Ta-152H is absolutely helpless vs G8N1.
Also Ta overheats hard as hell from 5000m up. Doesn’t matter that at such altitudes the temperature is well into negative even in summer.
Ta’s guns have several hundred meters shorter range.
You can try to climb above G8N1 which will take roughly half the match, then you’ll get 1-shot from 950m away while doing high speed pass.
You may wonder how do I know?
Unlike you, I actually tried it.
I’m just saying that there are tactics that could give better odds at taking down a bomber. If you reject them just because they require effort and a time investment, then what else is there to say? If you’re just looking for easy kills, better off joining the furball! There’s no need to pursue the bomber up to the tropopause. Usually, they get bored and come down on their own.
Fellas Ive actually got something interesting to add here regarding the resistance of bombers VS explosive rounds. See whistlindiesel (bare with me here) made a cybertruck vs f150 durability test video, now in one of these videos they GENUINELY strap a 1 pound block of C4 to each and see how their fair, the F150 is body on frame contruction with a thin stamped aluminium body, not dissimilar to an aircraft, I know this because i used to work at a linemar company called GMG as a press operator making these parts. And here is the size of the holes the 1 pound explosive left on the F150.
Now why this is interesting is 1 Pound of C4 has equivalent to 1.34 pounds of TNT. Which is 608 grams. Still like the 50mm 262 with its experimental HE has a tnt filler of 450g. and a mk108 has 108g for its most potent shell. You are blowing out good chunks, and f150 doesnt even have spars or ribs or stuff behind the skin like a B17 would, but compared to the size of a b17 relative to the size of these holes, it definetaly would take more than one or two 50s or 4 mk108 to take down a fortress claims that came from an art blog A. L. BENTLEY DRAWINGS | Rheinmetal-Borsig MK 108 30mm Cannon
when in realisty that figure came to fruition from german tests where 4 shots was a 50% chance of PK, which never mentioned strctural failure
Funnily enough the Xray view in war thunder has the size of a 50mm 450g explosion actually end up pretty close to what we see here
I think the damage is pretty spot on barring collisions with this in mind
8 Likes
bombing trucks to prove the survivability of aircraft is genuinely one of the crazier things i’ve seen on this forum
the worst part is that it actually makes sense
2 Likes
God bless the thin aluminum body F150 and this stupid bastard taping bombs to it xD
Best part is the F150s bed is made out of “Military grade” (bs) aluminum about 1.4 ish mm thick and the door panels about 1.2mm, B17s skin was 0.08 inches or 2mm thick around structurally crucial parts, and thinning out to I believe 1/32 inches or about 0.8mm in less critical areas like outer wings and whatnot, so the f150 is unironically a decent analog
5 Likes
ia saay it. idc if i get downvited. the surviability needs more. people criyng voting to sruviable are mad they cant get a free onetap kill anymore. keep the buff
2 Likes
C4 exploding outside is generally wasting energy and explosives, there’s little pressure buildup and most of energy goes away from the truck.
It can mot be succesfuly compared to a shell, which, well, has a steel shell, delayed fuse, and is traveling towards a plane.
If that guy places said 1 pound under the hood, resulta would be way better, or of he placed that C4 inside a goddam thick steel can.
Hence real life tests of actual MK108 shells fired at aircraft resulted in A LOT more damage. Which basically completely invalidates this C4 test, which kinda outperforms 20mm Neopup grenade launcher, but that’s essentialy it.
You can see the hole in the door of the burned up wreck and it’s quite substantial.
And that grenade launcher has maybe 15-18g of explosive filler but I’m just guessing.
2 Likes
I see the car door test and see a much less substantial outer hole, and CRUCIALLY, the structure of the back of the car door is mostly intact. Also enclosing explosives has a negligible effect on its blast force, HE rounds detonate on the surface of the plane anyway and the speed at which the explosion and shrapnel propogate is much higher than the shell, thus making how fast an he round impacts the target much less of a factor. And even if the shells casing had a noticeable positive effect, you cannot ignore the C4 used here was 6 times the tnt equivalent of the most potent mk108 shell. And gaijin has already stated fragments under 3g dont really damage the actual structure underneath the skin, all HE does is basically skin bombers in the quantities seen on aircraft
I can ignore this. Steel reinforcements of the door (even if nowhere near as strong as modern car doors) are VERY capable compared to aluminium tailgate.
Thing is, again, MK108 has been tested IRL vs aircraft and it ripped them apart.
