And which one of these clips shows a bomber absorbing a 50mm rocket like its nothing? Which one of these clips shows a B-17 just shaking off 3 engine fires and a fuel fire in the main wing? Which one of these clips shows any of these planes and pilots approaching the degree of accuracy and repeatability that is present in WarThunder?
Absolutely none of them. Zero.
Pretty sure it only has explosive filler in-game because Gaijin classified it as SAP, rather than AP
But then on the other side, there are some weird AP shells on SPAAs that have filler
omg. Bro, our arguments werent about wether fires or stuff shouldn’t happen. its been should the bomber break apart
They likely gave it filler so that the pen formula would give it lower pen on top of being considered an SAP round.
If you mean stuff like the 35mm Oerlikon AP-I rounds, they are genuinely explosive. AP-I seems to be a designation more just because explosions can technically set fires.
The argument has been that the current survivable damage on dev server is realistic. It is not. Plain and simple.
Ok so how do you supposed a bomber is supposed to instantly die in war thunder then
Bomber died slow, irl, and now ingame, unless actually blown to BITS
by shooting a missile at it that IRL caused a kill as soon as it hit
except on dev this is simply impossible
“No I wasn’t arguing the lack of other types of damage was realistic…just don’t go back and read what was posted.”
Shooting a missile at B17s, Ok lol
And ig we’re ignoring the b52s entirely now
I was talking about stuff like the HVAP and APDS round on the 20mm Rh202, which I suppose could have explosive filler irl
I guess I’m just too focussed on the designations that Gaijin chose for them in those cases though lol
edit: this might just be a bug though
Eh… what missile? The Aim-4 stuff? Or something else?
Post the rest of that section where we were talking about the structural integrity of bombers
See, you’ve gotten confused and mixed up like 3 seperate arguments into one, we got the collisions, which we all agree arent good
we got the fire
and we got the structural integrity ← the thing ive been focusing on the entire time
These missiles were specifically made to take out B-17s - their proximity fuses were audio-based and tuned for the B-17
the R4M rockets were specifically made to take out any 4-engine bomber
the 50mm+ cannons were all put in large aircraft, at a huge performance penalty, because they would result in a guaranteed kill with a direct hit
The AIM-4 is a great example since we have extremely comparable data from the HE APKWS to compare to. But I had the X-4s in mind.
50mm cannon guarenteed kill with a direct hi-
Oh look a 50mm me410 pulling off its failed attack run on a b17 with a suspiciously 50mm sized hole in the wing that very much is still attached
lmfao
Where is this hole
On the wing, right there
There’s no hole.
That’s not a 50mm HE hole.
prove it
