Doesnt apply to radar missiles. A few metal flakes isnt gonna confuse even a crappy radar from the giant flying suburban town
Fuel fires are more of an issue arguably, they only go out by random chance, and being able to start them by just firing randomly is the same problem as before; few randomly places 50 cals in a meaningless part of the plane causing it to turn into a fireball
1 Like
“Huh! What do you mean i cant randomly spray shots in their general direction! How dare you ask me to aim!”
The clip shows you shooting completely rudimentary parts of the airframe multiple times in a row
The whole point of this rework is to prevent exactly that playstyle, and force players to actually aim their shots properly, which in turn gives defensive guns time to actually aim and maybe do something
3 Likes
You don’t really see radar missiles at that BR tbh and those that you do find do get chaffed in my experience.
Primarily the issue I’m finding. The survivability is nonexistent whilst this is the case. Couple that with it extending to set engines on fire and the limited availability of fire extinguishers, fuselage fires are pretty much a guarantee to wipe out the aircraft.
1 Like
IMO this is the closest to how they should be IRL that they’ve been modeled yet. Just reducing the fire chance a little bit and it will be perfect.
3 Likes
When I tested my Tu-95 so I got 10-12 hits by Adats and gunshots by Gepard and still was able fly around. It was far from balanced. Need to test it again now but should be better balanced.
1 Like
Also need to fix the interaction with proximity fused weapons so we aren’t swamped with cries of “It survived N phoenixes”, and can actually have constructive discourse on the topic.
1 Like
Fighter main shitters dominated the meta for nearly 13 years, and now that bombers are no longer “hold w+m1 for free kill” they soyrage and shit their pants.
I do agree bombers not taking any damage after THIS much punishment is not okay, but strictly structurally speaking this is historical. The days of an entire tail or wing buzzing off after a single .50 cal hits the fuselage are over. Bombers should be nearly impossible to actually rip apart unless you’re shooting them with large-calibre autocannons. Anything smaller than 30mm can only damage their modules and flight models, but not rip whole wings or tails.
3 Likes
I don’t think it’s necessarily the fire chance, I think it’s how quickly the fire starts and spreads more than anything else. It’s like an immediate, spontaneous combustion from what it seems currently. I think it would make more sense if it was more gradual.
No, this is about you as a bomber player deciding to play a bad vehicle.
You then mald about it being bad and asking for buffs.
You then get a buff that is beyond stupid. See the various videos for example
You THEN forcing the other players that decided to not play the bad vehicle to live with your beyond stupid buff.
Congratulations, you can get to your base now for free because everyone is going to ignore bombers. Your what used to be 1.0 bomber is now going to get uptiered to infinity because even six Phoenixes can’t reliably kill a bomber.
You can also now go fly in a straight line for 10 minutes and then get ignored for another 20 until the match ends.
1 Like
Seeing as Phoenixes work just fine on live server in regards to their fuzes and to my knowledge they werent changed in any way on dev + fact their warhead is so big it can splash aircrafts undercertain conditions if they detonate on ground next to the aircraft
I dont think any constructive discourse could have happened unless such stupid survivability as demonstrated in one of the videos in this thread was toned down first.
Now we can talk about whats the least powerfull weapon that should cause serious damage to bombery, but not before.
Short .50cal burst completly desintegrating bomber is obviously stupid, but tanking 6x Phoenixes was idiotic no matter how you slice it.
Unless obviously youre bomber main and you were completly okay with that, in which case ill just say we can always not implement the damage model changes at all and let you “enjoy” current situation for longer.
2 Likes
Bombers are “fly straight and click space for base that costs next to no tickets”.
4 Likes
Keep in mind the doctrine for downing heavy bombers when possible was to head on and mince the cockpit rather than attack engines or the fuselage
Is that befor or after the most recent change? The Do 17 i mean.
After the patch it’ll be fly straight for 10 minutes and then AFK for another 20 until the time ends.
With AI taking targets but not tickets, targets not bleeding tickets and so on, I think half the maps don’t have enough AI to bleed all tickets.
The other issue is Gemini Entertainments way of changing BRs. All bombers with the new damage model are going to be uptiered to 9B BRs before fighters can reliably touch them.
Based on the official data from the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: Report on Armament in the Air War (1939–1945), destroying a heavy four-engine bomber (e.g., B-17 or B-24) without secondary fuel ignition requires a specific mass of high explosive. Because a standard 30 mm MK 108 Minengeschoss round contains approximately 72–85 grams of high explosive, achieving the required destructive threshold requires 4 to 5 hits concentrated on a localized vital airframe region rather than randomly scattered across non-vital structures.
I agree with what everyone is saying—the MK 108 was an ideal cannon. A rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute was honestly more than enough to deal with most bombers.
The document explicitly states in the top text of page14/3-c that a total of 500 to 1,000 grams of explosive mass is required to bring down a heavy bomber.What I’m trying to point out here is the actual durability of this aircraft. If we look at the document as a whole, it’s clear that 3 or 4 random hits to non-critical areas won’t bring the plane down. Unfortunately, people tend to draw conclusions based on just a couple of words taken out of context.
Furthermore, I’d like to point out that even in the official manuals issued to German pilots, it is explicitly stated that 30mm cannons should target the engines, or the crew compartments during head-on attacks.
" You can clearly see where the bullets hit the target and the damage they inflict, and can now concentrate on individual parts of the enemy’s airplane like the fuel tanks and engines. You can now fire with highest accuracy."
" Aim slightly above the fuselage and open fire!" "Continue fire while moving the sight smoothly into the center of the fuselage."
-“7. Horrido! - des Jägers Schiessfibel D. (Luft) 5001”
1 Like
20mm armed bombers were a death sentece for quite some time.
When flying Ta-152H, I generally tried to avoid bombers, as getting hit even with 1-2 .50 cal bullets to the wing can completely mess up aerodynamics and ruin the ability to turn and fly level.
Bombers were easy targets for US and Brits, who basically are exclusively armed with long range weapons that can make great use of mouse aim.
Japanese and Soviets benefit to a lesser extent.
Germany and Italy has lower velocity, short range weapons, which wasn’t that big of a problem IRL, where precision aiming at 500+m was not really a thing for fighter pilots. In other words - IRL the limiting factor was the ability to precisely point the nose at small target and ballistics were secondary issue. In WT reverse is true.
Which brings us to situation, where the side notorious for not heaving great techtree bombers with long range armanent and also baving the worst armanent for long range combat will be facing new and improved dura-bombers.
This may result in some interesting developments.
i could explain right now why it doesnt make sense but firstly i value my own time too much to actually explain something to a person that ignores it
and secondly others could do a way better job explaining it to you
kinda proves that AI sucks yk
cuz im not the dumb one here
dude they are eating over 100shots of 30mm HE shells
thats far from realistic
i actually dont even want to argue more on here for today
even tho i planned to i will not for my own time and mental health
2 Likes
“rudimentary parts” like the thing keeping it in the air? Do you realize how much weight of fire is hitting this plane’s wing for almost zero effect?
I reiterate, my G8N was on fire for over 5 minutes with the only noticeable downside being the loss of an engine
a Do 17 IRL would be shot down with just a fraction of these hits, so was everything else I tested
to my knowledge this was before the most recent change
1 Like