You don’t play BRs with those flying fortresses at all. And the F15E K/D needs more personal improvement.
Why have you been chat banned in game by the way?
1 Like
Thats a lie,they are tanky enough now to actually fight back to maybe get out alive instead
Not your business
I used to on another account but gave up on low br bombing cause of insanely trash they were,im pro fighter,im mid af in ARB but bomber need a desperate buff,like it or not
Which is why i got so many games in a F84,fast enough to reach a base in time and maybe if i get lucky i could get some kills too with this flying brick
You just lost the argument, you’ve run out of points and have devolved to statshaming lmao. Get outta here and let us enjoy our bombers
I just looked for some new points.
-
The overall hit rate of WWII German pilots is 2%.
That means, only about 5 shots per 250 round magazine of MG151 are hit. Tell those Luftwaffe pilots to “look for good aims” in bullet waves of defensive fire and escort planes. -
According to the historical record, to down a B-17, it usually takes 20-25 successful MG151 mine shot hits, or 3-5 Mk108 ones.
In reality it is way more hard to aim than you in war thunder with a mouse. -
Yes, bombers are bigger than people think, but what one single 30mm mine shot does can also astonish people. Here is the classical picture of mk108 hitting a spitfire as a reference:
I post his stats to counter his point of “war thunder is not a simulator game”. Even so, he has no idea how the current situation actually is. Let alone the new changes makes bombers seems like Hogwarts manufactured.
2 Likes
CALM DOWN BOY’S ! It’s a buff for ALL BOMBERS…
not a sigle B-17, just CALM…
Heres the chance to kill in 1947 from the US of 10 mk108 mine shells and various others vs a b25.
A kill is immediate death, B kill is attrition, oil leaks and whatnot. resulting in a about 9 ish percent chance of a structural kill on a twin engined B25 bomber. More fragile than a B17, By the US in 1947
The biggest threat was fuel! And even with everything combined its just 53 percent from 10 hits. Now “B” kill is much higher, but B kill is a mission kill, a slow death. Not a bomber falling apart war thunder style.
Miss me with that 3-5 hit BS, those were static tests done on a blenheim mk4 wing, less than half the size and a quarter of the weight of a b17
Note the Line Of Fire here: rear, above. Combined with the separated kill reasons, it is clear that shots are landed in the top middle of the whole airframe in this test.
Now in war thunder if you hit the middle of the airframe, bombs CAN survive multiple hits until its main structure breaks (it can still take hits after it “blacks”), and the 53% PK for 10 shots all landed on the middle of the bomber makes perfect sense and would be an ideal target statistics for WT to simulate.
But, in WT, the main reasons bombers get killed are tail or wings cut due to direct shots or fire, not the whole plane cut in half. The probability of you landing all 10 shots on the mid airframe but not the wing / tail - which are much more weaker in term of structural strength - is low. And if you land the hits side on, the explosion will also affect the wing.
And I now even have another example - the mig-15s killed B-29s effectively in the Korean war, which wouldn’t be possible when you compare B-29’s durability with B-25…
So overall, it is absolutely correct to buff bombers, given their current situations of able to get its wing / tail cut by 2-3 seconds of 50 cals - but not this far.
The problem came from 20mm HE been overtuned, instead of multiplying the HP value of bomber’s damage model, cannon damage should be remodelled.
Otherwise, the aircraft damage completely isolated between fighter and bomber makes the game weird, and the bomber can even take missiles and ram smaller planes like a heavy loaded truck.
1 Like
Correct. Now they’re making “small bombers” built by concretes but “large fighters” still 1-shoted by large cannons, which does not makes sense.
But by the way, if you compare the Shvak / ANM3 cannon with MG151… You’ll know how poor damage the latter now already deals to even single engine fighters…
3 Likes
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1w7b92r/the_b17_is_tankier_than_actual_tanks_dev_server/
Also check this post. How am I supposed to kill a bomber, if a “bomber squadron killer” fails to kill any bomber?
