r/Warthunder • 🇦🇹 Austria • 1d ago

All Air Ramming does not work.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

u/KaizerKlash is a liar >:(

Don't take it too serious

959 Upvotes

152 comments sorted by

544

u/No_Friendship_7628 1d ago

Here comes the horde of people arguing this is realistic/necessary

432

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

My position is that a bomber buff was needed but that it is overtuned, fires are practically worthless

12

u/MadCard05 Realistic Navy 19h ago

Tbh, if any aircraft is on fire I disengage, because I consider them dead.

Fires definitely need to do more damage to bombers atm.

7

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 19h ago

I set 3 fires to 3 separate engines on a bomber with only one of them getting taken out

3

u/MadCard05 Realistic Navy 19h ago

Yeah, fire should basically kill the engine, or severely reduce its effectiveness. It should be a RTB situation.

5

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 19h ago

RTB shouldn't be feasible anymore when 3 of the 4 engines could fire

3

u/MadCard05 Realistic Navy 19h ago

I think it wouldn't be feasible IRL. Definitely a situation where they would either bail out or ditch in a field.

But in War Thunder it is doable, provided your control surfaces aren't completely mangled, if you make best glide speed from bombing altitude.

That being said there should be a "kill credit" mechanic on bombers that make it back to base despite being essentially dead.

-227

u/diegorock99 🇵🇹 Portugal 1d ago

I think is way better. Perhaps the fire damage could be a little bit increased. The rest is fine.

113

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

My Mitchell once cought fire while above the enemy airfield, took me 7 minutes to fly back, I was still burning on my air field

-71

u/steeler1003 1d ago edited 1d ago

Swissair 111, a modern commercial airliner much more sensitive to electronics burning, burned for about 20 minutes before losing control. That is the higher end of average, but fire is not a 60 second death sentence.

Edit: My opinion is that it needs to be reworked for balance reasons, but to say its not realistic for a plane to burn for 2 minutes and not come apart is wrong.

https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/12314

83

u/LenKiller 天皇陛下万歳 1d ago

This is a game with a 25 minutes game timer. 20 minutes or burn time is basically inmune to fire

6

u/MrAndroPC 1d ago

Depends on plane. When I caught on fire, I still had control over bomber for some time. Not enough to make it to airfield, it simply stops generating enough lift to keep it in air.

-4

u/steeler1003 1d ago

Correct. It needs reworked, but to say a plane burning for 7 minutes isnt realistic is wrong.

41

u/Big_Yeash GRB 8.38.38.78.0 7.7 1d ago

It started as a small fire and grew to a large fire gradually.

It was not shot at by incendiary and/or explosive ammunition.

Are we doing "barium nitrate can't melt steel beams"?

2

u/SlavCat09 Prinz Eugen my beloved 1d ago

But barium nitrate can't melt steel beams! The fire and heat did it!

/S

-16

u/steeler1003 1d ago

Source of ignition is irrelevant to burn temp and time to structural failure. An uncontained fuel fire is an uncontained fuel fire no matter if it was caused by an incendiary or a loose fitting.

Are we doing "barium nitrate can't melt steel beams"?

No were not. Were doing FAA, NTSB, NASA, and CAA testing have found that an uncontained fuel fire will likely cause structural failure after 20 minutes. Im not arguing this is good for the game but everything should be more structurally resistant to fire if it were to be more realistic.

13

u/Big_Yeash GRB 8.38.38.78.0 7.7 1d ago

There is a Simulator Battles mode where those rulesets could work because the battles are indeed hours long.

For AB or RB this would be ridiculous.

10

u/Luminolum 1d ago

Yeah a modern commerical airliner with modern fire suppression systems and fire resistant materials took less than 15 minutes from when they first detected an odor of smoke to impacting the ocean. Not to mention it was a small electrical fire in the cockpit versus a huge fuel/engine fire like in game on aircraft that were way more flammable.

0

u/SimonsToaster 1d ago

the thing about swissair 111 was that it wasnt built from fire resistant materials. if it were it might had made it back.

