Oh i would highly doupt gaijins sources… it has been many many times that they declared smt is correct just to change it again… i mean the whole discussion is because gaijin messed up before…
and thats fine for me, as long as its a balanced game, i dont seek ultra RL in WT myself
And as I said before, it doesn’t matter if that particular spot can be broken off or not. IF the spar was blacked out by the shell they would ACTUALLY be using (HE), that would be sufficient.
Quite funny you’re accusing me of rigging when the ONLY WAY you could get that spar to be damaged enough was by hitting it directly with an APHE shell.
Hitting it directly with a shell? Man that kinda sound like thats exactly what happened irl, unlike your tests in war thunder where the shell is detonating on the surface instead of on the spar
Didn’t hit on the spar IRL either, so I don’t know why you keep thinking it did.
NEWS:
Gaijin FAN reconstucted the left half of an American Bomber, just to blow it up again!
watch the video frame by frame and it blew up literally on the spar before its engulfed in flames
me when I don’t have eyes apparently
Why are you bothering to argue with a self proclaimed ragebaiter who outsources their thinking to AI? They aren’t arguing in good faith and will not change their mind.
I’d even say that any AI generated posts or responses should be flagged for spam
Unfortunately if you let the AI hallucination misinformation spread it’ll just give completely wrong information to other users…
You are confusing the fuel gushing out of the hole for the hole instead of looking ahead to where the hole actually is.
Unless airstreams, you know, suck fuel FORWARDS against the flow of incoming air
In other words, it missed the spar. The shell hit in the middle of the wing’s underside.
To any new members on this thread, this is the type of players that are for paper bombers
“bombers op” lmao
I understand the general direction of the recent changes to bomber damage models. The previous situation, where relatively minor damage could sometimes cause an entire wing or tail section to detach, was not necessarily realistic.
However, looking at the current implementation, I have serious doubts about whether the same level of increased survivability is appropriate for relatively small twin engine jet bombers such as the Vautour and IL-28.
What concerns me most is how these aircraft behave after taking damage from 30 mm cannons and air to air missiles.
I do not think a single hit from a 30 mm DEFA class cannon should automatically cause a wing to fall off. At the same time, I also do not think that multiple hits from weapons of this calibre should leave an aircraft capable of continuing flight with relatively little degradation.
An aircraft does not need to physically lose a wing in order to be effectively destroyed. Damage to flight controls, hydraulic systems, fuel systems, engines, electrical systems and internal structure can all make controlled flight impossible even when the airframe itself remains largely intact.
Missile damage raises an even bigger question.
If an aircraft such as a Vautour or IL-28 receives a direct hit or a close detonation from an air to air missile such as an AIM 9, it should be exposed to substantial blast and fragmentation damage. If a relatively compact twin engine aircraft can suffer this kind of damage and still retain most of its controllability and flight capability, I have to question whether that behaviour is actually realistic.
Aircraft such as the Vautour and IL-28 are not huge strategic bombers with enormous internal volume and systems distributed across a very large airframe. They are relatively compact twin engine jets. Their survivability should therefore depend heavily on where they are hit, what systems are damaged, how much structural deformation occurs and whether redundancy actually exists in the affected systems.
Simply making an aircraft more resistant to structural separation does not necessarily make the damage model more realistic.
I do not want to return to a situation where a single cannon shell can unrealistically remove an entire wing. What I would rather see is more realistic degradation of the aircraft after serious damage.
A bomber can remain physically intact while still losing enough control authority, propulsion, fuel, hydraulic pressure or structural integrity to make continued flight impossible.
The important question should not just be whether the wing remains attached. It should be how much functionality the aircraft retains after being hit.
If the current survivability of aircraft such as the Vautour and IL-28 is based on structural testing or real damage data, I would be very interested to see what evidence supports their current ability to remain flyable after multiple 30 mm hits or significant air to air missile damage.
I’m having a great time clicking on people and being basically invulnerable
Very realistic to survive 3 engine fires and one fuel fire going for a few minutes!
surviving 3 engine fires on a 2 engined ki67?
How many engines am I holding up?
You said 3 engine fires below a ki67 pic, and I dont see any burn marks on that g5n1
Did you know you can land on airfields to repair?
You forgot to show a clip of the BV 238 flying over the airfield AA at a few hundred feet and not dying.
You have to be incredibly disingenuous to not see how imbalanced some bombers are, especially when comparing the risk vs reward of actually attacking them. Bomber gunners aren’t even that bad too, so their defence is overall decent as well.
sounds like an airfield AA issue, which it was always crap anyway, so time to rework
Actually, a ton of reworks are needed, how can the game advance if we keep tying ourselves down to 12 year old broken mechanics?