PDA

View Full Version : Kamakazies



generalsilverstone
10th Jan 2007, 11:00
ive been wondering will kamakazie be a viable option or will the game be programmed to ignore kamakazies?

Keir
10th Jan 2007, 12:34
You can crash your plane into a boat Kamikaze style, some ships can be destroyed with this method.

generalsilverstone
10th Jan 2007, 13:49
thank you keir

i have another question regarding the ramming of vessels E.G. ships/ subs into each other and a couple of others

when you ram ships what happens both graphicly and damage wise?
also when a ship sinks how deep does it go before it is either out of sight or the game deltls the object?

Divine_Wind
10th Jan 2007, 18:47
You can crash your plane into a boat Kamikaze style, some ships can be destroyed with this method.

Does the player incur some kind of penalty for doing so? (Besides, losing his plane, of course!)

Alpha Wolfgang
10th Jan 2007, 21:07
i doubt it... but i do fear people just using their planes to suicide bomb other ships.... 100 planes+1 suicidal noob+4 battleships=kamikaze heaven

princecaspian4
10th Jan 2007, 21:35
i doubt it... but i do fear people just using their planes to suicide bomb other ships.... 100 planes+1 suicidal noob+4 battleships=kamikaze heaven

that depends on how many planes it takes to sink a ship and how many get through, if there was someone going after my ships like that, i would put up a wall of AA and let them come, they waste all their planes, and then i go in and destroy them

Kaigun
10th Jan 2007, 23:46
You would still be pretty open to dive bombers.:lol:

princecaspian4
11th Jan 2007, 00:07
You would still be pretty open to dive bombers.:lol:

so i'll send up a cap, that should protect me, and we were talking about Kamikaze attacks, so they would still have to get close enough for my AA to get them

NeecHMonkeY
11th Jan 2007, 02:16
Does the player incur some kind of penalty for doing so? (Besides, losing his plane, of course!)

I would guess that if you have such a limited amount of planes, losing one is penalty enough.

imnotcanadian
11th Jan 2007, 02:20
I can see it already.......


I've sent Dai Vals to attack the Lexington along with a small Zero squadron to fight off any enemy fighters that try to interfere with the attack. The enemy Fletcher Class destroyers start to put up an AA screen for the Lexington as it scrambles fighters. The Vals evade the anti aircraft fire...pull up into a steep climb,level out,then dive. Releasing their bombs,they don't pull out of their dive towards the carrier. A 1000 lb bomb hits the deck,then the a Val smashes into it right afterwards...along with the other 14 planes in its squadron that made it to the carrier...inflicting heavy casualties and sinking the Lexington.

Digby5000
11th Jan 2007, 02:36
i doubt it... but i do fear people just using their planes to suicide bomb other ships.... 100 planes+1 suicidal noob+4 battleships=kamikaze heaven

I anticipate a lot of people intentionally killing off their own squadrons due to the '12 in the air limit'. If you have 36 torpedo planes, is it worth the time tactically to return your planes to rearm when you have so many more? You'd cut your time to strike again against your target in half if you turn the squadron into bombs....

imnotcanadian
11th Jan 2007, 02:40
I can only see this a viable tactic if a carrier or other large ship is limping away from a battle and you know your bombs alone wont take it out and you have insufficient naval support to be able to get through their escort. I think I'm going to make a movie with that included as one of the battles once I get the game if possible.

xgamerms999
12th Jan 2007, 00:00
What ships can be destroyed by Kamakazies

princecaspian4
12th Jan 2007, 05:19
What ships can be destroyed by Kamakazies

i would guess anything, but it would take a lot of planes to take down a large ship, maybe more planes then you would have on your carrier or airbase, so it may not be that you can't sink some ships with kamikaze runs, but you wouldn't have enough planes to sink it

VTROOPER
3rd Aug 2007, 22:29
a kamikaze option for jap fighter planes that way the japs have a reson to crash there plane :thumbsup:

Thedivingmongoose
3rd Aug 2007, 23:37
If I remember right when you play single player kamakazi is a weapon....I think it was in one of the plane chalange missions.

