Poll

battlefield 4

wowsers in my trousers
55 (37.9%)
bangarangzanga
17 (11.7%)
.
44 (30.3%)
awful
10 (6.9%)
wish it didnt exist
19 (13.1%)

Total Members Voted: 145

Author Topic: Battlefield Megathread  (Read 613211 times)

are you kidding me qwep

lay off, not everyone is a jet junky. its completely understandable to get those mixed up

are you kidding me qwep

lay off, not everyone is a jet junky. its completely understandable to get those mixed up
It's like calling an escalade a navigator, except the planes dont even look nearly as similar.

Not all F35s are capable of hovering.
Neither plane carries machine guns.
You don't know what "flat" means because neither of those planes are flat.
The P38 Lightning of the second world war was a ground attack plane, are you implying that it is interchangeable with modern aircraft simply because it fulfilled a similar role?
I don't know where to start because I am laughing too hard. First of all, I was implying these features in BF3, not Real life. Second, Flat-Like was the term I believe I used to point that it stood out from most jets of modern day. Thirdly, The P38 Lightning didn't hover, It's not in BF3, Nor is it a modern aircraft of today's date making your argument completely irrelevant to this topic of the forums.
P.S. I highlighted the important parts so you would actually read this time.

First of all, I was implying these features in BF3
Neither plane carries machine guns.
Machine guns tend not to fire explosive shots that whittle down tanks and make extremely short work of other jets.

Second, Flat-Like was the term I believe I used to point that it stood out from most jets of modern day.
A vague and open-to-interpretation term that contributes nothing to the description then.
The F35 does not stand out from the pack because it is "flat-like", it stands out because of its trapezoidal wings and sharp, angular appearance.
The Harrier does not stand out because it is "flat-like", it stands out because it looks lumpy as hell.

Thirdly, The P38 Lightning didn't hover, It's not in BF3
Neither is the Harrier.

Machine guns tend not to fire explosive shots that whittle down tanks and make extremely short work of other jets.
What else do you call a rapid-firing weapon that shoots large caliber bullets at high speeds?
The F35 does not stand out from the pack because it is "flat-like", it stands out because of its trapezoidal wings and sharp, angular appearance.
A fancy puffed-up sentence that can also be interpreted to mean "smooth/flat-like appearance of an F35 or Harrier. Also, learn some geometry since you don't know what a trapezoid is.
Neither is the Harrier.
The Harrier hovers...giving it at least one factor to be related.

Also, something that shoots "explosive rounds" can be considered an auto-cannon which i believe is classified as a type of machine gun.

What else do you call a rapid-firing weapon that shoots large caliber bullets at high speeds?
An autocannon. Machine guns fire bullets (usually non-explosive), autocannons fire shells (usually explosive).

Also, learn some geometry since you don't know what a trapezoid is.
Quote
The trapezoidal or diamond wing is a high-performance wing configuration. It is a short (low aspect ratio) tapered wing having little or no overall sweep, such that the leading edge sweeps back and the trailing edge sweeps forwards. The trapezoidal design allows for a thin wing with low drag at high speeds, while maintaining high strength and stiffness. To date, all major aircraft to use this design have come from the United States.

(Oh by the way in case you didn't know yet, that's an F35 and not a Harrier)

The Harrier hovers...giving it at least one factor to be related.
And the P38 is used as a ground-attack plane, making it related as well.

An autocannon. Machine guns fire bullets (usually non-explosive), autocannons fire shells (usually explosive).
An autocannon is a more specific type of machine gun still classifying it as a machine gun.
And the P38 is used as a ground-attack plane, making it related as well.
The P38 is a ground-attack plane. The Harrier/ F35 is a Multirole Combat Aircraft making it useful for Air-to-ground operations as well as Air-to-air. Hence another similarity between the two.

An autocannon is a more specific type of machine gun still classifying it as a machine gun.
Only in the broadest, most literal use of the word. When someone says "machine gun", they are almost certainly going to be referring to a man-portable automatic weapon rather than a tank-killing gatling gun.

The P38 is a ground-attack plane.
That was not its' sole combat role. The P38 could also function as a long range escort, photo recon plane, and interceptor, among other things. The "II" in F35 Lightning II is there for a reason. And since you seem so intent on referring to autocannons as machine guns, I might as well point out that the P38 had five, so there's another similarity.

A-10 is best air to air jet out there, just sayin!!

thats not how you spell Su-25
that plane feels so small its awesome

Only in the broadest, most literal use of the word. When someone says "machine gun", they are almost certainly going to be referring to a man-portable automatic weapon rather than a tank-killing gatling gun.
That was not its' sole combat role. The P38 could also function as a long range escort, photo recon plane, and interceptor, among other things. The "II" in F35 Lightning II is there for a reason. And since you seem so intent on referring to autocannons as machine guns, I might as well point out that the P38 had five, so there's another similarity.
No, when someone says "Machine gun" and is referring to them on jets, most people know how devastating or powerful they are talking about and I am pretty sure the P38 did not have 5 GAU-12_Equalizers mounted on it. Instead, it was equipped one standard T1 Army Ordnance .90 in (23 mm) autocannon with the exception of two .30 in (7.62 mm) Brownings on a certain variant. Also, if you read a little deeper you could find out the there have been multiple attempts to make the P38 Lightning a better "dog-fighter" but many attempts failed since it lacked the capability of high speed maneuvering so the only thing close it had to air-to-air combat was to get in optimal ranges of up to 1000m (if you had a pilot with exceptional aim) and it targets at extremely long distances and/or above with higher altitudes.
Also, as far as sole combat roles go, You listed all of the possible roles it had through history except direct combat of air-to-air.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 01:46:53 AM by hgpucom »

I am pretty sure the P38 did not have 5 GAU-12_Equalizers mounted on it.
No, it had 4 browning .50 cal machine guns and one 20mm autoca- machine gun. Back then there were no rotary cannons.

Also, as far as sole combat roles go, You listed all of the possible roles it had through history except direct combat of air-to-air.
monday you don't even know what interceptors do, do you?

No, it had 4 browning .50 cal machine guns and one 20mm autoca- machine gun. Back then there were no rotary cannons.
That's funny look what I found. The original rotary cannon was the Gatling gun, designed by the American inventor Dr. Richard J. Gatling in 1861 and patented in 1862.
monday you don't even know what interceptors do,do you?
Thank you for the racial comment but I am not of African-American Ethnicity. Also yes I do but as I said, read deeper and you will find that it was a fail interceptor. It shouldn't have even been classified as one in the first place for the dissatisfying elements it was given. Unless of course you think a 2-plane, 1 pilot aircraft travelling at 640km/h would turn fast enough to avoid fast-movers going approx 600km/h that turn and aim with 3 times more accuracy of a class of plane like this. Yes, It has speed giving it the title for "interceptor" but if all you can do it fly in a straight line and hope to catch prey from behind before they out maneuver you, then it is pointless.

Rush jets handle like stuff Frontrox and you know it.

That's funny look what I found. The original rotary cannon was the Gatling gun, designed by the American inventor Dr. Richard J. Gatling in 1861 and patented in 1862.
How many of them were mounted on planes and fired explosive ordinance?