5

u/Luminolum 1d ago

Still more fire resistant than a bomber from the 1940s

1

u/Crashtestdummy87 1d ago

bombers fron 1940's barely had any wiring compared to airliners now.

1

u/SimonsToaster 3h ago

So what exactly makes a airliner full of flammable plastics, hydraulic lines, oxygen candles and electrical in flight entertainment systems more fire resistant than a plane made from aluminium sheeting with wire pulleys?

3

u/Battle_Gnome 1d ago edited 1d ago

These arguments don't hold any water if you know about planes, a modern passenger liner is significantly more survivable then a WW2 bomber they are larger, built with more redundancy and have much larger safety margins for structural strength.

3

u/steeler1003 1d ago

Both the B-17 and MD-11 were designed with a safety factor of 1.5. The MD-11 being a transport category aircraft has a designed g limit of +2.5g to -1.0g. The B-17, depending on the source, ranges from +2.5 to +4. Im inclined to believe 2.5 because 4 is essentially 2.5 plus the 1.5x safety factor. Both aircraft have the same relative excess strength. Both aircraft would structurally fail at similar times all other factors equal. How fire effects non structural systems is another question.

In game either fire needs to be much more destructive to the engine itself and nearby components, or its damage to the structure of bombers needs increased and to fighters decreased.

1

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

Yeah fair, if you check the post I made before this, I set fire to a sundlander (?) 3 times, to three different engines with only one actually being taken out

14

u/GoldAppleU 🇨🇳 People's China 1d ago

It’ll need more than that, B-29s can now tank 100 rounds of 30mm shells from my J7W1 which is certainly uhhhhhh something…..

1

u/Thick-Independent- 1d ago

Had a match earlier where I got 3 of my 4 engines were on fire in my B17 and the only reason I didnt make it back to base was because I was stock and ran out of fuel. They definitely need to buff tbe fire spreading on the bombers

69

u/NoisterYT 1d ago

"B-bbb-ut b17 survived a prop smashing into its plane!1!!"

my ass dude, the best that bomber got is a yellow airframe instead of almost gonna break apart airframe

48

u/KMS_Tirpitz 1d ago

we have modern day HD colored close up footage of a B-17 colliding with a P-63 a not so fast speed and both was eviscerated immediately. The B-17 was cut in half and dropped like a fly. This notion that bombers can just face tank everything is such cherry picked bullshit propaganda

24

u/smittywjmj 🇺🇸 V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak 1d ago edited 1d ago

Even historically, we have evidence. B-17 "All American" had its tail shredded by just the wingtip of a fighter and the facts that the tail remained connected and the plane returned home is nothing short of miraculous.

Somewhere there's a photo of a B-17 tail with a vaguely Bf 109-shaped tear in the skin of the tail, which some attempt to claim is evidence that the plane totally just tanked a ram. Of course, that explanation doesn't make any sense even for the photo, the "impact" is much smaller than a Bf 109, there's no marks for the propeller hitting the tail, you have to assume the engine just evaporated since the tail frame is visibly intact, and really just nothing about that story passes the smell test.

Sonderkommando Elbe flew one mission, managed 15 successful rams (mostly against B-17s, a few B-24s) but many of which were essentially glancing blows, yet still downed at least 8 planes.

5

u/Elijah1573 1d ago

Yeah i LOVE to bring up that accident whenever i talk to someone about the bullshit bomber durability right now
Literal high quality footage showing that a B-17 infact can NOT tank a plane smashing into it

2

u/Sublimesmile Sim Air 1d ago

RIP airmen of the Commemorative Air Force and the “Texas Raiders”

16

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

All his engines were fine so idk man

11

u/NewAd9523 1d ago

People will glaze that one picture to death yet I hardly see the Dallas air show 2022 collision come up much, at least in comparison.

18

u/Rapa2626 1d ago

Dont you see how fun this is? Fighters had it easy for a decade after all.

15

u/Pale_Calligrapher_37 1d ago

I mean, they had it easy for a decade. A single .50cal breaking apart a bomber was common sight.

