No conclusion was reached regarding whether it was 75mm. Can you show me where that conclusion was reached?
They had both 127mm and 120mm versions, but the 120mm also had a feature called coastal defense, and the video shows the plane being shot down on the coastal side of the islands, so I insisted on the 120mm.
If I’m not mistaken, 120mm cannons were also found in places like the Palao Islands; I saw a description of them in a museum I visited.
It had to be 120mm because in Palao Islands they only had either 80mm or 120mm anti-aircraft guns.
Correction: You’re right, there were 75mm guns and 80mm, but military reports already list them as 75mm or higher caliber. If you’re presenting this image, you should have known that.
Note: In my opinion, this must be a 120mm cannon because expecting such explosive damage from a 75mm cannon would be a bit much; this was definitely a 120mm cannon. Of course, these are just my opinions.
edit: right so besides the horrendous input lag i get on the dev server due to it being installed on my chuddy little hard drive, these custom missions dont let me reduce the bomber count below 8, so either im trying to 1v8 a formation (Im going to DIE a violent and painful death) or I reduce the bomber skill level from veteran, reducing the effectiveness of their gunners, where ill be accused of rigging the test in my favor. What I need is a guinea pig who has the dev server and a b17. Single passing bombers is possible, but me trying to prove it can be done while under fire in a way that represents actual gameplay on my own? More of a challenge
Does MK108 incendiary not exist all of the sudden?
It makes smaller holes, even if it still delivera a ton of explosive damage (unlike in-game, where it does nothing).
Also as proven by British test, you can have a small hole on 1 side, and massive deformation/exit hole on the other.
Perhaps gaijin does plan to add more detailed DMs to the bombers anyway, Im looking at the arado c3, one of the planes that is getting the bomber buff, and its gotten a more detailed DM with some more modules on dev, small, but a start on an obscure little jet
Very realistic damage from fires right here. We all know B-17 can have conflagration over the whole entire wing surface and not suffer any kind of consequence to structural integrity.
I just opened the dev client to be your bomber pilot upon reading this, but looks like its gone down now.
heres a video I saved of my friend trying to kill my G8N, We had been trying plenty of different angles both before and after these clips before you say “thats wrong”. If you think there was a better angle, 99% chance we tried it:
We also tested for at least an hour with both of us flying a B17E and each flying different aircraft, with both us trying every single angle and method. I didn’t save any recordings of it though. The only kills that were achieved in one pass were very occasional Pilot snipes, or lucky hits to bombs in the bomb bay.
Both my friend and I are well above average in skill at this game and we couldn’t find a consistent one pass kill method, even using aircraft that were designed for bomber hunting.
This was me letting my friend unload into me to destroy all four of my engines and see what happened. Those fires were all burning from when he started shooting them. I also had a fuel fire set which later went out. It took him most of his ammo to do so. he did have a severe damage on me at that point, but also I was just sitting there passively without firing back while he sat on my tail. Trying to kill a bomber this way is not viable, you’ll die in seconds.
The fires are doing practically zero damage to the aircraft.
I honestly have better stuff to with my time and am really just here for the ragebait.
Regardless of your statement, my statement remains true. Hopkinson is used to determine explosive pressure of large blasts at a certain distance when deriving that from small laboratoy explosives. As far as I have read it’s used to mostly determining safe distances when building structures like EOD Bunkers.
Then again, YOU are the one aguing maths here. YOU are the one sayiing that you can apply a formula for shear forces to calculate the circumference of blast holes, which you, as far as I know, you cannot do. The blast doesn’t just apply pressure at the edges of the material with backing.
So once again, YOU make the statment and the burden of proof lies with YOU. All I have seen you do is copy paste random statements from AI into your comments to sound smart.
By the way, this is what ChatGPT spits out when you ask it to do the calculations
I think they should leave it as it is. Also nerf US .50 cal AP-I by making them tumble after striking aircraft skin, limiting their ability to destroy engines and pierce stuff.
I’m simply going to enjoy G8N1 and not care about anything else.
The visual modeling doesn’t really matter. The spar was only turned yellow and the wing section turned red.
More importantly, nothing we’ve fired at these planes so far has resulted in a fuel fire, and even player-controlled bombers, on the off-chance they are, just don’t take any meaningful damage. Few thousand .50s, 20s, 30s, Zuni rockets, FFARs, Hydras, seemingly every air to air missile in the game… We are well beyond the realm of getting unlucky with a few stray hits.
It does not
you should tell your ai to read further up the thread
the 20cm fuse delay causes it to explode in the center of the wing
Good thing that in that particular hit, I hit right between the two engines then!
