Taran

[Guest deleted@83466]

Why are you telling BSR this?  What makes you think he doesn't let aircraft get away when it's not tactically sound to go after them?

Edited December 21, 2017 by Iceworm

[GrendelsDad]

I used to fly the IL2 a lot. I never expected to be allowed to fly home if I was smoking. Nor did I consider it chivalry if I escaped. I figured that they just ran out of ammo.

 

Then you should blame your escort for allowing you to be shot down, and not the enemy fighters that got you.

I have on numerous occasions on SNBF and a few times on WOL had an enemy fly close and give me a wing waggle to let me know he was a gentleman.  Not expecting to be allowed to do anything, but like I said above its a guarantee I will be followed in WOL.   Not complaining I am just trying to state that in this game the reflection of real life is truly situational.  "In real life" you would have other targets to deal with so that argument is a little silly at this point.  Also...who has an escort on WOL...lol, do you even lift bro?

[Guest deleted@83466]

I've been on many escort sorties with him.  However, I am somewhat skeptical about escorting one of those lone bomber pilots who is going to circle and circle and circle and circle the target until he inevitably gets shot down by flak, or the horde of enemy fighters that come in.  If the bomber pilot approaches the sortie with no intention of coming back, then I would recommend that he not receive "escort" in the way you are interpreting it....hate to say it, but those kinds are best thought of as "bait".

[BraveSirRobin]

I have on numerous occasions on SNBF and a few times on WOL had an enemy fly close and give me a wing waggle to let me know he was a gentleman. 

If it was a VVS fighter he was probably out of ammo. I try to play realistically. In rl they shot down stragglers.

[GrendelsDad]

Robin...my first bomber kill was you...You were taking off from an airfield maybe 400 yards out and I shot you down in your Pe-2...you got mad.  That was a realistic as a kill as there ever was.  You hold people to your own standards and that's fine...but your standard is not realism.

[Gambit21]

If it was a VVS fighter he was probably out of ammo. I try to play realistically. In rl they shot down stragglers.

 

...and rammed now and then.

[BraveSirRobin]

Robin...my first bomber kill was you...You were taking off from an airfield maybe 400 yards out and I shot you down in your Pe-2...you got mad.  That was a realistic as a kill as there ever was.  You hold people to your own standards and that's fine...but your standard is not realism.

How could you possibly know I was mad? I’ve been shot down a bunch of times in a bomber and I never said anything in chat. Hell, I was once strafed and killed after I was shot down and I never said a thing.

...and rammed now and then.

Very rarely.

 

In any case, go ahead and ram. Just don’t cry when someone does something in response that you don’t like.

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

This thread is getting pretty pathetic, just people who won't change their mind going back and fourth with the same arguments. This game is a simulation but it remains a game, people have different perspective and if someone wants to do something and its within the server rule I don't see a problem.  Heck who cares if a smoking russian getting bounced by a couple 109's go for head on attacks and won't do an effort to avoid a ram since his odds of survival are very slim. If you want all elements going as you would like and people reactions to be predicable you might as well stay in singleplayer. 

[Gambit21]

It was a silly and nonsensical thing to get worked up about from the get-go.

[BraveSirRobin]

It was a silly and nonsensical thing to get worked up about from the get-go.

Who is worked up about it? If you ram you deserve whatever is coming. How is that “worked up”? It’s simply how people respond to tactics they don’t like. They respond in kind.

[Aap]

It was a silly and nonsensical thing to get worked up about from the get-go.

And you are one that is also working it up, without getting the point, where the discussion started to get wings - e-courage.

 

Your point that ramming is hard to do (how hard is it for a fighter to ram a bomber) is as irrelevant as the previous "player R is better than player G" example, when the point of discussion is about e-courage and pilots willingness to just die. You think that real pilots thought, wow it is really difficult to crash into that plane that is flying in front of me, so that is a cool way to die?

[Gambit21]

Who is worked up about it? If you ram you deserve whatever is coming. How is that “worked up”? It’s simply how people respond to tactics they don’t like. They respond in kind.

