I lubb the bombers again

[Just_Baron]

@TheAnnoyingFinn

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.

Just_Baron:

@TheAnnoyingFinn

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.

[TheAnnoyingFinn]

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.

@Just_Baron

Also, you have no idea how to properly engage a bomber.

And when i said:

@TheAnnoyingFinn

How many rounds do you reckon i hit into the wing root area in that video? Still didn’t come off

You decided to go with replies like this:

@Just_Baron

You’re embarrassing yourself. Please learn to spread your damage.

@Just_Baron

Learn to aim first. Bombers should never be a point-and-click.

All this with only the premise of me saying:

@TheAnnoyingFinn

Show me the proof of a B-17s wing root being this strong.

And

@TheAnnoyingFinn

How many rounds do you reckon i hit into the wing root area in that video? Still didn’t come off.

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.

@Just_Baron

There’s little reason for me to keep replying if you won’t show yourself as constructive

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.

@Just_Baron

Simply poking a ton of holes through a couple of metal bars isn’t going to snap the wing off in level flight.

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.

@Just_Baron

It also shows how little you understand about aircraft anatomy

I dont need to have a doctorate in the anatomy of a plane to understand understand structural strength under constant stress.

@Just_Baron

Considering how rare it was for a large aircraft’s wing to cut loose

Common sense also says that such concentrated fire was hardly ever achieved due to not having the luxury of mouse aim.

@Just_Baron

I’m the only one here that’s sent actual documentation and graphs.

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.

@Just_Baron

The Germans chose HE for a reason

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

[Just_Baron]

@TheAnnoyingFinn

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.

@TheAnnoyingFinn

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

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.

[TheAnnoyingFinn]

@Just_Baron

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.

Im not contradicting myself, i simply made an observation based on the tips you gave me on taking down bombers.

@Just_Baron

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

Well i asked first to see evidence of the bombers being that durable, you have provided nothing to prove otherwise either.

[Just_Baron]

@TheAnnoyingFinn

Well i asked first to see evidence of the bombers being that durable, you have provided nothing to prove otherwise either.

I sent you video footage of a 30mm laying into the rear of a B-17, including its wings. I also sent you an X-ray graph of a B-17’s internals to show you how many redundant materials are in a B-17. That’s far more than you’ve given.

B-17’s attacked by German Luftwaffe fighters - Combat footage

If Luftwaffe fighters could simply “chop” a bomber’s wing off reliably, why didn’t why do it?

It’s rather simple really. Even a 70kg~ explosive from a Nike Ajax couldn’t completely blow the wing off.

Nike Ajax: Destroys a B-17 Flying Fortress

In WW2, the Germans even found that the B-17 could resist large explosive yields from relative proximity.

[Real_K_Soze]

@Just_Baron

And for you, stop being rash for one moment. Not everything is malicious.

Relax - i am not your enemy.

@Just_Baron

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.

This looks like a misunderstanding - you might change your mind if you read this:

1. Changes to Bomber Survivability - #1771 by Real_K_Soze

   and this:

2. Changes to Bomber Survivability - #617 by Real_K_Soze

Which should be evidence enough to prove that i am neither a fighter/ strike aircraft main (127d playtime) nor a bomber main (160d playtime) and assess the “pre-damage buff era” similar to you.

This for final clarification:

@Real K Soze@live

• I mean i am happy for real enthusiasts that they can now reach a base (in case they got not dragged in a prolonged turret fight with another bomber) but i see mainly fighter players in bombers trying to rack up more or less free kills about this excessive HE damage resistance.

The next quote looks like a quite heavy insult based on a wrong assumptions:

@Just_Baron

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.

Just in case you are not interested in adjusting your assessment: shall we meet next Sunday morning (near my castle or yours) for a classic pistol duel?

[TheAnnoyingFinn]

@Just_Baron

I sent you video footage of a 30mm laying into the rear of a B-17, including its wings

Amount of shots hitting a single area is not even remotely comparable to what i did in the WT video.
Also, it is 20mm fire from the Bf 110.

@Just_Baron

If Luftwaffe fighters could simply “chop” a bomber’s wing off reliably, why didn’t why do it?

I didn’t claim they could do it reliably or that they would use it as a tactic. Obviously HE was the better choice. And it should be in game as well. But ever since the update, the surface of the bombers soaks up the HE damage without much damage to the surface, or anything internal.

See LW pilots didn’t suffer from bugs where the surface off the B-17’s suddenly started making their HE nearly ineffective.

If that’s fixed, and HE actually deals damage to the skin of the aircraft, causing reduced airflow and the problems that come with that, i’ll gladly use it over AP again.

@Just_Baron

Even a 70kg~ explosive from a Nike Ajax couldn’t completely blow the wing off.

As someone who clearly knows his B-17’s, you must also be familiar with the B-17 called “Wee Willie” and it’s story?

Even a 70kg~ explosive couldn’t, but Flak could. See how it is not impossible?

It is as much of proof as 20mm shells hitting a B-17 in the rear into various different spots instead of concentrated into a singular area on a wing.

