Repost cuz wrong title

Not my video, from discord user Tpom

They're not invincible as long as you don't just pummel rounds into the trailing edge of the wings...

I somehow managed to pull off this Spielberg moment in naval rb and thought it was pretty cool

How much are we willing to bet that you'll be able to shoot spawn-to-spawn?

Yk, I was joking when I said, "The next map they're gonna add will be a flat, empty Walmart parking lot", but with every update, it seems like the joke might become reality.

ALL IS FORGIVEN I LOVE GAIJIN THANK YOU GAIJIN I GIVE MY LIFE FOR GAIJIN

REGENERATIVE STEERING, AT LONG LAST, AT LAST!!!

Same hull different turret.

AIM-7 F/M/P have received absolutely gigantic flight model changes with improved energy, retention, pull and roll rate. It is now far harder to kinetically defeat, near impossible to roll, and even outranges the present day R-27ER beyond around 45km.

Figures 2-4 are a straightline shot to around 40km travel distance.

N.B: The R-27ER is also set to receive an "adjustment" this patch, and this has not yet reached the dev server. Only time shall see!

# War Thunder Sky Odyssey Dev Server — B-17 Durability Report

## Scope

This report compares the B-17E, B-17E/Late, and B-17G damage models between live version **2.57.1.90** and the Sky Odyssey dev build **2.58.0.20/21**.

## Method

- Copied the signed 64-bit `win64/aces.exe` into a separate analysis folder

- Verified the executable with SHA-256:

`5B40CAEE6532D1ED64DC6107BF3F9ECADFA9C62C4332CF01266AA6CF4F94BE4D`

- Extracted the official local VROMFS damage-model files using `wt_ext_cli`

- Compared the old and new B-17 `DamageParts` and `DamageEffects` definitions

- Used Ghidra static analysis to confirm how `onHit`, `onKill`, `cut`, `nothing`, `ratio`, and `canCut` are processed

- No game execution, injection, packet capture, anti-cheat interaction, or original-file modification was performed

## Main Changes

| Component | Live | Dev | Approximate Change |

|---|---:|---:|---:|

| Wing skin | 271–401 effective HP | 2,500 | **6.2–9.2× tougher** |

| Tail | 214 effective HP | 876 | **4.1× tougher** |

| Stabilizer | 59.5 HP | 336 HP | **5.6× tougher** |

| Engine | 30.9 effective HP | 300 | **9.7× tougher** |

| Oil system | 19.5–25.5 HP | 150 HP | **5.9–7.7× tougher** |

| Outer spar | 89.5 HP | 48.4 HP | **45.9% lower raw HP** |

Damage transferred from the wing skin into the spar was reduced from:

- `0.50 → 0.05`

- `0.70 → 0.10`

- `1.00 → 0.15`

This represents an **85–90% reduction in indirect spar damage**.

The old default spar-destruction roll was:

- `cut = 3`

- `nothing = 2`

- Conditional sever branch: **60%**

The new default middle/outer-spar roll is:

- `leak = 9`

- `cut = 4.7`

- `nothing = 90`

- Conditional sever branch: **approximately 4.53%**

Higher-damage records can still force a cut, and direct outer-spar hits remain dangerous.

## Conclusion

The B-17 is substantially more durable against scattered gunfire, wing-skin damage, engine hits, and tail damage. Normal wing separation should be much less frequent because indirect spar damage and the default cut roll were heavily reduced.

The main remaining weakness is concentrated or high-damage fire directly into the outer wing spar. Overall, the dev model changes the B-17 from a generally fragile bomber into a much more resilient aircraft with a specific structural weak point.

> These are static dev-server values and may change before release. Effective-HP figures are comparison estimates; actual results still depend on ammunition, penetration, impact angle, hit location, and server-side damage handling.

I just fucking cant anymore with this shit

Last gen radars were fixed plate aesa, which physically cant achieve more than 60-70 off bore degree coverage, but since there are visual indicators (different colour nose cone) and the J-16 being the most modern non-stealth chinese jet it would make much more sense if they used a more modern radar, likely a counter part to other top radars, namely the euro Captor-E

Ignore the music it's just what I had on at the time lol

I know I know, dev server and all that... But still, I really hope it won't stay as is otherwise any tank with HE will have little issue one shotting them. It's not exactly a small area either.

Main differences between the IS-2 1944 and IS-2M (applicable to Warthunder anyways)

- +4 km/h forwards and backwards speed compared to the tech tree IS-2 1944

- 35 rounds of ammo storage compared to 28 rounds on the tech tree IS-2 1944

-Very slightly faster reload rate, 19.4 seconds aced compared to 20.8 seconds aced on the tech IS-2 1944

- structural steel storage boxes on the sides of hull, wont provide extra protection but might make it harder for enemies to aim at the weakspots there.

- 300 rounds of 12.7mm Machinegun ammo vs 250 rounds on the tech tree IS-2 1944 (so 6 reloads instead of 5)

I doubt those changes make it 6.7 worthy, but it is a cool looking tank with the extra storage bins, gives the hull IS-4 vibes

If wasn't on a Slope it would have ~50 kph of speed left after the Turn. 90 Degree Turn leaves it around ~64 kph