Buddy, that guy is like CIA accounts on the internet, LOL.
Why would I stand 15 meters from an R-40? It’s an air-to-air missile.
Also, no actual aircraft is made up of nothing but “aircraft skin.” Spars, fuel tanks, pillars, and various other structural components exist, so I don’t even know what this arbitrary suicidal test is supposed to represent: some amount of aircraft skin plus a walking corpse?
And why would I be naked? Is the aircraft skin supposed to be some kind of exoskeleton? Aircraft skin is generally made from advanced aluminum or other metal alloys, after all.
So yes, if I’m entombed in several millimeters of titanium armor, I’d stand in front of an R-40 detonation for the hazard pay.
But I have to ask: what is with these elaborate hypotheticals you keep throwing out as if they’re actually relevant to the discussion?
We’ve posted 1,650 replies just trying to decide whether bombers should shatter like Legos from .50 cal rounds, and we still haven’t reached a consensus. In my opinion, this thread is doing nothing but dragging down the reputation and quality of our forum. As I’ve mentioned before, I think this topic needs to be locked here before it degrades the community any further
I also think certain troll accounts need to be banned from this forum. All they do is waste everyone’s time while speaking entirely based on assumptions—it’s an absolute embarrassment on their part.
Also to FeetPics, Just_Baron, and RoyalWaffles deserve credit because they were the ones who spoke with the sources from the very beginning, although there were many other people involved as well.
ive personally reached the conclusion that these people are animals who cannot be reasoned with and i think they should be ground up into cattle feed
2 Likes
You’re one of them LOL, you’re a total troll.
The structural schematic for the dc3 also looks like this
1 Like
Dude, Gaijin can’t even fix the horizontal stabiliser counting as severe (it does nothing) while loss of elevator doesn’t, and it’s been like that for over a year I think, and you are expecting way more advanced chamges to be done. Nah, not gonna happen
1 Like
I never said advanced; I said better.
I am very aware of how flawed it is.
1 Like
The “better” is waaay beyond “eliminate 1 severe damage condition and add another in over a year” or “fix the plywood bug ruining the game for the last 14 years” (it used to affect only MG151/20, now it affects everything, but MG151/20 the least) . My point is, Gaijin is absolutey horrible with fixing things they have already implemented.
Bombers tanking hundreds of 30mm is just a proof of this. Why even test a setup, that is clearly broken?
1 Like
My good sir, that is the formula you use to calculate the shear force required when for example cutting with metal scissors or stamping holes, not blow a hole in something with explosives. That doesn’t apply to explosions because you are putting pressure across the surface of the plate, not just the shear area.
like @FeetPics said, if you feed AI BS, like the formula you use, then you get BS out.
9 Likes
Saying that the shear mechanism doesn’t apply at all under blast loading isn’t correct either — shear plugging (Mode III failure) in thin plates under impulsive loading is a well-documented, real failure mode in the literature (see Menkes & Opat, 1973)
1 Like
You do realise that even the graphical representation points at low explosive content shell type. Hispano shells are 90% steel, 10% TNT. There’s quite damn LOT of stuff going forward. Also there are AP shells in the mix.
1 Like
It stole research that basically solved the problem and brute-forced through the remaining part. Hell yeah.
You really gotta stop posting that
Yes, but that is mostly for small diameter projectiles, not explosions from what a short google search has shown me.
Explosions are really fucky-wucky from my experience.
Not peer reviewed yet, so calm down. Just because Daddy Elon says it’s so, doesn’t mean it is.
Of course!
I have another here with the B-17 that should really help drive that home
2 Likes
Buddy you ARE the bot lobbies in question pipe down
3 Likes
Il-2 1946 really has a much better damage model than WT, crazy lol
2 Likes
I read through the first ~800 replies on this thread. Read through some absolute rediculous dung flinging, and some hilariously bad takes.
I Downloaded the dev server, and tested the apparently now “re adjusted” damage models of the bombers. Stuck without the ability to play a random game (idk if this is normal for dev) and with no friends available to test with me, I was as well stuck shooting at the bot B29s and Ju-88s in the test flight. I am aware that their damage model isn’t as good as a players so I was firing and then flying over the plane to check for damage that looks like it would have knocked a player bomber down as well.