[願我的祖先保佑我免受BVVD之害]

@NeTsPaWn

I know a lot of air mains, especially fighter pilots, are complaining that bombers are too beefy now, but come on man. Historically, many of these aircraft were incredibly tough and were built to take punishment.

yea im pretty sure the B52 or the Tu95 was not “built to withstand 7-9 direct hits of amraam/R77-1” nor was a Tu4 meant to withstand 5 hits of Phoenixes.

@NeTsPaWn

For once, flying a bomber actually feels like you have a chance to stay in the fight instead of instantly becoming somebody’s free RP piñata.

Wanna know what a bomber without escort is in real life? A free RP pinata.
We went from “Bombers break wings and tails the second a bullet hits it” to “i can literally fire off multiple modern AAMs at a bomber and it will still fly before burning down”

Thank you Aspect for the vid, this basically summarizes the issue.

[NeTsPaWn]

I hear you on that 1, Do you think Gaijin did this with purpose? I mean it really stinks to bring things in 7.0 Yuuuuge Bomber, and get one tapped by some single rando missile. This forces enemy’s to choose to determine it’s worth it to dump a load on such an aircraft? Rather go after 1 missile kills like fighters? I seem to have greater survivability with fighters just knowing that. Having a blast lol

[願我的祖先保佑我免受BVVD之害]

@NeTsPaWn

I hear you on that 1, Do you think Gaijin did this with purpose?

Overcorrection with 0 quality control feedback. Its like this with almost everything. Its always “Lets add X” followed by “oops shit its too strong” followed by “lets add counter” followed lastly by “oops shit its too strong, oh well leave it like this, whos up for drinks”

@NeTsPaWn

I mean it really stinks to bring things in 7.0 Yuuuuge Bomber, and get one tapped by some single rando missile.

the lowest missile i remember is at 8.3 on cougar and its a really shit 9B that will generally either not connect due to kinetics or can be dodged by slight movement.
the Tu95 and B52H are around 8.3-8.7 where they can get intercepted by either 9P/9Js or F104s. Which is honestly fine and how things should be. Its the role of the lawn dart to be a fast interceptor.
The big bombers however do get flares and chaff to avoid missiles so theres some things it can do.

The big problem is that while bombers do need to be slightly more resistant to small arms fire than they were previously, the current iteration is simply not good. The bombers should under no circumstance survive missiles purpose built to kill them (Phoenixes were an answer to russian nuclear capable bombers)
Alternatively, if gaijin was capable of doing it, a bomber should have some AI escorts, not enough to instakill whatever gets close but enough to force it to reconsider its approach on top of having to avoid onboard turret fire.

@NeTsPaWn

This forces enemy’s to choose to determine it’s worth it to dump a load on such an aircraft?

No this just makes it that the bomber will climb really high up so that the enemy fighters either need to commit heavily to running after one dude doing jack shit for the entire match than just hugging the stratosphere or they ignore it.
While i agree that the bombers prior to this patch were god awful to play (and ive played a way too much of bombers when i was doing my first air tree years ago) the pendulum swinging over to the completely opposite side doesnt really fix anything.

Also annoyingly what ive noticed is that a lot of people make this once again into an “Us vs Them” mentality of “you fighter mains” when in reality both previously and now things were and are not good. A right amount of balance has to be struck between making bombers feel sufficiently tanky while not turning them into a chunk of granite and sufficiently fragile where you cant just fly in a straight line and just sit in gunner view with very low chance of actually dying.

[NeTsPaWn]

Yeah, I think we’re mostly arguing over where the durability slider should stop. 😂 I’m not asking for bombers to become airborne Nokia 3310s. If a Phoenix, an actual purpose-built “delete large Soviet thing from sky” missile smacks my bomber, fair enough. Start playing Taps.

What I don’t want is going back to the old days where you spend six minutes climbing in 80 tons of strategic bomber, some random fighter wanders over, coughs a burst vaguely in your direction, and suddenly your left wing has filed for independence.

I actually like your escort idea a lot. Not AI Terminators that vaporize anything within 4 km, just enough teeth that intercepting a bomber requires an actual approach instead of “ooooh, flying RP cheese!” Bombers should be dangerous to attack, not impossible to kill.

So yeah, tweak it if necessary, but please use a screwdriver, Gaijin, not the usual sledgehammer. We finally got bombers out of hospice. Let them enjoy the sunshine for a little while. 😂 Great points kedrigern. I def. do not want to out “fighter mains” as they are a integral part of bomber play.

[Voidcore999]

I fully agree with you, bombers were historically meant to survive a butd ton of bullets, I mean interceptors or heavy fighters were designated for this role, to shoot them down. most german warplanes for example had 30mm guns equipped to actually kill these chunky allied bombers.

Well… most of the people are complaining now, that their Fighters with small bb guns actually don’t kill the bombers with one barrage of fire and chip off their whole wing or set them instantly on fire.
Before the update bombers were just too easy to shoot from the sky and just flew around like ballons to pop.

