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.
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
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.
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.
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”
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 aim-9b sidewinder famously was reversed engineered because a missile managed to hit a plane and get stuck there without the proxy or contact fuse triggering the warhead.
Warthunder gives missiles 100% perfect reliabilty, but until missiles got fully solid state electronics there was a fair chance ths missile wouldn’t either launch or guide, let alone kill. And that probability of kill was calculated against strategic bombers, target drones were being taken down by the missile’s inertia alone.
