Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Excellent

About ElPerk

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

446 profile views
  1. Air sims have their own little quirks. "Start engine, remember to set mixture, set RPMs, use tailwheel and brakes and rudder to turn, remember to apply rudder, etc." I agree that a basic tutorial set should be included in the game. "Basic controls", "startup and taxiing", "takeoff", "landing", "navigation", "attacking a target", "spin recovery", "basic ACM". These don't obviously pop out of ether, someone has to make them.
  2. It seems that never mind the game, I usually pick Allies, and often Americans. I love 190s, but Allies just blow Germany out of the water when it comes to pure diversity.
  3. I think it's because constructing a tank game that approaches simulation at realistic level is generally completely incompatible with constructing a game that has thrilling and fun multiplayer gameplay. It's a trade-off. "Oi mates! Our tank has been hit! Let's clump around and wait for 15 minutes for tank players to fix it!" "SOUNDS FUN!"
  4. Also tanks operate in a super-complex environment. Infantry fights right there, support and repair is often performed under fire, immobility does not mean death, losses can be taken etc. Hence, it is vastly more complex to even try to simulate tank combat. Outside of dedicated sims, I think it's a waste of time, and time should be spent on making relatively realistic tank game, not a tank combat simulation.
  5. P-40 is quite popular among VVS pilots, and it has the same Allison V-1710 engine. Definitely a handful, though.
  6. You may be right. I find figures between 16-18.5m/s at sea level for La-5FN. No idea about reliability. Finding a good reference 109G makes me flip my damn table
  7. Let's get this thing back on the road with a nice good-mannered discussion so I start: I fully support vulching and every single cheap dirty trick you can use without resorting to straight-up cheating.
  8. 109s will still outclimb it. 190 can outrun (barely) and outgun it. But it will still be La-5 so it will be almost as awesome as P-40. I have no idea of how correct that data was, I just dug it out from some internet forum and it fit my pre-conceived bias so I used it.
  9. Moach is right. La-5's weakness is not its relative performance, it's the fact that you can't see out of the damn thing. That will be a significant upgrade for La-5FN. 1. La-5FN clocks around 30mph more than La-5 at almost all altitudes. 2. Turn time is about 4 seconds better or so. 3. Wing loading is a bit lower, significantly better power-to-weight ratio (but note that La-5F exists). So it's an incremental performance upgrade with significant visibility upgrade. It's pretty much straight up better than La-5 in all regards and mitigates one of La-5s biggest weaknesss. Generally you can dig up the comparison charts relatively easily yourself from the internet. However, without access to primary literature you are sort of bugged.
  10. Organization depends and reorganizations were numerous. Stug battalions - or similar units - were usually - but not often - independent units attached to infantry divisions. Then later in the war they were assigned to AT organizations and tank divisions and everything else too. For example, here's a link: http://www.stugiii.com/sturmartillerie/deploymentorganization.html Their role as artillery post-1942 was a mixed bag, and it appears they usually were not put under the command of divisional artillery. Like everything else in German tank organizations after summer 1943: it's a complete mess! My suggestion is to just repeat "Stugs were mostly attached to infantry units until everything went bonkers" and leave it at that. Further down that road lies only madness. Luckily organization has nothing to do with gameplay
  11. Yeah, they became operational in around summer 1942. Production of short-barreled StuGs ended in spring 1942. StuG IIIG served until the end of war, and was the most produced single German AFV. BTW Jagdpanthers were produced from early 1944 onwards, so not suitable for Kursk. StuGs were utilized as all-around AFVs from mid-1943 onwards, and even before that. But you are right, the main role of long-barreled StuG IIIs was to knock out enemy tanks. StuGs were mostly attached to infantry divisions.
  12. Yeah, a balanced 1:1 mix of GER vs. RUS vehicles with no AT guns or infantry is probably not a good time to be a Soviet tanker. BTW we seriously need a Tank Crew subforum.
  13. What? Have you been paying attention to Il-2? They're absolutely aiming for WT crowd.
  • Create New...