However, I don’t think the 120mm guns positioned along the coastline will be watching passing aircraft.
And you’re shooting a B29… Go into test flight mission editor and grab some b17s
Ah now im finding good shit
Your argument has been that it is perfectly reasonable to a B-17 or even a B-25 to just eat multiple high caliber rounds or rockets with negligible damage. You are still doing the same thing by using flawed math premise (blast damage without taking into account fuse delay) and running that through an AI program to get values that conform to your beliefs.
Note how you have said multiple times in the thread that a B-25 survived multiple rounds in testing against 105mm cannon.
It was assessed as a catastrophic kill 5/6 times.
After further testing, I think I can now comfortably confirm that Missile proximity fuse behavior is absolutely the issue with their lack of ability to kill the B-29 in test flight.
Methodology: Using Magic II within 0.5 to 0.45km with positive closure rate ensures the proximity fuse does not enable and thus subsequent hits are direct impacts
10 of 10 launches within this distance were tail cut loose kills.
Control: Magic II standard launch parameters, around 2km per launch with positive closure rate.
This distance allows for the proximity fuse to enable. Control had 1/10 launches had kills. The single kill was not a tail cut loose on a freshly spawned 0 damage target, it was a slow loss of control after multiple proximity fused hits.
Magic II has a large warhead of 9kg, more than enough to completely destroy anything with a direct impact. The issue is that the missiles pre-detonate before getting close enough to guarantee severe damage or a kill.
I welcome others to replicate the experiment and share their results.
1 Like
So it wasnt even catastrophic one time? Where did that round hit? lol
It was catastrophic 5/6 times.
And yet I couldnt find any “KK” Structural failure kills in the document
Im not arguing the bomber shouldnt die, im arguing it shouldn’t fall apart like legos, as ive stated time and time again
Because both pilots have to be killed? Hello???
What are you on about?
My point is that you are once again misreading the report. Why do you think there is no KK damage listed in any of the appendices?
Oh. I didn’t watch the rest of it
Is it REALLY negligible?
Again, we’re being struck by the fact that gaijin isn’t representing damage visually well.
If you had it where multiple large caliber hits more or less tore skin off and made the thing look more like a flying frame than a plane. The player reactions would be less visceral
For instance. Is there no player you can test with to see if the plane is still “flyable” or not?
And yet KK is specifically mentioned, if it isnt mentioned in any of the tests, then none of the aircraft actually broke apart, and everything inside the airframe, people, engines, controls, died first
Bold of you to assume they have friends lol, you’ve seen the way they argue
I have resized the Dots to now represent 1.6mm skin thickness vs mk108 and a 50mm round with 450g of tnt also placed in there for scale, and overlaid it over me163 combat footage where we can see mk108s in action
Heres before and after for the mk108 size, 50mm has already been resized
And thanks to feetpics we can also see these rounds landed on the 1.6mm section for the left wing, the aft section of the wing is thinner and that also explains the larger hole on right vs left
There are not even columns for KK kills in the entire legible portion of the study. That data is likely contained in one of the many illegible tables in structure damage. There is a table in engine damage that follows the conventions mentioned in the paragraph you are citing.
It is very likely that the table that I am citing doesn’t distinguish between K kills and KK kills.
Still nothing
That seems highly unlikely given they specifically mention K and KK and a the differences between them. There are no KK kills
Except this is the only chart in the whole study that conforms to the labeling convention. Or at least the only one that clearly does.
And not a single mention of a structural breakup yet again… Makes sense, considering this is a page regarding shooting a JET ENGINE.
instead we see things that are currently pretty much impossible in dev server like fires resulting in a kill
1 Like