Guy claims to have read the document.
Doesn’t actually read it.
What do you think “excluding personnel” means?
1 Like
Well that didnt crop the way I wanted it to, its on the bottom of that very page, gimmie a sec
So you got 11 hits on zones yielding pilot damage, shrapnel, they’re wearing flak jackets so their vitals are protected, but they will be cursing, and number of hits on near pilot being uhhhhhh still one.
awesome, weakspots like we already knew existed
Now find me a page in anything claiming a B17s wing comes off in 3-5 mk108s whilst I examine diagrams to see what could possibly cause a non pilot K kill on that spot of the b25
Actually, where the hell did you even read the shell placement? I dont see anything in here at all, post a picture
Surely you can figure it out. It’s there. You just gotta look harder little buddy.
Post a picture. I don’t see it. And neither does anyone else here. Or is this like your mythical tape
You can figure it out. I believe in you and grok.
You know my grok usage ran out for the week when I asked it to give IQ rankings here as a joke, right? Besides that and the math equations I’ve been unassisted. Its funny you think using an AI as a tool to assist is an insult, thats like me making fun of someone for using an impact gun to take off a car’s lug nuts instead of a breaker bar. Its simply another tool with a specific role at our disposal.
Did you find it yet?
Maybe I made it up and I’m trolling you?
Damn we’re at the point where bro is making stuff up cause he cant prove us wrong, we can stop wasting time to prove him wrong guys, hes just a broken record thats all out of invalid talking points now
Am I making it up? You might want to look harder.
It says 500-1000g of explosive to take down a bomber here no?
So that would be 5-10 rounds.
There are literally around 2.clips of MK108 hitting B-17 currently available, in both cases the bomber went down IRL.
US SBS assigns 25% value for individual 30mm to bring down 4 engine bomber.
USAF Study 196 says 4-5 in a concentrated area. Same study says 50mm aircraft guns were made to guarantee effectively guarantee 1 hit kill.
US Optimal Gun Caliber study says 10 hits for combined 85% probability on B-25 when distributed at random from rear aspect. This testing was also done in some cases with kerosene instead of gasoline.
British tests show basically 1-2 hits on Blenheim Mk.IV for lethal kill.
None of these tests or studies show slamming 20+ rounds through the same hole as being readily survivable.
Getting subsequent optimal gun caliber studies will probably require FOIA request. In the meant time I might be able to find German firing results as well.
5 Likes
Thread be like:
All the same documents vs survivorship bias.
Don’t think anybody is claiming it should be.
4-5 in the same area makes sense and is difficult enough to achieve.
Depends on which aircraft those were (like some couldn’t do a lot to it in general due to not so good flight performance in terms of speed and climb rate)… And also, most likely having poor armament.
And that’s also almost like a clear example of survivorship bias as that’s a unique case of such survival while not mentioning a number lost in other cases in similar or even more favourable scenarios.
It’s cool, but it’s almost certainly feels like a crew hitting a jackpot in this flight.
P.S. And also those 5-9 hundred rounds dumped into a single bomber equals to ~4-8 full ammo dumps of a regular japanese fighter like A6M in terms of actual usable guns (not 7.7s).
Bro just logged in to drop the worst take ever, welcome to the thread
Are you insane trying to bring out logic to these guys
The funny thing is that I hope this change goes live.
It will be such an abysmally bad change that the majority of players will rail against it and then Gaijin will probably nerf bombers into oblivion to compensate and not touch it for another 10 years.
1 Like
I would totally love to have this go live, i can’t wait to ace crew all the bombers they’re going to be so fun