Right now I can’t pinpoint the post with that video, but it’s a video of B-17 clearly being repeatdly shot by Bf 109 with single MG151/20 at short range, as MK108 impacts are clearly bigger.
and here is a combined MK108/MG151/20 firing with clear difference.
The clip is unfortunately horrible quality, once I find the better quality one (it exists), I’ll post it too.
See? The bomber didn’t completely atomize. It was perfectly fine and made it back to base and everyone onboard lived to the ripe age of 120. Toxic fighter mains are just coping.
It’s not certain because at that moment, 120mm and 75mm cannons were attacking the planes on the island, so it could be either.
And if the certainty isn’t known, I don’t think it makes much sense to use that as an argument.
Anyway, no matter what I say, you’re going to say it’s 75mm.I don’t know why I’m explaining this to you.
Pull up the skin thickness charts of those parts they shot vs the skin thickness charts of the b17 you have + the airframe underneath
Until then your out of context posts are irrelevant and im confident in about 4 ish hours from now youre all going to eat your words, you will cry, mald, cope, seethe, and keep spamming the exact 4 pictures over and over, but you will fail to acrually disprove my work. Again.
Ok so if thats a piece of an he111, that looks like either the elevator or rudder.
Before you even object, I can literally SEE the hinges
These were made from anninternal skeleton and covered by a thin, thin sheet of duralumin. Substantually thinner than the rest of the aircraft, sitting at 0.6 or 0.8mm, same stands true for pretty much every plane if the era, the control surfaces were made out of really thin shit relative to the rest
SO AS I SAID BEFORE. This picture is an overstatement of the effectiveness of these rounds as this is an exceptionally soft target, the softest part of the entire plane. Find a source to prove me wrong ;)
Unless youre a seething german main, actually kinda makes sense now “he111 was made out of 2mm, thicker stuff than the flimsy b17” “mk108s could blow a fortress out of the sky in as little as 3-5 hits” im sensing a pattern
No, of course not. But that does not change the fact that most of those examples are not specifically bomber problems; they are War Thunder problems.
Missile ballistics and fragmentation are poorly modeled, tank crews can survive things like .50-caliber rounds to the head, and there are plenty of other questionable damage-model interactions throughout the game. If those systems are broken or oversimplified, then blame Gaijin’s underlying modeling not the bomber rework for exposing the same problems.
And please spare us the part where you pretend to know what I, or everyone else arguing this side, actually wants.
If your response to the opposition is simply to label them “bomber players” who supposedly want invulnerability and then argue against that caricature, nobody is obligated to operate within that ridiculous framing. I have already pointed this out before.
I could just as easily start throwing inflammatory labels at the other side and constructing equally dishonest motives for why you want bombers weakened. But where exactly does that get us? Do you want an actual discussion, or do you want the entire thread to collapse into people inventing motives for each other?
