Hehe, might be a good advice .

Btw the B-17F, B-17G, C-47 and L2D3 will probably see a 10% hitpoints reduction for their fuselages (also the wings for the B-17's) in the next update. This should hopefully make them more balanced. The smart tactic is still to aim for the engines though, not the fuselage. The fuselage could historically take tremendous damage without the bomber crashing.

Probable changes:








Proof that shooting at the fuselage is a waste of ammo, these B-17's made it back safely.




<S>
/Robert

Here are the original numbers before any changes were made and what they have been for last few years.
B-17 eng kill 75
Vator 100
rear fus 700
center fus 700
right wing 540
left wing 540
c-47
rear and center fus 220

To go along with that here some weapons values
30 cal stuff does 1 point
50 cal stuff does 2.2 points
20mm stuff 7 and 8 points damage depending on type
Do the math, divide damage by point value of weapon and tells you how many rounds it takes to kill a part.
Also remember that fairly inexperienced guys shoot on average less than 7% hits or less and really good guys MIGHT average 12 to 17 %.
Hit percentage may go up when shooting at a bomber so some supposition may take place here. Count your ammo load, how much you got, figure 20 % are hits and waddya come up with?

Question is however...….why did they need changed....at all?

Nookyb
Regarding b 24 as a skytrain...honor system..human pilot can hit ctrl t to turn off otto

I always loved the return with damage photos. Everyone was going about it the wrong way until a statistician looked at the problem.

During World War II, the statistician Abraham Wald took survivorship bias into his calculations when considering how to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire.[10] Researchers from the Center for Naval Analyses had conducted a study of the damage done to aircraft that had returned from missions, and had recommended that armor be added to the areas that showed the most damage.[citation needed] Wald noted that the study only considered the aircraft that had survived their missions—the bombers that had been shot down were not present for the damage assessment.[citation needed] The holes in the returning aircraft, then, represented areas where a bomber could take damage and still return home safely. Wald proposed that the Navy reinforce areas where the returning aircraft were unscathed[10]:88, since those were the areas that, if hit, would cause the plane to be lost. His work is considered seminal in the then-nascent discipline of operational research.[11]

As another example, when the brodie helmet was introduced during WWI, there was a dramatic rise in field hospital admissions of severe head injury victims. This led army command to consider redrawing the design, until a statistician remarked that soldiers who before were being killed by certain shrapnel hits to the head (and therefore never showed up in a field hospital), now survived the same hits, making it to a field hospital.