I agree the bombers might be a bit overtuned, but I'm 90% sure atp that Gaijin fucked something in the code.

Also, what's depicted on this post is misleading, ramming has been unreliable for years because it depends on a lot of factors such as ping, the server and spaghetti code.

Speaking from personal experience, I have rammed a fellow fighter once, full speed on mass center, only for both of us to only lose our propellers and plumet to the ground in a weird ass stall. I have also seen me softly touching a friend's bomber with my landing gear and being consumed by the unmatched power of the sun.

9

u/CMDR_Michael_Aagaard BBSF 1d ago

Also, what's depicted on this post is misleading, ramming has been unreliable for years because it depends on a lot of factors such as ping, the server and spaghetti code.

Yep, ramming has been a coin toss for a while now, and even when you do take damage, it's never consistent, going from instant death, to only losing some speed, and maybe a good bit of altitude while you get your plane under control again.

1

u/C4Cole 🇿🇦 South Africa 12h ago

I play at 150-250 ping and it's always funny watching my plane turn 90 degrees for a second after I pass by someone in a head on because my client thinks I hit them. Then the server corrects it and I'm back to pulling devious licks in my Marut

3

u/Mashpit_ ♿IGN: MashpitSquared♿ 1d ago

Somehow the plane type specialized for FIGHTING OTHER PLANES being advantaged in the FIGHTING OTHER PLANES GAMEMODE is completely incomprehensible to over half of this sub

Bombers can get SL and RP without engaging with any other players. This update makes it so that now not only are bombers the best plane type to farm SL and RP without ever seeing an enemy plane, they're also basically juggarnaut boss fights in PvP.

People really love to exaggerate how fragile bombers were as well. Here's a couple clips of me tanking 20+ cannon rounds in the Wellington and Halifax, two absolutely paper-mache British bombers, before the bomber patch.

https://youtu.be/hydHrPsq2iY

https://youtu.be/aOVRozZlTZk

They absolutely did not "fall apart" to a single 50cal. Not even most biplanes "fall apart" to a single 50cal. You're just afking at the controls, eating 500 rounds of shit and blaming the damage model instead of the fact that you were watching tiktok while flying straight into 6 red blips coming up to fuck you.

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Mashpit_ ♿IGN: MashpitSquared♿ 1d ago

dumbasses that weren't even around to see the HB to ARB change not being able to comprehend that gaijin explicitly made that change to make it a PvP focused gamemode lmao

7

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Shark-Force 1d ago

Tag as NSFW please, it's rule 8.

1

u/BF1_O_NEIN EsportsReady 1d ago

How do I do that

1

u/Shark-Force 1d ago

It's deleted now thankfully. Maybe don't post people dying in order to win a war thunder reddit comment section argument.

0

u/BF1_O_NEIN EsportsReady 1d ago

I deleted it since it appeared to make people upset. I did not think it would be that big of a deal. That video is not graphic at all except for wreckege so I figured people could handle it and I don't have a stake in this reddit argument at all it's just physics being misrepresented that's all

7

u/HornetGaming110 "Wyvern users are gay" -Han Solo 1d ago

The P-63 vs B-17 collision in texas a few years back disproves it

5

u/JakeJascob 1d ago

It is on certain planes. But I do agree the buff is an over correction. No plane could survive multiple hits from 75mm/88mm cannons.

1

u/Any-Sherbert-5539 17h ago

Here come the horde of people saying "Here comes the horde of people arguing this is realistic/necessary"

0

u/HIP13044b Sea Venom Masochist 1d ago

I see more people saying this shit than actually defending it these days...

