wow cool you found one plane that will take damage from a fire
this is 3000rds of damage btw
even the tiny Arado 234 took ages to accumulate enough damage to sever the tail control, otherwise it would still be flyable
“3000 rounds of damage” Either your friend SUCKS at aiming or you are lying
We’ve already had this argument before earlier in the thread, except the claim was “1000-1500” rounds (which was disproven strongly), 3000? Thats hilarious, what plane in this game even stores 3000 rounds
You keep posting this clip in bad faith after countless people have showed rounds not doing any meaningful damage to bombers.
There are a couple rounds that do damage, meanwhile the vast majority isn’t doing anything regardless of the caliber.
A good example is how the Night Belts on Mk108 will take 50-100 times more rounds when compared to Stealth (the one that is somewhat working) but you still blindly ignore it… why?
I keep posting this clip as “skill issue” lol. Aim at weakpoints and it will do damage, you dont aim a sherman’s 75 at a tigers front plate without aiming at the damn gunner port, similar thing applies here to bombers, stop trying to shoot them in the strongest parts
1 Like
I’m testing using the air defence zone in the regular testflight right now and the fire damage dealt on a Tu-95M is negligible
Fire damage 100% has to deal more consistent damage
3 Likes
The USAF going for interceptors armed with air to air unguided rockets doesn’t seem so dumb now, does it?
I do also think that bombers should be tougher than they are currently on live server, and think engine/fuselage fires on dev server should be slightly harder to start (and SHOULDN’T work as a flat HP bleed as if they were a poison status in pokemon), but durability doesn’t need to be so high that the new meta becomes melee fights between bomber wings folded thousands of times:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1w9518i/i_think_that_the_bomber_damage_models_might_be/
And I don’t need to remind people that bombers do get obliterated in mid air collisions…
As for missiles vs bombers, I think people can accept one missile not automatically and instantly downing a bomber every time, but if doesn’t at least do critical damage and/or require at most one more missile to do the job, then something is very wrong.
Given that it was a custom battle, we enabled in-air reloads. I’m actually lowballing since he said he fired 3500.
And the A-7E with gunpods carries 3400rds. You can go hold the trigger down and watch as wing spars are functionally invulnerable.
Alternatively here’s a 75mm HE shell directly impacting a B-17 for no noticeable damage.
And a second one.
And a third one.
Finally on the FOURTH 75mm high-explosive shell, all concentrated on the exact same spot, FINALLY the enemy plane could no longer fly
No, that was still stupid.
1 Like
No dude, it’s not related to skill issue, a 10g difference wouldn’t make one bomber sponge 500 extra rounds, there’s something clearly wrong.
If bombers receive the damage model as it is in the upcoming update, sooner or later the entire community will have infinite complaints regarding their durability and Gaijin could end up nerfing them into oblivion and not look at them again for another 5-10 years. Is that what you want?
2 Likes
I like that this thread has reached levels of cope with people coming up with some genuinely insane reasoning for why they think its ok for bombers to be as overtuned as they are on dev. 🥀🥀🥀🥀
On the otherhand if it comes to the live server like this it will be really funny watching all the bombers inevitably go up in br.
3 Likes
Nobody heres been arguing bombers need to be more ram resistant, we all agree their collisions are messed up, the disagreement here is people thinking bombers should fall to pieces like legos
1 Like
So this thing sometimes could shrug off an ADEN dump or several MICA-EM direct hits (latter shown on screenshot). Even though this ain’t B-52 levels, it’s still ridiculous as this faces almost exclusively .30 and low-end .50
2 Likes
Except gaijin made these changes based off of their documentation and sources, whilst how they were before was an unintended side effect of other things getting reworked (and helicopters)
I mean, its dead. Youve got 1 engine, and also look at the size of the spars on that fat chud its like 4 feet tall! Missile fragments arent gonna do much to THAT
A TB-3 should have fallen apart long before that to the first missile.
Shot was taken after taking a 180 and actually being somewhat 3-4 km from the field, so…
Most bombers take very little damage from missiles right now, unless they have a small proxy fuze distance and hit the tail segment from underneath, they most likely won’t kill the bomber or even deal meaningful damage beyond stripping the tail flaps
Then you got lucky with positioning and not having to fly far to home unlike the B17s getting battered over germany and having to fly all the way back to england. Another things thats already been mentioned, Bombers in wt can match the durability of bombers irl but they’ll always be more survivable because our maps are smaller to get to the airfield
Those were 3 consequent direct hits…
We established prox fuses are working wonky in wt rn and thats possibly desync
Weve already calculated what even a 105mm shell would do based on math equations for shell impulse and the strength of 2mm aluminum skin of the b17, and also theres USAF docs from 1947 pointing to the b25 taking 6 randomly placed 105mm HE rounds (2kg tnt filler) before structural failure was achieved. And 7-9 75s, so 4 75s concentrated on one spot? thats believable
This entire thread is now going in circles, weve already talked about ALL of this before