Why argue with some junk you vibe coded in chatgpt when we have the documentation? Or do we think this is merely an 18cm hole?
Wasnt chat GPT, but its funny that you think a computer would be bad with numbers. And again, trouble parsing information, 18cm hole, 50cm peel, and I see large chunks of this unspecified aircraft with unspecified structural rigidity and skin thickness peeling away.
I had some clown come at me in PM’s and get shut up real quick because he used a spitfire as an exmaple, a plane with a much more fragile construction and a skin thickness of just 24 gauge, thats 0.6mm vs the B17s 2 over central areas. Thats probably thinner than the gamer gunk caked up on your mouse
First: 30mm mineshell had walls a few mm thick. Try penetrating 3mm hardened steel sheet with a screwdriver and tell me how it went.
And it was tubular shaped, which made it even stronger.
Even 2cm mineshell had walls around 1,5-2mm thick.
Bicycle steel frame, known for its great impact resistance, is under 1mm.
It doesn’t have to be very thick.
It has to allow enough time for full combustion and pressure buildup instead of large parts of explosives being yeeted all around.
And no, it doesn’t explode on the surface, my clueless man. It was designed to penetrate the skin and only explode once inside the wing, WW2 fuses were NOT instanteous BTW, but German shells were deliberately designed to explode after going 30-50cm into the aircraft.
Mineshell design, utilising overpressure, meant that for bombers 20mm was less effective than traditional HE-frag shells, but 30mm was just the right size to down B-17 in 2-5 hits.
If it worked like the dogshit C4 tests, only even worse due to being 1/4 the explosive power, you’d need about 3 dozen.
I guess Brits were absolute morons making essentialy 30mm mine-shells for their fighter cannons post war. If only they knew 1 pound of C4 can obly blow a 50cm diameter hole in US-made lifted truck with blinding headlights, huge dimensions, crap brakes and horrible forward visibility, but capable of dealing maximum damage to pedestrians, cyclists, animals and car users, guzzling ridiculous amounts of fuel while statisticslly being used to solo commute to office job in city center by a man suffering from ED, they’d probably ditch the explosives altogether.
5 Likes
It doesn’t matter.
US Strategic Bomber Survey says Mk.108 single round has 25% chance to bring down 4 engined bomber.
If current damage model goes to live then it will be bug reported almost immediately. I already have enough documentation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. You can go back to chatgpt slop posting now.
1 Like
Man i love the perpetual echo chamber of the 2-5 hit b17 claims that Necro already called tf out near the start of this post
And while you argue with math and find me a source for those 2mm thick shell walls + fuses that A, are time delayed, which dont work that war in wt (make a bug report then) and B, a report showing these fuses worked properly atleast half the time with forced labor production, yeah? goodnight
Sure, lets just ignore the survey made by the US in 1947 pegging that mk108 at just 6% on a B25. Hows that microfilm coming along from your friend?
Bonus point, “downing a bomber” =/= “complete structural lego dissassembly”, That could literally mean it has to abandon the mission, or it wont make it back across the channel
You literally have HE fuse delay implemented in WT, you absolute muppet.
I guess Brits were idiots, oh boy, if only they had access to C4 brick stuck to a tailgate of some mid-life crisis truck!
4 Likes
LMAO.
You have to PROVE they did not work as designed and tested. Also, even if they did not work when faulty, how does that change anything about shell design and effectiveness when working properly?
Also there are luftwaffe ammo handbooks available FOR FREE.
The fact you did not bother to do any research before spewing random shit over this forum proves that you are clueless, malicious and outright dumb as …
Over and out.
1 Like
“over and out” holy larp lmfao
Do you even play the game
Someones getting mad lol heres a pic of it exploding literally on the very tippy tip of this b29’s engine nacelle end
If the fuse delay, even 10cm, was actually happening, it would’ve gone through that, yet i see the explosion radius riiiight on the surface
Thanks for giving me some laughs though
2 Likes
Who said that we are ignoring it? You simply misrepresented what that report says and continue to do so.
I already have the microfilm. It turns out I’ve had it the whole time and just needed to remember where to look…
1 Like
“Its with my friend, its with this one dude, its actually with me” Ill be surprised if this film actually exists and hasnt been destroyed in an office fire in 1963 in about 12 hours
Wait? Do you think it’s a movie? Like a moving picture?
Here we go again, Does it matter what it is? Does it magically change the data stored on it? Is it one of those films that rolls up into a projector or one of those on those projecting slide thingies?
What I love the most is that apparently it takes too much mental capacity to realise this was discussion of real life ammo capabilities.
So our hero switches without a hitch to in-game situation (we discuss this, because we want in-game situation to be fixed as in “more realistic”, BTW!!!), makes claims that are of course wrong, but thinks he won, because the game has wrong fuse delay implemented, lol. And posts a screeshot that proves absolutely nothing, other than WT HE shells explode in a goddamn sphere, because who needs realism.
Same in-game where plywood doesn’t fuse HE and is bugged since like 2012, game that is notorious for incorrect ammo parameters (wrong explosive TNT equivalent, wrong amount, wrong fuses), so OF COURSE THE GAME IS WRONG. It’s nothing new.
1 Like
It matters in the sense that you seem to think that I am alluding to some kind of movie. It’s blatantly obvious that you are completely unfamiliar with USAFHRA reels to the extent that you think they are movies.
Reel = photocopy of official documents from USAF.
Believe it or not…there used to be this thing called “film” that you would use in order to take something called a photograph.
1 Like
And here our little feller begins his seething monologue about how things arent going his way or whatever
Make a bug report about it then
Its going to be hilarious if gaijin decides bombers need to be more even more durable and watching the fighter community genuinely implode
Ok, and? Does it reveal what a “kill” means in your single pieces of paper in this thread about how much it takes to split a bomber in half? Does 3-5 mk108s tear off a wing or send a bomber home, which is it, were 262s single passing b17s wings and tails with their quad mk108s? Surely a burst from 4 guns would net somewhere in that region
BTW, does anyone know where can I find the higher quality version of clip of B-17 clearly surviving with no issues after taking superficial damage from dogshit 30mm shells that punch volleyball sized holes at best (since they have 1/4th of explosive power of piece of shit 1 pound of TNT that can’t seriously damage mighty short joystick compensation F150 truck, that is aluminium and thinner than mighty B-17).
I’m not even counting 20mms, as they are as insignificant to B-17 as a mosquito to an elephant.