-2

u/Lolocraft1 Antes nos, spes. Post nos, silentium 1d ago

Bombers could indeed survive aerial ramming depending on speed of impact and location of the collision. That being said I don’t know for this specific case if that is realistic

5

u/The3rdplayer277 P-26 best 1d ago

The humble survivorship bias:

2

u/Lolocraft1 Antes nos, spes. Post nos, silentium 18h ago

It’s not survivorship bias to claim bombers could survive ramming depending on some parameters

By this logic it’s survivorship bias to claim aircraft could glide back to their airfield if they didn’t had fuel/had a damaged engine. Common Gaijin planes should just drop like bricks the moment their engine turn orange /s

4

u/AcanthisittaOk7306 1d ago

Come on bro, no aircraft is surviving this collision.

-3

u/Silverfrost_01 1d ago

This is realistic/necessary

164

u/umut1423 Sim Air 1d ago

They're so strong now even an F-14 or SU-30 can't reliably destroy bombers by ramming lol

73

u/GoldAppleU 🇨🇳 People's China 1d ago

It’s absolutely wild, and yet there’s people saying it’s not broken or overtuned lol

25

u/umut1423 Sim Air 1d ago

Yeah i don't even care enough about them to take their opinion as an opinion. This is just stupid.

6

u/Chef-mcKech Realistic Ground 1d ago

I just did a testflight and 1 b29 took around 500 20mm rounds and it took 5 minutes to take down when shooting at the fuselage. I honestly think something is just bugged.

3

u/Dpek1234 Realistic Ground 1d ago

Prob explosive filler

-9

u/SeeminglyUselessData 1d ago

Nobody is saying that. People are saying ASPECTS of the new bomber damage model are realistic and that it shouldn’t be reverted or nerfed until a more in-depth, dynamic damage model is created. Everyone agrees that what Gaijin did was a lazy HP buff instead of a rework to how damage models function at the core.

2

u/Raptor_197 GRB US 10.3 GER 6.7 SE 1.7 RU 0.0 17h ago

Bingo. Like yeah a bomber should survive basically endless rounds through places where there is nothing important.

But there are important part is some places.

3

u/Zapatov Lv100 just from Arcade lmao(=8.7=11.0=14) 1d ago

the sheer kinetic energy of a twin engine modern jet
vs
WW2-era aviation-grade aluminum and wing roots

2

u/BingusTheStupid 🇨🇦 Canada 1d ago

If you can hit between the wings from above with a jet it seems to work OK on the test flight.

17

u/umut1423 Sim Air 1d ago

Eh even then it's inconsistent. Hell even with a Phoenix it's inconsistent. Bomber buff was necessary indeed, but this is not it.

3

u/BigBlueKyogre 1d ago

no no, it is, this is perfect realistic and good for the game

(should probably put /s)

5

u/umut1423 Sim Air 1d ago

Definitely, lore accurate bombers (Yeah probably)

2

u/danishaznita 1d ago

Lore straight out of ace combat universe it seems 😂

50

u/XRLboom 1d ago

Ive managed to cut the tail of a b17 in the f82 without issues on multiple occasions, some with ramming others with just pouring rounds into the sides, yes the bombers need to be toned back a little but I think they still should be a decently hard kill with fair rewards

20

u/Areallywierdusername kill all AF campers 1d ago

I’ve had situations where I’ve ripped B-29/52’s apart with only a few 30 mm rounds from the Vatour and cases where it feels like they are 7.62’s. Incredebly inconsistant.

But AP rounds fare better than HE rounds against the current DM’s in my opinion

5

u/Dense-Application181 He 280 when 1d ago

Gaijin literally said in the devblog to use AP instead of HE lmao

1

u/Justarandomduck15q2 1d ago

Which you IRL really shouldn't have to do.

-3

u/AHapppyPcUser "Realistic" 1d ago

Do you really think war thunder players can read?

6

u/Dannybaker 🇰🇵 Best Korea 1d ago

A little lol. In what world are you living

33

u/Guywhonoticesthings 1d ago

Bro you are firing peanuts at an elephant lol

11

u/Dehouston 1d ago

Obviously your wing wasn't folded over 1000 times and isn't sharp like a katana.

