this applies to everyone and everything, bombers IRL did not have 3rd person vision or omnipresent gunners stabilized in all 3 axis of movement
Yes and no.
The range marker makes a huge influence on estimating the range to target, this is absent in SIM. And all engagments are at closer ranges because of this factor.
Fighters also did not have stabilization in all 3 planes and experienced some form of recoil which is barely present in game, while also not being as easy as this game makes it out too be to consistently keep all guns on target.
(A sacrifice for easier gameplay which has it’s side-effects)
Bombers may have not had 3rd person vision, but when coordinated against 1 target, they could fairly range the target consistently, rather then what we have now. where all guns intersect at a preset range, killing it’s overall efffectiveness.
Even on some aircraft like IL-28s where you can have first person options, it wouldn’t change anything significantly. You’d just lose situational awareness (more related for SIM) which is negligible at best if your approach is from a predictable angle. Most mounts on bombers were heavy duty and counteracted most of the recoil. This is especially true for vehicles that don’t require the direct handling of the gun against targets.
1 Like
The only honest answer I can give you is maybe.
Even if the wing spar is severed, that does not automatically mean the entire wing is coming off. At that point you are talking about critical damage and a major reduction in structural integrity. Aircraft like the B-17 have survived far worse:
So sure, let’s say an AIM-7M hitting a WWII aircraft directly in the wing-root spar would cause critical damage. I have no issue conceding that.
You’re all free to maliciously warp my rhetoric however you want. That does not mean I’m obligated to operate within that framing.
And yes, speed is relevant to a physics question because velocity is relative. If I’m moving at 100 m/s and the missile is moving at 120 m/s in the same direction, then its closing speed relative to me is only 20 m/s. That is obviously going to matter when discussing the resulting ballistics.
Because you all insist on giving me vague scenarios with poorly defined variables, I’m obviously going to choose the best-case interpretation for myself.
If you refuse to define the aircraft, material, thickness, geometry, or any of the other relevant variables, then of course I’m not going to arbitrarily assume I’m standing behind the paper-thin skin of some WWI biplane.
Exactly, they taught this in high school right? LOL
we love posting the same two examples over and over and over and over and over again dont we
wonder why we dont have more
2 Likes
and now also show some of the shot down bombers please
1 Like
The problem is that incendiary for all guns are completely underperforming, so starting fuel fires is a dice roll when the flame chances should be MUCH higher.
are we rlly brinign our 50cal cope on here too?
1 Like
Just regular pure incendiary rounds ore API?
They start fires just fine in my experience, I don’t expect them to be spontaneous.
That’s a ducking flak bullet btw
They all managed to land btw.
Not to be that guy, but if one flak shell does that, what do you think is gonna happen when another one hits?
yep and you can lose most of your control surfaces on the current live sever and keep flying too
2 Likes
Some planes can even fly surprisingly well without wings lol
those all show what only a few hits from flak if not only one hit from it alone can do to you
A FEW IF NOT ONE HIT
so what do you think happens if a bit more hits?
Theres like 50 more if you scroll up
1 Like
in Sim, bombers are much more dangerous since they’re using the exact same gunner controls and mechanics as in AB and RB while everyone else actually gets Simulator controls (and limitations).
So they’re even. In RB.
Gunners consistently overclaimed kills to an incredible degree, probably more than anyone else
Sure. And right now on the dev server it causes no meaningful damage. Not even a fuel fire, which is the minimum that can be realistically expected.
I posted R-40RD (x2), R-27ER (x3) hits from a direct side aspect, Phoenix (12x) from a front quarter aspect, AIM-9L (2x) and 7M (1x) from front aspect. None resulted in a kill.
Even when structural failure is not achieved, a fire is easy to start and the fuel tanks cannot hope to seal such heavy damage:
this was one Sparrow fired from a Cutlass
75mm and two 88mm AAA kills respectively. We can each pick a myriad of photos proving both of us right.
The target aircraft, aspect, and weapon used is very easy to see.
This is the damage from a 1kg HE projectile. How do we know the other bullet will hit the same spot?
Yes, these are just a few of the ones I remember.
what? based on these images all we know for sure is it was a flak round that did it (assuming what you said was true) we have zero idea exactly how close it was. what im saying is that you can shoot off the elevators and or rudder of a b17 in game and it will be able to continue flying.
A plane that kept flying even after being hit by a 105mm flak round And the shrapnel effect of this bullet wasn’t even enough to damage the engines.