They didn’t fire SAPHE at planes
Why would it? It’s hitting right on a fuel tank and spar, from an angle where protection is weakest. Even if the spar did not fail, the fuel tank is blown open and immediately starts a huge fire.
The game devolved into a glorified vehicle deathmatch over time, as the average player prefers that over longer, more tactical objective based game modes.
It’s a shame, really. There is so much potential for a much more interesting game, but we’ve been denied that for a long time now and only recently Gaijin started to work on more elaborate modes again (Nuclear Escalation, Deep Strike, Asymmetrical Battles, etc).
They have made all of the actual objectives on ARB maps pointless, old scenario maps are broken and in most cases, the match timer isn’t even long enough to trigger objective mechanics.
Even worse, the ticket mechanic is almost pointless nowadays, whether you can end a match by destroying AI targets seems very random, so strike aircraft feel pointless to play unless you really want to grind ground targets and bases.
Since airfield destruction has been removed a long time ago, bombers lost their purpose in ARB.
We can only hope that Gaijin doesn’t mess up the Aerial Warfare (Nuclear Escalation currently) and the potential return of the World War mode…
Yes, fire damage needs to be a more consistent mechanic and it should be a lot more threatening to bombers.
As a trade, EFS and traditional ways to deal with fire should be more reliable and prop feathering should be simplified in ARB.
More stuff inside bombers probably won’t do much, if anything.
Something that should be done is dividing existing modules and the airframe/skin into smaller sections with less individual health.
This is a problem both in planes and in tanks where certain modules or parts of the vehicle are modelled as one big module that gets completely destroyed, even though only a section of it was destroyed.
While this is not that common on tanks (mainly found on certain weapons, like rocket launchers), this is something that appears on the majority of planes.
Front and rear spars are tied, the control systems are only separated into three parts usually, meaning that the destruction of the controls for an outer flap or just one side of the tail results in the loss of the wing or tail controls entirely.
Wings never have more than three sections, the fuselage usually is only divided into cockpit, centre area, rear area and tail, no matter how long the plane is. This means that damage to outer parts of a wing or the tail will result in the less of a large chunk of the wing or the entirety of the tail (provided the flaps don’t just tank the entirety of the damage because the damage model for planes is just plainly terrible).
My point is, this “hole” was used as some kond of proof of MK108 shell power, also the famous video of B-17 getting clobbered is like 99% wrongly attributed to Bf-110G2, as it’s evident it’s a single cannon firing and quite obviously it’s 20mm.
The only configuration where the 110g2 has a single cannon below the gun camera is a 37, infact how quickly explosions occur back to back with successive hits in that video seems to match up nicely with the 37mm gunpod, did you just accidentally prove that b17 is actually tanking a ton of 37mm? Thats hilarious
After I come back from work im gonna take a closer look at the video and compare it to ingame, aswell as looking at other clips where we know the fighter is using 20mm to see how big the explosions are vs that clip
You can quite easily see exactly how sheer plays into the equation, did you even read it? It isnt sinpmy calculsting how large the hole is, its calculating how far from the blast point the metal would be peeling back like flower petals, which is a sheer force, which can be determined by how much force the blast is inflicting on the material at what distance before the metals sheer strength overpowers the explosion. + a certain percentage for the momentum the pedals are carrying.
I never said they fired SAPHE, I said they fired timed fuse (flak), and it managed to enter and go off IN the wing, literally inside the spar, the only way to recreate that consistently is using an aphe shell. And I even showed exactly where you need to hit, whilst you hit on the inside of that, dmaaging the wrong section of spar, so no, it wont even detach then. Aim for the landing gear’s wheel and outwards.
So stop rigging your tests and fire the appropriate round on a spot that is actually programmed to break off ingame.
In my opinion chasing full realism is less important than balance and difference people have differing opinions on balance
IF HYPOTHETICALLY a single fighter could not take down a bomber and needed 2 or 3 fighters per bomber than that could said to be bad game design because the individual cannot do anything on their own against the bombers.
AND VICE VERSA
IF a single fighter can take out a large bomber all on its own thats not fair either in its own way.
The solution in my opinion should lie in the middle where:
Fighters with lighter weaponry (BF109, P51, Yaks, etc) might take most of its ammo to shoot it down or for larger bombers; maybe only be able to critically damage it enough to make it eventually crash. Whereas heavy fighters (BF110, Mosquito, P38, etc) could do it solo more easily.
I recognize this is not perfect. Just my rough opinion on the extent to which bombers should be survivable.
I’m not fully opposed to bombers needing multiple fighters, that would just require more teamwork than War Thunder players are willing to put up with.
