'Wait for it to pass by, then nail it in the ass' - isolated NG soldiers ambush Sov tanks - Garry's Mod

I think I overkilled the colour balance :smith: [img]http://www.project-new-hope.com/upload/images/general/%27Wait%20for%20it%20to%20pass.%27.jpg[/img] "BUT ROSS YOU ALWAYS BITCH ABOUT GUYS BEING BEHIND WALLS OR BUSHES NEAR THE ENEMY WAH WAH WAH" Tanks can't smell, they can't hear, and they can't see very well, either. Deal with it, nerds.

Whats it say on the tank?

I didn't bother to check before I whacked it on there, I remembered seeing that slogan thrown around a lot so I just put it on. Turns out it means 'Glory to labour', or at least so Google tells me. I guess that still works :v:

May I ask what does the "NG" mean?

National Guard

[QUOTE=F T;29082584]Whats it say on the tank?[/QUOTE] caaba tpyay [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] i like it but those airplanes look weird

[QUOTE=F T;29082584]Whats it say on the tank?[/QUOTE] The inscription means: "Glory to the labour"

The plane are going to crash. The smoke from the T-80 is odd looking. colors look nice though.

It's okay, but for some reason, I find the overall scene unappealing. The grass in front is too high, the tanks looks like they just waited to be ambushed and the jets are... weird. But I do like the posing of the people a lot.

[QUOTE=Back_Slash;29085237]The plane are going to crash. The smoke from the T-80 is odd looking. colors look nice though.[/QUOTE] why do people automatically assume any aircraft flying in any way other than straight and level below 500 feet is crashing, that is not hard to do at all for even a new pilot

Well assuming from them being F-15 they are not dive attack pilots, they are air superiority pilots. If it was an A-10 I would say other wise.

[QUOTE=Back_Slash;29085877]Well assuming from them being F-15 they are not dive attack pilots, they are air superiority pilots. If it was an A-10 I would say other wise.[/QUOTE] lol they're mig-29s

[QUOTE=rossmum;29085575]why do people automatically assume any aircraft flying in any way other than straight and level below 500 feet is crashing, that is not hard to do at all for even a new pilot[/QUOTE] Agreed. It's worse than the collision alert on Ace Combat 6. [url]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hpxaqo7FS9c/SoXCGZvDd8I/AAAAAAAAAuo/OhVqacm5sJg/s400/aircraft+-+low+flying+jet+2.jpg[/url] <-- That's low-flying

although i agree with your point, in part, you really shouldn't link canvas paintings as proof for your point as for this low-flying business: yes. any pilot can fly as low as is shown in this picture, easily... but they don't. travelling at 700kph at this altitude in a combat environment is pointless unless the aircraft are attempting to avoid radar or unknown SAM sites - it's impossible to identify targets and makes you an easier target for AAA (F4s discovered this in Vietnam; although flying low gives little time for ground units to acquire you as a target, you're so close to the guns that you are far easier to hit if they can track you for long enough) i doubt that situation is occurring here though considering the fact that the armour has already moved up to this location. the migs here look unarmed anyway, or certainly not carrying any CAS or strike ordnance, so they're either rtb or they're in an air superiority role, neither of which actions should be performed at this incredibly low altitude. there's a reason that UK Apache pilots never fuck up and kill civilians and never get damaged aircraft - because they fly damn high and engage from distance. the US pilots, on the other hand, think it's still Vietnam so they skip around at mega low altitudes, get shot at by DSHK a lot a generally just fuck up

they'd look boring at 40,000ft though [editline]11th April 2011[/editline] "artistic license" :colbert:

ross you shit out perfection [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] is that one of them RNL maps i have but never use? [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] also just noticed m16a1s - which are also perfectly realistic to use iirc we have like 50k or so in arsenals actually [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;29086440] there's a reason that UK Apache pilots never fuck up and kill civilians and never get damaged aircraft - because they fly damn high and engage from distance. the US pilots, on the other hand, think it's still Vietnam so they skip around at mega low altitudes, get shot at by DSHK a lot a generally just fuck up[/QUOTE] nap of the earth flying - only effective against modern militaries, radar, and aa rockets all of which taliban / insurgents are not / don't have

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;29086440]although i agree with your point, in part, you really shouldn't link canvas paintings as proof for your point as for this low-flying business: yes. any pilot can fly as low as is shown in this picture, easily... but they don't. travelling at 700kph at this altitude in a combat environment is pointless unless the aircraft are attempting to avoid radar or unknown SAM sites - it's impossible to identify targets and makes you an easier target for AAA (F4s discovered this in Vietnam; although flying low gives little time for ground units to acquire you as a target, you're so close to the guns that you are far easier to hit if they can track you for long enough) i doubt that situation is occurring here though considering the fact that the armour has already moved up to this location. the migs here look unarmed anyway, or certainly not carrying any CAS or strike ordnance, so they're either rtb or they're in an air superiority role, neither of which actions should be performed at this incredibly low altitude. there's a reason that UK Apache pilots never fuck up and kill civilians and never get damaged aircraft - because they fly damn high and engage from distance. the US pilots, on the other hand, think it's still Vietnam so they skip around at mega low altitudes, get shot at by DSHK a lot a generally just fuck up[/QUOTE] Yeah... Anything that flies is very weak. You can basically shoot a jet down with an Assault Rifle if you're lucky enough to hit.

[QUOTE=gtanoofa;29093019]Also, this: shouldn't the russians have infantry support? Considering the fact that tanks are pretty vulnerable to light infantry. I know that you made it this way to make the yanks invincible for a while, but nobody is so stupid nor crazy to send armor without infantry.[/QUOTE] Yes, they should, but Simkas is still working on the Soviet infantry and I refuse to use any other models because they're all shit. We'll just say for the sake of realism that the infantry are riding in BMPs further behind, as the Soviets consider this to be a safe area behind the lines.

Thats beautiful rossmum! Great picture.