crazyhorse128
4th Aug 2007, 00:41
one of the main reasons in history why the kamakazi's worked was they targeted the USN carriers, which had wooden decks which were alot of the time soaked in flamable liquids, petrol etc. so when it crashes the flight deck would go up in flames, however these tactics only realy emerged towards the end of the war when japan had nowt to lose

Herr-Wulf
4th Aug 2007, 13:04
indeed true crazyhorse

also add into that equasion that these kamikaze planes where overloaded with bombs

a suicide Val for instance had a 1000 kilogram bomb and two 100 kilo bombs as they launched

a zero had a 500 pound and two 150 pound bombs(or later they had none but on of the fuel tanks was removed and this was filled with an explosive substance)

heck near the end they used Baka bombs, rocket planes with 2500 pounds of explosives in the nose
or a Betty bomber loaded with 4000 pounds of explosives(one of these would mean certain doom for any warship in the US inventory bar maybe the Larger battleships)

you gotta admire the japs,the fact that they where all willing to give up their lifes for one man is very remarkable

crazyhorse128
4th Aug 2007, 22:15
goes back to the old samurai days, the worst thing you could do was hand your self over as a prisioner

VTROOPER
4th Aug 2007, 22:17
or jump behined enemy lines just to be a prisoner.

crazyhorse128
4th Aug 2007, 22:18
kind of stupid if you have no weapons

VTROOPER
4th Aug 2007, 22:20
well thats what hapend to allied bomber crews.

crazyhorse128
5th Aug 2007, 07:55
did they do anything good exept maybe being captured?

VTROOPER
5th Aug 2007, 10:38
they help the allies not incounter the 262 and a german helocopter and every germab U-bout penn and factorys.

andy3536
5th Aug 2007, 11:07
they help the allies not incounter the 262 and a german helocopter and every germab U-bout penn and factorys.

I'm assuming you mean helicopter, there weren't any helecopters in service with any nation during WW2!
Me 262 was also a very easy target on the way up due to the very slow rate of climb.

VTROOPER
5th Aug 2007, 11:37
I'm assuming you mean helicopter, there weren't any helecopters in service with any nation during WW2!
Me 262 was also a very easy target on the way up due to the very slow rate of climb.

well then whats this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/FA223.jpg

crazyhorse128
5th Aug 2007, 11:48
another fine example of crazy German ideas, and it appears to be a Luftwaffe helicopter

andy3536
5th Aug 2007, 11:56
I dear god, do i always need to explain myself?
No country had operational helecopters during WW2!
They were a new invention that appeared in service shortly after WW2 therefor there were many experemental helecopters.

VTROOPER
5th Aug 2007, 12:40
it did the first recue misson and it wasent sh-300 but its a helocopter thats german it was in the war with this one

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/FL282_USAF.jpg

andy3536
5th Aug 2007, 13:18
WOW!
So throughout the whole WW2 a single helicopter made a single mission. :rolleyes:

crazyhorse128
5th Aug 2007, 13:36
yea but look how flimsy it looks

crazyhorse128
5th Aug 2007, 13:38
from thishttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/FL282_USAF.jpg
to this, http://courses.washington.edu/com361/Iraq/military/19.ah64d.apache.jpg
imagine one of these bad boys in WW2

VTROOPER
5th Aug 2007, 19:46
my unkel sed two of are stelf fighters cood of stop pearl harbor.

andy3536
5th Aug 2007, 19:51
my unkel sed two of are stelf fighters cood of stop pearl harbor.

Hate to break it to you but the stealth fighter is in fact a bomber.
The F-117 stealth fighter has no air to air weapons!

P.S. during the last gulf war a Royal navy carrier picked up the 'stealth fighter' on radar at 163 miles, time to mothball me thinks! :rasp:

VTROOPER
5th Aug 2007, 19:54
Hate to break it to you but the stealth fighter is in fact a bomber.
The F-117 stealth fighter has no air to air weapons!