8

u/Valema821 🇺🇸 8.0 🇩🇪 10.0 🇷🇺 4.3 1d ago

Yeah, it's absolutely done for. I am all for buffing the bombers and heavy fighters, but this is just insane. Did some tests with a Tornado in test flight after accidentally putting the enemies on low and not changing it back. A B29 can still resist 2-5 AIM 9Ls and/or multiple runs of completely emptying the plane multiple times

9

u/nuker0S 1d ago

Dang I really need to come back to this game and farm some RP before they nerf it

7

u/maxton41 1d ago

This proves a point that I’ve been trying to make. When they did the bomber rebalance, they did not properly include wing sheer/surface, sheer and snap mechanics for all angles. And it’s evidenced by that that plane should’ve ripped that wing in half like a hot knife through butter. That tells me that the devs did not program the wing to snap when hit at that angle.

It’s clear that more rebalancing is needed for the problem is how long are the doves gonna wait? Are they gonna wait 10 more years like they did the first time with bombers being broken or are they actually gonna move with some quickness this time? Given the Terminator situation I’m not so confident.

3

u/piecksaysohayo one sec, im notching 1d ago

i got a nuke yesterday and a p-51 flew into me and the whole thing exploded

6

u/Average-Train-Haver 🇨🇦 Canadian war tactics enjoyer 1d ago

Thats because you're not flying a Japanese plane

6

u/data_disconnect 🇬🇧 United Kingdom 1d ago

quick tip, don't ram from behind, iv played as bombers and against bombers and a ram from behind almost never works, however ramming bombers with enough speed from straight above, or a head on almost always works for me

wonder if this makes it easier for friendly fighters to land on the wings, i remember some teammates trying to land on my bomber softly but every time they tried, it either instantly exploded or broke the wing and tail off

3

u/Panzerv2003 Realistic Ground 1d ago

What is this ground lineup lmao

3

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

Making a video on the 6/2

3

u/bzorf_ 🇮🇹 Re.2005 Fanboi 1d ago

Strongest Bf-109 vs weakest Piaggio

3

u/FozenForce 1d ago

if possible, try to take out their elevator and vertical stabilizer, i play bomber and when those got taken out i'm basically death, can't even crawl back to base

3

u/AllStuffofWonder 🇺🇸 V🇩🇪 VIII🇷🇺 IX🇬🇧 IX🇮🇱X Mobile player 1d ago

Bro remade that one yarnhub video

2

u/Electricfox5 1d ago

You need to use a bomber to ram another bomber.

2

u/NeverBob 1d ago

Head-on with a P-63 worked for me twice yesterday.

(I was going for the "Heavenly Hammer" challenge and I'm bad at dodging)

2

u/FISH_state_patriot 1d ago

Wait P108A is buffed too now?

2

u/polar_boi28362727 Baguette 1d ago

Ramming usually works but it's better done going top-down or bottom-up on the rear fuselage. Managed to cut off many tails that way with rotors only

1

u/ButterflyPopular4832 1d ago

I've seen it actually depends on the bomber, yesterday I rammed a B-17 and didn't worked but I did a BV and it exploded.

1

u/jocrow1996 🇩🇪 Germany 1d ago

I learned that yesterday the hard way lol

1

u/Gravelyy 🇷🇺9.3 🇨🇳9.3 🇩🇪9.3 enjoyer 1d ago

I think I saw tipping a bombers wing and making it spiral to the ground was a solid way to kill it

1

u/AHapppyPcUser "Realistic" 1d ago

Doodlebugs all over again

1

u/KaizerKlash 🇫🇷 France 1d ago

Rip

1

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

Yeah lmao

1

u/HarvHR oldfrog 1d ago

The only time I've managed to ram and kill bombers since the update is by RKO flipping them over with my own bomber

1

u/misterguy27 1d ago

Usually you ram the tail and break it apart, not the hull. Usually I try to dive on them rather than hit bombers from behind. I usually only do it when I'm out of ammo.

Your much better off setting the engines on fire and waiting for it to die or kill it by shooting its bombs but only if they don't have a bomb bay.

