IF they were installed, they’re clearly not being used.
Im sorry but that doesn’t sound nearly enough, just based on that video i posted alone.
Easy for me, perhaps even you. But the game is balanced for the average player.
Incorrect. That is not my reasoning. Merely saying it can take a good mix of cannon fire is all I am getting at, which it clearly can.
Since we cannot assume it’s the 30mms, then we cannot assume it’s the 20mms either.
Well you told me beyond any doubt, that it cannot have 30mms.
So you apparently must’ve been around in 1940-1945?
Acting like this is going to get you yelled at by the @Forum Moderators
Your passive aggressive behavior is not welcome for discussion.
Slower projectile which seems to literally fly out at near camera level, flying in an upward angle.
Again. No way to tell unless we were physically there. Judging by the low velocity, and low fire rate, I’d bet it was 30mm fire.
Oh hey look everyone it’s the troll, bully, and the one whom always things he’s right!
1 Like
Actually we can. Because it’s not an assumption. This reads like someone that is just going based purely off of vibes.
The only guns that go below the gun camera are the MG 151s in the fuselage floor, the MG 151s in the M1 gun pod, and the 37mm BK 37 also in its gun pod.
If the 37mm is mounted, there are no MG 151s, this is explicitly stated in the manual for the R1 modification. However at the very start of the clip we see too many tracers coming from under the gun camera’s view for a singular 37mm cannon. This eliminates the 37mm and means only the 20mm can be under the gun camera (because again you can’t have both, explicitly stated).
There’s enough evidence that there are no 30mm hits in this clip. No use repeating myself. This quite literally leaves only the MG 151s, and that is with NO ASSUMPTIONS. Pure reasoning.
For a first step 10-15% is plenty good enough. And likely the correct amount
Yeah the bf110g2 footage, I checked tracer angles, rate of fire, everything, because I too believed it was the mk108 in an earlier argument, its two mg151s under the nose firing a tracer every 3rd round in its belt, the mk108s would probably temporarily blind the camera with muzzle flashes due to their placement aswell… There is a me163 guncam video where it is hitting a B17 with mk108s tho and it did take it pretty well, I believe its the only actual footage of an me163 guncam
2 Likes
There are no other cannons on the Bf 110. Certainly nothing on the bottom with this rate of fire.
Sounds very oppinionated.
On this frame we can see a tracer leaving the guns (below the gun camera)
And flying at the B-17!
How convenient!
I only think I’m always right actually
Yes it’s confirmed Me 163 gun camera footage, and probably the only in existance right now.
Even the argument of the rounds being slow falls apart from this piece of footage because here the rounds are even slower. As expected from MK 108s. MG 151s are no speed demons but, from my opinionated assumption, the tracers in the Bf 110 G-2 clip are far faster.
And to be more specific, the tracers in the Bf 110 G-2 clip start off faster but then seem to slow down a lot. Which is exactly what is expected of MG 151s, their mineshell becomes subsonic at just 500 meters.
2 Likes
Idk about that. They’re pretty consistently able to endure fires now with relatively minor damage.
Do I need to link the Mig-25PD discussion again?
Is striving for realism only acceptable when it suits your needs and agenda? That’s inconsistent and biased way to look at things.
And whether it was 30mm or 20mm used in that 110 video, it doesn’t show nearly the kind of punishment bombers endure currently in game
2 Likes
Damn big blasts, but if you take a closer look, the holes left behind seem almost “underwhelming”
In a previous thread, I did get AI sloppinators to create an equation to determine the hole that would be punched and peeled into whatever aicraft skin thickness vs tnt filler of a shell assuming surface detonation, accurate to within 10%, I made a few illustrations too of what “mk108” hits would look like
red dots to scale
5 Likes
That’s a statement alright.
When have I ever been against realism? That’s just a personal attack for the sake of it. And here I thought we were having a good discussion.
Again what is so wrong by an initial 10-15% reduction? Going 0-100 is more biased if anything, which is seemingly what you desire.
You’d be surprised what a 10% difference might make
But he didn’t explode into a massive fireball like the mk108s would do allegedly
1 Like
There are things to consider such as brandgranaten, incendiary rounds.
These don’t have much high explosive content however the British note that their blast effect is still quite substantial nonetheless. (in this gif, the round hits the angled plate on the right, pierces through, then explodes)
They dealt much less aerodynamic damage (breaking of the skin of the wing) and substantially more structural damage, to the point that a single brandgranate round did manage to do straight up structurally lethal damage to a Halifax in testing, even if they don’t set fires.
The reason for this is that the round just spews a thermite-like incendiary compound everywhere when it explodes which, I imagine, kind of just melts the plane from the inside.
3 Likes
Pretty much. The only downside is lack of thrust.
This was perfectly landable if I had an actual runway and not a carrier hidden by what felt like 5km of clouds.
Was this the one where you wanted your mach 3 interceptor to see aircraft without RWRs?
that too, see you also have to consider mine shells have a stronger effect on smaller enclosed spaces due to, well, a blast going off in an enclosed space blasting the skin OUT. Example being that test vs what was it, a spitfire tail? tiny vs a b17 wing, right?
I wasnt going to try and task anything to calculate that, too many variables, I just wanted to see how big of a hole a surface detonation would make vs x material at x thickness vs x tnt filler, because when you start adding all those other things, its not just the skin you need to calculate for, its the aircraft, wether that section already has holes to “vent” out overpressure, hell, how high the damn thing is in the sky and how thin the atmosphere is… Too much
When you said that 10-15% would suffice. Based on the video i posted alone, 10-15% less rounds hitting, still without taking off the wing doesn’t sound all that realistic
Merely an observation based on what you said.
Assumptions about what i want? Im up for resuming good discussions but i would hope that you don’t assume things about me going forward.
I have stated over and over and over again in this thread that i do not want bombers to become as fragile as they were.
Cherry picking the conversation as per usual I see lol. That’s not what I said at all, but please keep lying, it only makes you look worse.