 

I wasn't talking about you Robin...you're just sticking to your guns in your usual way.

I probably should have just left it alone like I said I was going to.

And you are one that is also working it up, without getting the point, where the discussion started to get wings - e-courage.

 

Your point that ramming is hard to do (how hard is it for a fighter to ram a bomber) is as irrelevant as the previous "player R is better than player G" example, when the point of discussion is about e-courage and pilots willingness to just die. You think that real pilots thought, wow it is really difficult to crash into that plane that is flying in front of me, so that is a cool way to die?

 

I was thinking of fighter on fighter actually when I made those comments.

That said, nothing here is lost on me. I frankly don't understand the hysteria on the subject when it hasn't even happened to you yet.

It's going to be more likely after this thread...so why histrionics?

[Aap]

I was thinking of fighter on fighter actually when I made those comments.

That said, nothing here is lost on me. I frankly don't understand the hysteria on the subject when it hasn't even happened to you yet.

It's going to be more likely after this thread...so why histrionics?

There is no hysteria. I think you are still missing the point. The discussion is about e-courage and willingness to die virtually compared to real life. How hard is that really to understand.

[Gambit21]

There is no hysteria. I think you are still missing the point. The discussion is about e-courage and willingness to die virtually compared to real life. How hard is that really to understand.

 

No I get it - the point was made earlier in the thread how that relates to everything we do in the sim...how hard is that really to understand?

[Aap]

No I get it - the point was made earlier in the thread how that relates to everything we do in the sim...how hard is that really to understand?

What point? Should I repeat the point again? I think it is fruitless, because there are people that start to imagine luftwhining or hysteria, where the point of discussion here is about the willingess to die virtually compared to real life.

[Wulf]

 

 

On August 23, 1943 the commander of the 8th Air Force, Major-General T. Khryukin, ordered V. Lavrinenkov to lead a flight of four to intercept a Fw-189 spotter. Lavrinenkov found the German over the village of Alexandrovka, Matveyev-Kurgan district of Rostov region and attacked him. The German began evasive manoeuvres, entering a downwards spiral. Lavrinenkov's wingman attacked as well, but also missed. After this the Rama was attacked by the second pair, but turning sharply under attack it escaped from their fire. V. Lavrinenkov followed the enemy plane in its trajectory. His fire suppressed the gunners of the Focke-Wulf but it was impossible to shoot it down. T. Khryukin told V. Lavrinenkov over the radio, “Falcon-17, I do not recognize you!” V. Lavrinenkov replied, “I am Falcon-17. Hopefully within a few minutes you will”, and went ahead to ram the Fw-189. The wing of his Aircobra struck the Rama's fuselage, and both planes flew to the ground. Lavrinenkov landed by parachute in enemy territory and was captured by the Nazis. He was sent to Berlin by train for interrogation, but on the way there he and another pilot jumped out from the train marching at full speed at night, and disappeared. For three months they fought as partisans under the command of A. Tkanko. Lavrinenkov then returned to his regiment, was promoted to Guards Captain and shortly after scored his 28th personal victory, a Ju-88 over the Dneper.

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't really get this.

 

So 4? Soviet fighters attack a lone FW 189 recce kite but just can't shoot the thing down (presumably because they can't hit it) so one of them just announces he's going to ram it and then proceeds to do so.  Hmmmm .... so if ramming it was so easy, why did they find it so difficult to shot it down?  That just seems weird.

[Gambit21]

What point? Should I repeat the point again? I think it is fruitless, because there are people that start to imagine luftwhining or hysteria, where the point of discussion here is about the willingess to die virtually compared to real life.

 

Simply that we do many things, including attacking airfields, dog fighting etc that were dangerous in real life, and we don't have to worry about actually dying during any of these acts - there's nothing unique about ramming in this regard.

Thus trying to single out this tactic doesn't make much sense.

So again, I get it. Seems some things are lost in translation in this thread.

