Show me the proof of a B-17s wing root being this strong. You might have to dig pretty deep to find it, but don’t worry, i have time.
Why do all that extra work when just the cockpit is enough?
WW2: B-17 Flying Fortress Takes Fire From a Bf 110 | 4k, 60fps, Colorized, Sound Design, AI Enhanced
Done. Also, you have no idea how to properly engage a bomber.
You aren’t always facing the cockpit.
1 Like
Bombers are not as bad as everyone is saying, it’s just most people are slow to adapt. Personally I think the bombers damage model is pretty accurate to irl, and I wish more people pushed for realism in this game (people think you have to sacrifice fun for realism, that’s blatantly not true), but not all people are made equal. The thing that gaijin failed at is giving all aircraft the same treatment. Wings or tails just don’t break off, and that goes for fighters and interceptors. People are going to read this and go “well fighters are going to become like bombers.” No, fighters components are closer together and are actually susceptible to HE like ammunition unlike bombers where it’s a lot of empty space and the import components were at the front( bring ap-i or aphe, it will change your life.). I’m sick right now, so don’t judge my writing too hard.
Edit: also not only tactics are important, but also choosing a plane ment to hunt bombers. Y’alls bf 109s ain’t gonna cut it
1 Like
For the B-17, the wing comes off a few shells early for what was historically documented.
If you want to kill them quickly and easily with little effort, use some rockets. They are easy to hit.
1 Like
You showed a video where the B-17 takes only a fraction of the hits compared to the video i posted. And the hits are scattered around the plane instead of concentrated on a single area.
Plus the video isn’t original, it’s ai enhanced.
Fyi. that film was used in training by LW to show how to take down said planes. So it was destroyed.
You dont need to be, or you can slightly maneuver to be in a position to do so.
See the video i posted, hardly seems realistic don’t you think?
How many rounds do you reckon i hit into the wing root area in that video? Still didn’t come off.
Well whoever is flying sure took their sweet time.
The bomber could have been taken down faster and easier if they aimed for the engines better, also Im curious of what belts they took
Please note how you’re always aiming at the same engine and center fuselage up until the last strafe. You’re embarrassing yourself. Please learn to spread your damage.
Luftwaffe gun camera of attacks on B-17s
And so was the B-17 you engaged. The issue you have is that you don’t know how to spread your bullets to do damage. You expect to shoot the same empty mass endlessly and get a wing chop when that rarely happens IRL. The redundant metal exists for a reason.
Learn to aim first. Bombers should never be a point-and-click.
This is how you actually take down a bomber safely. You spread your damage and don’t make yourself an easy target for their gunners. Come in from the sides and front, like the Japanese and Germans. If you’re in a lightly armed fighter aircraft, avoid those engagements when possible. You aren’t primarily designed to do it, and obviously won’t be good at it. As the Germans, stick to their Interceptors and high-altitude aircraft like the Fw 190 and Bf 110 series.
Now imagine if you’d started your run with your last action instead of everything else in that video. You could have ended him in an instant.
2 Likes
I mean he did exactly what I expected most people to do thats been playing for awhile, and I don’t fault him I just rather him to direct his frustrations at the more underlining issue. That issue being that fighters and interceptors still shattered too pieces, and when gaijin fixes that then we can “help” refine the bomber models.
From my pov there are two ways to look at this prediction:
- Gaijin messed up and will tone it down
- Gaijin chose this way deliberately
From a holistic perspective you have actually way more indicators for point 2. I mean we had for more than 6 months the unkillable CANT Z 1007 in wt Air RB and the long trend shows an ever increasing pressure for an enforced “arcadification” of Air RB to a glorified Air AB+.
From my pov the in-game data (like who benefits the most within the player base) will together with their SL/RP income projections for specific player groups decide what happens.
If my assumption (new players benefit more than veterans) is correct things might be slightly adjusted but the general direction will remain on this path.
The reason is obvious:
-
As a provider of a video game with an ultra-strong grinding component you have to ensure that newer players can progress with minimal efforts through the lower BRs into the way more profitable jet segment.
-
Pre-update prop-Air RB required even from experienced long term players very high efforts to use a rather simple tool like base bombing as the game meta was ultra hostile towards bombers.
