maybe hes overrevving that db with MEC
Having the engine set to idle and deploying the airbrake before I even turn over and my engine is dying at 530 kmh, despite having an IAS limit of 680 kmh.
Ive never encountered this? here ill dive on dev ig
B-2, 1000kg, live server, is happening consistently for me
Well i dove on dev from 7km up to 650 and nothing happened, so ig its fixed?? idk
Strange, I even have been making sure to start below 3km thinking maybe I was still passing the IAS limit despite the brakes. I JUST had a match where I never passed 530 kmh and my prop broke.
not happening to me on live bro, idk what to say
Yes, I totally don’t know about dive brakes on the most famous dive bomber in the world.
Not sure if we talk about the same topic - i was referring to one hour long matches in which you managed to damage a B-29 or B-17 and you had to break off (either to fuel, damage or no ammo) and the bomber crashed 15-30 minutes later as he could not land and repair as landing without horizontal elevators needed a lot of experience.
I am not sure if we have played the same game - from my pov bomber game play those days was binary and strongly depending on map size. Binary: You managed to stay undetected until you got to 8 or 9 km alt or not - and on small maps all enemy fighters were heading straight to the spawn location of bombers, on some maps even their dots were immediately visible.
That means that axis team worked mainly with their top down approach and your survival as US bomber was depending on map size and your ability to space climb.
And i disagree with your way too general view on fighters - the skill floor on average was way higher and until today most experienced pilots avoid attacking bombers in general as fighters are the main threat. The only real difference was that certain scenarios required to kill at least 2 of the 4 enemy bombers before they reached your airfield or you lost the match.
I was criticising the replacement of B kills with A kills :
- As a way of shortening matches (if you ever tried to find a B-29 on the Norway map in one hour long matches you know what i mean)
- As a way of giving fighter pilots an immediate success instead of having to wait for a delayed kill
- A rather easy way to nerf the income of bombers due to higher plane losses. Iirc a successful match in a B-29 (=all bombs used perfectly) granted you ~ 100k SL - but a plane loss was around 60k SL.
Your general view on impatient (fighter) players today is a valid point - but as written earlier the skill floor on both sides were way higher in the past. So whilst those day no experienced player tail sniffed a bomber the bomber players were much better too.
This was always the case - war thunder is first and foremost a vehicle based shooter - i wrote somewhere else:
But - war thunder controdicts themselves as they try to paint a picture (with bomber game play as it looks today) which has nothing to do with historical accuracy or aerial warfare in the broader sense:
This nails it somehow:
…but it misses the shift within the player base. WT as an arcade-style vehicle based shooter is way more attractive for a broader audience than a flight simulator (or what gaijin offers in SB modes).
That means if the majority of your income is generated by players looking exactly for this game play you (as game developer) adopt to their needs - and that’s why SB modes are a niche product and Air RB is basically just Air AB+.
Players with higher demands are forced to find their own niches within the game - seeing this and similar threads as a whole it looks for me that some folks still believe gaijin’s fairy tales about their claims of “accuracy”. A quick look in any bug reporting feedback thread shows that gaijin decides if accuracy is useful or not.
As a final remark to this:
- Your personal views about the topic are as valid as the views of others.
- Advocating for censorship is rather sad, nobody forces you to participate or contribute.
- The thread contains some interesting views which are imho worth to read - the fact that some participants see some things different (=debate vs exchange) is present on all social media platforms and nothing new.
are you diving from space while youre keeping full throttle on?
I was finally able to get into a custom game with a friend, instead of shooting at the AI B29s endlessly.
from the hour plus of testing we did. both with and without gunners shooting back, we have discovered the tail destruction strategy I worked out on the AI B29s is non viable, not when they are shooting back. You get obliterated.
Trying with multiple different fighters and bombers, the ONLY safe engagement pass we found for the fighter was taking as fast a pass as possible in a front on attack from above. Strafe it as you fly pass and GTFO, or you will be deleted. This almost never did enough damage to the bomber to prevent it from flying, or at the very least being able to safely RTB. Even using the Ta-152 vs a B17E.
Other than pilot snipes, the main way the bomber player died was by losing all of his tail control surfaces, which would make the bomber eventually crash.
there was very few other amounts of damage either of us received when flying the bomber that would have prevented us from being able to RTB and land that the fighter was able to inflict without being killed by gunners or while safely avoiding gunner fire.
Engine fires and even fuel fires do no structural damage, to the point where you can just ignore them honestly. they’ll either go out by themselves or only blacken the engine pod. Even if you lost all 4 engines there wasnt really any other damage done that prevented us from being able to glide back to base, assuming we had enough altitude.
