In perfect conditions, shooting at a Halifax, maybe
Guess the 35% win rate in GRB is justified.
Why waste words on wheraboos that have the knowledge depth of a teacup saucer and most likely are illiterate? I literally have better things to do.
I think I still have it printed somewhere, but this is from 2 separate documents:
1 - Trials of German 30mm Ammunition, Gordon, H.W.B. and Macdonald, J.A., Orfordness reseach station FT343, May 1945
2 - Further trials of German 30mm Ammunition, Gordon, H.W.B., Orfordness reseach station FT359, August 1946.
If you use Yandex, I think you can still find them online.
You can see on the image, the first was a HE tracer, second and third shots were HE, the last 4 were incendiary.
As much as I love playing “Download Thunder”, could the devs consolidate all their changes into one patch so I’m not pulling down .5 GB updates every day?
Found only the result of 30mm mk108 on spitfire and a Blenheim, and the hits are kinda deadly if not enough to cripple some of your components, still these tests are made on the ground not counting speed, drag and other factors like the fighter cockpit visibility and from where it’s shot, so some round could be deadly like they do nothing, I can assume that a well put strafe of cannon would at least disrupt your aerodynamics, damage your flaps or the components that make you move on the three way axis or components, thing that in that update disregarded heavily, sadly I’m still searching for ths Halifax trail against mk 108 cannons, but from the photo you sent seems more or less damage that can slow you down or shorten your gliding distance.
This bomber received a hit with a shell that has 1.5x more tnt than shell that did THIS to panther:
Btw this was recorded in live version couple mins ago.
Yes, on fighters and light/medium bombers the mineshells were absolutely devastating, especially if the shell detonated inside the wing or fuselage due to the nature of the engagements, it is easier to land those hits at higher AOAs (60º and above).
On heavy bombers(Halifax, B-17, B-24…) and super heavy (B-29) the shootdown wasn’t instant, the control surfaces were damaged/destroyed, hydraulics and control lines were severed, fuel tanks perforated and so on. The plane suffered the “death from 1000 cuts”.
Barely anything is fundamentally changed for me, except for the fact that the weak spots are now much deadlier for bombers. However, the American .50 BMGs remain a superior tool for bomber sweeps. Still, it is a disappointment because Air RB matches still run for the rest of their 25 minutes because bombers choose to run away and abuse their “invulnerability” damage model in practically every match.
The fact that you have to explicitly state this indicates that this is one of the biggest failures of the game developers: not taking proactive action to listen to and implement players’ feedback while it was on the dev server.
You had plenty of chances and time to tweak it or drop it completely before the Sky Odyssey Major Update went live, but you chose not to. Even with new changes, the state of bombers is still unrealistic.
Congratulations, you have made the state of air battles and other modes, especially GRB and naval battles, very unhealthy with the ongoing abuse of “invulnerable” attackers and bombers, rendering them still nearly unkillable by fighters and AAs.
I have no confidence or faith in seeing it fixed or reverting things back to normal, given that the battle rating changes are due this month.
So all thats changed from last update is instead of shooting bomber once with a small caliber bullet and it falling apart like ton foil, it gets shot once with a small caliber bullet and then turns into an ucontrollable fireball plummeting to the ground.
My opinion on the matter is mainly because most (well, none really but let’s say most) of the missiles we play in the game don’t even have the capability.
Sure some missiles can counter big ballistic missiles or slow moving cruise missiles
There are some projects about munitions that would be able to do it , like Raytheon MSDM Raytheon to Produce Air-Launched Anti-Missile Missile .
The problem is there is none of them in the game and not many things are publicly known about them.
McM , as it gets pictured in the game , would maybe fit an Ace Combat game (completely fictional) and not in a game that wants to be realistic.
It’s not even handholding, it’s just wrong. Ofc people will do it , because the game gives them the capability…But it’s wrong, those missiles in reality just can’t do it.
But then again you have bombers tank 5 Phoenix missiles and when it it gets fixed they’ll go and complain …So go convince them what’s accurate and what isn’t.
To explain the question better.
It’s very different killing a Phoenix missile (or R-33/37 or still air to air Anti-AWACS KS-172 or an AIM-174B with RCs they have is like a small cruise missile ) and very different an AMRAAM … for example.
And at what speeds , for example if someone takes an 80km shot and the missile nears you that time with 1,5 mach in like 10km from you and you take the shot there, yes maybe the pK is in your favor .
If both missiles are in phase that they move 4 mach and in pretty close distance, it’s most likely they miss…
I can’t disagree with their claim …but as you see it’s not that simple, it doesn’t state the conditions or examples.
Since yesterday, I’ve noticed some strange behavior with the AIM-9L missiles—they’ve almost stopped responding to flares… Even when an AIM-9L was heading straight at my SU-25 from the front, I wasn’t able to shake it off with flares; it looks like a bug in this patch.
It was the same for me—even from behind, from about 2 kilometers away, the AIM-9L turned into an AIM-9X, and the flares couldn’t shake it off… In an SU-25 without afterburners o_O.
I’ve been playing this game regularly for a few years, and I never had that feeling before; losing track of an AIM-9L has always been easy.
Let me elaborate: I have no problem confusing most infrared-guided missiles, even in a MiG-25, and without turning off the afterburner. How? I position the plane so that the CM dispensers are facing the enemy missile (they’re on the upper part of the right wing) and I fire two flares one second apart while maneuvering so that the engines disappear from the enemy missile’s seeker’s field of view and the flares take their place. I don’t know exactly how to explain this in a language that isn’t my native one, but when it comes to shaking off enemy Fox-2s, I’ve never had a problem with it.
However, something has changed since yesterday—the AIM-9s have gained significantly more resistance to flares than I’ve seen before as a regular player.
PS: Today after work, I’ll test this from the other side on the F-16A—who knows, maybe the poor F-16A in BR 12.3, crushed by BR compression and hordes of premium SU-30s (BR 13.7 fighters with a premium BR 13.3 bonus), will start to feel more playable :)
in my experience 9l always went for su25s, if they overpushed their engine, and also that is very dependent on map how 9l works in my experience, on colder maps they very much significantly more resistant, but have caveits because it should not work like that, as i said its just my experience doesnt mean it is work like that
There are also quite a few comments under the video expressing a similar sentiment; we’ve even seen the first instance of this on the forum.
Anyway, I play regularly, and yesterday the AIM-9L was exceptionally resistant to flares; until now, I’ve had no trouble evading the AIM-9L even on the MiG-25PD, often with afterburner engaged (using the proper technique I mentioned in my previous post).
