Which fuel tank exactly do you want me to shoot?
i am taking what is said at face value
my question of how close the missiles were when they detonated isnt answered because it cant be.
so like this happened yeah but its kinda not really that useful for us
If we’re taking things at face value then this B25 tanked 6 105mm shells
(footpics is about to have a stroke)
“you have decided to believe the source i have posted so now im going to completely misinterpret a different source checkmate liberal”
ok?
Stick dragger cant parse information
See this entire argument already happened earlier in the thread, literally about wether we take info at face value or not, either way, its just not looking good for the results the fighter mains want
Either we take it at face value and we got b52s tanking missiles semi consistently and bombers being extremely resistant to cannonfire, or we dont take anything at face value and now the reports placed AGAINST those junctures are suddenly losing what traction they had because “it couldve been a piece of a more fragile plane” (it was anyway)
There is simply no winning at this point
is there a gas leak in ur house?
Shoot between the first and second engine (Unless it snaps)
I have two possibilities.
The HP amount is so high, that no round is ever reaching a damage threshold to light a fire.
The other is that the interior fuel tank to the root shares the same fire emitter as the engine.
it multiplies to the fuel tank flame chance based on the damage you do to the tank.
It explains why .50’s in my test did piss all to catch things alight.
The way gaijin calculates component damage with AP rounds is all screwed up.
After much more testing. I’ve worked out the most reliable way to bring down the AI B29s at least.
Aiming directly for the rear tail section here will relatively consistently cause the tail section to detach and give you an instant destroyed message. If not, you will likely knock out the control surfaces meaning it will eventually crash. (especially if it was actually a player)
BUT you need 30mms or larger. And it still takes a significant number of rounds, sitting on target for an extended period with a bomber that will definitely be shooting back at you.
Aiming at wings or engines is a waste of time and ineffective. You won’t snap a wing, and engine fires don’t really do any damage unless you sit there inside their defensive fire and try to whack all 4 of them.
Anything lower than 30mms are almost entirely ineffective, from any angle and aiming at any part of the aircraft unless you can get a pilot snipe. a full load of 20mms will not do enough damage that it either couldn’t glide back to base with, or just stay up flying until the game ends in a live warthunder game. So Nations that aren’t germany that get a decent number of Mk108/Mk103 armed fighters, or Japan which get the Ho-155/Type 5 30mms, Most nations are pretty narrow on options for killing bombers if this makes it to live. Some Aircobras/Kingcobras or the Yak-9s are the best real options for those nations.
Meanwhile. “realism blah blah blah.”
Wikipedia:
In Furious Skies: Flying with Hitler’s Luftwaffe in the Second World War By tim Heath - Chapter 19:
So between 15 and 25 for an MG-151/20.
that definitely is more than 25 rounds. (it did not die)
Already had this argument before too.
Alright, so what does bring down mean, any clarification in these documents of yours?
Heres US statistics vs a B25 from 1947
10 mk108 hits would cause a 53% chance for an “A” Kill, with the odds of the cause of that result.
“B” kill jumps, but is a less critical level of damage
“A” Kill is listed as a severe combat damage classification resulting in the aircraft being forced down or written off as a total loss post-mission, aka, not a structural breakup, infact here its only a 8% chance or so
“B” Kill Signifies a major component or system kill (such as an engine knock-out or critical fuel system failure) that forces the aircraft to abort its mission or make a forced landing, though the airframe itself may be repairable.
Both the main threats are Fire
The report also mentions “K” kills and “KK” kills, K being a total kill or complete destruction of the aircraft, rendering it completely unsalvageable or causing it to crash due to pilot fatality, loss of control, or fatal fire.
While KK is a catastrophic structural breakup resulting in an immediate and complete loss of the aircraft.
Best part? nowhere in this entire 105 page document is there any mention of a KK failure on the b25.
, and they were shooting this stupid thing with howitzers
Would a B25 fly after 6 105mm hits? HELL NO. BUT, the argument here is it didnt snap in half.
And the fact that on the dev server right now fires do next to nothing to the bomber meaning your only option is to 30mm the tail off means…?
Overall, I am satisfied with the current durability of bombers; however, there are two critical flaws that require URGENT fixing.
First.
This applies to all bombers and fighters: the control linkage systems need a rework.
Take the B-52, for example. It has redundant control linkages routed along opposite sides of the fuselage to minimize the risk of both being disabled simultaneously. Yet, not only is this redundancy ignored in the game… the elevator linkages are actually tied to the rudder linkages. This ensures that a hit to either system knocks out both at once.
This is the case for almost every aircraft—the Tu-95, Sea Vixen, F-117, F-16, Hawk… It doesn’t even matter which one. Whether it’s a 1970s British trainer or a 1930s American fighter, they all feature a primitive linkage system where the entire assembly takes damage at once.
Second.
Heat-seeking missiles. What do heat-seeking missiles lock onto? Engine heat, right? That makes sense. But where do they lock on in our game?
The geometric center of the aircraft. Why? It’s not a SARH missile. Why does it track a point where there is no heat emission?
Consequently, instead of hitting the engine, setting it on fire, and potentially severing the control linkages in that wing… it hits the tail and tears it off.
And don’t think this isn’t a relevant issue; the game features many bombers with engines mounted far out from the fuselage—prime targets for heat-seeking missiles. Canberras, Il-28s, Tu-14s, Yak-28s, Tu-95s, B-52s, B-66s, Ar-234s, Vautours, Tu-4s, B-29s… I might have forgotten a few others.
Why did I go off on such a tangent? Right. Simply increasing the HP of aircraft components isn’t enough as long as the basic survivability systems aren’t working correctly.
means fire damage needs a buff, what does that have to do with structure? my argument this entire time, every message ive sent, is structures are durable. I havent had any objections to engine durability, or against bombers taking damage from fires (albeit on live its too fast, dev pretty slow), and collisions
We can agree those three need adjustment. But wings and tails coming off from something that isnt genuinely airframe shattering? pff, PLEASE.
It means that if implemented in their current state in game, bombers will break it.
All homing weapons go for the geometric centre of vehicles currently. The AIM-4 and other weapons without proxy fuzes can (and will) miss certain aircraft because of this.
You can test this for yourself by test flying the F-106 and launching AIM-4s at the B-29s.
I am pretty sure Gaijin currently has no way to make IR seeking missiles go for the engines specifically-
bombers will break fire damage and collisions, so adjust those. im keeping the wings and tail glued on unless met with genuinely massive weapons or actual concentrated fire
Bombers DO die (when controlled by players) to fire and lighter damage than our test drive bots, simply because bots follow different rules. I have proven this with pictures posted before of the b52 and tu95 (two planes mentioned as being oddly fire resistant) taking damage overtime until they lose control, albeit the time it takes, will need further study, aluminum doesnt burn, but the airstream acts like a blowtorch, but it also cools the surrounding area, so wouldnt fire damage progress backwards outside, and outwards inside where its hidden from the airstream? I need to research this more to give a proper take
Looking through it again. The thresholds are absolute it shouldn’t matter on how much health the part has.
So basically.
Gaijin bugged fuel tanks somewhere.
That much is obvious. This seems completely unintended given what they said on the news post:
What source do you have on the PBJ-1H’s 75mm with 600g of tnt filler being similar to the “75mm” AA gun shooting at that? What makes you think its not an 88 with 1kg of filler