Can’t wait to see what chat gpt has for us this time
1 Like
The 110g2 didnt even have forward facing MGs, just mk108s + either mg151 gunpods or a 37
The fw190 did
Wrong.
Standard Bf 110 G-2s have 4 MG 17s and 2 MG 151s.
The Mk 108 replacing the MG 17s is actually the R3 modification.
3 Likes
Not talkong about the fw190 footage and also those are like A7s and A8, those are 13s
In the message I was replying to there was 190 gun cams
Well then wed be seeing 4 streams of bullets instead of one big bullet thats blasting it so hard it genuinely obscures sections of wing from vision with smoke
He was using stealth
You are disagreeing with official documentation.
Also, just because it has MG 17s doesn’t mean he has to fire them. They likely knew that rifle caliber bullets would be ineffective against heavy bombers.
Again, when I said that what you show doesn’t matter for my evidence, I meant it.
4 Likes
btw
Where the rocket in the video hit was exactly:
In the meantime, I wish the rocket would cause more damage in the clean area.
Oh, dual 20mm very close to each other makes sense, I guess.
Anyway, anyone thinking these were 30mm or even 37mm is delusional.
1 Like
Can’t wait for a moderator to close this thread what a pile of off-topic and personal attacks this thread has been converted to
Find me a document of that very 110 from that very day saying it wasnt sent up with a 37mm gunpod and then we’ll talk
I have those 3 seconds of clip that prove it couldn’t have been one, but please, show your proof that is a 37mm in the first place. I’ve already proven it cannot be Mk 108s to you before, I’m sure you remember.
You are making the claim that goes against the official claim the burden of proof is on you
4 Likes
The misinformation on that specific clip is honestly baffling.
It gets posted like every year or so with someone saying that it is a B-17 tanking 30mm rounds. Now it’s a 37mm round which is more outlandish.
It needs to stop.
1 Like
Of course I will criticize it. It’s full of shit.
It’s more unreliable than a T-14 Armata in a parade.
The primary issue with the damage model in Air is that it assumes aircraft-level section failure. The tail should not just randomly chop itself off. For a clean break, you would have to actually hit the internal structural supports of the aircraft, which the game does not properly model.
That is why, before, Soviet 23 mm HE could one-shot a bomber’s entire rear section. The issue is that this should never have been handled through a generic “damage” system in the first place.
What Gaijin is basically doing here is trying to make bomber damage models statistically balanced around roughly how many rounds it would take to destroy one in real life, rather than understanding why that bomber actually failed structurally.
And of course, that leads to wacky behavior.
As I said before:
And please, you’re discrediting me by doing exactly that. I don’t want to go down that nonsensical route of rhetoric.
And that comes back to the point that FPE and other similar systems in-game are poorly modeled.
I’m all for buffing fire damage, but then you also have to allow people to actually use their crew to fight the fire instead of just being burned to a crisp.
Funnily enough, you can’t blindly trust either.
You have modern examples of military claims being false or misleading, like Russians making questionable claims about T-90M reverse-speed upgrades in that one case, and I seriously doubt there have never been fake, misleading, staged, or misrepresented historical photos either.
So you can’t trust anything.
1 Like
Cant knock me for trying, we’ll see what happens in a few hours
LOL, they’re coming to bomb your country and you’re going to stop them with 7.7mm bullets ✌️
I don’t live in Germany why would they bomb my house