The only real bomber I see this idea being a problem for is the Be-6, but that’s fairly easily hand waved away. gaijin has in the past refused to add features based on BR. all the other planes that could potentially get these features face jets, or are jets themselves.
to counter these bombers, Gyro gunsights (without the radar rangefinder) could be modeled to work. You see a Lincon, put in its wingspan to find the range, and rip it apart from 1000 yards away
another thing that needs to happen is that .50 caliber machine guns need to be brought up to spec.
According to this chart, there should be about a 15% chance that a P-47 is brought down by 10 random .50 caliber hits. And that just isn’t happening ingame. With .50 calls you need to hit at least a few dozen shots it feels like.
My last experiment was half a year ago when real shatter was introduced. Maybe they fixed it. But with gaijins track record regarding math i doubted that.
But then rounds with filler did go off spherical relative to the target.
You should stop looking at A kills, just look at B kills.
WT treats B kills as A kills in most cases due to rampant killstealing in 2013.
But yeah all planes in WT are too rugged. It’s not just .50 cals. Single hit deaths are way too low in WT
And remember this is without cumulative damage!
So they should be even more effective.
I am fine with gaijin going back to A kills being A kills and B kills being B kills. The overdramatic death animations will stop and no longer are wings ripped off everywhere. However it will plunge arcade in the 4th circle of hell.
Regarding bombers, the issue is that they aren’t defenseless in all modes, in arcade they are ok, in RB they are useless and in sim they are gunships of doom. So solutions need to keep that in mind. The best solution is just to remove them fron sim, as with autopilot and mouse aim gunner they are a railshooter not a simulator… They don’t fit anyway.
But gaijin would never do it.
I don’t think the solution is to remove all bombers. I think the solution is three things
My opinion on sim is not as fully formed as it needs to be, I didn’t have the time to get into it. That’s changing though. Gaijin does not make any money off of strategic bombers anymore. All recent releases have been tactical bombers and strike aircraft.
I was just talking about sim. Just remove them from the vehicle selection and then you can change them to fit AB/RB however you want. The problem with bombers in sim is that they retain their arcade properties (arcade as in the concept not the gamemode). So they get an instructor when engaging the autopilot which can hold it in the air where a human would fail. Then they still have the same mouse aim view they have in AB and RB, with mouse aim.
Imagine the effect that has on a mode where noone else has mouse aim and effective ranges are reduced to a quater of what they are in RB and you still get your 1km effective mouse aim range fighting fighters firing at 500m max and reliably at 250m… Yeah it’s a mess.
The crosshairs alone won’t fix the issue. They need lose the stabilized 3rd person view. I mean GTA 5 has more realistic gunnery in gunnery positions, let that sink in.
Gyroscopic sights fighters won’t help much, since the main reason is the psychomoter difference, that cannot be fixed with sights.
yeah if you go into gunnery mode you should have to set your trim minimum.
Nah, not enough.
Sim is sim and it should be a simulator and fullfill the minimum for that to be true.
All controls should at least be psychomotorically similar to the real controls, something like mouse-joy is fine.
Half-measures don’t work. Gaijin tries this with bombers for 10years and it never worked.
A removal (from sim) would help sim and AB/RB.
I don’t think that just straight-up removing bombers would solve the issue, because it’s not the bombers, it’s the way turrets are aimed that is the problem. I think a good approximation for turret aim in sim would be to bind it to buttons like WASD, arrow keys or your flight stick rather than it being solely mouse controlled.
No actually for tripid mounted guns mouse aim in itself is fine. Since it is indeed a goood psychomotorical Approximation.
Exception are remote operated guns like on the b29.
The issue is aimin all guns at once and the auto stabilization. Something not even GTA V has.
I get damaged/killed fairly often while I’m flying away from a bomber tumbling through the air. In WT you can still get perfect aim in such situation, while IRl it would be physically impossible for gunners to be able to aim their guns while the plane is rotating in 2 planes at a decent rate.
