Full report would be nice as the difference is very hard to see without looking at the shell. The problem of it in WT is they have same pen.
There actually is infinite ammo in ARB.
I’m convinced that removing infinite ammo would balance things out significantly.
With only 500 rounds per gun, this guy shouldn’t be able to start harassment with saturation fire from 2 km away without any penalty.
If there were a real threat of running out of ammo, engagement distances would naturally shorten, and the fighter would have more breathing room to maneuver around, searching for the optimal attack angle.
7 Likes
Lol, my Er-2 would be pretty much useless then, it has 670 ammo combined from all his turrets.
It will be useful in Naval, tho.
1 Like
I’d be fine with that except for the fact that it’s a single bomber not a formation
1 Like
Also, Il-2 has 150 ammo in his turret, lol, then I would want to have a button to turn off AI gunners, cuz they will spare all my ammo in a short burst!
Well, we don’t attack bombers in groups as well. Its 1 fighter vs 1 bomber mostly.
And about formations… Devs could make an economic incentive for bombers to not compete for targets, but rather to fly in… formations.
From my suggestion, again, I believe that would improve their position in RB battles
I mean, right now its useless to fly near another bomber. He will bomb the target - you will get nothing. Thats it. No formations, no cooperation.
Good thing we don’t force drums to be reloaded on guns that don’t use belt feed. The P1Y/G4M with 30/60-round drums, that’s a very short burst In one go
1 Like
It already exists in “Y” menu…
45 round drum
30 also existed but as I understand both were in usage
60 round never used on rotating Type 99 Mark 1
(But turrets with Mark 2 cannon already had 100 round drum)
3 Likes
Well, idk, that would be a cool little detail. Bombers will move up the BR line for sure, with their new survivability. But if bombers had realistic gunner armament… some of them would also move down a bit :P
I can’t imagine how I would defend on Er-2 against two enemies. With its veeeery limited ammo.
Also, german bombers had small parachute grenade launchers against enemy on 6. And Soviets had them too. I would love to see these counter-measures on planes that had them.
This will be interesting to see actually (when it’s due to happen next)
Occasionally I’d see an awesome bomber pilot getting 2 or 3 kills. Now it’s the norm – pretty much every match.
Seeing Su-8 and TIS MA racking up 5+
Wait, they are bombers? I only seen them hunt for bombers. Isn’t it good that bomber hunters get 5+ per match as well? :D
They’re not classed as bombers in game, but they got the survivability increase.
(and it’s plenty of fighters they’re getting :)
1 Like
I imagine it was so heavy that changing it during combat was practically impossible!
It was of course possible or they just didn’t use that cannons at all
though it was heavy of course.
Isn’t this one of the points of the original article though? Those are leading edge hits, directly impinging on the load bearing spars at the leading edge and the hydraulic, fuel and control lines in that area.
As we saw with the Columbia disaster, of course leading edge hits can also immediately introduce aerodynamic complications, further increasing wing structural stress.
The argument of the Gaijin article is that trailing edge hits at most impinged in most cases on bomber control surfaces that can take a lot of surface damage without any significant aerodynamic impact.
The game is arguing in effect that historically sitting on the bomber’s six and going pew pew was the most ineffective way of killing it and that the game should model that.
(Whether that theory is correctly modelled in game terms is another question though.)
Currently in the gun-only BRs, a direct head on pass still works well to do a single-pass kill. Slashing attacks from oblique angles (which can get those leading edge hits, among other things) from a number of fighters can work well, without undue loss. If you are ready to throw your score out the window you can do it with one fighter if you take the time to set up in between slashes. But if someone doesn’t your team likely now takes the L because of the damage even a single bomber left alone can do to the score sheet.
What doesn’t work anymore unless the tail gunner is dead is sitting on the six and just overhauling due to speed advantage. Having a system like that where tactics and angles and cooperation matter more than before for both fighters and bombers is, in principle, a smarter game, rewarding smarter play all around.
Some things about the new meta are an improvement over before, like bomb detonations while on the racks not happening every game and .50 cals alone no longer sawing off wings. Some things are still flawed, like fires now doing plainly inadequate damage over time, or IR missile logic on large multiengine targets. I don’t think we’re there yet, looking forward to future improvements.
3 Likes
I heavily agree with the first paragraph and is what I’ve been saying this whole time
Except, as I posted later, a majority of the hits to the wing that came from behind also lead to lethal damage even in single hits.
It’s important to note that you don’t see MK 108s dealing lethal aerodynamic or structural damage with single hits to bomber wings in general in this game, whether they are on the trailing or leading edge, or the direct center (that and the incendiary round is completely useless and Gaijin knows that, hence why it is only found in the default belt).
Even the Blenheim which we have those tests showing how utterly screwed that thing is with fuselage hits (important because, as I showed, heavy bombers can indeed generally tank fuselage hits from mineshells, the Blenheim in real life can’t) can tank multiple MK 108s.
Wahhh! I don’t wanna learn how to kill bombers like I have to do with fighters!
4 Likes
Also, something about the trailing edge.
I don’t disagree with the trailing edge of bomber wings being a bad place to shoot. It has less aerodynamic and structural impact than other sections of the wing. Nevertheless, the problem in game is that you can’t “brute force” the trailing edge at all.
For example, here’s me dumping over 500 20mm Hispano Mk.II rounds into the trailing edge behind left-most engine of the B-29. This is the stealth belt so it is 2/3rds HEI, and 1/3rd SAP-I. Sure, this is ineffective on a round by round basis and it should take more rounds to kill than if I were aiming at weakposts, but the fact that it does nothing means its very clearly wrong.
Do keep in mind that part of this belt is an SAP-I round that should actually go through and hit internals, but that seemingly isn’t happening.
There should be a point where it sort of shouldn’t matter that I’m aiming for the trailing edge here, the wing would be severed. Again, “brute-forcing” it.
5 Likes