Still, it is far better than D3A1.
Because the D3A1 has only one 7.7mm!
If I remember correctly, the D4Y1 has two 7.7mm in the nose and one in the rear. And it is much faster and more maneuverable than the SBD.
If the D4Y1 had been implemented, it would have been good to differentiate between the SBD, with its superior bomb load, and the D4Y1, with its superior airframe performance.
… Off topic, but is it a bug that the sights on the D3A1 are black? It’s very distracting.
I can’t say I disagree with this, though some would argue that only the armament matters and everything else is “peripheral” and “irrelevant.”
I don’t know, haven’t flown it yet.
Lol, even a 50kg bomb can wreck a vehicle if the bomb is dropped well. The benefits of bigger bomb is you don’t need to be so accurate and you can kill more infantry since it have bigger explosive radius.
You fail your math? 0.8kg is roughly 3% of 25.3kg. It won’t have any noticeable difference.
Japan is worse at most of the side.
Ah, so you admit that it’s not the size of the bomb that matters, but the pilot’s skill at dropping them! Glad we could agree.
I didn’t, no, but since it’s skill that matters and not explosive mass, I concede this point.
I’ve argued this point too many times to feel like doing it again just for you. In short, you’re wrong.
Lol, you have serious problem on your understanding capability.
I said this, are you blind and can’t see?
IIRC, your original point was that the 1000lb bomb on the SBD is OP, but if size doesn’t matter, and you’ve now said that twice, then you’ve freely admitted to being wrong.
I won’t judge you for English not being your first language, but that’s literally what blind means. I may have been sarcastic, but I haven’t insulted you. Try arguing at my level instead of mudslinging, you’ll do better.
You still didn’t answer this
If this thing imply size doesn’t matter, why don’t you just use AP shell against infantry since you can kill them when you hit them directly.
Doesn’t matter if you can’t put the bombs where you want, which we’ve agreed on.
Hey, you’re the one who agreed the size of the bomb doesn’t matter, don’t get all hyperbolic on me because you can’t keep your own opinions straight.
I didn’t said size doesn’t matter lol. When you said this, I didn’t agree. So where is the hyperbolic?
So, you didn’t say that, did you?
This is hyperbole. You’re using an exaggeration, in this case of a mostly unrelated hypothetical situation, to argue against me and yourself. Try Again.
So why are you only reading part of my words?
I said this after the sentence, so it imply size does matter.
Nah, I read all of them, and you really gotta stop leading with the insults if you want to be taken seriously.
That was literally the first thing you said in that statement. And if bomb placement matters more than bomb size, since a well placed small bomb is more effective than a poorly dropped large one, it follows logically that the size of the bomb is significantly less important than the pilot’s skill at dropping them.
You are assuming bigger bomb are not as accurate as smaller bomb? If the person have same accuracy with two bomb. Certainly the bigger bomb will work better, so size does matter. I can say that most people can’t destroy tank with small bomb. So size matter greatly in reality.
No, I’m assuming you mean what you say. I think I’m over trying to get you to make a consistent argument, man. Tired of debating you in circles, it’s been fun XD
Lol because you can’t even understand my word, even I made explanation you still ignore it. My argument is consistent, which is size does matter, but you keep showing ignorance and misinterpreted what I said.
*words *made an explanation *misinterpreting what I’m saying
No, I’m understanding fine what you’ve written, I think, but english is obviously not your first language and you’re constantly contradicting yourself. Rather than continue to argue with someone who doesn’t seem to know how arguments work or speak the language I do. It doesn’t matter which of us is right, if we can’t get our points accross because there’s imperfect understanding both ways.
So, you as a native English speaker, you have worse understanding than a none native English speaker. I didn’t contradict myself, The contradiction you see is because you misunderstand my words.
Also you are arguing for the sake of arguing. First you misinterpret my word, and I say your understanding of that sentence is wrong. But you just ignore it, and keep saying I am contradicting myself by using your own understanding. I can’t be contradicting myself if my original sentence doesn’t mean what you said.
For example:
I am not the one who agreed the size of bomb doesn’t matter, so I am not the one who can’t keep my own opinion straight.
Most of your word are based on the assumption of I agreeing size of bomb doesn’t matter, but since it is not true, so your words are wrong.
*non-native *words
No, the contradiction is what you said.
Which one of these is your actual opinion, because you seem to be big mad that I actually read everything you wrote. I’m not trying to poke fun at you because english isn’t your mother tongue*, just trying to point out that maybe, just maybe, we continue to be at odds because of a language barrier.
*unless your native language is Quebecois. I don’t have a lot of French, but I have enough to know that Quebecois isn’t
Looks like you misunderstood me.
You should read it like this. Or else there is no meaning why I quote this below.