Sure that’s due to the stabilization.
If you view would rotate with the plane those people would hit jack.
2-4 Berezin UB bullets have struck the target. I don’t think the bullets were landing in pairs for whatever reason, so my best bet is 3 bullets have landed.
Wing is destroyed.
I fired super short burst, then wing went “pop”.
Give me 3-4 Berezins in the nose with 300 RPG and I don’t need any other weapons.
“Real sh*tter” is ridiculously over the top.
40g bullet containing 3,2g of explosive equivalent: orange wing root and nose. Hilarious.
But the same vs cockpit window and pilot’s head/neck - and nothing (but milimeters in almost any direction nd pilot gets red, but that’s beside the point):
And a funny addition, US .50 cal incendiary bullet to the head, point blank. Same shot to the engine? 0 damage.
13mm IT does way more damage both vs engine and vs pilot. Why? DON’T KNOW!
Conclusion: damage is ALL OVER THE PLACE.
I’m well aware of that report.
The kill chance is for a random hit and how likely it is to take out the aircraft with damage to a critical system.
A single 20mm HEI hit had a chance down a P-47 with just 6% chance with with an A kill when the attack was from the front and below.
That 6% included:
50% of the chance to take down the P-47 comes from the chance to take out the Pilot.
For a 37mm M54 HE round the chances grow to 8.2% for the structure and just 5% for the Pilot.
Which tells us:
Which basically tells us that a pilot requires very little effort to take out, resulting in overkill, while a planes structure can withstand a lot more punishment.
You said:
So you are talking, first of all, about a “B” kill and secondly you take the result of random hits and compare them to the results of specific hits.
When more than 50% of the killing power of 20mm HEI comes from damaging engine, pilot and fuel system, how exactly is that comparable to the instance where I hit the Bearcat in the wings, which only included structure?
There was practically zero chance those hits would have done any critical damage to the plane that would have caused it to crash, and only a small chance that the hits would have caused a loss in controls for the ailerons for one wing, which would have resulted in greatly reduced combat performance.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
I never said two 20mm hits wouldn’t be able to shoot down a F8F, I just said that those hits wouldn’t have done it.
But for some reason people either don’t care or just ignore these facts and either imply that those hits should have shot down the plane or just want that everytime they hit a plane with two HEI rounds it will go down.
It’s not and how does that make any sense with my position that planes shouldn’t be shot down so easily?
If mouse aim results in players being much more accurate with their shots, then TTK would already be lower than in RL.
So how does the current implementation make sense when you have both mouse aim and a fighter loses its wings from one or two HE rounds?
Yeah, sure, if you actually use the data to make an argument that makes sense instead trying to prove a point that’s actually the opposite of what the data shows.
Even for the B kill scenario, more than 66% involves damaging engine, pilot and fuel tanks and is missing the point that the a smaller round that doesn’t immediatly disable the plane, might do so in the long run.
When you hit critical systems you can easily down a fighter with a short burst of 20mm and 12.7mm rounds, but 20mm HEI rounds ripping planes and tails all the time, like that example with the J2M2,
make no sense when Mineshells exists that are literally designed to cause the most structural damage to a plane.
Of course i did. I also stated that B kills are represent as A kills in WT due to killstealing.
I totally agree with you that wing rips etc. Are unrealistic.
I am not going to quote the rest since i already explained the issue of gainin overdramatizising the kills to reduce killstealing.
This issue is from 2013 and shouldn’t be news to anyone. It’s a change i never agreed with but it did happen… So yes in that regard WT is unrealistic. But it is unrealistic in how the plane dies not if the plane dies.
You are misrepresentingy point by leaving out information that i gave to make it look different then what i actually said. Not an honest tactic.
Also my argument from the get go was about random hits… So yeah, no clue what you are doing here.
That’s like your opinion.
If that was the case, planes that are on fire or in a spin would just be immediatly counted as destroyed but they aren’t.
50% of my kills are kills that happen due to the plane crashing shortly after my attack, with some of them getting stolen by players chasing after already dead planes.
