Bombers need a huge buff

[DerGrafVonZahl]

@KillaKiwi

Why shouldn’t I? How can you say the single hit damage is correct when in-game the shell is much more capble.

Because it is the single hit kill chance on a random location.

The reason you shouldn’t look at specific locations is, that there is no real world empirical evidence to test it against.

Noone ever made that study.

So you look at specific locations… Fine and then?
Lets say you have the WT data gathered. You validate it how exactly? You have no usable evidence on what happened in the real world. So how would you even check if it is correct?

The reason i reiterate random hit locations, is because we actually have that date to compare against.

@KillaKiwi

Do you really think that there’s just a 12% chance, and that’s for a B kill, that a 20mm HEI shell is going to take out a P-47 when aiming from the direction as in the test???

A single hit, yeah. 12% on a completely random location. Yeah.

So of all p-47 downed that way.

12% would go down immidiately
10.56% needed a second hit
9.29% a third
8.18% a fourth
7.19% a fifth
6.33% a sixth

53.56%
Would be dead after just 6 US 20mm hei shells.

And that is assuming the aircraft is magically repaired after each hit AND(!) i hit random Locations.

With cumulative damage the number should be far higher. And we have cumulative damage in war Thunder (obviously).

Add to that the enourmous hit percentage mouse aim allows you in RB… This is just a short burst.

It also fits my experience. Since i play a lot of sim where hitting a target is far harder, much less of my 20mm hit in a burst and i often need more than one burst on a p47. Still i can assume to hit up to 2 time in a burst that gave me a hit indicator.

Then imagine RB with mouse aim and the rate of fire of most fighters and that a lot of fighters have several 20mm cannons. That P-47 should require just a tap most of the times.

[KillaKiwi]

@DerGrafVonZahl

A single hit, yeah. 12% on a completely random location. Yeah.

Yeah, not in WT. If the shell doesn’t hit the engine or near the pilot, it will hit a wing and destroy it that way.

@DerGrafVonZahl

53.56%
Would be dead after just 6 US 20mm hei shells.

What is “just” suppose to mean? In WT a P-47 has maybe 5% chance of surviving 6 random 20mm HEI hits.

Even less when we consider that scenario from the front where 80% of the frontal area is going to result in a kill.
And in that test the engine, being completely exposed to being hit from the front, played a substantial part in knocking out the aircaft.

I don’t know if you noticed but a single 20mm can destroy a fighters wing.

So shooting an aircraft from the back still leaves the wings which makes up a substantial area of the plane.

[DerGrafVonZahl]

@KillaKiwi

Yeah, not in WT. If the shell doesn’t hit the engine or near the pilot, it will hit a wing and destroy it that way.

In a single hit? I doubt that. The thing is what feels like a Single hit is usually a burst. With the 20mm rate of fire it is almost Impossible to do single shots even if you just tap the mouse. And that’s with a single 20mm most planes have mounted more weaponry.

That’s why you need a controlled Environment to test this.

@KillaKiwi

What is “just” suppose to mean? In WT a P-47 has maybe 5% chance of surviving 6 random 20mm HEI hits.

First not any 20mm but the american AN/M2
Are you sure you are talking single hits. Mouse aim usually makes sure that a burst hits more than one round.

That’s why controlled enviroments are needed.

Also the 55% are if the plane magically repairs itself after each hit which does not happen in WT. The effect of cumulative damage is anyones guess, since noone ever tested that in real life…

@KillaKiwi

I don’t know if you noticed but a single 20mm can destroy a fighters wing.

Sure it CAN do that. Which is a useless statement. Since it only need to have happened once for this statement to be correct. For any useful statement you need probailities.

[KillaKiwi]

@DerGrafVonZahl

Because it is the single hit kill chance on a random location.

The reason you shouldn’t look at specific locations is, that there is no real world empirical evidence to test it against.

Noone ever made that study.

The chances are based on the capabilities of the shell.

First it needs to hit the plane, then it needs to damage a critical components.

The result is based on damage effect and the area in which such affect can occur.

A .60cal API deals more sever damage to the engine but also affects a smaller area compared to 20mm HEI which can knock out the oil system to a greater likelyhood.

