Anyway… Looks like they tweaked the air assault by bumping up the base HP so its winnable again.
If an Aim-54, by your logic, smacked into it, it wouldn’t have landed in a fully intact state as it did. The argument stands.
I use the B-17 in the later picture simply because there are a lot more pictures of the type of damage it can take and still carry, fly, and land somehow.
you’re not using logic stop comparing apples to oranges, a b29 would never survive a direct hit from an aim54 it’s literally impossible, posting a plane overrunning an airfield is literally not related.
1 Like
A Phoenix has >27x the explosive mass of a 88mm flak round
the absolute state of people defending bomber DMs
1 Like
An apple and an orange have already been proven scientifically to be similar. So that argument doesn’t work at all.
Except I’ve also criticized it. Not here, but in other threads. The difference, however, is that I’m not going to blindly stomp my feet. Cause it’s either you’ve got people saying to revert the whole thing.
You have people who will blindly defend it as not being an issue.
Then you have people like me who agree with some points when they are presented in a way that makes sense.
The issue is: how do you rework it? Cause on one hand, we’ve seen B-17s and other bombers survive damage that would make them inoperable and yet manage to land with the crew intact without it being a crash landing. Cause what you people fail to realize is an AIM-54 can still fail. Cause it’s waiting for a specific something to trigger it.
B-17s are very thin steel. Same with a B-29, and you argue that thin steel will magically detonate the missile, when we all know that’s not how missiles, if a missile hits something hard enough, then it explodes. Otherwise. Assuming its radar proximity fuses fail. Which, more or less, factors depend on user error, but also on maintenance failures.
Which once again opens up the keyword “Possibility”.
That said, air assault didn’t die cause of bombers; it’s been dead long before that.
lil bro look up what an aim9 did to bombers in testing, then imagine an aim54
1 Like
An Aim-9 typically uses kinetic impact rather than explosives. So no, I don’t need to look at pictures; that is how an AIM-9 Sidewinder works.
An Aim-54 uses a radar proximity sensor to detonate off the target.
Or into the target. However, from footage and pictures, it typically detonates off it. Meaning it’s relying more on concussive and shrapnel force rather than kinetic force. But apparently I’m talking about the out of below.
Your argument does not stand and I’ve already explained why… less mass impacting at a lower velocity with a fraction of the warhead… it is not the same.
1 Like
If a Flak shell detonates off a target with less of a warhead, sure.
However, that 88 flak shell detonated directly point-blank blew the whole cockpit apart. The fact that the crew who survived managed to even get it to land while dealing with decompression, as well as no measurement indicators, is beyond a miracle. Since they were very limited on if something could even work.
Generally speaking, aircraft are not made from Steel at all…
As for failure rates, in real life yes… in game we are watching them hit and impart no consequences to their targets.
Funny, up to a bout a week ago I was routinely claiming my daily 300% booster with ease, now it’s literally impossible to win…
and this is the part i am not arguing. But you people seem to blindly think i am.
Literally everything you just said is wrong… the Aim-9 is designed to explode beside its target.
I’d suggest you really do need to do some research as it is becoming increasingly apparent you don’t have a clue…
1 Like
Bud, do you really want me to bring up every bit of footage of it being fired and the fact that Aim-9’s are always shown hitting their target? Not “exploding” off. Unless you made a typo.
“Bud”…no they are not… go off and start reading, I’m not wrong.
The Aim-9 features an annular ring warhead and a proxy fuse, they are explicitly designed to not directly hit their targets but rather to detonate alongside and cut sections off…
26 seconds into the video.
The AIM-9 missile, during trials, hit an F-4 Drone. Smacked dead into it.
Did not explode; however shown to have done kinetic damage upon impact with the target.
56 Seconds into the video: 2nd Aim-9 hit a different, or likely the same, F-4 from a different camera angle. Likely a different drone.
1:25: Impact and then detonation
1:50: Impact, detonation.
1:14: Impact
Detonation.
Would you like me to continue: Mr “I know how an AIM-9 Sidewinder works”. Cause it doesn’t take rocket science to find YouTube videos that did half the work.
Aim-54C launched off F-4 Phantom II
1:29, impact, detonation of a retired US Fighter jet, now a drone.
Should I continue cause i can? But I am being nice.
Kid, I am not arguing with you… I am telling you!
You do not know how the Aim-9 works, it does have a proxy fuse and it does detonate adjacent to its target, this is not a debate, you’re just wrong.
When was the last time you launched an Aim-9**X** in Warthunder?
Please do… because you are not demonstrating what you think you are…
Edit: Wrong screenshot.
1 Like
Wild: I provide YouTube videos to argue, and you just claim I’m wrong. Such a great argument.
I ask again, when was the last time you launched an Aim-9X in Warthunder?
The screenshot I’ve given you twice now is from your video… we don’t have anything beyond the M, so I couldn’t care less how many videos you provide of the X.
I’ve explained to you how the weapons warhead works, I’ve correctly informed you that it does infact have a proxy fuse, yet you are still arguing without bothering to verify anything I’ve told you. While it does also have a contact fuse this weapon’s warhead is most effective when the missile doesn’t directly impact its target…
how was air assault after the HP buff? I tried before the update and failed before 15 mins; I got a 75% booster for failing.
I also tried using the aim-9Ls against bombers in test drive, mainly firing them 100m above bombers at a 70-80 degree angle. while the missiles still did not down them in one hit consistently, I found more bombers were taken down when the missiles were fired top down rather than fired from behind, ±20 deg elevation.