And honestly, its ridiculous. I tested at least a dozen different aircraft and weapon setups. I flew at these bombers from as many angles as possible trying to hit as many different parts of the aircraft as possible. From behind shooting at various parts, from above strafing the top of its fuselage or wings, or both. In front, below, I aimed at every single little part of the plane, and also tried just blanketing then in lead to see what was damaging it where, and what the quickest and most consistent way to kill it would be.
I came to the conclusion that in a live battle, there is absolutely no possible way that any fighter at prop BRs could engage a bomber and be able to shoot that bomber down before the bombers gunners were able to shoot the fighter player down. Even if this was possible and the bomber pilot had the aim of a blind Stormtrooper, it takes on average most of your ammo load to do it, so in a live game it wouldn’t be worth even bothering to go after the bomber honestly. This is not a skill issue, this is not a “learn to aim” There is physically nowhere on the aircraft you can aim to kill it quickly enough without it costing your entire ammo load or your own aircraft, short of a pilot snipe.
There was some inconsistent success and occasional quick bursts that exploded the bomber, but only with 30mm and larger cannons. 20mm and lower theres no chance short of a lucky pilot snipe.
I also tried guns and aircraft that were specifically designed to kill bombers as well - Like the Japanese Ki-44 with the 40mms. full load of the 40s into the B29 did not knock it down. It took 2-3 hits from the HS-129 on average to knock it down as well lol, though I havent unlocked that plane so was stuck with the default belt.
I tried both HEF and APT belts on multiple different planes, they did not seem to make much difference.
I flew my F-2A around as well testing it against them. it took a full load of all 512 vulcan Rounds to maybe knock it down. Not always.
The ARH missile Damage against them seems bugged maybe? It was taking on average 2-3 AAM-4s to knock a B29 down, but suprisingly I was relatively consistently knocking them down with only one AAM-3. So Sidewinders are doing more damage than AMRAAMs to them apparently? Yes this was with the missile flying directly into the fuselage of one plane, not proxy detonating between them. Both the AAM-3 and AAM-4s were scoring direct hits on center mass of these planes.
I found M2 Brownings were consistently lighting fires in the engines pretty much immediately on hitting the plane, which would eventually burn it out if you lit up all four engines… sometimes (the fires often went out after a while), but would do practically no notable damage to the airframe itself outside of whatever the fire would do.
I would like to note: When I say I knocked the bomber down, I do not mean I got the “aircraft destroyed” text in every scenario. I mean the bomber took enough damage that it slowly started falling out of the sky. sometimes they took a full 10 minutes to eventually crash. So while technically you are “destroying” the bomber, in a real game them slowly burning out and losing altitude isnt how Warthunder attributes a “kill” in the game.
In regards to the whole “realism” argument, Even if this damage model “is” realistic (it absolutely is not), This is not real life. This is a game, it is a game where everything needs to and should be fairly balanced as much as possible to be fun and fair for everyone. While I was fully supportive and excited to see Gaijin wanting to buff bombers as they definitely need a buff. This is absolutely not it. This is an undeniably terrible thing to implement and will be awful for gameplay in all situations.
This will result in bombers being effectively invincible in game. Anyone who tries for any length of time to kill them will be destroyed until everyone learns that and no longer bothers to even go after them. Air RB will become a game where everyone else fights each other, then ignores the bombers and mindlessly grinds down ground targets until the game times out. Though bombers like the Ju-288 which already went through periods where they single handedly ruined their entire BR bracket for years will likely do the same but make it even more unplayable.
Air Arcade I can imagine will end up similar to the last time Bombers were horribly overtuned and have entirety of both teams filled with them and end games in 2-3 minutes like they did many years ago (when I still played Arcade)
Personally I think the people advocating for and defending this change really just want to be able to sit in their OP unkillable bombers and farm enemy players, at least until everyone learns to ignore them. I don’t see how anyone with a reasonable understanding of fair game balance could look at this and think its okay.
TLDR: Its overtuned as hell and is bad for gameplay even if realistic, I think bombers desperately need a buff but Gaijin went way too far with it.
9 Likes