Jump to content


AI Heavy ramming


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

BuffaloTime #21 Posted 04 December 2017 - 11:22 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 11808 battles
  • 940
  • [3MNKY] 3MNKY
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012
Bot ramming, it happens to all of us. It's a game, not a simulation. I will say again, it takes two to ram head on, if I'm in an attack aircraft and you come at me in a light fighter I'm not going to dogfight with you, I will ram. Don't message me with an insult after that,  you chose not to dodge. Just sayin'

Edited by BuffaloTime, 04 December 2017 - 11:22 PM.

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
Damon Runyon
 

         

Demons run when a good man goes to war.

Steven Moffat - Dr. Who


poppavein #22 Posted 05 December 2017 - 12:23 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 3200 battles
  • 278
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostWesrin, on 04 December 2017 - 02:42 PM, said:

Ramming, IMO, needs to be lethal for all participants like it used to be.

 

 

Remember all the stories about planes ramming each other in WW2?

 

No, me neither. 



hoom #23 Posted 05 December 2017 - 01:25 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 9976 battles
  • 1,965
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Block Quote

 Remember all the stories about planes ramming each other in WW2?

 

No, me neither. 

Your ignorance has & should have no bearing on the game design

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aerial+ramming

 

Russians considered it a valid but limited tactic particularly after expending all ammo & only over friendly territory, called it Taran with ~200-500 attacks depending on source.

The Germans had a specially trained squadron to ram bombers late-war, as did Japan.

Britain & most other nations have a number of individual cases mostly after expending all ammo.

A number of planes were modified or explicitly developed as ramming planes including the Zeppelin Rammer & Northrop XP-79.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.

Wombatmetal #24 Posted 05 December 2017 - 01:56 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1141 battles
  • 1,045
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Posthoom, on 04 December 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:

Your ignorance has & should have no bearing on the game design

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aerial+ramming

 

Russians considered it a valid but limited tactic particularly after expending all ammo & only over friendly territory, called it Taran with ~200-500 attacks depending on source.

The Germans had a specially trained squadron to ram bombers late-war, as did Japan.

Britain & most other nations have a number of individual cases mostly after expending all ammo.

A number of planes were modified or explicitly developed as ramming planes including the Zeppelin Rammer & Northrop XP-79.

 

There is an incident of a Canadian pilot in a Hawker Hurricane ramming an Italian Fiat CR 42 Fighter in the Battle of Britain. The Italian pilot was beheaded, but both plains remained airworthy (the Fiat flew itself back over the channel and landed in a field, the Hurricane landed and had blood on its prop).

 

A P38 rammed an FW190, there was half an FW wrapped around one of the engines when it landed. 

 

Doesn't matter. It's in the game, and the solution is not to fly in a straight line and get hit. 



hoom #25 Posted 05 December 2017 - 02:10 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 9976 battles
  • 1,965
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Interesting quote I found, not sure what the actual source is but notable for claiming significant numbers of successful landings after rams.

Block Quote

 "During the war, the Soviet Air Force recorded some 636 rammings. During the first and most difficult period of the war, 358 aerial rammings, 56% of the total occurred. A breakdown by type pilot/aircraft reveals the rammings were carried out by 561 fighter pilots (including 33 who did this twice, Hero of the Soviet Union(HSU) Lt. A.A. Khlobystov, who did it three times and HSU Lt. B.I. Kovzan, four times), 19 ground attack crews and 18 bombers. Of this number, 233 safely landed their damaged aircraft, 176 bailed out, 216 were killed and 11 missing in action. The Soviet Air Force claims the enemy lost 272 bombers, 313 fighters, 48 reconnaisssance aircraft and 4 transport aircraft."

 

 


Edited by hoom, 05 December 2017 - 02:13 AM.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.

Wombatmetal #26 Posted 05 December 2017 - 02:17 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1141 battles
  • 1,045
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Posthoom, on 04 December 2017 - 06:10 PM, said:

Interesting quote I found, not sure what the actual source is but notable for claiming significant numbers of successful landings after rams.