Therefore a 20mm HE would not deal the same amount of damage to an engine as 20mm AP immediatly.

It does in the game, which makes HE not only lethal against structure but also against the engine.
When it should just have a greater chance of knocking out the oil tank.

They also shot B-25s engine with all the differet calibers.

If 20mm HE doesn’t behave against engines in that report, why do you think it will do against any other part?

[KillaKiwi]

@DerGrafVonZahl

In a single hit? I doubt that. The thing is what feels like a Single hit is usually a burst. With the 20mm rate of fire it is almost Impossible to do single shots even if you just tap the mouse. And that’s with a single 20mm most planes have mounted more weaponry.

That’s why you need a controlled Environment to test this.

I’ve tested shooting P-47 with the US 20mm in mission selection.

A 20mm can take off a wing or even a tail in some instances in a single hit.
In general it takes two 20mm hits to take off the tail.

A Soviet 37mm can also shoot off the wing or tail of a Tu-4 in a single hit.

Most of the time when a 20mm doesn’t take of the wing, it’s because the shell hit the flaps and they absorbed the damage instead of the “wing” component.

[DerGrafVonZahl]

@KillaKiwi

If 20mm HE doesn’t behave against engines in that report, why do you think it will do against any other part?

I don’t say it does. Lucky there is a random hit analysis. So i can ignore specific parts.

This is why i said it roughly(!) fits. The segments of the planes are weird, but tge overall picture still is correct. As in a more realistic DM will nit increase bomber survivability… You know, the point i was trying to make?

[DerGrafVonZahl]

@KillaKiwi

A 20mm can take off a wing or even a tail in some instances in a single hit.
In general it takes two 20mm hits to take off the tail

In sime instances… Sure percentages. Document it.

@KillaKiwi

A Soviet 37mm can also shoot off the wing or tail of a Tu-4 in a single hit.

So? There is no report on the soviet 37mm only the US one. They kight have a very different filler. Like the german 30mm mineshell has waaaaay more filler than the us 37mm.

You cannot just take any 37mm

[KillaKiwi]

@DerGrafVonZahl

This is why i said it roughly(!) fits. The segments of the planes are weird, but tge overall picture still is correct. As in a more realistic DM will nit increase bomber survivability… You know, the point i was trying to make?

Sure but I think it will increase the surviviability.

Simply because a bomber shouldn’t lose its wing from a couple of 20mm hits in an empty wing section.

Again, the results with 30mm and 37mm show that it’s most likely to take out the B-25 due to a fuel fire or “B Kill” running out of fuel before it can RTB, than any other scenario.

But when a single 37mm takes off its wings or tails, and 2-4 20mm HE rounds do the same, then the likelyhood to bring down a B-25 is just massively higher than in real life.

[KillaKiwi]

@DerGrafVonZahl

So? There is no report on the soviet 37mm only the US one. They kight have a very different filler. Like the german 30mm mineshell has waaaaay more filler than the us 37mm.

You cannot just take any 37mm

Of course I can. Are you really trying to make an argument that a US 37mm is going to be much different than a Soviet 37mm? That’s just silly.

We are talking War Thunder here anyway. The performance would practically be the same.

However the US 37mm doesn’t have realShatter implemented and since this whole discussion is basically based around cannon damage after realShatter, I’m using one with realShatter to make my point.

[JimboH4H]

@Richardguy

I don’t understand why people reach for sketchy historical arguments when we’re playing a game; bombers are terribly unfun, if there’s no willingness on Gaijin’s part to try to make them more fun for both parties, then they should be removed.

HEAR, HEAR. Totally agree.

[DerGrafVonZahl]

@KillaKiwi

Of course I can. Are you really trying to make an argument that a US 37mm is going to be much different than a Soviet 37mm? That’s just silly.

Yes, oh god yes.

Dud the 30 german 30mm mineshell is the best example on how different shells are.

The explosive mass might be very different.

Hell even the length of the projectile differs from.20mm to 20mm and it has a massive effect on the energy delivered by that shell. Since mass*velocity=energy.

You cannot be serious with statements like this.

You are not making any point, you compare apples to oranges all the time.

[KillaKiwi]

@DerGrafVonZahl

You are not making any point, you compare apples to oranges all the time.

