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.
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)
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.
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Not peer reviewed yet, so calm down.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
Buddy you ARE the bot lobbies in question pipe down
Il-2 1946 really has a much better damage model than WT, crazy lol
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.
I think its something to do with prox fuse radii and the missiles exploding further away since the changes where they detenoated based upon the position of the closest part of the aircraft, not the aircraft centre point.
I think the structural changes are mostly fine. The issue is that the rest of the damage models is sub-par. The correct thing to do is add more to the damage models, and refine other aspects of it first, before then adjusting the numbers of the structural changes.
Everything they could add to nerf the DM, without changing a thing theyve already done
Whose second account are you?
The big problem right now is that missiles have to hit very specific spots to deal meaningful damage
A smaller proxy fuse radius helps a lot, which is why Sidewinders, AAM-3s and Magic IIs can somewhat reliably kill the bombers in testflight, but larger missiles can’t.
The weakest point of the B-29 right now and the spot that the missile has to hit is the area between the wings and the tail and while testing I found that it has to be from below, not above.
Smaller missiles lack the explosives to destroy the tail section and larger missiles explode too early. The AIM-4s can destroy the tail, but they tend to miss the bomber entirely.
While I can’t tell how strong the bomber durability is in PvP on the dev server, from what I can see in test flight, the buff is still too strong. One thing that needs to happen is fire dealing more consistent damage paired with a more reliable EFS.
That’s not a second account
Which is one of the changes I would propose making. Whilst I agree bombers are overperforming. I dont think the only solution is nerfing the structural changes theyve made
It might help if there is more stuff to physically damage, and if fires did more than the apparent nothing they currently do - which honestly on bomber engines they still do on live. I’ve landed bombers that have had multiple engines on fire for 10 full minutes in sim before.
I dont think we should be instantly blowing tails and wings off, sure. But it shouldnt take 500 rounds of 20mm before it slowly starts to lose altitude and eventually crash 10 mins later.
I feel like a slightly less extreme durability buff paired with more reliable fire damage would be a healthy compromise between what we have on the live servers and what we have on the dev servers.
The fighters would have a reliable way to kill bombers without too much effort, but the bombers would also have a solid chance to complete their objective and actually fight back.
Maybe. I think its difficult to judge without haivng said other changes in-place first.
Setting fire to an engine for example is fairly easy .
Yeah. its a balancing act. Especially given the state of ARB