In a war, under normal circumstances you attack a bomber from the front; you know you’ll be killed if you go behind it.
1 Like
Air Targets aren’t really any good atm. Most use Universal cause for some reason, Gaijin screwed over a lot of Air, Tracer, and ground belts.
Except Stock, Stealth, and Universal.
Has anyone listened to Sabi Mia Boyla’s song btw
Do you think no bombers were ever shot down by Bf 109s?
Engineering won’t save you from 2000x 20mm holes concentrated in just one of your wing roots
the only thing that actually results in a kill is hitting the pilot, nothing else can
unless you want to wait 20 minutes for the autopilot to fail to correct and eventually hit the ground
Give me your sources, that’s all I’m going to say, it’s an assumption, and I didn’t say anything about them never shooting down planes.
prefferebly a Headon, and then maybe a top down coming from a angle, kinda to simulate what they would be doing in WW2, or literally ANYWHERE BUT shooting the ass of the bomber.
as of belts, probably use air target belts if possible, its what they were meant to take out in WW2 mainly, bombers and enemy fighters. and if you mean what plane, pretty much any WW2 German or Italian plane, or Allies planes if trying to kill German bombers
although, if Bombers are still able to take thousands of shells from a A10 like in one of the first vids in this thread then yeah, prolly need to be tweaked a bit, no way a 30mm and 2 20mm pods shouldnt tear off a B17s wing in a few seconds
1 Like
The pilots were alive. They were able to maintain control long enough for everyone else to bail out by pulling the control cables because the instrument panel was destroyed.
It’s a hydraulic system failure. You’ll often see aircraft drop their landing gear when being shot down because either the hydraulic or pneumatic tanks have been damaged.
If War Thunder implemented this into damage models, aircraft like the Spitfire would be harder to fly damaged. Their hydraulics controlled the landing gear, the pneumatics controlled the supercharger, the guns and the brakes. Hydraulic fluid is also flammable.
Meanwhile something like an Fw 190 would be more resiliant since many of its systems were electric powered and damage to one section could be isolated with circuit breakers.
3 Likes
Google is free.
But I’ll just use this quote to show something that is impossible to do right now.
by the way B-29s are still surviving hits from Phoenix and other large missiles:
Meanwhile this is what a QB-17 looks like after being hit by a single Nike Ajax:
Nike Ajax has a warhead with ~70kg of explosives; each Phoenix there has ~35kg, and I’m firing a volley of 6. Compare the IMMEDIATE destruction of the real thing vs the one in-game that took the rough equivalent of three Nike Ajaxs and is both still in one piece and still flying.
They also shot the asses of bombers.
But unless you hit the pilot not much happens. Maybe they lose an engine, but the fire will go out. So will fuel tank fires. Fuselage hits are useless.
yeah they still do that effortlessly lol
3 Likes
If we assume that 30mm is actually MK108 and not much faster firing modern gun, and these 2 gunpods are MG151/20 and not modern cannons with 8 times the ROF - MK108 fires 10-11 shells per second, and 2xMG151/20 fire roughly 23-24.
I don’t think it should take “few seconds” to tear off a wing with such firepower.
Also, it’s hilarious how you act like a tactical genius by quickly Googling a couple of random quotes and posting the first link you see, without having the slightest clue about the actual military context behind them.Google is free, but basic critical thinking apparently has a price tag you aren’t willing to pay.
Richard Franz’s quote highlights that the MK 108 was a formidable weapon capable of critical structural destruction—nobody denies that. But pilot memoirs describing a weapon’s destructive capability are not literal engineering data stating "a single 30mm shell instantly severs a multi-spar duralumin wing regardless of impact location.
Also, I’d suggest working on your aim a bit. Congratulations, though—you managed to land your shots on the exact non-critical areas from Abraham Wald’s diagram, effectively re-creating the Survivorship Bias chart in real time!
On a side note, I’d really like to see what belt composition you were running, because dumping rounds into non-structural skin panels without hitting the primary internal spars obviously isn’t going to slice a wing off.
1 Like
I feel like that still is an issue with the proxy fuzes
Has anybody tried the Falcons against bombers here? I would test it myself, if I could lol
I was talking about the A10 with the GAU8 and the 20mm rotary pods, otherwise yes, I do agree with you
Stop with this Grok spewed strawman bullshit dude.
2 Likes
Post the clips
You do realise that makes it (checks notes) around 10 times worse, because A10 has like 10 times the burst mass and also fires higher velocity projectiles that will probably be more destructive shell for shell?
I know I’m nitpicking, but “a few seconds” in case of A10 means few hundred 30mm shells on target, and then we have 1000 20mm shells in 5s from gunpods.
That shouldn’t 'rip the wing off", that would essentialy atomize the crew and rip the plane to shreds.
Let me be clear: any additions made by the AI aren’t my fault. Anyone who actually wants to understand can easily get my point from what I wrote—including that idiot who thinks Google is a primary source
you forgot to mention how absolutely none of your or even my documents indicate anything regarding bombers falling apart like legos
1 Like
Legos have better structural integrity than bombers in WT on the live servers
3 Likes
Yeah, and these guys are saying they should stay that way lmfao
“urr durr im a fitor mannee i shoo bomba go boom ahahaha i luv gaeming”
1 Like