By logic and video proof,BMPTs should get easly onetapped but its not the case is it?Same treatment will go for ARB
Contrary to the bombers,the BMPT can fight back with insane precision and devastation btw,bombers being that tanky still leaves them a bit useless…tho as i said before
Might be for an ARB rework…you will never know
This document is literally labeled 10 random hits. Just because its fired from a rear aspect doesnt mean its all center mass, hell, it was fired from 500m, how the hell was it getting engine and fuel tank damage from center mass only. They do also have a section for damage from front and below specifically focusing on the engines, and there is a section for the b17s engines if that tickles your fancy
1 Like
I found a section of document previously mentioned regarding the b25 getting shot until structural failure. Its quite hilarious for the fuselage and wings from rear and above aspect
“58-112 M3 20mm”
“16-26 Mk108s”
“26-31 37mm HE”
“7-9 75MM HE”
"6 105MM T7 HE"WHAT THE FU-
And before the rage comes in, there is also a section for the engines, and the B25s engines conk out in as little as 3 20mm from “rear above”, What have we been saying this entire time? Aim for engines, aim for weakspots
You also got 4 mk108 for fuel cells
I see this as a recipe for bombers not really falling apart, BUT burning down or falling out the sky without engines.
That is a 60% overall single hit PK of B25.
“Figures 14 and 15-picture ше probabilities of obtaining an “А” or “В” kili respectively for a hit at random on the.B-25 bomber»: The proabilitles-are computed for terminal ballistic damage for rounds fired on the ground:at a:range of 500 yards, The line of fire is from the rear and above, 0 = 20° and б=13°. ° Ш obtaining the overall‘figures it was assumed that both engines must be killed for an engine kill and that both pilots must be killed for a kill due to personnel. The main fuel cells are-assumed full and the auxiliary cells empty. Since the. efigines and-pilots are doubly vulnerable components, their vulnerability contributed nothing to the vulnerabilities shown in these figures.”
Buddy, Hate to break it to you, you are missing a decimal point.
The top chart goes from 0.000 to 0.100 (10%) And Thats 0.125 at the top there of the bottom chart. At the bottom thats 0.000
Thats a 6% overall single hit A kill of a B25 with mk108. And a like 12% ish B kill
Someone wasnt paying attention when they taught graphs in like 3rd grade math
And my entire point of discussion has been the overall structural integrity of a bomber before falling apart like legos, if you shoot an engine or fuel tank (the weak points), Yeah, it will go down, as it should, just like if you swiss cheese it to the point where it cant produce lift anymore. My entire reason for being here is to prove they shouldnt fall apart like legos. But instead have a chance to have a decent fight and die slowly, fighting on the way down
1 Like
I doubt the B25 would fly after 6 god damn 105mm HE rounds lmao, probably not even a b17. But my point here for the entire time has been against bombers losing their tails, or getting instantly blown to pieces, if a bomber gets swiss cheesed to the point it cant produce lift, thats a fair death, its put up a fight, had a CHANCE to put up a good fight, and even then theres still a chance to make it back if you’re lucky. My goal this entire time has been defend the bombers against paper mache and explosive bolts getting re added. Thats all I want, thats all the documentation points to. Structural integrity
Im happy where they are now, they are tanky, but a knowledgable player, a good player, can still feasibly one pass them if they have the right tools with them, concentrated fire to weakspoints your caliber can actually handle. But they wont reward unskilled and unknowledgable players dumping center mass into the strongest parts of the bomber expecting it to crumple like a crouton.
Weve also discussed and come to an agreement in another thread, that in exchange for this durability, which doesnt seem out of the scope of reality besides the collision resistance, bomber repair costs and SP costs SHOULD go up, as should the rewards for KILLING one
Are we a little closer to an understanding now?
Alright, you got me. Seems I need to change my common sense towards bombers’ survivability.
15-20 mk108 hits to kill a heavy bomber is still achievable given the firing rate and the common 4x cannon setup. Gaijin must have fked something up to make bombers nearly invulnerable in some cases.
I think the more practical adjustment is to remove the unlimited ammo for bombers, given that Tu-4 and other bombers would be too deadly with the changes.
1 Like
See, now thats fair, unlimited ammo has no place outside of arcade. I agree with this, and 15-20 mk108s concentrated on the outer wing does rip it off in wt aswell using stealth belts, gaijin will probably fix the mine shells soon aswell as the missiles, but the low skill center mass hits shouldnt be so easily rewarded unless its with something genuinely massive and frame shattering
You can tell that to Queenie who came back home with damage across 90% of her airframe.
1 Like