-
From a pure economic pov it is way smarter to adjust parameters which increase retention levels for newer players than for veteran players - so i would bet that the current situation will remain in place if gaijin’s data would prove that they are on track.
1 Like
If it was 2 then yeah full disapointment to whoever greenlit it
All I see is a player needing to be coddled cause they can’t learn to aim. If he’s as experienced as his profile shows he is, he should be able to adapt instantly, as I did.
This is the same issue I have with top-tier ground. There’s no skill in point-and-click gameplay. Bring back skill to War Thunder.
And for you, stop being rash for one moment. Not everything is malicious. Seriously, how DARE people want to use something that isn’t a light fighter for once?
Could it be that Gaijin wanted to shift the meta realistically in their game and actually make Interceptors, heavy fighters, light bombers, frontline bombers, and heavy strike aircraft useful again, all in one patch? Of course not. You see malice in everything, as directed by your ad hominem-riddled breakdown, which subtly considers anyone who doesn’t want to use “meta light fighters” a “handheld noob,” as seen by your statements such as “enforced Arcadification” and “progress with minimal effort”, which you use to diminish the quality of gameplay for heavier bombers.
It’s always “patch is for noobs” when the game gets harder, when in reality it’s making it harder for “noobs” to slap an enemy with a single 20mm bullet and chop their B-29 in half.
The only people complaining about this update are the people who can’t do anything but spam their entire magazine into one spot and claim “OP”. Every single clip provided shows that same gameplay. Have some backbone and return to basics. Learn how to actually fight and stop relying on handheld “tail cut loose” and “wing break” mechanics that are outliers in reality and basically never happen.
Treating newer players and those who choose bomber gameplay over fighter gameplay as lessers is a horrifically scummy behavior, and I will not tolerate this borderline classist behavior from you. What a person wishes to play does not make them less of a player than you.
It was me
Im well aware where i was shooting, i did it on purpose, i recorded this to show to unrealistically durable the wing root is.
AP on both the 13mm and 20mm guns.
To take out the gunners to have better ability to get into position and demonstrate the unrealistically durable wing root.
Yes, i was very low on ammo and decided to pilot snipe him.
Im not, see above. And i already know how to.
I do.
Don’t need to, already know.
I agree. But should that apply to the pilot as well? Because even though you think you know me, i point and click bomber regularly.
Thanks i don’t need the lesson.
You won’t believe what im about to say. See above. And this might surprise you.
Whole 11 years. And what you expected wasn’t right. Sorry.
Boy the assumptions about me are running rampant today. Maybe tone down the personal insults?
Also;
I dont think it’s an empty mass, how would the wing stay attached?
All that was to demonstrate how even full AP loadout with that many hits on the same ~3x3 meter area, doesn’t catastrophically damage the wing structure at the root, to a point where in addition to the damage the aerodynamic force doesn’t rip off the wing. What do you think?
I hope that we could keep the discussion civil, without insulting ones skill level, making assumptions about them or anything of the sort.
On a very important side note so that there’s no misconceptions; i do not expect bombers to be taken down as easily as pre-patch. But i think the current state is overdone. Im simply trying to discuss it.
How many clips can you show of a B-17’s reinforced and redundant wing failing from cannon fire?
You have no reason to go for gunners when you should have just killed his pilot to begin with. Admitting firing solid AP ammunition doesn’t help your case either, as it’s just going to pass straight through the aircraft where it penetrates at those angles.
“decided” and it should have been your first goal.
You did and I showed you a clip with 50 cals where I didn’t risk death and fire in the same place over and over again flying in a predictably straight line behind an enemy bomber.
Cip doesn’t show it.
Clip doesn’t show it.
Pilots are a critical weak spot for all aircraft, and the B-17 has co-pilots to resist such attacks. Aiming for a weak spot to kill quickly is not “point-and-click” and shows prior strategy to an engagement over “shoot till something works”, which you demonstrated in your clip.
Nice malicious edit of my message. I did not say “blahblahblah”. You’re ruining your chances of people taking you seriously.
You showed a clip of yourself dumping ammunition into the same spot for a minute. Where’s the assumption?
They are redundant internally, and AP does little damage to open space.