P.S. during the last gulf war a Royal navy carrier picked up the 'stealth fighter' on radar at 163 miles, time to mothball me thinks! :rasp:

i didont meen that one (it has to activat it stelf[think]) i ment the F/A-22.

P.S. its allredy out of servise.

andy3536
5th Aug 2007, 19:59
i didont meen that one (it has to activat it stelf[think]) i ment the F/A-22.

Thats not 'the stealth fighter' thats 'a stealth fighter'
People refer to the F-117 as the stealth fighter and the F-22 as the F-22. It's easy to get confused.
There was a film were a modern nimitz class carrier went back in time just before the attack on pearl, anyone remember the name?
The ships 1st officer stayed behind and was an old fellow that met them in a car at the end.

VTROOPER
5th Aug 2007, 20:01
the move was "the finel countdown" that was a good move. and the 22 is a fighter and grownd attack air craft.

xgamerms999
6th Aug 2007, 00:42
WOW!
So throughout the whole WW2 a single helicopter made a single mission. :rolleyes:

He still proved you wrong though. lol

VTROOPER
6th Aug 2007, 11:02
thats how it made the top ten helocopter.

crazyhorse128
6th Aug 2007, 14:57
what do you mean by top ten helicopters?

Herr-Wulf
6th Aug 2007, 15:46
the move was "the finel countdown" that was a good move. and the 22 is a fighter and grownd attack air craft.


let me rephrase that

The F-22 is a 5th generation Air superiorety Fighter with Air to ground abilities

do not under any circumstance look at the F-22A as a ground attack aircraft,Two bombs do not make a ground attacker(wich is why she was renamed F-22A from F/A-22A)



P.S. during the last gulf war a Royal navy carrier picked up the 'stealth fighter' on radar at 163 miles, time to mothball me thinks!
as Vtrooper pointed out the F-117 has been mothballed for a year now,this due to immense maintenance costs aswell as range and payload problems(two 2000 pound bombs is nothing)

also don't take the term stealth to serious,NO and I repeat NO plane is invisible on radar,the only thing that happens is that the Blip on the radarscreen is much smaller than a regular craft,about the size of a flock of seagulls(lol as if nobody would notice a flock of seagull flying around at Mach 1 lol)

andy3536
6th Aug 2007, 16:53
let me rephrase that

The F-22 is a 5th generation Air superiorety Fighter with Air to ground abilities

do not under any circumstance look at the F-22A as a ground attack aircraft,Two bombs do not make a ground attacker(wich is why she was renamed F-22A from F/A-22A)



as Vtrooper pointed out the F-117 has been mothballed for a year now,this due to immense maintenance costs aswell as range and payload problems(two 2000 pound bombs is nothing)

also don't take the term stealth to serious,NO and I repeat NO plane is invisible on radar,the only thing that happens is that the Blip on the radarscreen is much smaller than a regular craft,about the size of a flock of seagulls(lol as if nobody would notice a flock of seagull flying around at Mach 1 lol)



I was well aware that no aircraft is invisible to radar, but seeing it at 163 miles was unherd of from another nations equipment and my well have promted the mothballing.
What is strange though is seeing the latest generation of warships from the UK, France and US desighned to limit the radar image.
Ugliest looking things you'll ever see!
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/horizon11.html

VTROOPER
6th Aug 2007, 19:44
looks like funding got cut.

macattak1
7th Aug 2007, 18:42
Due to the fact that near the end all they had was little boys to fly. Hence, they probably made good Kamikazes. When their pilots went down in action they rarely if ever went and got them.

The US on the other hand would send a ship as many miles out as needed just to pickup a pilot that lost his plane.

So near wars end Japanese air force was young and lacked experience while the US air force was highly experienced.

Peace and Blessings

Thedivingmongoose
7th Aug 2007, 19:34
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u311/Thedivingmongoose/proof.jpg

BSMaddict
8th Aug 2007, 04:51
BSM gives u points for kamikaze attacks.

