I don’t know what kind of fourth-dimensional measurement system you’re working with here, but “15 ms from a 40 kg explosion” isn’t a meaningful distance.
More importantly, simply saying “40 kg of explosives” tells us very little by itself. Different explosives have different detonation velocities, energy densities, blast characteristics, and fragmentation effects. Treating 40 kg of one explosive as automatically equivalent to 40 kg of another is not a serious basis for comparison.
Two vague screenshots with no proper context, measurements, geometry, projectile parameters, or methodology are not enough to perform any meaningful ballistic analysis.
You didn’t even bother to give a missile name. We get it you’re intellectually bankrupt, but this is low-effort even by your standards. Reddit-tier argumentation.
Bro just found out why air belts still have AP rounds
Also that SAP-HE APKWS has a tnt filler of 568g, and the difference here is its actually reaching the spar instead of trying to skin the bomber around the spar like regular HE
And yes, not everyone has these, just as not every plane is suited to go bomber hunting, thats why we have heavy fighters/interceptors, just like you wouldnt fight a tiger tank headon in a sherman, but you may he more enticed to in say, an m36
We are rediscovering aircraft roles, by buffing bombers, we’re giving people an actual reason to play stuff like me410s and whatnot. Its pretty great
Im gonna let you take it from here, youve got more energy than I do fight these guys, we are over 1500 messages deep and only about 200 of these have actually been informational, at this point its just the same 3 or 4 seagulls squawking over a french fry being slightly harder to reach in a paper bag instead of being out in the open
because you dont always have access to enough he rounds to fill an entire belt? because sometimes the he round dosent have a tracer? you dont need ap to kill airplanes airplanes are not armored
AP helps to kill larger aircraft, shredding spars, punching through the wing up to the engine from behind, plenty of things, HE just goes off on the surface which isnt really the main structural component of the aircraft, and gaijin themselves said that their sources indicated shrapnel below 3g doesnt actually do much damage at all to such spars and ribs
You got 1500 messages to scroll up through, literally any talking point you bring up has been discussed already. This thread is useless now lmao, its going in a tighter circle than bismarck with jammed rudders
the only reason this thread exists is because of dumbfucks like you who and then pull up the same 2 fucking videos or pictures every single time. like i really dont understand these planes are built the exact same way as fighters and yet somehow you think they are 200x more damage resistant??? is it because they called it the FLYING FORTRESS!!!(called that because it had a bunch of guns on it) or is it because you are mentally 5 years old and think that because the plane is BIG that means it is STRONG and TANKY. like are all of you just not capable of understanding that airplanes are fragile they are not meant to survive cannon fire.
Yeah, F89D, the rocket one, was taken off sale. I cant test fly it, its not there, looking at the video though thats a pretty damn solid burst of rockets, damn 😂
“These planes are built the exact same way as fighters” you just told me everything I need to know to not waste my time on you
Literally scroll up, all of your questions have been answered with math, statistics, illustrations, schematics on BOTH SIDES of the argument, and you are the only one to walk in here and call a bomber the same as a fighter.
They were not. Thank you for making your own credibility zero, though. We can ignore you now, as you will likely get a TOS violation for your last reply.
It’s worse because they always say it and never disprove the videos, documentation, or math. It’s always “you think big equals durable” followed by slurs and ad hominem, which tends to actually be the case. Greater mass absorbs more. I reject any opinion that wants the Bombers returned to a fragile state. They are in a good spot right now, for the most part.
What I want to know for certain, though, is whether the F-89’s rockets tear a B-17 apart or not, as they should do so.