No I’m not.

I don’t know whats going on in your head when you think using Soviet 37mm HE rounds too make a point about the in-game damage is going to be different than using US 37mm shells.

We are talking about RL performance vs. in-game implementation and by the standards of the game these two shells would have practically same performance.

I only said the Soviet 37mm is blowing wings and tails of Tu-4 in a single hit and the US 37mm would do the same, however it doesn’t use realShatter.

As it stands the damage done in the report doesn’t match with the in-game performance of shells because of various reasons.

@DerGrafVonZahl

Hell even the length of the projectile differs from.20mm to 20mm and it has a massive effect on the energy delivered by that shell. Since mass*velocity=energy.

And what does that have to do with the game, where shell damage is entirely based on caliber and explosive mass, or whatever is implemented in the code?

You can’t argue: The number of hits to down a plane in-game is correct
But then say: Every 20mm (or other caliber) is different so you can’t compare them.

Then you also can’t say that the number of hits is correct because by your own metric you can’t know that when you base your judgement on a report that describes four different calibers and cannons.

However it’s pretty self-explantory that a 20mm that weighs 130g with higher velocity is going to deal more damage than a 20mm that weighs 96g and carries less explosive/incendiary filler.

It’s also logical that two 96g 20mm shells are not going to outperform a 37mm that weighs 730g and carries 5 times the explosive.

Yet neither is true for the game.

[DerGrafVonZahl]

@KillaKiwi

I don’t know whats going on in your head when you think using Soviet 37mm HE rounds too make a point about the in-game damage is going to be different than using US 37mm shells.

Because they are different shells with different mass and different filler…

@KillaKiwi

We are talking about RL performance vs. in-game implementation and by the standards of the game these two shells would have practically same performance.

This is just you claiming things.

It’s not true because you say it.

If they have similar Performance and mechanisms, prove it.

@KillaKiwi

I only said the Soviet 37mm is blowing wings and tails of Tu-4 in a single hit and the US 37mm would do the same, however it doesn’t use realShatter.

Dud claims without the percentages are useless. How is that a hard concept to grasp?

You do realize that foe your sentences to be true it only need to have happened once?

Sure it can happen. This does not tell us anything.

@KillaKiwi

As it stands the damage done in the report doesn’t match with the in-game performance of shells because of various reasons

Then give reasons with specific performances in game with evidence. “It can do it” doesn’t mean anything.

Why is that so hard to understand?

@KillaKiwi

And what does that have to do with the game, where shell damage is entirely based on caliber and explosive mass, or whatever is implemented in the code?

It isn’t… Dude shell mass is also in the calculation.
So length matters as well.

If you don’t know what is in the code how can you say that it doesn’t matter?

You are just making stuff up.

@KillaKiwi

You can’t argue: The number of hits to down a plane in-game is correct
But then say: Every 20mm (or other caliber) is different so you can’t compare them.

Yes, those statements are not contradictory. You can valudate the shells that were tested. That’s it. I mean it is Impossible to know if the damage of a shell is correct if it never was tested in a controlled wnviroment irl. So you test what you can test.

You can extrapolate other shells from that though since you know the chemical and kinetic energy.

But it will be a good estimation at best.

So validatibg the WT DM on shells where no real life data exiets is Impossible. So why do it?

I also said roughly correct nit correct… But meh you are incapable of nuance it seems.

But do you care how you intend on checking if the russian 37mm is correct? What real life data do you compare it to?

@KillaKiwi

Then you also can’t say that the number of hits is correct because by your own metric you can’t know that when you base your judgement on a report that describes four different calibers and cannons.

Of course you can. By testing exactly these cannons in game… And then with the knowledge of their chemical energy and kinetic energy on impact, extrapolate. Not rocket science.

I already explained that.

@KillaKiwi

However it’s pretty self-explantory that a 20mm that weighs 130g with higher velocity is going to deal more damage than a 20mm that weighs 96g and carries less explosive/incendiary filler.

Yes and no. It depends on the igniter and the relative Velocities. Since if the igniter takes to long the shell might already have left the plane. This of course is hypothetical but an example where a faster larger shell with more filler does less damage.

It’s not so clear cut. It never is.