I sank a DD with 2 flights of jap dive bombers on the Coral Sea map earlier today. only kamikazed with 2 of the dive bombers, but it was enough. used the remaining dive bombers as fighters after they'd dropped their bombs. worked well because the DD was charging out after a submarine. when I see a DD by itself like that...I just have to attack it with dive bombers. dive bombers sink DD's faster than torp attacks, has been my experience. especially if you're crashing the bombers into them.

M0n3y
8th Aug 2007, 06:30
one of the main reasons in history why the kamakazi's worked was they targeted the USN carriers, which had wooden decks which were alot of the time soaked in flamable liquids, petrol etc. so when it crashes the flight deck would go up in flames, however these tactics only realy emerged towards the end of the war when japan had nowt to lose

yup that's how Lady Lex was attacked

M0n3y
8th Aug 2007, 06:35
BSM gives u points for kamikaze attacks.

I sank a DD with 2 flights of jap dive bombers on the Coral Sea map earlier today. only kamikazed with 2 of the dive bombers, but it was enough. used the remaining dive bombers as fighters after they'd dropped their bombs. worked well because the DD was charging out after a submarine. when I see a DD by itself like that...I just have to attack it with dive bombers. dive bombers sink DD's faster than torp attacks, has been my experience. especially if you're crashing the bombers into them.

indeed it works great on DD's especially on SP

try some kami-runs on subs... very effective

VTROOPER
8th Aug 2007, 11:26
yup that's how Lady Lex was attacked

se was scuteld by torps. from one of her DD escorts :mad2:

M0n3y
9th Aug 2007, 07:41
i said attacked not sank!

and a few minutes after the attack she exploded and then was scuttled

VTROOPER
9th Aug 2007, 13:09
oh i thowt you ment se was sunk by kame runs :nut:

xgamerms999
9th Aug 2007, 17:36
He would of said that had he meant it.

M0n3y
10th Aug 2007, 07:32
oh i thowt you ment se was sunk by kame runs :nut:

no she went in 1 BIG fireball and a bit later BIG BOOM on the ship:nut:

BSMaddict
11th Aug 2007, 07:33
VTROOPER:

http://www.rong-chang.com/

and there's this, too:

http://dictionary.reference.com/

just so u can be understood. we speak english here.

VTROOPER
11th Aug 2007, 10:25
VTROOPER:

http://www.rong-chang.com/

and there's this, too:

http://dictionary.reference.com/

just so u can be understood. we speak english here.

M0n3y i think he dasent understand the consept of MT (master translator).

crazyhorse128
11th Aug 2007, 13:22
VTROOPER:

http://www.rong-chang.com/

and there's this, too:

http://dictionary.reference.com/

just so u can be understood. we speak english here.

that was a bit harsh

M0n3y
11th Aug 2007, 14:08
M0n3y i think he dasent understand the consept of MT (master translator).

i think:D

I'm the translator here so we don't need a dictionarry or something else...:D

i love my job:lol:

VTROOPER
24th Aug 2007, 16:36
i dont read a diconary anles its for a ILA report i haet ILA :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: and my socil study techer asked me what a kamakaze was when i was in 5 grade shoodent she know :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut:

Thedivingmongoose
24th Aug 2007, 20:45
i dont read a diconary anles its for a ILA report i haet ILA :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: and my socil study techer asked me what a kamakaze was when i was in 5 grade shoodent she know :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut:

Master Translator We need your assistance!

$$$$$$$$
_$$VT$$
__$$$$
___$$

VTROOPER
24th Aug 2007, 21:04
Master Translator We need your assistance!

$$$$$$$$
_$$VT$$
__$$$$
___$$

thats not his signal

this is

MT


and monday monday monday CoD4 beta gos live at 3:00pm EST but you haft to sine up for the website for your tokens.

M0n3y
25th Aug 2007, 08:21
thats not his signal

this is

MT


and monday monday monday CoD4 beta gos live at 3:00pm EST but you haft to sine up for the website for your tokens.