The Germans chose HE for a reason. AP ammunition simply did not do much, as it mostly passed through the enemy. It also shows how little you understand about aircraft anatomy, as for large bombers like the B-17, their entire outer skin is used in conjunction with the inner frame to cope with damage. Simply poking a ton of holes through a couple of metal bars isn’t going to snap the wing off in level flight.
Civil is a fun word to use when you modified a reply to make me seem uncivil. Why did you do that?
Take your own advice before giving it to others.
Historical documentation shows it took far more to kill a B-17 when firing at the wing. They are hardly overdone. Considering how rare it was for a large aircraft’s wing to cut loose, you would think it would be common sense at this point.
You must have missed when i said:
and
See, both of those replies show clearly that i was doing exactly what i did for demonstration purposes.
But you insist on talking down to me in a patronizing manner for example;
Yes, i decided to do it. I know it’s hard to people like you, who act superior towards others to acknowledge that there are people in the world who are better at certain things than you, ie. me being able to decide to pilot snipe him at that moment.
I do think the cockpit and pilot/pilots are weak spots that you can aim for and “point-and-click”
Yes well it was a reaponse to the patronizing tone you took towards me due to the video, without any prior knowledge of me. And you decided to continue with the same tone on your second reply, with an image to boot.
But, I agree it contradicts what i said at the end. My apologies, i’ll edit it now.
You’re still contradicting yourself by claiming you’ll be better while still using Ad Hominem attacks. I have never once claimed to be “the best”, nor will I ever claim to be. At the end of the day, I play for fun and don’t care if someone’s better than me. To this day, I’m still learning from mistakes. You, however, continue to make claims without documentation or video evidence to back up such claims, yet you continue to confidently claim the aircraft are too durable. If you wish for others to treat you as credible, do not use Bare Assertion Fallacies as a major point in your messages and actually provide evidence for your claims.
Your next step, if you desire for me to treat you as a constructive member of this topic is to stop telling and start showing.
If rejecting unproven claims while trying to tell you how to improve your gameplay makes me “patronizing”, so be it. I’m the only one here that’s sent actual documentation and graphs. There’s little reason for me to keep replying if you won’t show yourself as constructive.
I never said you claimed to be the best. But you certainly acted like you are better and know better than me, when you replied to the video for the first time.
And when i said:
You decided to go with replies like this:
All this with only the premise of me saying:
And
Clearly indicating i was shooting at the wing root on purpose. Nothing indicates i was trying to take out the B-17 as fast as possible, or expected this to be the best tactic.
It was just me, asking to see evidence of the structural integrity of the B-17s wing root after that much sustained fire.
Yes, you took a patronizing tone and started “teaching” me about how to take down bombers as if i didn’t know. You de-railed the second question into a “lesson” on how to take out bombers.
Yet there still isn’t any proof that the wing structure could take anywhere near close to that kind of sustained fire to such a concentrated area.
This is basically saying that no matter how much you would shoot AP rounds at the wing structure on a concentrated area, it’s just going to make endless holes into the structure without it ever getting compromised?
The wings are under constant stress, and eventually the internal structure would be too weak to support the weight of the whole wing.
I dont need to have a doctorate in the anatomy of a plane to understand understand structural strength under constant stress.
Common sense also says that such concentrated fire was hardly ever achieved due to not having the luxury of mouse aim.
Sending a cut out (can’t remember the english word, sorry) picture of a B-17 is a document yes. But it doesn’t provide anything other than a picture of a plane with internal structures.
They did, their time on target was also considerably lower, and damage to the skin of an allied bombers wings actually affected it’s ability to stay airborne. Unlike what happens in game currently
Now you’re just trying to go back and forth with me. I told you to send some actual proof for your claims, not contradict yourself again.
Just send some proof on how the War Thunder footage you sent is wrong by showing an actual clip of a B-17 falling apart from AP rounds IRL. I’m not here to squabble with you.
I’m actually starting to root for you finding it just so I didn’t waste my time. My first request was for people to send proof and you’ve never done it.
Im not contradicting myself, i simply made an observation based on the tips you gave me on taking down bombers.
Well i asked first to see evidence of the bombers being that durable, you have provided nothing to prove otherwise either.