As @HighRiskNoReward allready said, they swung the pendelum much farther in the opposite direction than it needed. They just should find a sweet spot were it’s rightfully balanced. Or just rework damage models of all planes entirely.

[Dregbag]

if bomber gunners have expanding circle accuracy, why don’t fighter?

[RLRGC]

wdym ? if you mean the guns get less accurate while you hold fire, fighters get it. You simply spray less in fighters than in bombers.

[DirtyOldCommie]

@Just_Baron

In WW2, the Germans even found that the B-17 could resist large explosive yields from relative proximity.

That quote only highlights that the B-17 was more resilient than a He 111, not that it was resistant per se to “large explosive yields from relative proximity”.

[coffee_can-psn]

interesting, however 12.7s are currently the best anti bomber weapons due to fire and velocity capacity, while 30, 45, and 50mm do basically nothing.

if you think I don’t know what I’m doing I’m free for a 1v1 tonight and tomorrow

I like they made them not a meme but they’re literally so overturned it’s hilarious

[TheAnnoyingFinn]

@Voidcore999_

Well… most of the people are complaining now, that their Fighters with small bb guns actually don’t kill the bombers with one barrage of fire and chip off their whole wing or set them instantly on fire

Straight up lying, why? Most people who are opposing the current state of the damage models agree that the pre-patch durability was laughable, and that is indeed NOT what they want.
This is the general consensus;

@Voidcore999_

Before the update bombers were just too easy to shoot from the sky and just flew around like ballons to pop.

And from reading posts from people opposing the current state, as well as myself, this is actually what you see most;

@Voidcore999_

they swung the pendelum much farther in the opposite direction than it needed. They just should find a sweet spot were it’s rightfully balanced. Or just rework damage models of all planes entirely.

[dovah4]

It’s too far in the other direction, but I think the current meta that shows up is pretty promising and WAY more technical now since Bombers now actually have an extra role.
Bombers are not just used for bombing but I find that there is a benefit to having bombers behave offensively on your team as they can absorb damage and be generally large tanky, and can harass your enemies.

They’re basically a support unit as trying to pick a fight with a bomber is long and arduous and if you’re in the middle of a fight, a bomber can basically be a moving turret platform to help you. It’s weird how easily and capably they synergize with normal fighters

If you’re in a fighter, you have a bomber properly behaving aggressively, you can find yourself in trouble if you need to engage a fighter and the bomber can keep close.

On the otherhand, if you’re just bombers fighting fighters. You’ve more or less lost as you’re going to have fighters just destroy ground targets faster than you unless you can force the engagement, but Fighters have the edge on just—going away and moving onto the next target.

You’re support, but you need fighters to win.

For instance. On the closing segments of a match. I had an Fw-190 and Bf-109 wanting me bad. But I was talking with a B-25 to wait till I engage them. I got them into a turning engagement, and the bomber, due to so many fields of fire, could properly cut into the enemy’s turn by using their gunners. This made it where the Fw-190 had to peel off, same with the Bf-109, and they struggled to contend us because the B-25 was a hard target to kill and having someone just shove bullets in your face no matter what was annoying. I had more energy at the end of the engagement as I gathered it back quicker. We split so the bomber can catch the eye of the Fw-190, and I went for the Bf-109 to finish him off. Fw-190 realistically should’ve focused on me with his Bf-109 friend, killed me, and then ignored the B-25 to go ground pound and the B-25 couldn’t really do anything in return besides be picked apart like a bunch of hyena’s biting at a large wildebeest.

This was the most technical I have ever played in War Thunder as there was more elements than just fighter vs fighter combat.

Now of course, at later tiers you can just be destroyed by a crap load of cannons, but the BRs of 3.3-.4.7 are really unique in that regard

[dovah4]

@TheAnnoyingFinn

As someone who clearly knows his B-17’s, you must also be familiar with the B-17 called “Wee Willie” and it’s story?

We’re comparing the difference of an HE round directly smacking the interior of a wing and detonating it, causing over pressure, meanwhile, you have high explosives smacking the outside edges of a wing.
Realistically it all depends on exactly where it was hit.
By no means is this a defense of the current state of bombers. As currently, incendiary needs a complete overhaul which would be one of the partial fixes.
Blowing a plane’s wing off was a catastrophic even. For aircraft lost from structure damage generally made the aircraft uncontrollable due to damaged controls, cables, electrical and so on.
In-game this isn’t represented, and realistically. What people eventually did was move to incendiary to light the target on fire.
Currently fuel tank fires in-general are not common to achieve and engine fires are usually what occurs, and for fighters, most engine fires come from an engine kill, so you would’ve went down anyway.

[TheAnnoyingFinn]

The “Wee Willie” reference, was just to show that a B-17s wing isn’t as structurally indestructible as he appears to claim.

And in the video i posted, shooting a B-17 in-game, i was using AP. Don’t know if you meant that when saying

@dovah4

high explosives smacking the outside edges of a wing