Not really a skill issue.
1 Like
You just posted the exact same clip I was literally just talking about, why are you switching from one wing to the other, focus fire to the same area dude lmfao
PS: when you’re blasting the back of a wing from behind with HE, the trialing edge is genuinely one of the least critical parts to even produce lift. Hell, you’re miles away from the spar
I mean you can literally see the size of the hole it makes on the Xray, You can fit your torso through there using the gunners as a ruler, but compared to the size of the B17 its not that big, I can easily envision it taking more than ONE shell to break the structure apart
2 Likes
There are dozens and dozens of different clips of B-17 tanking improbably high number of rounds in the dev server.
You’re one of the only people that think this is realistic or is even going to be good for the game. I hope this change makes it to live as is because it will be funny as hell, but it is objectively not realistic for a B-17 to just absorb rounds with basically no damage. Or in a lot of cases of “good” clips being just a bug that causes AI to abandon the plane with even minor damage.
This will be a terrible change for sim and planes that are already pretty durable like the Ju-288, Be-6, etc are going to run wild over the game mode.
3 Likes
according to the poll only 56 percent of players disagree with how durable they are, some think they need even more, and how much of the community can call themselves bomber mains? How many have changed their votes after seeing our sources? I believe by now the majority now things bombers should keep it or be more durable
1 Like
Wait for it to hit live. Going to be really funny to see gunship meta.
1 Like
The fact that you’re still trying to convince Waffles after he stated that he’s here just to ragebait amazes me
Had a game in the b17, i’d gotten to the bomb target, before getting intercepted by a squad of interceptors. I could only shoot from ≥2km to hold them off, in the end i got strafed whilst my gunners were reloading (wing fell off). Other times i had my entire tail shot off by what felt like a single shot.
I’d say the buff is well needed, as these bombers are otherwise flying coffins instead of flying fortresses.
3 Likes
Meta? Oh no, it wont be meta, but a strat that might actually be an option? we’ll see
1 Like
Im here to ragebait after you guys made it clear that the only valid points are the ones you make up to defend your “haha i shoot thing go boom” playstyle, whilst everything else gets ignored
3 Likes
I mean it isn’t really for his benefit. I already know I will not be seeing him in sim.
His argument is entirely unconvincing and he defaults to saying skill issue. I am surprised he hasn’t hit anyone with the good ole “duel me in sim” trick yet.
3 Likes
From what the game has to offer I don’t think I would put it in another class. It’s just a bit frustrating for me to have bought this plane, which the game lists officially as a twin-engined bomber, that has the bomber air-spawn and now doesn’t get touched in the bomber survivability rework. From my point of view it checks all features a plane needed to get reworked in this update - but it seems it stays untouched from what I’ve seen in that list.
Clearly the master baiter here
I found a section of document previously mentioned regarding the b25 getting shot until structural failure. Its quite hilarious for the fuselage and wings from rear and above aspect
Seems awfully similar to the angle you’ve been shooting from
“58-112 M3 20mm”
“16-26 Mk108s”
“26-31 37mm HE”
“7-9 75MM HE”
“6 105MM T7 HE”
That is hilarious. Imagine now, imagine a B17 lol
And before the rage comes in, there is also a section for the engines, and the B25s engines conk out in as little as 3 20mm from “rear above”, What have we been saying this entire time? Aim for engines, aim for weakspots
You also got 4 mk108 for fuel cells
I see this as a recipe for bombers not really falling apart, BUT burning down or falling out the sky without engines.
1 Like
I feel like I shouldn’t respond to a self proclaimed rage baiter, but there is a difference between total structural failure and enough damage to cause structural failure in flight/enough damage to cause too much drag or too little lift to fly. Additionally you can lose significant/all lift even with wings attached and gaijin should definitely think about modelling something to allow for that.
I don’t doubt that a B-25 could withstand a ton of punishment, but I doubt it would be able to fly with said punishment.
As for the changes overall, there is clearly a middle ground between what we have now and what the dev sever is. The current iteration would be a disaster for ASB if added, and it would harm air RB due to bomber spam taking over (cause said bombers are incredibly strong).