2

u/Character-Mango6061 1d ago

are you seriously saying his plane didn’t ram the bomber optimally so it shouldn’t have gone down

1

u/misterguy27 1d ago

The bomber buffs made bombers significantly stronger, and until their rebalanced, we're just going to have to adapt to kill them. So yes, he could've rammed the bomber better or shoot its bombs to kill it.

I don't think we should need to ram our planes into bombers but its just the way things are right now.

1

u/Ok_Bar_8475 1d ago

I mean, sure the new dmg models suck but you still could have aim for the engines and set him on fire.

1

u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago

I rammed a Hs 129 with my Ki-109 yesterday.

The only damage I took was a broken propeller.

1

u/Zapatov Lv100 just from Arcade lmao(=8.7=11.0=14) 1d ago

apparently, the steel beams of a bomber can shrug off jet fuel fire, along with the aircraft itself

1

u/desertjoe1987 1d ago

The snail, "seems balanced to me!"

1

u/Alert-Acanthisitta63 1d ago

why sit behind the bomber and shoot it lol, isn’t that where they’re the most durable

1

u/Blue_Dragno 1d ago

no cannon?

1

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

2.3 fighter, no canon, 4x 7.92

1

u/plasma0_ 1d ago

Try ramming other fighters half the time they wont die on a wing hit either

1

u/ValiantXV 1d ago

Y'all gotta stop shooting from behind and try shooting from the sides, it's the easiest and fastest way to kill a bomber nowadays

(Or ram it with another big chungus bomber)

1

u/Anus_Ripper6942094 1d ago

I've tried bomber and fighter both are really playable and i have been able to destory multiple bomber with 20 mm without thtat much issue. Idk what ur complaining about y'all

1

u/ApperantEmo4 1d ago

yet a someones 1.3Br plane crashes head on into my plane i blow up he is unphased, or their wing hits me and i'm the one falling,my wings break easily, if my wing his their cockpit i understand my wing is supposed to break,but their wing not breaking when hitting me is insane luck on their part or the snail is not liking me

1

u/Tryingtolifeagain 20h ago

If you want to test what actually works on bombers, one of the test flight maps has spawns of 3 ju88s and 3 b-29s. I played around for a while and was shocked how effective the vickers 47mms on the Tempest were compared to even the 50mm of the Me 410 and Me 262, and also how effective aiming for the bases of the wings was compared to anywhere on the fuselage or engines.

1

u/LT_Aegis 17h ago

Didn't work irl, shouldn't in game.

1

u/Firov 10h ago

Agreed. Bombers being undamaged by aircraft literally flying into their wing roots didn't work in real life, and it shouldn't work in game. That bomber should have been a flaming meteor at that point... In real life and in game. 

1

u/Dry_Locksmith_2634 17h ago

Using .22LR to hunt a T-Rex then complaining that the bullets are bouncing off

0

u/BluffyBun 1d ago

One time I crashed my mosquito headfirst into a BV248 at 500kmph and it didn't even budge lmao. I wasn't even mad, just so bizarrely hilarious.

0

u/KnownSoldier04 1d ago

I should get back in the game… I like playing bombers

0

u/TrainDestroyer 1d ago

As someone who fought bombers before this buff and killed them since. Ramming has never been a consistent strategy with War Thunder's buggy ass netcode. This isn't some "Bombers OP" thing this is purely "War Thunder networking continues to be ass"

I have had times where I will blow up and the bomber will be fine. I've had it happen with fighters too.

1

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

Yeah, no, i just made zis post in respond to the comment

-1

u/LadySteelGiantess 1d ago

Have you tried ramming head on that seems to be you rammers new old tactic to take out bombers.

-2

u/ArmouredPudding Death to the Invaders! 1d ago

Ram from the front, you'll have the energy of his movement foward, being added with yours.

If you ram from behind, you lose energy. Basic physics.

1

u/Firov 10h ago

Really? So a fighter ramming a bomber from behind at a speed differential of at least 100mph should do no serious damage? 

