Oh so we’re believing pilot testamonies now? Just like we believed the b52 testamonies? The double standards here are crazy, this favoratism is palpable
1 Like
Yeah that why I am asking why are we just focus on the B-17 test
The only thing we can really get from the Japanese bombers is US fighters overclaiming because the same bomber would put out the fire and then be set on fire again iirc.
Japanese made heavy use of fire extinguishers even if their fuel tanks were relatively unprotected.
You yourself said the crew was in a closed off cabin at the front and couldn’t see anything. Why should we listen to them?
Why should we listen to teenagers shooting japs looking for glory, im sure they didnt overstate their kill numbers at all
Vs
An older, more trained crew of multiple people reporting the same thing on their aircraft getting shot
Why should we listen to any crews then?
These guys are really crazy
Eh… is it a bomber issue because anything else would have become confetti after 600 rounds?
Im not saying that it should tkae more than a few rounds depending on the ammo used to set fire to a fuel tank and it needs fixing, but ive rarely seen fuel tank fires on other aircraft, as usually its the engine on fire, and a few hits to the fuel tank, also usually blows the wing off
Idk, should we? Or should we not, the point is, we cant have both
You’re losing overwhelmingly in World War II and you’re saying the other side’s planes were actually very weak, lol.
You’re literally atomizing.
Yeah we believe the b52 testimonys they just don’t prove anything because we have no way of determining how close the missile actually was when it detonated
1 Like
Because 1500 messages ago they were saying these things about B17s, and now they are saying the same things about other aircraft.
Nah just today I set a LaGG-3 on fire with my first bullet of the M16 SPAAG.
The reality is that bomber fuel tanks in the dev server are absurdly resilient to HE rounds. But not AP. Blast damage can only set them on fire with a ~23% chance when you get above 600 grams of TNT equivalent, and fuel tanks now have armor that counters shrapnel.
1 Like
This is the japanese doing the shooting. Much in the same way we were in test flight.
Right, so surely this older, more trained crew can tell us where those S-75s hit their plane or how far away they exploded, right?
They would be on fire before they would be taken out.
Where did he say they were very weak?
The last text chunk talks about daytime attacks and does not present it being easy or weak at all.
I recommend Knho’s song “Good Night Everyone”(It was something like that) to everyone here.
You sure it was the fuel tank and not just the engine?
My usual experiene with a fighter, or even really a bomber on live is that the wing has fallen off from the first burst off 20mm Hispanos
They changed a lot of the parameters that determine how damage can set a fuel tank on fire (again, the blast of 600 grams of TNT equivalent are ~23% chance for a fire), and gave fuel tanks a new armor type that not only is more resistant against shrapnel specifically but also even if shrapnel does penetrate the damage is reduced with a 0.15 multiplier (so for example a 10 hp damage value, which is already high for shrapnel, gets reduced to 1.5 upon succesful penetration), which reduces the fire chances of shrapnel.
Yes, I am absolutely sure about it.
2 Likes
I’ve had plenty of fuel tank fires on other planes, in a lot of jets it doesn’t help that the fuel tanks are in front of or even around the engines, so you can’t tell whether the engine, the fuel tank or both are on fire
And well, it’s hard to set a fuel tank on fire, if it isn’t attached to the plane anymore lol
1 Like
While I couldnt get fuel fires on the AI B29s, I was getting fuel fires with my friend shooting my G8N fairly often.
the fire just did literally zero damage and eventually went out.
3 Likes