Changes to Bomber Survivability Feedback and Discussion

[RoyalWaffles]

And did you adjust its effort from the default medium to maximum? youll be impressed

[FeetPics]

@RoyalWaffles

“Aircraft skin” is a horrible metric, it could be plywood on a yak, it could be 0.6mm alclad on a spitfire, it could be 2mm 2024-T3 On a B17

This is a distinction without merit. These are two different naming conventions applied to the same material. Your AI usage gets in the way of you being able to do basic research.

[PercussionCap]

@HooFnET

the bottoms of B-29 aircraft weren’t just made of thin aluminum; when you hit that part, you weren’t getting something like a hollow, leaky balloon

That is a B-24, which either you or someone else in this thread said it was much weaker than a B-17. And yet a 75mm HE shell shot directly at it caused no meaningful damage, and no fire.

@Just_Baron

all the fragmentation should only hit the mostly empty fuselage in a cone? That’d do less damage than it does now.

Empty fuselage is the only thing holding the tail in place, by the way.

This was 70kg from 16m away

@Just_Baron

What’s the year of this report.

1957

And you know, just for funsies, it also mentions the other german weapons.

“The effectiveness of 20mm, as compared to 30mm mines, was about 1:4, and in 1944 four or five hits by 30mm projectiles, concentrated in a relatively small area, were necessary to bring down a four-engine bomber”

Try that in the dev server and see how it turns out.

@Just_Baron

What’s the aircraft in this image.

QB-17 target drone

@Just_Baron

The shell placement matters even if they’re “modern” rounds.

All concentrated in the same area

@Just_Baron

but War Thunder does not simulate the degradation of components on that scale for bombers and only uses HP

We have degradation of components - wing spars are damaged progressively with damage and will eventually fail completely as seen on that B-24.

@BRCompression

So yes, if the missile completely misses the bomber and only detonates because of the proximity fuze, I do think it should be capable of doing effectively nothing. If the bomber is outside the warhead’s effective fragmentation cone, then the explosive mass by itself is irrelevant the fragments still have to actually intersect the aircraft to cause damage.

How about this then?

What will your excuse be?

@dovah4

Someone needs to test the betty bomber and see if it’s tanking rounds.

effortlessly until your tail controls are taken out lol

[Omarb13legends]

- YouTube

Here’s a comparison video of MG17s some of you might be interested in, does a much better job representing damage.

[HooFnET]

@PercussionCap

That is a B-24

My friend, please look a little further down in the video from the source; I don’t think I need to say anything else.

[PercussionCap]

@HooFnET

please look a little further down in the video from the source

Thin aluminum is not gonna stop a 75mm HE shell on a delay fuse.

[Just_Baron]

@PercussionCap

This was 70kg from 16m away

Well, yeah. That’s nearly double the warhead of the Russian Missile. Not to mention that altitude plays a large part in damage calculation as well.

@PercussionCap

1957

And you know, just for funsies, it also mentions the other german weapons.

“The effectiveness of 20mm, as compared to 30mm mines, was about 1:4, and in 1944 four or five hits by 30mm projectiles, concentrated in a relatively small area, were necessary to bring down a four-engine bomber”

The small area is a “well-aimed” spot, as seen in other documentation, which typically includes the engines or pilots.

If, on the Dev, you were to fire Mk103/108 HE shells at the engine in a 4-round burst, it should bring down a B-17’s engine at least.

@PercussionCap

All concentrated in the same area

Hitting the same spot again and again does little to add damage, no?

@PercussionCap

We have degradation of components - wing spars are damaged progressively with damage and will eventually fail completely as seen on that B-24.

It’s more an HP system than a degredation simulation. Fusalages are largely just one big vaguely circule module that get damaged all at once.

[RoyalWaffles]

And yet you’re still leaving out the massive thickness discrepancy between a spitfire/blenheim and a b17, Im done arguing with you man, this whole thing ended in

and that is irrecoverable aura loss lmfao

[HooFnET]

Stop whining my friend admit your mistake

[RoyalWaffles]

yes, yes, the density of air pushing against the explosion and back into the plane, and how quickly shrapnel slows, I completely forgot about that

[PercussionCap]

@Just_Baron

That’s nearly double the warhead of the Russian Missile.

Which missile?

And that was just one Nike Ajax hitting the B-17. In my missile testing I hit each target multiple times.

@HooFnET

Stop whining my friend admit your mistake

When are you gonna stop using chatgpt?

[HooFnET]

LOL, I’m saying this for the 1001st time, English isn’t my native language and I’m using Translate to talk to you, but trying to attack me here shows how desperate you are.

I will not be speaking to you any further after this point.

[PercussionCap]

@HooFnET

English isn’t my native language

Must be some strange language to write B-24 and it coming out as B-29.

[PercussionCap]

@HooFnET

it says B29 there

Must be a REALLY strange language if that looks like a B-29 to you.

[Just_Baron]

@PercussionCap

Which missile?

And that was just one Nike Ajax hitting the B-17. In my missile testing I hit each target multiple times.

The R-40, I think, is its name. I’m not really on War Thunder right now, but the Big IR missile the Mig-25 gets. It has an explosive charge of roughly 40kg, while the Ajax has around 70kg. We’re talking about a nearly doubled warhead at the same rough distance.

If we assume the altitude for the two tests is similar, then 70kg is obviously going to do way more damage.

[PercussionCap]

@Just_Baron

If we assume the altitude for the two tests is similar, then 70kg is obviously going to do way more damage.

The difference is that the real missile caused the complete and immediate destruction of that B-17, while in-game a R-40’s 40kg warhead barely affected its target.

@HooFnET

My friend, at the end of the video it only shows B-24s performing sorties on the runway, please try a little harder to understand.

Stop whining and admit your mistake

[Just_Baron]

@PercussionCap

The difference is that the real missile caused the complete and immediate destruction of that B-17, while in-game a R-40’s 40kg warhead barely affected its target.

The real missile would target the wing’s engine signatures, not the mid-tail section. It’s barely effecting the target because of that issue.

Had the missile impacted those engines, it would have broken them, resulting in a crash.

[OliverXRed]

From what I know of crew health, it is even dumber than that, because the damage model is the same all over the crew member. So if your pilot take a shot in the face, it does the same damage if it grazed his toes.

[PercussionCap]

@Just_Baron

The real missile would target the wing’s engine signatures, not the mid-tail section. It’s barely effecting the target because of that issue.

The Nike missile missed and is detonated by command, not proximity. Only a portion of its fragmentation hit that B-17. Much more of the R-40’s damage output was directed towards the bomber.

@HooFnET

From the very beginning, just from this photo I’ve only been talking about this photo from the very beginning.

This is the same wing, stop whining and admit your mistake

[HooFnET]

Ok