Whohoo CoD4 :D


Master Translator We need your assistance!

$$$$$$$$
_$$VT$$
__$$$$
___$$

uhm what's the point of those signs??:confused:


i dont read a diconary anles its for a ILA report i haet ILA :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: and my socil study techer asked me what a kamakaze was when i was in 5 grade shoodent she know :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut:


I don't read a Dictionary unless it's for a ILA report , i hate ILA And my sociale(srry for bad spelling bhut don't forget i'm from belgium!!)teacher asked me what a Kamikaze was when i was in 5th grade...shouldn't she know?

VTROOPER
25th Aug 2007, 11:08
thats whut i sed.

M0n3y
25th Aug 2007, 15:36
muhaha i'm good ^^

VTROOPER
25th Aug 2007, 16:30
and you dont pay in microsoft points :D

Thedivingmongoose
25th Aug 2007, 18:06
thats not his signal

this is

MT


and monday monday monday CoD4 beta gos live at 3:00pm EST but you haft to sine up for the website for your tokens.

Fine....break my heart again!:lmao:
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u311/Thedivingmongoose/mastertranslatorsignal.jpg

That will have to do untill someone makes one or asks me to.

Dreddman
27th Aug 2007, 03:07
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u311/Thedivingmongoose/proof.jpg

but how do you get kamikaze in the multiplayer menu :nut:

achtung bb
27th Aug 2007, 11:45
Hate to break it to you but the stealth fighter is in fact a bomber.
The F-117 stealth fighter has no air to air weapons!

P.S. during the last gulf war a Royal navy carrier picked up the 'stealth fighter' on radar at 163 miles, time to mothball me thinks! :rasp:

I am sure the US air force meant for the Royal navy to see the f117 ,most likely to keep our alies aware of air traffic in close proximity . 163 miles in todays terms should be considered close.
this aircraft destoyed all radar sites that Ali Baba [hussien] owned --has never been shot down, a virtualy perfect combat record .Pure killer.

achtung bb
27th Aug 2007, 11:55
Due to the fact that near the end all they had was little boys to fly. Hence, they probably made good Kamikazes. When their pilots went down in action they rarely if ever went and got them.

The US on the other hand would send a ship as many miles out as needed just to pickup a pilot that lost his plane.

So near wars end Japanese air force was young and lacked experience while the US air force was highly experienced.

Peace and Blessings

quite correct sir add to that the young fliers were not like the hitler youth on Cherbourge [sic?] peninsula ,they would have been of little combat effectiveness with normal air opps .(they realy couldnt` fly )

andy3536
27th Aug 2007, 12:04
I am sure the US air force meant for the Royal navy to see the f117 ,most likely to keep our alies aware of air traffic in close proximity . 163 miles in todays terms should be considered close.
this aircraft destoyed all radar sites that Ali Baba [hussien] owned --has never been shot down, a virtualy perfect combat record .Pure killer.

Actaully one was shot down over serbia and then examined by the russians!

Herr-Wulf
27th Aug 2007, 12:20
Actaully one was shot down over serbia and then examined by the russians!

one over serbia was a perfect example of the pilots feeling to much at ease in their "stealths"

pilot got taken down by a Mig-25 wich had reported the plane at a range of nearly 200 miles(Mig-25 radar is the most powerfull Fighter radar in the world,when activated on the ground the radiation actuallly kills grass and small animals lol)
however that it has been examined by the russians might be correct but only the remains of the fuselage as the entire plane was basicly ripped to shreds,not a bit of avionics was left


also after some research the only reason the F-117 was spotted by the radar operator was because he could see an IFF code next to the little blip

andy3536
27th Aug 2007, 13:14
one over serbia was a perfect example of the pilots feeling to much at ease in their "stealths"

pilot got taken down by a Mig-25 wich had reported the plane at a range of nearly 200 miles(Mig-25 radar is the most powerfull Fighter radar in the world,when activated on the ground the radiation actuallly kills grass and small animals lol)
however that it has been examined by the russians might be correct but only the remains of the fuselage as the entire plane was basicly ripped to shreds,not a bit of avionics was left


also after some research the only reason the F-117 was spotted by the radar operator was because he could see an IFF code next to the little blip




The porpose of the examination was the radar obsoring coating that the F-117 (and the B2) was coated in.
The russians had no idea what the coating consisted of and there for couldn't find a way round it.
Now of corse they know what it is and can try to create a counter measure.
The russians have surface to air missiles that rely on infa red aswell, there's no getting away from them in a stealth aircraft.

