Changes to Bomber Survivability Feedback and Discussion

[HooFnET]

This guy support MCM btw lol

[BRCompression]

@BRCompression

At this point, the player base is so intellectually dishonest that half the posts here may as well have been written by ChatGPT.

It’s tiring bro

[Kefal_Bravo_690]

This is historical, that is why Germany need to develop Air to Air Rocket against Bomber.

[HooFnET]

[KhorneFlakez1337]

Dead internet theory strikes again

[FeetPics]

- YouTube

[FeetPics]

@RoyalWaffles

“Bluds that gpt couldnt figure it out” haha.

Ok so if thats a piece of an he111, that looks like either the elevator or rudder.

Before you even object, I can literally SEE the hinges

These were made from anninternal skeleton and covered by a thin, thin sheet of duralumin. Substantually thinner than the rest of the aircraft, sitting at 0.6 or 0.8mm, same stands true for pretty much every plane if the era, the control surfaces were made out of really thin shit relative to the rest

SO AS I SAID BEFORE. This picture is an overstatement of the effectiveness of these rounds as this is an exceptionally soft target, the softest part of the entire plane. Find a source to prove me wrong ;)

Unless youre a seething german main, actually kinda makes sense now “he111 was made out of 2mm, thicker stuff than the flimsy b17” “mk108s could blow a fortress out of the sky in as little as 3-5 hits” im sensing a pattern

Blud copy pasted first result he found with AI that defaults to Il-2 forums.

B-17 tail surface was not made of some kind of super-duper aluminum or especially thick gauged aluminum compared to everything else. This is also a distraction from the larger point.

Even testing against He.111 in-game and hitting the exact same location with the same round will not produce the same result.

[FeetPics]

You have reading comprehension issues.

I have made multiple posts about what an actual dogwater mechanic iron dome is.

[RoyalWaffles]

Are the il2 forums wrong?
Every source I see says the same shit, so ofc “ai” will say the same too. Your default response is pinning things on AI as if that somrhow makes the information that it retrieves from the very same place you do “wrong”, and you have to be specific

Youve been posting pictures of the weakest part of a he111, a control surface, getting shot and passing it off as “yes this is what would happen to a fuselage or a wing”

If you shoot it ingame, it literally falls off faster than your argument point here fell off lmao.

Also PS, I didnt use AI, if you ask ai, it says its fabric. See THATS wrong

If i didnt fact check AI I wouldve made many, many more mistakes

[RoyalWaffles]

MCM? Who dat

[KhorneFlakez1337]

Missile-Counter-Missile

Using missiles to destroy incoming missiles

[HooFnET]

Missle-Counter-Missle
Simply put, to shoot down a missile, you fly towards it and fire another missile.It doesn’t require any skills.

[HooFnET]

Congrats btw you posted the 2000th message! Hope it brings some good luck 🎉

[RoyalWaffles]

2000 messages of fighter cope getting shot down easier than the bombers theyre coping about

[Kefal_Bravo_690]

I didn’t say the rocket was the effective solution in real life.

[HooFnET]

[KhorneFlakez1337]

The R4M probably was the most effective solution they found, they managed to down plenty of bombers using it

[FeetPics]

@BRCompression

No, of course not. But that does not change the fact that most of those examples are not specifically bomber problems; they are War Thunder problems.

Missile ballistics and fragmentation are poorly modeled, tank crews can survive things like .50-caliber rounds to the head, and there are plenty of other questionable damage-model interactions throughout the game. If those systems are broken or oversimplified, then blame Gaijin’s underlying modeling not the bomber rework for exposing the same problems.

Most of these things that you are criticizing have been factors of the damage model since forever.

These are specifically a bomber problem right now because it is the only airframe in the game that will survive unrealistic amounts of damage. Missiles, rockets, and guns will easily reach kill conditions on fighters in the game even if they are not pure 1:1 of what realistic damage would be.

This is something I have covered at length in other threads related to gun damage. A more realistic system is not simply “make planes more durable” but would largely just shift the cause of death from losing complete control/lifting surfaces to being unable to control the plane with the damage taken by surfaces while they remain attached, or damage control surfaces detaching under load, and fires being basically a death sentence in most cases.

@BRCompression

If your response to the opposition is simply to label them “bomber players” who supposedly want invulnerability and then argue against that caricature, nobody is obligated to operate within that ridiculous framing. I have already pointed this out before.

I think this is a perfectly fair characterization given what the trajectory have been the thread has been. Or similar reactions on reddit.

There are hundreds of posts here to the effect that the current damage model is realistic.

This was the reaction to Gaijin increasing the fire chance on the dev server. They made the damage model slightly less invulnerable insofar that now you can set 4 fires to a plane and it will still probably be fine and put out a majority of them.

Heck you even have players coming in here and still defending the Day 0 model.

Nevermind the fact that the Air to Air rockets also do not destroy bombers.

That is not to mention the countless cases of players just running their own ideas through an LLM and then quoting whatever garbage it spits out as gospel truth. Or the countless bad-faith arguments made by the same posters.

Note that the movable control surfaces are fabric covered.

There are no movable control surfaces in this picture. It is the vertical stabilizer of an He.111.

So what should we believe? The AI generated output from someone who lacks basic reading comprehension? Or real world testing?

[RoyalWaffles]

Buddy that looks like a control surface, we’ll believe the real world testing against this control surface lol, and in war thunder the control surfaces get blown apart, so its accurate there

And you literally just read the AI result which I posted and literally said was wrong, and took it at face value, thinking the tail controls of the he111 are fabric covered. Youre hilarious man keep going

[FeetPics]

@RoyalWaffles

Buddy that looks like a control surface, we’ll believe the real world testing against this control surface lol, and in war thunder the control surfaces get blown apart, so its accurate there

Prove its a control surface then.