 

In any case Kemp I don't think you or Iceworm have anything to worry about. Nothing has changed since yesterday, this thread will not create a new crop of players who behave badly, or players who decide to practice ramming now and then

as it was done historically by more than one Russian pilot. It's all good.

[BraveSirRobin]

there's nothing unique about ramming in this regard.

 

But there is something unique. Ramming is a LOT more dangerous. That’s why it was so rare.

[Aap]

I said it already before in this thread, attacking airfields, dogfighting, all these dangerous things happened in real life all the time, so simulating this in air combat sim is very natural. The fear related to that can't be simulated of course, which I have also said already. The casual approach to ramming (I am out of ammo, so I ram; I am better than him, so I ram; it is difficult, so I ram) was not present in real life, when people really put their real lives at steak.

 

And I am not worrying at all wether this or any other thread brings a wave of arcade suicide-players or not. It would still not change the point of this discussion.

[Gambit21]

But there is something unique. Ramming is a LOT more dangerous. That’s why it was so rare.

 

Without a doubt.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Yeah, I don't really get this.

 

So 4? Soviet fighters attack a lone FW 189 recce kite but just can't shoot the thing down (presumably because they can't hit it) so one of them just announces he's going to ram it and then proceeds to do so.  Hmmmm .... so if ramming it was so easy, why did they find it so difficult to shot it down?  That just seems weird.

 

 

Well, the Fw 189 was a nimble plane and some had two MG 81Z guns in the rear, combined with the twin tail design it's not bad defensive fire.

Here is part of an interview with a La-5FN pilot talking about them

 

 

A.S. Did you ever encountered a Fw 189 "Frame"? (Frame was the nickname the Red Army gave to this plane because of it's characteristic structure) .

 

I.K: A couple of times.

 

This "Frame" was a big son of a b***. We hated them. Where the Frame appeared, then the bombers showed up later. The Frame didn't stay for long in the air. It made one or two turns and then escaped. And once it was gone, shortly afterwards the bombers appeared, Junkers 87s and 88s.

 

A.S. Was the Fw 189 considered a hard plane to shoot down?

 

I.K: It was more or less hard to shoot down. It was maneuverable and with good speed, around 400-ish km/h.

 

A Frame was shot down in front of me. It was escorted by a pair of Messers, and we attacked them with a four-plane flight. One of our pairs attacked the Messers from above, getting them busy in combat. We (the other pair, I was the wingman), engaged the FW from below. My leader attacked him with RS rockets. He fired a salvo from 200 meters, and one of the RS rockets impacted just in one the tail beams of the Frame. It literally cutted it in half. The Frame fell to the ground right there at the frontline, nobody parachuted.

Edited December 21, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Wulf]

Well, the Fw 189 was a nimble plane and some had two MG 81Z guns in the rear, combined with the twin tail design it's not bad defensive fire.

Here is part of an interview with a La-5FN pilot talking about them

 

 

 

No, I'm still not getting it.

 

If the 189 was so nimble that they just couldn't get into a position to shoot it down, how was it that they could so easily bring it down by ramming?  I'd have thought ramming would be far more difficult to accomplish.  If you were able to ram something you could surely just as easily shoot it.

[CanadaOne]

It's pointless BSR.  I keep saying...I doubt we're going to see this guy in MP.  It's so very easy to see that he doesn't have the temperament for it.  I'm guessing that's why he is so enthusiastic about the prospect of ramming...more than anything he appears to be looking for a way to "save face", because he knows that a lot of humble pie awaits him online, and he doesn't look forward to eating it.  Don't bother with him anymore.

 

"The temperament for it"? I raised two children, I think I can handle the emotional outbursts of a few snowflakes in virtual planes.

[CanadaOne]

I used to agree with that point of view, but now all the BS being used to justify ramming in MP has convinced me that attacking airfields is a perfectly valid tactic.

 

And I’m not the one being thick here.

 

You took someone else's argument that you hold to be BS and used that as the mode of thinking to emulate when making your own decisions?