It3llig3nc3
27th Aug 2007, 13:54
The porpose of the examination was the radar obsoring coating that the F-117 (and the B2) was coated in.
The russians had no idea what the coating consisted of and there for couldn't find a way round it.
Now of corse they know what it is and can try to create a counter measure.
The russians have surface to air missiles that rely on infa red aswell, there's no getting away from them in a stealth aircraft.

Couple of notes on this:

1. The F-117 and the B-2 are two very different "animal" in terms of stealth capabilities. The stealth coat of the F-117 is very different than the B-2. First and foremost F-117 is a much "older" technology and one great disadvantage it has the fact that the radar absorption coating has to be checked and RE-APPLIED after each and every mission. There is an entire crew that is in charge of that. for the B-2 it was solved and the base materials the aircraft is built from incorporates this function.
2. IR (infra red missiles) - it is true that they follow heat sources. However in order to launch them first you need to find the target, right?
Second: the F-117 and the B-2 also uses technologies to reduce the heat signature of the plane. The turbine gases actually goes through a cooling cycle before it gets exhausted. Obviously it is not perfect but can reduce the IR signature detection range significantly.
3. Counter Measures - well the whole current "stealth" technology is practically about two elements:
-->absorb radar waves
-->divert them so they don't "bounce back" to where they came from.
To fight against these you can do two things: increase the strength of the radar signal so the little part that actually comes back to the receiver is noticeable, or create a synchronized radar array so the bounce backs are captured by a different radar receiver than the one sending them out.
Complication is obvious: the stealth fighters are used to deploy first strikes aimed at the front-line or spot targets, where the availability of these assets are limited, (more radar power needs more power, radar array needs multiple radar sites with perfect communication channels between them), not to mention the fact that only a few nation can afford to have these kind of expensive "gadgets".

A funny thing to note:
I guess many of you noticed the different characteristics of the B-117 and the B-2.
One is very square the other is smooth curved. Both somehow delivers the stealth functionality.
Why?
If my info is correct at the time of developing the B-117 (the square one) the computer technology was only capable of modeling radar reflection from square surfaces. This is why the B-117 got the shape - the most optimal the models could calculate.
Time passed on and by the time developing the B-2 calculation power was capable of handling more complex surfaces. :)

andy3536
27th Aug 2007, 15:05
Ok, didn't know they were that different.
But i do know that the russian surface to air missiles can search in infa red, i.e. find a heat signiture in the sky and lock on.
The ones mounted on the apcs are known to do it quite well.

andy3536
27th Aug 2007, 15:37
The F-117 was shot down by a sam, using thermal imaging :D

The SA-3 is mostly obsolete now due to its short range and easily jammed radar but despite this an SA-3 system managed to shoot down an F-117 Nighthawk "Stealth Fighter" on March 27, 1999 during the Kosovo War (the only recorded downing of a stealth aircraft), reportedly the SA-3 used had been modified by Yugoslavia with thermal imaging and a laser rangefinder.

Quote from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-3_Goa

It3llig3nc3
27th Aug 2007, 17:53
Hmmm. So thermal imaging. :D
Well I guess despite the efforts to reduce the heat signature it is probably impossible to make it disappear :D After all the jet system is to burn fuel which generates quite an amount of heat...
It's creative of the Yugoslavians to start modifying their systems :D probably they got some hints from Russia... ? :scratch:

After all you (and the events) pointed out the weakness of this "stealth system": once it's found it can be reasonably easily taken out...

I wonder what is the effective range of a thermal imaging solution and if it is sensitive to the angle? (e.g. can pick up the plane from front or side as well?)

achtung bb
28th Aug 2007, 01:32
Actaully one was shot down over serbia and then examined by the russians!

after reading recent posts I have learned one was shot down .
Thank you , I stand corrected.Still a darn good combat record , as well as kill ratio to russian made (copied or modified) aircraft. That is the few that actually try to engage our guys .