These dogshit C4 tests only prove detonating explosives in the open is extremely ineffecicient and ineffective and can’t be compared to actual shells
5 Likes
Is an HE shell not detonating in the open? What are we firing shaped charges that blast everything forwards? Are you implying that the german wunderwaffe HE round punches over 6 times above its weight? 😂
I specifically stated the construction of that f150 tailgate and door, I used to literally make them. They are thinner than sections of b17 fuselage and they dont even have all the airframe bits behind them to help support them. Said airframe bits on a bomber like a b17 being 1, Extremely redundant, and 2, very thick
No, LMAO, it’s not exploding in the open, by design, and it’s a goddamn shell too that is BTW moving towards the target at usually supersonic speeds.
I will not further comment on the dogshit C4 tests that bring absolutely nothing valuable to the topic and you are completely clueless.
5 Likes
Zuni is easier to hit thus easier to be filmed and shown in a video. If you are thinking about era related stuff, go for r4m, rbs, japanese small a2a rockets that idk their names, etc.
Also anti-explosive would give them a chance to kamikaze top tier AA in grb. Yes b52 took 3 s75s and made it back home, so I 'm have some mixed feelings about this. Maybe there can be some warhead trims idk
So not to distract from the whole “redneck strapping explosives to f-150 tailgate is the same thing as a b-17 because it has ‘military’ grade aluminum” discourse…but the US AAF has a whole entire official evaluation of aircraft armament during the war.
The 1/4 chance of a 30mm bringing down a 4 engined bomber is from the US Strategic Bombing Survey.
Note how the damage shown here from a single Mk.108 round.
2 Likes
Mineshells were notoriously thin walled and exploded right on the surface. Great for fighters, but generally peeling the skin off of a heavy bomber leaving the airframe below mostly intact.
Infact Ive got some mathematical equations to calculate how big of a hole certain fillers would make.
2 mm 2024-T3 skin. Contact / just-behind-skin burst.
R_hole ≈ 0.12 · (W / 0.10)^(1/3) metres, W in kg TNT-eq
R_peel ≈ 3 · R_hole outer dish / folded petals
F = 2π · R_hole · 0.002 · 2.70e8 newtons
E = 4.18e6 · W joules
Hole = metal gone, petals torn through.
Peel = petals folded back plus the obvious bulge. Skin still attached out there.
F is only the static punch that would cut the same hole. Blast does it in ~0.1 ms.
W = 0.10 kg
E = 0.42 MJ
R_hole = 0.12 m hole Ø = 24 cm
R_peel = 0.36 m peel Ø = 72 cm
band: hole 0.08–0.18 m, peel 0.30–0.50 m
F = 4.1e5 N
Dinner-plate hole. Peel out to a large dinner platter. Arm.440 30 mm holes in thinner Blenheim skin were 13×6 in and 15×7 in (about 0.13–0.15 m equivalent radius) — same order. Lethal on that light wing if the hole eats a spar. Ugly hole in Fortress skin, not a missing wing.
Heres a picture with scaled red dots to show you just how big a mk108 hole would be. Ive also calcilated 450g tnt from the 262s experimental 50mm, and the funny 105mm from that b25 document
50mm:
W = 0.45 kg
E = 1.88 MJ
R_hole = 0.12 · 1.65 = 0.20 m hole Ø = 40 cm
R_peel = 0.60 m peel Ø = 1.2 m
band: hole 0.15–0.30 m, peel 0.50–0.80 m
F = 6.8e5 N
105mm 2kg filler
W = 2.00 kg (real M1 TNT fill = 2.18 kg)
E = 8.4 MJ
R_hole = 0.12 · 2.71 = 0.33 m hole Ø = 66 cm
R_peel = 0.99 m peel Ø ≈ 2.0 m
band: hole 0.30–0.60 m, peel 0.90–1.5 m
F = 1.1e6 N
1 Like
I literally joked about its military grade aluminum with (bs) right there, man you just dont parse info at all in that head of yours
And yet here you still are making chatgpt arguments…
Now that you mention it, Im gonna ask chatgpt to read this entire thread and estimate the top 5 highest and lowest IQ users based on our messages
Why argue with some junk you vibe coded in chatgpt when we have the documentation? Or do we think this is merely an 18cm hole?
1 Like
Wasnt chat GPT, but its funny that you think a computer would be bad with numbers. And again, trouble parsing information, 18cm hole, 50cm peel, and I see large chunks of this unspecified aircraft with unspecified structural rigidity and skin thickness peeling away.
I had some clown come at me in PM’s and get shut up real quick because he used a spitfire as an exmaple, a plane with a much more fragile construction and a skin thickness of just 24 gauge, thats 0.6mm vs the B17s 2 over central areas. Thats probably thinner than the gamer gunk caked up on your mouse