It means that if implemented in their current state in game, bombers will break it.
All homing weapons go for the geometric centre of vehicles currently. The AIM-4 and other weapons without proxy fuzes can (and will) miss certain aircraft because of this.
You can test this for yourself by test flying the F-106 and launching AIM-4s at the B-29s.
I am pretty sure Gaijin currently has no way to make IR seeking missiles go for the engines specifically-
bombers will break fire damage and collisions, so adjust those. im keeping the wings and tail glued on unless met with genuinely massive weapons or actual concentrated fire
Bombers DO die (when controlled by players) to fire and lighter damage than our test drive bots, simply because bots follow different rules. I have proven this with pictures posted before of the b52 and tu95 (two planes mentioned as being oddly fire resistant) taking damage overtime until they lose control, albeit the time it takes, will need further study, aluminum doesnt burn, but the airstream acts like a blowtorch, but it also cools the surrounding area, so wouldnt fire damage progress backwards outside, and outwards inside where its hidden from the airstream? I need to research this more to give a proper take
Looking through it again. The thresholds are absolute it shouldn’t matter on how much health the part has.
So basically.
Gaijin bugged fuel tanks somewhere.
That much is obvious. This seems completely unintended given what they said on the news post:
What source do you have on the PBJ-1H’s 75mm with 600g of tnt filler being similar to the “75mm” AA gun shooting at that? What makes you think its not an 88 with 1kg of filler
Shows as well that dedicated incendiary rounds need a higher base multiplier.
I’m not flying a PBJ.
Why would an 88mm be in the Pacific theatre?
Then what are you shooting it with
Also, thats in the pacific? The japanese army replaced the 1928 design 75mm with a 120mm in 1943
And the navy, well, you’re literally only finding 100mm and up on those ships
edit thats a lie a few light cruisers has 80mm
120mm was only present in small numbers and mostly limited to areas near japan; this B-24 was hit quite far away. The only AAA guns left in this location were 75mm, unless you want to argue that instead it was a 25mm AA autocannon.
The plane being used is the Ki-109, and its 75mm is derived from the AAA cannon of the same caliber.
Got a source for the guns present there
It was discussed earlier in the thread. You can scroll up if you want.
since ai seems to be enough for you
1 Like
thank you grok
This is also for the most stringent A kill requirements tracked in the report which included killing both pilots and both engines.
Basically the chances are that after 10 rounds of HE 30mm is that either both engines are dead, or one engine is dead and there is a massive fire.
The A kill figure you keep quoting is the one where there has to be a chance of multiple fires and both engines have to be killed. Even the lower figure that doesn’t require compound fire chance still requires both engines to be killed.
Chances of a B-25 surviving 10 rounds of 30mm HE is basically nil.
Oh my god. Ive literally said time and time again that my argument is the bomber doesnt fall apart, not that it necessarily makes it home
currently they are doing both
Ill be damned, that battery was just 75mm spam, ima find the recording and analyze further
I would also argue that it looks more egregious because visual modeling is very light with the damage.
so it makes it look worse.
In the same vein though, if you adjust bomber DMs, fighter DMs will need an eventual adjustment too.
Because you now have DMs basically going into two diffeeent directions now