Changes to Bomber Survivability Feedback and Discussion

[RoyalWaffles]

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

[Spil1tia-psn]

He was using stealth

[FlipAllTheTables]

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.

[Kefal_Bravo_690]

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.

[Loofah]

Oh, dual 20mm very close to each other makes sense, I guess.

Anyway, anyone thinking these were 30mm or even 37mm is delusional.

[pacodiazortiz]

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

[RoyalWaffles]

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

[FlipAllTheTables]

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.

[Spil1tia-psn]

You are making the claim that goes against the official claim the burden of proof is on you

[FlipAllTheTables]

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.

[BRCompression]

@FeetPics

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

Of course I will criticize it. It’s full of shit.

It’s more unreliable than a T-14 Armata in a parade.

@FeetPics

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.

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.

@FeetPics

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.

As I said before:

@BRCompression

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.

And please, you’re discrediting me by doing exactly that. I don’t want to go down that nonsensical route of rhetoric.

@FeetPics

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.

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.

@FeetPics

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?

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.

[RoyalWaffles]

Cant knock me for trying, we’ll see what happens in a few hours

[HooFnET]

@Spil1tia-psn

look more like 7.7s

LOL, they’re coming to bomb your country and you’re going to stop them with 7.7mm bullets ✌️

[Spil1tia-psn]

I don’t live in Germany why would they bomb my house

[HooFnET]

Bro tf

[FlipAllTheTables]

That is in fact how Huricanes brought down a lot of He 111s if I remember right.

[RoyalWaffles]

What would be even better is gaijin literally disregarding this entire thread and shoving a “Abrams has no DU in the hull as per our sources” level devblog in our faces and genuinely just cramming these bombers onto live as is, collisions and all, making this 2k long thread genuinely for nothing lmao

[Spil1tia-psn]

“They should just ignore everything and do exactly what I want that would be the objectively the best option”

[FlipAllTheTables]

I am kind of hoping they do just ignore this and push everything through because I do find the current bomber models hillarious.

Again, fuel tanks are just invincible for no reason.

[RoyalWaffles]

Id have to find the sources but i remember reading some ludicrous staristic of pike 2800-4000 round of 7.7 on average to take down a 111? now this seems off. But I doubt these 7.7s caused structural failures, 100% crews, engines, and fires for sure