Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
The IL-2s are probably the most heavily armoured planes in-game and they can take an absolute beating so yes it does work.
Keep in mind War Thunder's damage model isn't the most complex neither, combine that with mouse aim and planes go down a lot easier than they historically did.
Point is, I don’t think most armor is meant to stop bullets themselves at all, instead it blocks shrapnel from HE rounds instead just like flak jackets were designed for. Direct hits from AP or other solid bullets isn’t what they’re for.
Is it going to turn your plane into a heavy tank that can bounce shots? No.
However, on most planes the back is the only side with halfway-decent armor coverage, and any AP round of 12.7mm and above will go through most plates. All it really gives you is a chance to resist small rounds.
I don't know about you, but I shoot planes more often from different angles than from behind.
I'd rather have my plane busted up but with working engines and pilot than otherwise.
Regardless an aircraft isnt going to remain flying without elevators, rudder, ailerons, hydraulics, wings, tail etc and those are a lot too much surface area to armour and remain airworthy. Even if hypothetically the frame itself doesn't break the skin of the flight surfaces can be made from anything from canvas to wood to various thin lightweight metals