 

 

 

How very Soviet. Then the Tigers first appeared, the T34 76 could not pen it, so they would ram it until the turret popped off the ring, an then shoot it in the same spot because, you know, metal fatigue. Their tactics were always unconventional

hoom #27 Posted 05 December 2017 - 02:42 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 9976 battles
  • 1,965
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

That is of course primarily bollocks.

 

http://www.esatclear...ot/T34Chart.jpg

Green areas are the ranges & angles at which T-34-76 could penetrate Tiger.

Ramming happened sure but by far a minority, why ram when you can get on its flank & kill it from 1,500m.

 

The great irony of the 76mm armed T-34 is that Soviet intelligence had given good warning of 80mm+ armored tanks & Soviets had both 57mm & 107mm high-powered anti-tank guns in production or close to it when Barbarossa started.

The small number of 57mm equipped T-34s proved ineffective since they shot clean through the thinly armored tanks the Germans actually invaded with -> the lower pen 76mm was main production since pen was adequate & HE much more useful.

Then a couple of years later when Tiger turned up the dedicated higher-power guns were out of production & they had to make do with guns converted from other uses (85/100mm AA & 122mm field guns)


Edited by hoom, 05 December 2017 - 02:53 AM.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.

Wombatmetal #28 Posted 05 December 2017 - 03:07 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1141 battles
  • 1,045
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Posthoom, on 04 December 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

That is of course primarily bollocks.

 

http://www.esatclear...ot/T34Chart.jpg

Green areas are the ranges & angles at which T-34-76 could penetrate Tiger.

Ramming happened sure but by far a minority, why ram when you can get on its flank & kill it from 1,500m.

 

The great irony of the 76mm armed T-34 is that Soviet intelligence had given good warning of 80mm+ armored tanks & Soviets had both 57mm & 107mm high-powered anti-tank guns in production or close to it when Barbarossa started.

The small number of 57mm equipped T-34s proved ineffective since they shot clean through the thinly armored tanks the Germans actually invaded with -> the lower pen 76mm was main production since pen was adequate & HE much more useful.

Then a couple of years later when Tiger turned up the dedicated higher-power guns were out of production & they had to make do with guns converted from other uses (85/100mm AA & 122mm field guns)

 

It was in the battle reports I used to read when I was into miniature gaming back in the 70s and 80s. But not going to argue

Mercsn #29 Posted 05 December 2017 - 03:54 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2616 battles
  • 3,299
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostARCNA442, on 04 December 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

 

For me the issue isn't that I struggle with it - as you say it is fairly easy to avoid (although having to avoid it is still annoying). The issue is that it isn't limited to bots. I often ram low HP targets so I didn't have to come around for another pass (especially if they're more maneuverable than me) and it feels cheap and unrealistic every time I do it. This shouldn't be a legitimate tactic for anything but an "I'll take you down with me" scenario.

 

It is historically a legitimate tactic, though.   Although, we don't have gun jams, running out of ammo, etc here that happened in real life to necessitate such tactics...it is nonetheless (and admittedly, significantly more rare) a historical aerial combat tactic.

All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Zergling #30 Posted 08 December 2017 - 08:38 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 710 battles
  • 155
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
It's obnoxious and frequently unavoidable, but it probably isn't going to change anytime soon.

SpiritFoxMY #31 Posted 08 December 2017 - 10:39 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4856 battles
  • 2,684
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    12-31-2012
Well, someone rammed me last night, then went on to curse me out in chat. I say if you go head on against an 88P in a Mustang, doesn't matter if I'm at 25% HP, I still have more hitpoints than you do.

***

But a truce to this mournful story

For death is a distant friend

So here's to a life of glory

And a laurel to crown each end


trikke #32 Posted 09 December 2017 - 03:09 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 3557 battles
  • 3,449
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posthoom, on 04 December 2017 - 08:25 PM, said:

Your ignorance has & should have no bearing on the game design

 

snicker...   my new favorite quote!


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users