VTROOPER
28th Aug 2007, 10:16
well you giys my not care BUT you can still register for the CoD4 beta at 9pm EST they will drall who gets into the beta.

VTROOPER
9th Dec 2007, 02:22
lets get back on topic i did my wikisearch and fownd that are most promesing ones are:

the ohka: human cantroled CM

arming a zero(and every other jap plane) with a 500kg bombe and make its ordanec name KamaKazie

and the V-1: just give it a specal base or give us a control sstem for it (we can do the RAFs specal manover agenst them)

xgamerms999
9th Dec 2007, 02:39
MT help again...

PS, are we bombing London with V-1s???

VTROOPER
9th Dec 2007, 03:26
PS, are we bombing London with V-1s???

i was thinking they used the agenst sea born targets

xgamerms999
10th Dec 2007, 20:15
:lmao: LOL :lmao:

VTROOPER
10th Dec 2007, 20:18
in my first WWII game (secret wepons over normandy:whistle: ) last misson after you attack V-2 sights they lonch V-1s agenst your DDs i think it sunk one to

xgamerms999
10th Dec 2007, 20:31
Your gunna have me die laughing! lol

VTROOPER
10th Dec 2007, 20:39
ok heres the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Weapons_Over_Normandy

it was a good game

princecaspian4
21st Dec 2007, 01:53
the V1 wasn't any where near accurate enough to hit a ship, and even the V2 which was accurate wouldn't be able to hit a moving target, (because you would have to take into account a few minutes travel time, and who knows how long it is between when they set the target coordinates and when they launch it) they would need to know exactly where the ship was and it's exact heading and speed, then guess where the ship would be when the rocket reaches it's target, and even if they got all that right, there is still a chance that it will miss.
The V rockets aren't naval weapons

Red October
21st Jan 2008, 17:45
If there are going to be kamikazes make them historically accurate. They where slow all amour was removed radios and if the planes had sonar was removed in most cases even the guns where removed, why waste a perfectly good MG if you are going to blow it up. So basically when all of this is done the kamakazie is a big slow flying defenseless bomb.

_________________________________________________

This space for rent

M0n3y
22nd Jan 2008, 19:19
ye like ploane wrecks on the ships and the sea bottom!

YUKIMURA300
22nd Jan 2008, 20:15
I get the feeling it would take a chunk of time to do that. I think they should concentrate more on stuff like ships blowing up ala the way HMS Hood did etc. In the shallow water the ships shouldn't sink fully under either. Parts of them stick out.

M0n3y
23rd Jan 2008, 14:07
like the Arizona....

bhut mostly the ships sink right?
and the explosion/destruction of the Hood was pretty cool and it would be awesome to see that in BS:P
and burning oil on the water

mpmcgraw
28th Jan 2008, 21:06
LOL at the guy who thinks the MIG 25 has the most powerful radar in the world.

The Yamato
11th Feb 2008, 03:34
The Yamato for sure had the BIGGEST explosion.:eek:

M0n3y
11th Feb 2008, 19:56
ye i found the game "Find the Yamato in the smoke clouds" :D

Red October
19th Feb 2008, 21:31
They should and an armament to the Betty bomber the Oka"not sure on spelling" It is a human guided rocket with a 2500 pound payload.

insomniac7777
19th Feb 2008, 22:34
well i use kamikaze sometimes....mostly before my new bombs come...to set fire on the magazines or fltnks works nicely....if you are lucky you can sink a dd +this way....

insomniac7777
19th Feb 2008, 22:36
like the Arizona....

bhut mostly the ships sink right?
and the explosion/destruction of the Hood was pretty cool and it would be awesome to see that in BS:P
and burning oil on the water
yahh...really look at the reflections on the water mod for silent hunter 4 it adds burning oil on the surface...very nice

insomniac7777
19th Feb 2008, 22:38
ok heres the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Weapons_Over_Normandy

it was a good game
astonishing game....and that daimler-benz giant plane WHOA!!!!:eek: