I have made a bug report that has been labelled as “Not a bug” Therefore I’ll make a post here. I have several Clips where I unload hundreds of 30mm cannon shells into a B-17, and It continues to fly perfectly fine. Historically this is inaccurate, where they took 4-5 rounds to down in reality:
Being generous a B-17 shouldn’t survive 10 30mm hits, let alone Hundreds. This Is awful for gameplay as any single bomber with passable aim can easily take down some of the best players simply because they can take the hit. If these changes hit the live server I can almost guarantee player backlash. Matches will no longer be won by players actually playing well, and will instead be won by whose teams bombers can eat the most damage.
Your bug report contains no sources that point to the modeling being incorrect as far as i can see. When you report things like this the have requirements for what is considered acceptable sources:
I also recommend reading their reasoning and methodology for making the new damage models: ( Changes to Bomber Survivability )
well you maybe hit the same location 2-3 times at best.
Your claims that a few 30mm rounds can down a bomber may be correct, however those were almost certainly well placed shots in the same area of the aircraft.
Rather than a spray across both wings and the fusalage.
i count about 3 shots to the right hand side wing. i dont know what you are expecting.
The you hit the tail ALOT, and the elevators are both blown off. The only issue i see here is that you are absolutely lighting up the tailplane to little effect. This is because the tail is modelled as 1 piece, if it were seperated, you’d probably deal substantial damage to each horizontal stabiliser and maybe could destroy them.
more clips where a bomber takes WAY too much punishment. lets not pretend that this isn’t awful for gameplay. In these clips I am playing the CA-27, which has 30mm ADENs with Air belts. Nothing should survive THAT many rounds of 30mm
so did you just not read the source? Its very well documented that 30mm Mk 108 cannons would take allied bombers down with 4-5 rounds. Yes bombers COULD take alot of punishment but nothing close to what I give out in these clips otherwise Allied bombers would not need escort fighters.
What is the defintion of “taking a bomber down” if it caused damage that let to withdrawal from the mission? did it force a crew bailout due to fire damage or loss of control? No the wing didnt fall of after 4 shots.
“A fighter with Mk108 CANNOT take down a supe fortress”
The mk 108 was DESIGNED to take down B-17. If they couldn’t do it why did Allied bombers need Escorts? Why, then were 40% of B-17s shot down, by fighters ALONE?
So is it not a fair question why we don’t have RDX in the belts? considering it was used historically, and clearly the “Anti Bomber” Cannon doesn’t work on bombers?
Also “Bring down” means EXACTLY what is says. It doesn’t have a hidden meaning, because an Aircraft being “brought down” is pretty conclusive as to its meaning