2 Likes
This is true, I doubt the B25 would fly after 6 god damn 105mm HE rounds lmao, probably not even a b17. But my point here for the entire time has been against bombers losing their tails, or getting instantly blown to pieces, if a bomber gets swiss cheesed to the point it cant produce lift, thats a fair death, its put up a fight, had a CHANCE to put up a good fight, and even then theres still a chance to make it back if you’re lucky. My goal this entire time has been defend the bombers against paper mache and explosive bolts getting re added. Thats all I want, thats all the documentation points to. Structural integrity
Im happy where they are now, they are tanky, but a knowledgable player, a good player, can still feasibly one pass them if they have the right tools with them, concentrated fire to weakspoints your caliber can actually handle. But they wont reward unskilled and unknowledgable players dumping center mass into the strongest parts of the bomber expecting it to crumple like a crouton.
Weve also discussed and come to an agreement, that in exchange for this durability, which doesnt seem out of the scope of reality besides the collision resistance, bomber repair costs and SP costs SHOULD go up, as should the rewards for KILLING one
2 Likes
Who said I haven’t played Sim Wars? I have nearly 2000 Sim Wars games and I think I’m pretty familiar with the game mode, even though I know how difficult it is to play.Sim mode isn’t a mode everyone can play, and War Thunder is fundamentally a third-person perspective game; forcing people into it is illogical.
This study is also a huge statistical outlier and is likely being taken completely out of context.
US Strategic Bombing Survey microfilm reel is one of original sources for claims regarding cannon effectiveness. It is something like 6% chance for single 20mm to bring down a 4 engine bomber, 30mm being around 25%, and single 50mm being around 80%.
At some point I’ll get the microfilm reel but AFHRA usually takes awhile to send something.
1 Like
More trouble parsing information, read what I just said, read my objective, and then look at what I posted, and how its relavant to that objective, Is a b25 gonna keep flying about 6 105mm hits? HELL NO, But did it break apart catastrophically before the 6th round? The whole point is to prove that bombers go down from swiss cheesing and fire, not from lego dismantling noises. Even GAIJIN said this in their bomber damage rework devblog. Unless hit with something genuinely ginormous and absolutely airframe shattering. Which werent able to be carried by ww2 planes short of stuff like those massive rockets found on some german fighters with like 8kg of filler (those 105mm rounds have 2)… And If you manage to hit a bomber with that, then yes, you deserve that kill. And that bomber deserves to die spectacularly for letting someone get close enough to hit them with a fat chud rocket. I cant see anything you posted directly referring to structural breakups, just stuff that ends the mission for that bomber, and the stuff I posted supports that hypothesis
Even with the damage improvement, bombers are still useless. The bomber is still useless because a fighter or attacker is going to reach the base first.
Changes need to be made to bases. Maybe the bases move around each game and they’re not marked for anyone not playing a bomber. More bomb targets added around the map. Factories, train yards, docks, warehouses etc.
Bombers could have their own airfield that is much further back, meaning they need to fly further to reach safety, giving enemy fighters more time to attack them.
Bombers and aircraft in general need a more detailed damage system. Gaijin has already implemented this for some jets but there could be so much more. B-17’s for example have their turbochargers located behind the engines and this isn’t modelled in the game. Damaging a turbocharger is going to force a plane to drop to a lower altitude to keep speed up, where it will not only be more vulnerable to enemies, but also have less altitude to glide back. Gun ammunition could be ignited and depending on the calibre, would either start a fire or explode. I was watching a video of an Fw 190 being shot down and its wing exploded when the 20mm ammo was hit. Fuselage and wing damage also needs to be more detailed.
Finally, the survivability of the bomber depended entirely on its construction. B-17’s were famously rugged. So was the Wellington with its geodetic airframe that distributed stress evenly through the entire airframe. But then you have the B-24, its high wing loading and the stress on the wing spar made it extremely vulnerable, having all the fuel tanks in the top didn’t help either. Gaijin needs to reflect the strengths and weaknesses of aircraft structures.
2 Likes
Yes, yes, mayhaps, yes, and very true. I agree with what youve said. Not all bombers will be b17 level tanks, and there absolutely needs to be a rework of the very mode theyre supposed to fly in so they actually fit nicely instead of (literally) being sprinkled ONTOP of the battle
2 Likes