I don’t get where you get this idea that kill times in WT just happen to be based on some specific US document that talks about specific scenarios.
From the history of WT we can savely say that anything in WT is just based on whatever the developer feel like rounds should do.
I would remind anyone here that more than 50% of shell types are not working correctly while the other 50% just give the illusion of they are doing what they are supposed to do.
I’m pretty sure that a 20mm Ball, Tracer Incendairy or even AP in some case, should knock out a pilot when hit.
But magically that’s not the case for most rounds.
That’s why HE and AP are like the only types of rounds that any player ever uses.
You called me out saying:
Then saying:
Which is not true because nothing other thant the structure of the plane was damaged.
Or in 1 out of 10 cases the F8F would have had lost controls for the left wing.
Hardly a lethal outcome.
That’s exactly how I would describe what you did.
Really not an opinion. When WT started tge destruction if the control cables running through the plane was one of the most common reasons to lose control without a kill being counted.
The most common where tail controls since those run through the entire plane.
This was then replaced by the structure falling off and tge kill being granted immidiately.
That’s what happened to that wing. IRL the cable would have just snapped with the pilot being unable to recover the plane… Gaijin changed it to the wingparts falling off. Same outcome less killstealing opportunities.
This is also what would happen to the bearcat, the cable would be damaged and it wouldn’t just lose control in one wing but both, since the cable runs through both.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/s/8ig2Tn2jpG
You can clearly see hiw easy they are damaged back in the day.
I never say they did. Hiw did you get that impression? I applied the Definitions from the paper to WT, to compare WT with real life. Not rocket science, not hard to understand.
Sure i even said so myself. What’s your point?
I responded to a specific claim where WT was compared to real life and the claim was “that would never happen” which wasn’t true. That’s is. That doesn’t mean WT is accurate with it’s damage model. It just means that the expectations of the players what would happen in real life were wrong.
Sure… So?
I never said anything about that topic. I never said WT is fine, i even explained a massive error in the calculation of fragments.
My post was directed mostly to what this player expected would happen in real life and how his expectations where wrong.
This doesn’t say anything about WT being correct.
The aftermath i did explained an anti killstealing measure by gaijin and how it would affect the comparision of WT to the document and why purely looking at A kills doesn’t work for that. Still not a word about WT being true to real life (quite the opposite actually)
You are forgettung about the control cables connecting both wings. It doesn’t even have to be destroyed, jamming the machanization of the controls would result in a loss of control is also a possible result.
But again the claim was that it would do nothing to the bearcat while the killchance of even 2 random hits pretty high. There is Lots of ways this would end up lethal in real life. So i corrected the expectations of that player. You are going off like i said the gaijin DM is fine… This is a bonkers Interpretation of what i wrote.
So just to recap: the claim i responded to wasthat such a hit would nothing(!) To a bearcat.
So all i need to claim that this is BS is to show that it does something at all. I do not need to justify that the wingtip falls of, since i never claimed that would be happening, all i claimed is that whatever happens is not nothing. What i added is that it can lead to a loss of the plane and that that scenario isn’t as unlikely as he might think.
You misconstructed that into:the WT DM is correct, for some weird reason.
The bearcat had some pretty weak wings IRL too. It was a weight-saving measure. Because Grumman looked at the data on what was and wasn’t killing planes and realized that if anything more than a glancing hit was experienced, the plane would probably crash. So they went with the philosophy of not getting hit in the first place. It’s how the bearcat achieved its insane performance. They took everything that wasn’t needed out of a hellcat and gave it a souped-up engine.
You are forgetting about the control cables connecting both wings. It doesn’t even have to be destroyed, jamming the mechanization of the controls would result in a loss of control is also a possible result.
I can’t find anything about the bearcat’s control cables being interconnected in my manual. And it does not make sense, given that it’s easier to have two separate control cables rather than a single large one. I think the reason they both blacked out is because they got hit with a 6 inch HE shell
