I think they need to add additional internal modules, especially to the wings and tail, that can be damaged and destroyed by HE (like hydraulic, oil and fuel lines), and, I wonder if fuel tanks should be more vulnerable than they are currently.
On the B-17, you can set fire to the engines easily enough, but the fuel tanks seem to be immune to damage (self-sealing should help for a few hits, but not repeated hits from large HE shells )
In the tail. there is a control line from the cockpit to the rudder, but nothing to the elevators
#
Adding/increasing Spall/Shrapnel to HE rounds that could injure and eventually kill crew could also be notable change as well. Feels like they only ever really die from direct hits.
@Smin1080p_WT any chance Sweden will get a Finnish Hawk Mk.51 this patch? All it would necessitate is a camo swap from the Hawk T.1A at a bare minimum.
I can’t test the survivability myself, so I have to go with what people post on here.
I’m a bit torn about adding more modules, because that might end up being backfiring. What use is it to have a more durable airframe, if the first couple of hits destroy an important hydraulic line or flat out cause your engines to starve instantly.
Spoiler
I also wouldn’t want to see other planes get such modules, because, while more realistic, it makes smaller planes even more vulnerable than they already are.
Now, obviously the best solution would be to overhaul the airframe damage model to include more sections to destroy, but that’s not gonna happen lol
What I personally think should be done is giving the bombers updated, more detailed modules. Add sections to the control lines and properly connect them to all control surfaces, like you mentioned.
Include more parts of the engine to the engine modules, so they take up more space, same for the cooling system.
Just don’t oversteer lol
I would like to see the “Lost tail control” death message less frequently in the future, not have it become even more common
I think the problem there is the lack of a properly modelled airframe and quite honestly, I don’t think crew survivability really is a problem (unless the pilot is tanking huge shells right now lol)
Would also be nice to get an Australian, Indian or South African Hawk in the British TT instead of second British one, but I’d assume that all of those Hawks would require a bit more work than just a camo swap :(
Yeah, that sounds like a result of the lack of a properly modelled airframe
I don’t know if overpressure is a thing on planes, but even if it is, 20/30mm isn’t gonna be enough to cause overpressure damage
I really don’t know how that could be fixed without turning pilots into balloons that pop from the first HEFI or similar shell that hits the general space around the cockpit
I dont know either, but its certainly something that oculd be explored. Moving away from heavy bombers, the number of times ive hit the cockpit of a heli with a SAM, the missile has practically exploded in the face of the pilot, and nothing, not a scratch is insane.
Sea Venom for Britain would require a few alterations. The French Sea Venom with AAM/AGM is also a lower BR than the missileless Venom in the UK tree at 8.7.
Real funkiness is that the Hawk (Legacy series, i.e pre Mk.100 series) was offered with dual sidewinder rails and the TBA dart rockets. They were also shown off and used with Spanish 550lb bombs and 81mm Orelikeon rockets in racks of 8.
I’m just here for the Spanish B.R.P 250 (550lbs) bombs, since they have 84kg of explosive mass and the Hawk can take 8 of them. Come in regular and parachute variety aswell.
#
