140kg is including the weight of the pre-formed shrapnel around the three explosive charges, which were detonated all at the same time.
Post footage of it happening in real time
Yeah, this is actually why I think missile damage against bombers could reasonably be nerfed from a realism perspective. If proximity-fuzed warheads are currently modeled more like spherical “death orbs” than directional fragmentation warheads, then their effectiveness is arguably exaggerated in the first place. That said, I probably wouldn’t push the idea too far. Making missiles outright ineffective against bombers would create its own problems although forcing more gun-versus-gun engagements between fighters and bombers could make the gameplay considerably more interesting.
Rather let the missile counter exist as a nuance.
Don’t give gaijin ideas for update 2036 where the finally completely fix bombers.
You know math itself isn’t subjective, right? If you think the calculation is wrong, then point out where the assumptions, inputs, or math are wrong. Simply saying you disagree without actually identifying an error isn’t much of an argument.
1 Like
Post footage of a b17 falling apart war thunder style to GUNFIRE then since you guys insist thats how it should be lol
I feel like the issues with the bombers vs missiles right now stems more from the missiles themselves detonating wrongly more than the bombers themselves
I don’t care enough to argue with chatgpt numbers.
Especially when this is presented as survivable lol, when a warhead not much larger instantly destroyed this very plane
I wish this was only related to bombers lol
Sometimes I survive like 2 minutes of burning and make it back to base and other times I burn for a couple of seconds, try EFS and have it fail and die quickly after.
On certain planes I don’t think I’ve ever survived a fire, despite them having EFS.
Like, if my Wyvern gets set on fire, I already know that I’m dead. The EFS on that never works, no matter what I do.
Bro do you want me to tell you the words this guy uses most often? “I disagree,” “Google free right?”, “That still doesn’t prove anything.”
Explosions do not scale in a linear fashion, thats why the 2000g hole isnt 20 times bigger than the 100g mk108 hole.
Also speaking of explosions, when you shoot a bomber in the hangar, the HE hole that gets left in the analasys actually matches up VERY well with my diagram, aswell as guncam footage with close up of b17s after mk108s attacks
Dealing with people who don’t even read what’s written is a waste of time. I’m leaving this to Gaijin because I don’t think we can progress any further since nobody listens to anyone.
Oh, please keep that low-level, false-honor argument-picking out of here. We both know you’ll just label anything you find intellectually threatening as “ChatGPT” and use that as an excuse to ignore it.
Everyone knows that trying to have a discussion on those terms is a complete waste of time.
2 Likes
Exactly, in my opinion, the topic should be closed here.
Because we can’t make any progress, everyone is attacking everyone else as if they want to kill them.
1 Like
Imagine working at NASA in the 60s during the space race and your boss says “I dont care enough to argue with the massive house sized computer made specifically for the task of doing the math, its wrong because I dont like it”
1 Like
Even still, it doesn’t disregard the point the of the non-linearity of explosive masses.
I agree the bombers are having too strong of a DM, but we’d need to hit it with something of similar explosive mass if we want to be entirely sure.
Has no one struck it with large air to ground missiles like the Bullpup or Kh-29ML?
Ok, I thought Gaijin put at least a little bit of effort into balancing the bomber durability, but it turns out they absolutely didn’t…
Those Ju-88s in test flight feel even more egregious than the B-29s
Fragile fast bombers dont sell Ju288s and Arados
3 Likes
Tf you mean “Probability of kill 0.78 for a salvo of 3”
You’re telling me 3 missiles wasnt even a guarenteed kill against some target drones? Either their accuracy is abysmal or that warhead really is having a hard time chewing through a bomber
The idea was probably to dump a full load and leave. Probably the reason why the F-106 carried 4 and the F-102 carried 6.
If all you need to do is destroy tail control, it makes sense.
I guess there wasnt much point of sticking around afterwards, yeah. Literally the early f14 lmao
1 Like
Curious locations where it is clean