I have read many times the phrase “German bombs are better because they are heavier.”
However, no one took a minute to look at the amount of explosives in them. Previously it was 121kg in a 500lb bomb and 125kg in a 250kg German bomb. That is, the blast force was always equal:
https://wiki.warthunder.com/AN-M64A1_(500_lb)
https://wiki.warthunder.com/SC250JA_(250_kg)
Now, with the replacement of TNT with Comp B in the 500lb bomb, its TNT equivalent blast power is 165kg, which means it is 25% more powerful than the German bomb. I could not find the characteristics of the Fp.60/40 explosive that is in the German bomb.
However, WT now says that the American bomb hits armored vehicles at 10m and the German bomb at 8m.
So if anyone tries to mislead you by saying that a 500lb bomb is worse than a 250kg bomb, you can refer to the facts I have described.
I’m confused to why they did that since 500 pounders weren’t weak
They were a complete copy of the German bombs (the 3.5% difference can be ignored).
I don’t know what the point was, but it is strange that I can’t find any information about the composition and characteristics of the Fp.60/40 explosive in the German bombs.
It’s funny how many times I’ve heard “German OP bombs because they are 23kg heavier!!!” I guess people like that thought the bomb was pure TNT.
Well the bombs were both pure tnt so it’s easy to the assume that the 500 kilo would be stronger still technically is if both bombs remained pure tnt but I’m more confused to why they decided to make the 500 pounds into comp B instead of remaining tnt this minor update
It’s interesting that they quote the source in thier update notes here
I have no problem with the source and I’m glad they are striving for accuracy but why now??? Out of all the other inaccuracies already in the game?
Will this be a trend to try and correct other inaccuracies??? Provided a proper source can be sited?
Correction for you here.
I have read many times people saying that German bombs are >> Slightly << better than US bombs.This was most of the time as a response to people saying that US bombs where A LOT better.
Bit misleading to act like the general consensus was what you said.
I have seen this opinion quite often mauling “500 pounds is only 227kg - less by 23kg”, although the real difference was 3.5%.
Apparently it was a mass psychosis, because according to the wiki the shrapnel and shock wave were the same. It is impossible to feel the difference of 3.5%.
I’m a simple forum user, I don’t believe in facts. But I do believe that I’m right and you are wrong. 
based
And that difference between 3.5% and 10% is important but the difference between 0 and 3.5% is not? Alright… How is this part any difference than any other post I have seen about this? You just want to be right no matter what and just full sweep every other discussion ever had about it because you think that few percent in your favor matters but the other way around not.
That said how it is right now is different kg wise dont want to steer away form that part to much.
I don’t understand, explain.
I definitely remember that many people used this as another “Axis is always better” argument, even though they couldn’t even check wikipedia and find out that there was no difference.
People are lazy.
So back then it was factual 3.5% difference but people said there was a 10% difference. You said that 3.5% difference is impossible to feel. My point is how can you feel the difference between the 3.5% and the 10% that you or they are saying? To me that is the same.
The point always was that Germans complained US bombs are better because 500 is more than 250 and people responded with a general no the 500 is lb not kg that would be 227kg. Which would make it 10% difference vs 250kg. Basicly saying the exact same thing as you, bombs are equal you wont notice the difference.
No one ever said that German bombs where much stronger. Except when the argument was that german fighters got the 250kg vs 100lb for US (got nerfed with a lot of lash back from Germans)
With planes that argument was always over a20 vs ju88 with the JU having 50% more bombs than the A20 making the Germans stronger. Which was fair.
With the new changes the bombs should be actually quite balanced. Giving US stronger bombs and Germans more bombs
In fact, 10% is more significant, but still very little. I think you can feel it, but not exactly. And I’m not saying it’s different. It’s just that I’ve definitely seen this kind of controversy, so I made a post about it.
Yes, such moments I have seen a couple of times, here of course need to explain to people, although it is quite obvious information. I have encountered such misconceptions very rarely.
Not really. The A-20 has course-guided weapons and always shoots down ju in the sky. The ju will be killed by any plane in the sky, even by an inexperienced pilot.
This fact means that you have no chance of dropping bombs on ju for long as there are no airborne gunners in the game.
The difference in favor of ju used to be 33%, now it is 12%. The 6 brownings are worth 12%, which is a minor bonus.
Can remember more than I count on my hands. As of late people have been getting more accurate info which is good, saves a lot of weird discussions.
Dunno how accurate warthunder links are for this game btw, do you know for sure they use those exact bombs? Because Enlisted seems to use 70% Warthunder and some special own sauce most of the time.
The names of the bombs are the same. Everyone has always claimed that the bombs here are from WT.
If you chase planes with the A20 you are wasting everyones time. In the time you kill a JU88 with the A20 you could have done 2 more bombing runs.
Again you say everyone in a way like there have been hundreds of posts, I have not seen many. Most of the time when a WT source gets used people doubt it. Tanks we use should be a Warthunder blueprint but they feel different and shoot/get shot different from Warthunder as well.
So we have no proof that the HVAR is worse than the Axis missiles? If we don’t base it on WT in any way, or do so selectively, then that is highly improper for any discussion.