths can frolic and procreate unmolested.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:13 pm 
Offline
Astro-Path
Astro-Path
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:02 pm
Posts: 3821
Location: Valic IV
Yarlen Fireblade wrote:
As an example the United States during Vietnam lost numerous F1 Phantoms (supersonic jets) to ground fire, not AA missiles, not dedicated truck mounted large calibre machine cannons.
I'm talking about infantry bourne small arms, Kaslashnicovs and general purpose machineguns, you put enough projectiles in the air and you'll eventually hit something.


Well since there is no such thing as an F1 Phantom (Unless you are referring to the FH1 Phantom which is a subsonic jet but never flew in Vietnam) I can only assume you meant the F4 Phantom II.

If that is the case, can you direct me to a website which shows these planes being shot down with "infantry bourne small arms" I can't seem to find anything other then SAM's or MiG's taking down F4's.

There were a great many aircraft losses during the Vietnam War. Hundreds of U.S. fixed-wing aircraft were lost to ground fire of antiaircraft artillery (AAA), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and fighter interceptors (MiG)s. The great majority of U.S. combat losses in all areas of Southeast Asia were to AAA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_l ... ietnam_War

McCragge

_________________
Deadlands 3000 - A Retro style MMORPG set in a Post Apocalyptic wasteland, as close as you will get to Necromunda in a browser game.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:11 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:39 pm
Posts: 1536
Location: The Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Yeah F4 phantoms.... teach me for writing reply at 1am.

Footage of them being shot down? bah i doubt it i don't think photography equipment was high on the north vietnamese agenda for fighting war, i'm pretty sure in my entire lifetime i've seen about.... 4 or 5 pieces of footage of US jets being shot down that were accredited to the Vietnam war, but that sure as hell doesn't mean thin aircraft aluminium skinned jets are by any means invulnerable to Kalashnicov fire.

Needless to say, when aircraft do get shotdown and impact the earth, there's generally not much left to accredit the kill to any specific weapon system, and i'm not talking about Air to Air combat at 8 thousand feet, i'm talking about aircraft on ground attack missions (which is what is represented in Epic) being fired upon by ground forces.

As for battle cannons attacking aircraft of any designation, the only difference between say an M1 abrams 120mm smoothbore and a Tunguska-M1's twin 30mm AA cannons is software, there's no doubt in my mind that an M1 Abrams targetting computer could hit a low relatively slow flying helicopter quite easily.

But yes, there are many factors that arn't even considered in the current Epic rules.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:13 am 
Offline
Astro-Path
Astro-Path
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:02 pm
Posts: 3821
Location: Valic IV
I am sorry Yarlen, I didn't mean video footage of the F4's being shotdown, I meant a website or something listing details of what or how they were shot down. I can't seem to find anything about small arms taking down supersonic jets.

I do agree that a futuristic tank could take down a slow moving helicopter type craft, but I think it would be hard pressed to take out fast moving, low altitude supersonic jet type craft with any consistency.

McCragge

_________________
Deadlands 3000 - A Retro style MMORPG set in a Post Apocalyptic wasteland, as close as you will get to Necromunda in a browser game.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:24 am 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:39 pm
Posts: 1536
Location: The Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
While i found a few references to F4's being down by 'ground fire and/or small arms fire' i couldn't find anything i was willing to quote.

But.... i did find something just as good if not better.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_2-88_chpt4.htm

A few quotes.

Quote:
British troops were preparing to move out of the beachhead at San Carlos Bay when four Argentine jets flying at a low level appeared without warning and headed out over the water. Forces on the ground firing small arms and automatic weapons placed a "curtain of lead" in front of the flight path of the aircraft. As the four aircraft exited from the area, pieces of the tail section from one of the Mirages began to fall off and smoke appeared to be coming from out of its side just before it crashed.


Quote:
To ensure that the Argentine pilots knew they were being engaged by ground forces, the British relinked their machine gun ammunition to add more tracers. British ground forces were credited with downing three Argentine jet aircraft with small arms.


I'll also add an important piece of information, yes a vast majority of ground attack aircraft are indeed supersonic, but due to the window of oppertunity of actually engaging ground targets jets always slow down to allow better accuracy and aiming of weapons, they're definately not travelling at supersonic speeds when they engage targets, that said many dedicated ground attack aircraft arn't capable of supersonic flight.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:35 am 
Offline
Gunner
Gunner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:36 pm
Posts: 142
Location: League City, TX
I thought this was about Epic....

Fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft are still subject to damage from ground based fire, nothing new there. It is just harder to hit them unless they are kind enough to hover in one place for you!

Close-air support craft definitely slow down on their attack runs. Even at slower speeds used by rotary wings it can still be vary hard to acquire and identify your targets. I do not envy them their task at all! Everything is different from the air, including navigation.

Image
Image

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:27 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:39 pm
Posts: 1536
Location: The Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Discussing the fundamental flaws of Epic is still discussing Epic.
Nice nose job above. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:37 am 
Offline
Gunner
Gunner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:36 pm
Posts: 142
Location: League City, TX
Flaws of Epic? Whaaaaaat! While not perfect I find it one of GW's better devised games. I've been into GW games since the 80's but I really do shun their core games now.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:13 am 
Offline
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:44 pm
Posts: 22
Also, Aircraft and AA weapons are an integral part of modern warfare, so it is fitting that you have to use them or lose.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:16 am 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:39 pm
Posts: 1536
Location: The Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Not that we have many actual examples of true modern warfare, i think the closest example would have to be the Falklands.
But so long as you have enough forces to absorb the casualties armies with little or no AA capability can still win wars, boots on the ground are what actually matters.

Also i wouldn't consider Epic 'modern warfare' in any sense of the word, i think the 1950s Korean war is the closest comparable war, 40k insanity aside of course.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group