Changes to Bomber Survivability Feedback and Discussion

[HooFnET]

Did anyone even catch the JoJo reference in the topic?

Because this conversation is going pretty BİZARRE

[lynx15]

@RoyalWaffles

Until then your out of context posts are irrelevant and im confident in about 4 ish hours from now youre all going to eat your words, you will cry, mald, cope, seethe, and keep spamming the exact 4 pictures over and over, but you will fail to acrually disprove my work. Again.

oooo the reflection

[FeetPics]

The skin thickness between He.111 and B-17 are the same for all intents and purposes. He-111 has skin thickness range from 1mm-2mm.

Why did a single 20mm round blow a massive hole in the aircraft structure? Surely you can figure it out.

Why is one so much larger than the other?

Bluds chatgpt council cannot figure it out.

[RoyalWaffles]

Reminder that cannonically an AI asked to summarize the entire thread thinks this guy is stupid

[KhorneFlakez1337]

Are you just feeding this entire thread into an AI?

What the hell are you doing, man? Do you just use AI for everything?

[HooFnET]

NO WAAAAAAAAAY BRO LOOOOOOL

[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

[RoyalWaffles]

Nah but i did feed the entire thread as a joke to see what would happen, and the results were gold as you can see

[BRCompression]

@FeetPics

The whole argument about bombers being able to tank damage without any negative effects is couched in terms of “realism”.

Would you stand next to an R-40 detonation with just aircraft skin and expect to survive unharmed?
Would you expect to take a .50 caliber round to the face and survive?
Would you expect a B-17 to survive a massive fire in both wings and keep flying like nothing happened?

Bomber players don’t want realistic damage models; they want the game to make them immune to gunfire so that the only interaction they have to have with the game is tabbing back into the game to press the spacebar and to press the “next game” button after the rewards screen rolls.

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.

And please spare us the part where you pretend to know what I, or everyone else arguing this side, actually wants.

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 could just as easily start throwing inflammatory labels at the other side and constructing equally dishonest motives for why you want bombers weakened. But where exactly does that get us? Do you want an actual discussion, or do you want the entire thread to collapse into people inventing motives for each other?

@BRCompression

A large portion of this “discussion” consists of either malicious or incompetent mischaracterizations of historical sources, questionable math, and subjective rhetoric presented as if it were objective analysis.

Nearly 70% of the discussion seems to revolve around baseless arguments over bomber survivability. I have seen very few people actually advocate for a genuinely realistic implementation of the mechanics involved. Instead, most of the conversation has devolved into people defending their own interests, whether they are pro-bomber or anti-bomber.

You’re doing exactly what I described above.

[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