No. You claimed that the materials were different and had different strengths. They are the same material by a different naming convention. You are the one that claimed it was based on Spitfire/Blenheim when it in fact was not.
Note how the He-111 has skin that is 1.0 - 2.0mm thick.
How big is the hole? It’s bigger than his head. This is for 20mm MG151 by the way.
But somehow we think that 30mm MK108 is going to make a smaller hole? Because Grok said so?
“It does not matter if it is a B-17 or not.
The damage on dev server would be the same against HE-111 wings as well.
So how big are the holes? Do they line up with your calculation that you are reporting as gospel truth?”
Good to know the germans are using the exact same materials as the allies
Thats a mk108 hole? Ok gimmie a sec
none of the bomber warriors can read apparently
I was pretty sure I was talking about the R-40 explosion, not the Nike Ajax. I didn’t make the claim that the Nike Ajax was a proximity missile, to my knowledge anyway.
I’m making the statement that the R-40 and Nike Ajax explodes similar distances from the target in this situation, and one warhead is about double the size of the other.
I’ve already done what I could to explain to you how a 40kg warhead loses power in the atmosphere and relies on shrapnel for damage. That Shrapnel has to hit something to do damage, and it simply doesn’t hit anything critical for the B-29 in the War Thunder video because it’s targeting the mid-tail section, where there’s little, while it should instead be breaking the engines.
HOWEVER in your source of the QB-17 shot down, you are openly lying about the distance.
This is most certainly NOT 16 meters from the bomber.
The Nike Ajax in this image might not even be a full meter away from the wing with its 70kg explosive. It’s not comparable to the R-40 example, as the R-40 impacted here.
Ok so basically
your mg151 hole is about 20cm
But wait, im not done, Ill edit in the rest as I go
Your MG151 shell has a TNT equivalent of 29.76g of tnt for its spiciest variant
Thanks to the cubic root law, we already know that to double the diameter of the hole, we need to multiply the TNT equivalent by a factor of 8, BUT I also need to consider that looks like a 0.6mm thick spitfire wing, NOT a 2mm thick B17 wing, so its safe to say a mk108 hole would be about 50cm on a bomber wing, while a mg151 hole would be SMALLER than shown here
And if you ask me to calculate it on the spitfire wing, i will also calculate the amount of force required to shove your 55cm circumferance head up your ass
thats a good joke
Once again you are hallucinating to reduce the values.
Im not even typing this shit anymore
Using the exact same cube-root scaling law (R_h = k \frac{W^{1/3}}{h^{1/2}}) with our 100g TNT-equivalent charge (W = 0.10\text{ kg}):
That is why historical trials on thin-skinned light bombers showed massive, gaping holes compared to the tighter, thicker-walled damage profile of a 2 mm structural plate.
All you two are saying is “I didn’t care to do the math in any capacity with any tool at my disposal, and what I believe must be right despite video and documented proof”.
If you don’t prove how he’s wrong, it doesn’t matter what you say. Simply stating “he uses AI” doesn’t matter when he’s showing you how the math works. It’s not a “trust me” here. You can logically prove him wrong if he’s wrong because he’s showing you the work.
Its fine, they cant uncalculate the amount of force required to shove their heads up their asses… Wait they’re already there, I need to calculate how much force to pull it out again
Why does the math include the human anal sphincter?
I did say if they asked me to run numbers on the spitfire, id also calculate the force required to shove a head up their ass
if someone says “I will calculate” they better be actually doing calculations, and not just copy and pasting AI responses
otherwise everything they are saying should be treated as a joke
You uh… gonna do the math yourself and prove it wrong?
Should we take NASA’s calculations as a joke since they run everything on a supercomputer? A supercomputer not dissimilar to the type of hardware AI uses
Have you ever used a calculator in your life? Did you get a grade while using it? Regardless of if he’s using AI, he’s showing you the work. Just prove him wrong instead of using an ad hominem.
Obviously, AI makes mistakes, so it’s your job here to prove that it’s making one.
holy shit
are you really suggesting that using a computer for calculations is the same as being an organic mouthpiece for chatGPT
An AI is a computer, dingus. It’s a more advanced computer with learning systems, and NASA uses AI systems these days too.
Do not trust AI unconditionally, but also don’t dismiss it entirely.
its funny cause AI datacenters have long blown NASA’s 20 petaflop computer out of the water by now, I have drained multiple african villages of water to calculate shoving heads up asses for a joke, I do not care
It has already been disproven.
He is just adjusting values in the AI to get outputs that he wants. He assumes in his latest calculation that the MG.151 hole is representative of a Spitfire wing because he just thinks that it is. It’s actually an He-111 wing.
He thinks that 2024-T3 Aluminum is different than Alclad and therefore have different strengths…which causes the holes in the Blenheim test to be larger. This is not the case because it is just using a different naming convention for ostensibly the same alloy. (Also Alclad 24S was not used by the British…so he somehow hallucinated this factoid as well.)
He keeps quoting the B-17 as having a skin thickness of 2mm. This is also not the case. B-17 skin thickness on the wing is .064" which converts to 1.6mm and this is at it’s thickest. Most of the wing area is about half that thickness as well.