 

Oh my...

[CanadaOne]

I think vulching, shoot killing, and ramming are all valid tactics...some of my best times in the game have been when ZEBRA was bombing my takeoffs.  Nothing more thrilling than trying to take off while seeing a stream of bombs exploding on the airfield all around with AAA and air raid sirens screaming...Great times.

 

I don't see that vulching can be equated with ramming and chute killing.

 

Ramming and chute killing are real life events, however rare. They are physical possibilities. Vulching relies on taking advantage of how a particular game is coded and simply sitting on top of a spawn point and picking off planes that appear out of the ether at the end of the runway. That is not a physical possibility.

 

On the other hand, if the airbase had a ton of AAA and the players spawned in bunkers, that could make for a very interesting scenario.

[GrendelsDad]

Canada in my case I make one high speed pass then tend to bugger out if I take damage but usually only one more pass on the way back to friendly territory. Also I don't loiter above targets and only turn to vulching if I have no other targets available. Knowing where an airfield is and attacking it seems quite historical to me. Again remember I am a bit of a masochist as I enjoy taking off while the airfield is under attack. So I admit my view on all 3 of those tend to go against the norm but I feel they are all historical and fairly realistic considering the mechanics of the game. Not trying to flame you or Sir Robin (who I have had many enjoyable online encounters with).

Edit...really like the idea of spawing in bunkers or hangers as a layer of protection.

Edited December 21, 2017 by GrendelsDad

[CanadaOne]

Canada in my case I make one high speed pass then tend to bugger out if I take damage but usually only one more pass on the way back to friendly territory. Also I don't loiter above targets and only turn to vulching if I have no other targets available. Knowing where an airfield is and attacking it seems quite historical to me. Again remember I am a bit of a masochist as I enjoy taking off while the airfield is under attack. So I admit my view on all 3 of those tend to go against the norm but I feel they are all historical and fairly realistic considering the mechanics of the game. Not trying to flame you or Sir Robin (who I have had many enjoyable online encounters with).

 

I hear ya. And no flame offence taken.

 

I'm all for attacking airfields and taking off from airfields being attacked. That's a solid part of the game. Within limits, of course. Back in CFS1 days especially, some guys would just park themselves over fields that had no AAA and pick off planes as they spawned at the end of the runway. I didn't see the fun in that for anyone.

Edited December 21, 2017 by CanadaOne

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Nothing gets the heart racing like hearing the siren and the drum of air defences going off as you taxi to the runway. It can be pretty fun to take-off and see if you can sneak out towards the target area

[CIA_Yankee_]

I hear ya. And no flame offence taken.

 

I'm all for attacking airfields and taking off from airfields being attacked. That's a solid part of the game. Within limits, of course. Back in CFS1 days especially, some guys would just park themselves over fields that had no AAA and pick off planes as they spawned at the end of the runway. I didn't see the fun in that for anyone.

 

To be fair, I don't think I've seen this at all in this sim, at least in WoL.

 

I mean, airfield attacks do happen, of course, but they're generally suicidal: not only is the AAA quite dangerous, but everyone one the map knows that there's an enemy _right there_. So, unless you bugger out after a few passes, you're going to be heavily outnumbered and in serious trouble.

 

In my experience, at least, someone going for an airfield tends to lead to a fun fight.

 

Granted, there's always the possibility of a side that heavily outnumbers the other deciding to just take over an airfield and shut it down, vulching whoever spawns there... but even so, there's always other airfields that you can spawn from, and I've never seen that situation before at least.

[BraveSirRobin]

You took someone else's argument that you hold to be BS and used that as the mode of thinking to emulate when making your own decisions?

 

Oh my...

Not sure what you’re “oh mying” about. If you want to act like a jerk in MP, you should expect a similar response. I don’t usually attack airfields, but my tactics will probably change if ramming becomes an accepted tactic.

