Typhoon’s wings are thicker than the Tis-ma’s wing tips. The said wing tips survive 20 37mm shots because it is applied with the bomber DM. Do you guys have anything to say about that? Something to do with wing thickness-to-integrity correlation. Though the load bearing factor is not considered here as there is no such thing in this game as of now.
1 Like
BTW unrelated to the topic but most ww2 20mms should be able to penetrate main tanks with enough vehicle velocity. Yeah the “vehicle velocity”. The momentum is carried on so, slow but heavy rounds are affected more effectively by this velocity gain. Certain cannon rounds could achieve 13~17% higher penetrable thickness. This applies to the aircraft vs aircraft situation, vice versa. If the target aircraft is fleeing, some of the energy the bullet is carrying is negated so long as the vector is the same. None of these mechanisms are in the game btw.
2 Likes
So…
If I play:
Fighters: I should learn to aim
SPAAs: Its hard to hit planes therefore one hit should be enough to kill the bombers
Lmao, what a joke
2 Likes
Lets test the TIS-MA 37mm HE round against itself and the wyvern.
The wyvern is a heavier and more robust vehicle that can carry a lot more payload and reach much higher speeds, yet the TIS MA just shrugs the round while the wyvern gets its wing blown off.
The bomber’s damage model needed a buff, but we need to make the other aicraft damage models also reasonable according to the same standard. They are too fragile in comparison without any reason other than having a different label.
5 Likes
…You call this reasonable?
I think it’s more reasonable than what they were before, based on historical footage. Probably overblown I agree. But more reasonable nonetheless.
Historical footage shows IRL pilots had far worse accuracy than even bad players here.
1 Like
I’m discussing damage here, not accuracy.
1 Like
How is damage supposed to be done if one misses 90% of their shots?
1 Like
This is about the damage. The actual hits.
1 Like
And in “actual hits”, controlled testing disagrees.
Expand on it please
TIS-MA was oppressive for what?Just 2 NS45? Anyone played TIS-MA should know that it was so easy to be destroyed by any kind of bullet, even .50cal and 7.62, it is so easy to catch fire and crash in 5s. Even know TIS-MA is easy to catch fire and lose power, or be killed by a .50 when you shoot the driving area
1 Like
The british did post-war testing with german 30mm ammunition and later compared it to the new ADEN cannon, which has very similar shells. They fired at Halifax and Lancaster bombers at the wings and fuselage.
hits 26/27/28
They also did the incendiary shells.
1 Like
I skimmed the text, but isn’t that more in line with what we’ve got now instead of the wings blasting entirely in a couple of 20 mm hits?
A 30mm HE round would leave big holes on the wing surface, possibly blasting spar structure and fuel tanks, but not blasting away the wing away entirely. Do you agree?
I think they went a bit extreme in the opposite direction, but seems more realistic for some planes. The issue is that it is not consistent, like the wyvern vs TIS MA example I provided.
No. You can clearly see they deemed most of these single hits LETHAL. This is not the case in-game.
1 Like
Partly because we have an instructor flying the plane for us, and a basic damage model.
I think its good that they changed the damage models, its better than the situation the bombers were before. but they need to adjust them to more reasonable levels and to do the same for every aircraft that doesn’t have a “bomber” label.
I don’t even play bombers, but I felt bad to take them out with a couple of small-calibre hits at long ranges
1 Like
So adapt the damage model to reflect the results of IRL controlled testing, instead of having these same planes eating 75mm HE shells and remaining in the air unopposed.
I am not a WT developer my dude
But you are asking for these completely unreasonable DMs to stay.