Difference between revisions of "Talk:VHF Combat"
(New page: =="A VHF is a bomber's worst nightmare"== This is debatable. In my experience, VHFs are easier than LFs for a bomber to handle. Granted, a poorly flown LF will blow up more or less immedia...) |
m (Aakopa moved page Talk:VHF Combat Tips to Talk:VHF Combat) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This is debatable. In my experience, VHFs are easier than LFs for a bomber to handle. Granted, a poorly flown LF will blow up more or less immediately against a bomber's weaponry, but a well-flown LF won't have to look down those SNACk barrals. | This is debatable. In my experience, VHFs are easier than LFs for a bomber to handle. Granted, a poorly flown LF will blow up more or less immediately against a bomber's weaponry, but a well-flown LF won't have to look down those SNACk barrals. | ||
| − | I would say it's safer to say that VHFs are generally more all-purpose than most other classes. They can carry heavy weaponry, not as many as bombers, but equally heavy and enough to take on large targets while still being able to carry anti-fighter juice. | + | I would say it's safer to say that VHFs are generally more all-purpose than most other classes. They can carry heavy weaponry, not as many as bombers, but equally heavy and enough to take on large targets while still being able to carry anti-fighter juice. |
| + | --[[User:Eyvind|Eyvind]] 16:51, 14 February 2009 (MST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Well, if the statement in itself is subjective then it should be removed, or rephrased to sound general. For instance, "many pilots believe that a VHF is a bomber's worst nightmare", or something along those lines. [[User:Tumble-Weed|Tumble-Weed]]'' <sup>([[User talk: Tumble-Weed|ComLink]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tumble-Weed|Holocron]])</sup> 18:09, 15 February 2009 (MST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Looks alright to me now! Great job! --[[User:Eyvind|Eyvind]] 04:36, 16 February 2009 (MST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==VHF Table== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Seeing as how the table is not frequently referenced in the article I have removed it and replaced it with a link to the VHF section of the fighter article. To see some discussion relevant to this please see my talk page, ''and the [[Talk:Table:Very_Heavy_Fighters|Talk page for the table]] itself.''<br> | ||
| + | --[[User:Tazuras|Tazuras]] 14:49, 25 June 2009 (MDT) | ||
| + | <br>''Italics added by [[User:Chovynz| ~Chovynz~ ]] <sup>([[User_talk:Chovynz|Blabs]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chovynz|Ego]]) </sup> 16:23, 25 June 2009 (MDT)'' | ||
Latest revision as of 08:40, 15 December 2012
"A VHF is a bomber's worst nightmare"
This is debatable. In my experience, VHFs are easier than LFs for a bomber to handle. Granted, a poorly flown LF will blow up more or less immediately against a bomber's weaponry, but a well-flown LF won't have to look down those SNACk barrals.
I would say it's safer to say that VHFs are generally more all-purpose than most other classes. They can carry heavy weaponry, not as many as bombers, but equally heavy and enough to take on large targets while still being able to carry anti-fighter juice. --Eyvind 16:51, 14 February 2009 (MST)
Well, if the statement in itself is subjective then it should be removed, or rephrased to sound general. For instance, "many pilots believe that a VHF is a bomber's worst nightmare", or something along those lines. Tumble-Weed (ComLink) (Holocron) 18:09, 15 February 2009 (MST)
Looks alright to me now! Great job! --Eyvind 04:36, 16 February 2009 (MST)
VHF Table
Seeing as how the table is not frequently referenced in the article I have removed it and replaced it with a link to the VHF section of the fighter article. To see some discussion relevant to this please see my talk page, and the Talk page for the table itself.
--Tazuras 14:49, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
Italics added by ~Chovynz~ (Blabs • Ego) 16:23, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