[CanadaOne]

Not sure what you’re “oh mying” about. If you want to act like a jerk in MP, you should expect a similar response. I don’t usually attack airfields, but my tactics will probably change if ramming becomes an accepted tactic.

 

I simply find it odd, certainly less than impressive, that you think something you regard as being poor behavior is also something you will take to yourself based on what someone else does. In short, if the other guy jumps off the bridge, we don't need to ask if you'll jump too - you're already over the rail and on your way down.

 

Why not act in the manner you see fit as best exemplifying your own views instead of looking to what you yourself acknowledge as being the lowest common denominator of personal conduct and then imitating it?

[BraveSirRobin]

I simply find it odd, certainly less than impressive, that you think something you regard as being poor behavior is also something you will take to yourself based on what someone else does. In short, if the other guy jumps off the bridge, we don't need to ask if you'll jump too

That’s not actually how I’d respond to you jumping off a bridge. I’d try to ensure that the river under the bridge was dry so that you’d have a nice solid place to land. Act like a jerk and you should expect others to act like jerks in response. It’s a bit strange that you are so baffled by this dynamic.

[CanadaOne]

That’s not actually how I’d respond to you jumping off a bridge. I’d try to ensure that the river under the bridge was dry so that you’d have a nice solid place to land. Act like a jerk and you should expect others to act like jerks in response. It’s a bit strange that you are so baffled by this dynamic.

 

It's not a theory of life I subscribe to. I do not base my conduct on what the person next to me does.

[BraveSirRobin]

It's not a theory of life I subscribe to. I do not base my conduct on what the person next to me does.

Indeed. You clearly don’t give a crap about the person next to you. But when you punch that person in the face, you should probably expect them to punch back.

[CanadaOne]

I wouldn't punch anyone in the face. I think that is aberrant behavior.

 

And there are a few points that should be mentioned again before we are 100% off topic:

 

 - Ramming actually happened in the scenario we simulate in this game.

 - Nobody in this thread approves of ramming planes repeatedly. 

 - Ramming has only been mentioned positively as a last ditch measure involving the plane that is actively trying to kill you.

 

Let's not lose sight of those three truths.

[BraveSirRobin]

I wouldn't punch anyone in the face. I think that is aberrant behavior.

 

But ramming is the online equivalent of taking a cheap shot at someone. If you’re going to take cheap shots at people, you should not cry when they do the same. Period. Because they can use all the same rationalizations when they’re trying to vulch you on the field that you’re using when you ram them.

[CanadaOne]

But ramming is the online equivalent of taking a cheap shot at someone. If you’re going to take cheap shots at people, you should not cry when they do the same. Period. Because they can use all the same rationalizations when they’re trying to vulch you on the field that you’re using when you ram them.

 

The fault in your argument lies in your admitted cognitive dissonance. You know full well that ramming is a physical possibility in the real world and actually happened in the real world, whereas vulching* is not a physical possibility in the real world and did not happen in the real world. To equate the two is nonsense, as is your argument.

 

Vulching: loitering over a spawn point and shooting at planes as they digitally appear in the game.

[BraveSirRobin]

I’m pretty sure that airfields were attacked in the real world. Have fun ramming people. People are going to love you in MP.

[CanadaOne]

I’m pretty sure that airfields were attacked in the real world. Have fun ramming people. People are going to love you in MP.

 

You are conflating vulching with the general concept of attacking airfields, something you yourself know is not true, yet you claim it anyway.

 

Your argument dissolves under even the mildest scrutiny.

 

Edit: Oops, I'm late. off to work. Thank you for the vibrant debate.

Edited December 21, 2017 by CanadaOne

[BraveSirRobin]

You are conflating vulching with the general concept of attacking airfields, something you yourself know is not true, yet you claim it anyway

And you’re conflating rare late war desperation attacks on enemy bombers with a gamey cheap shot tactic. Have fun trying it in MP. I’m looking forward to the responses of the people you ram.

 

Keep in mind that people often get extremely pissed off about accidental rams. You’re on record as saying that intentional ramming is ok. Have fun with that!