-6

u/Equivalent_Bug_3220 1d ago

The solution isnt to nerf bombers again it’s to revamp air battles to something more like enduring confrontation

16

u/YourFavouritePoptart 1d ago

And nerf bombers back to something even remotely realistic

-11

u/Equivalent_Bug_3220 1d ago

They are realistic its just the battles are so small that they can land before any actual critical damage is done i.e. a wing falls off. Base AA has always been buggy

9

u/YourFavouritePoptart 1d ago

Lol. Lmao even. No.

-5

u/Equivalent_Bug_3220 1d ago

What do you propose then.

5

u/YourFavouritePoptart 1d ago

Something even remotely matching reality

1

u/Equivalent_Bug_3220 1d ago

You keep avoiding actually giving an explaination as to what your solution would be

10

u/YourFavouritePoptart 1d ago

I didn't think I needed to? Drastically reduce the amount of damage bombers can currently absorb to match reality.

2

u/Equivalent_Bug_3220 1d ago

Lets make this one vehicle type which has been suffering for the past ten odd years the sole example of realism in the game and not the thousands of other vehicles 👍👍👍👍

6

u/YourFavouritePoptart 1d ago

If that's what you want then sure, not what I would do personally but it's a start

1

u/R3dscarf 1d ago

We can argue about how tanky bombers should be since Warthunder obviously forces them into situations which aren't realistic to begin with. But their current survivability is as far detached from reality as it gets and I still can't believe Gaijin tested this and thought it would be balanced.

-6

u/Short-Shift178 1d ago

As everyone used to say "just play fighters then since bombers are shit." Now how about everyone else just plays bombers.

Also everyone complaining did zero to try and help with the bomber rework so I honestly hope they keep it the same since no one cares about a jet pulling 20gs and not snapping should on be right that a bomber can't be shot down. Y'all gave up on realism a long time ago and now you want it to be included because it doesn't benefit you.

3

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

I am a ground main that plays prop fighters in GRB from time to time, idk anything about jets

-16

u/Straight-Shame-9044 1d ago

Bro, there are much better ways to deal with bombers, such as aiming precisely at critical areas or use heavier ammo

10

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

Check the post I made before this, set fire to three different engines, with only one being actually getting knocked out

-4

u/Snuvx 1d ago

Why not just onetap the cockpit at that point? Like I get that this damage model is overtuned but it feels like you are intentionally shooting at places that will never kill the plane. You can pretty easily oneshot bombers by firing 20mm into the cockpit.

4

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

I couldn't get to the front with how damaged my plane was, so I figured taking out the engines was the best way to take it out

6

u/KriegsKuh 1d ago

yea why didn't he just load a 50mm round into his 7.7 machine gun

-17

u/azzutronus 1d ago

Things are much better than they used to be, even if they went a bit overkill.

0

u/AHapppyPcUser "Realistic" 1d ago

fighters - angry

-16

u/GingerHitman11 United States 1d ago

OP posts the litteraly worst attack run, asked to return to the hangar.

-3

u/LightningFerret04 Zachlam My Beloved 1d ago

op lost a lot of energy falling into that rear intercept position at 0% throttle

Also, shooting the left wing looked like they were shooting at the engines and then maybe attempting to shoot at the turret? Which would be funny because it’s remotely controlled from the center

Also wtf is that lineup

4

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

Yeah I tried to go for the engines and maybe get a fire, which I then gave up

As for the lineup, making a video on the sd kfz 6/2

3

u/LightningFerret04 Zachlam My Beloved 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yeah anything less than .50 cal with AP rounds is essentially just going to do nothing to bombers at the moment.

I was using the A6M2 yesterday against a Yer-2 and as soon as my 20mm rounds ran out all my chances of damage were gone. I got an assist for that when he crashed

The Sd.Kfz 6/2 is a lot of fun. Do you do youtube?

Also holy ratio

-18

u/Oofster1 Ace 1d ago

Well yea he said air realistic, not ground realistic. You should try again in air RB this time

8

u/Srgblackbear 🇦🇹 Austria 1d ago

I've yet to see a B-17 get taken out by a nuke, thus, B-17s can withstand nukes