We also found that the G8N1 is basically unapproachable a well. It has too many 20mms, even in a P-59A with its 37mm my friend was unable to find an angle that would do any damage capable of even eventually forcing me to crash in the G8N1 without also costing him his life. I was even flat out not bothering to shoot either. I let the AI gunners do everything. (oh by the way AI gunners seem to be buffed as well)
For a start, fire damage needs to be fixed. In a fighter on live, an engine fire is a dead aircraft. But on dev in a bomber an Engine fire currently does nothing to the surrounding structure of the aircraft. It needs to slowly weaken the structure around it and eventually break it if not put out.
I also think that yes, Either Morvans idea of more modules/stuff inside the structure to be destroyed would work, as I think we are in a bit of a similar issue to the 2S38 and such where you used to shoot through empty space and do nothing, or the structure does need to be made a bit weaker.
While attacking a bomber should come with risks to the attacker, and bombers should be strong and sturdy enough to tank some hits. In the current state on dev bombers are practically invincible.
1 Like
No conclusion was reached regarding whether it was 75mm. Can you show me where that conclusion was reached?
They had both 127mm and 120mm versions, but the 120mm also had a feature called coastal defense, and the video shows the plane being shot down on the coastal side of the islands, so I insisted on the 120mm.
If I’m not mistaken, 120mm cannons were also found in places like the Palao Islands; I saw a description of them in a museum I visited.
It had to be 120mm because in Palao Islands they only had either 80mm or 120mm anti-aircraft guns.
Correction: You’re right, there were 75mm guns and 80mm, but military reports already list them as 75mm or higher caliber. If you’re presenting this image, you should have known that.
Note: In my opinion, this must be a 120mm cannon because expecting such explosive damage from a 75mm cannon would be a bit much; this was definitely a 120mm cannon. Of course, these are just my opinions.
Source:Google Free right?
Let me have a crack at it
edit: right so besides the horrendous input lag i get on the dev server due to it being installed on my chuddy little hard drive, these custom missions dont let me reduce the bomber count below 8, so either im trying to 1v8 a formation (Im going to DIE a violent and painful death) or I reduce the bomber skill level from veteran, reducing the effectiveness of their gunners, where ill be accused of rigging the test in my favor. What I need is a guinea pig who has the dev server and a b17. Single passing bombers is possible, but me trying to prove it can be done while under fire in a way that represents actual gameplay on my own? More of a challenge
1 Like
Does MK108 incendiary not exist all of the sudden?
It makes smaller holes, even if it still delivera a ton of explosive damage (unlike in-game, where it does nothing).
Also as proven by British test, you can have a small hole on 1 side, and massive deformation/exit hole on the other.
1 Like
Perhaps gaijin does plan to add more detailed DMs to the bombers anyway, Im looking at the arado c3, one of the planes that is getting the bomber buff, and its gotten a more detailed DM with some more modules on dev, small, but a start on an obscure little jet
1 Like
Very realistic damage from fires right here. We all know B-17 can have conflagration over the whole entire wing surface and not suffer any kind of consequence to structural integrity.
I just opened the dev client to be your bomber pilot upon reading this, but looks like its gone down now.
heres a video I saved of my friend trying to kill my G8N, We had been trying plenty of different angles both before and after these clips before you say “thats wrong”. If you think there was a better angle, 99% chance we tried it:
We also tested for at least an hour with both of us flying a B17E and each flying different aircraft, with both us trying every single angle and method. I didn’t save any recordings of it though. The only kills that were achieved in one pass were very occasional Pilot snipes, or lucky hits to bombs in the bomb bay.
Both my friend and I are well above average in skill at this game and we couldn’t find a consistent one pass kill method, even using aircraft that were designed for bomber hunting.
This was me letting my friend unload into me to destroy all four of my engines and see what happened. Those fires were all burning from when he started shooting them. I also had a fuel fire set which later went out. It took him most of his ammo to do so. he did have a severe damage on me at that point, but also I was just sitting there passively without firing back while he sat on my tail. Trying to kill a bomber this way is not viable, you’ll die in seconds.
The fires are doing practically zero damage to the aircraft.
This looks asinine.
I honestly have better stuff to with my time and am really just here for the ragebait.
Regardless of your statement, my statement remains true. Hopkinson is used to determine explosive pressure of large blasts at a certain distance when deriving that from small laboratoy explosives. As far as I have read it’s used to mostly determining safe distances when building structures like EOD Bunkers.
Then again, YOU are the one aguing maths here. YOU are the one sayiing that you can apply a formula for shear forces to calculate the circumference of blast holes, which you, as far as I know, you cannot do. The blast doesn’t just apply pressure at the edges of the material with backing.
So once again, YOU make the statment and the burden of proof lies with YOU. All I have seen you do is copy paste random statements from AI into your comments to sound smart.
I think they should leave it as it is. Also nerf US .50 cal AP-I by making them tumble after striking aircraft skin, limiting their ability to destroy engines and pierce stuff.
I’m simply going to enjoy G8N1 and not care about anything else.
See you all at 7.7 BR soon™