The_Lieutenant

Weapon Damage and Performance Issues and Discussion (RB, Tanks *and* Planes)

This thread is for discussion about issues with weaponry and damage models. Originally, I had a hilarious passive aggressive complaint as the first post, but I got over it.

Edited by The_Lieutenant
edit title to better reflect topic(s) as per OP
  • Upvote 15
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little surprised. I'm curious as to why they've done it, and how it is that they just seem to make the American 50's completely useless every 3 patches or so. It boggles the mind. Is there some source that Gaijin has that says the .50 BMG round is impotent? Can we see this source?

  • Upvote 11
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little surprised. I'm curious as to why they've done it, and how it is that they just seem to make the American 50's completely useless every 3 patches or so. It boggles the mind. Is there some source that Gaijin has that says the .50 BMG round is impotent? Can we see this source?

Well in Korea pilots said they were starting to not be as effective because planes were faster and made of higher quality metal (even though theres guncams of Sabres turning Migs into rockets with .50s), so obviously, that means it wasnt effective against planes comprised of wood.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you so surprised? It's machine gun, not cannon. They took away Browning magic ability to set everything on fire and now you actually have to aim at wing spar, pilot or engine, control surfaces by yourself.

That's a good change cause they clearly over performed.
  • Upvote 13
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in Korea pilots said they were starting to not be as effective because planes were faster and made of higher quality metal (even though theres guncams of Sabres turning Migs into rockets with .50s), so obviously, that means it wasnt effective against planes comprised of wood.


If i had a dollar everytime i heard this.
Do you really compare yourself to real life pilots? Do you know how hard to aim in a real plane at high speed?
In this game you can put hundreds of bullets into one plane, you cant in real life.
  • Upvote 6
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i had a dollar everytime i heard this.
Do you really compare yourself to real life pilots? Do you know how hard to aim in a real plane at high speed?
In this game you can put hundreds of bullets into one plane, you cant in real life.

Whats your point? I said they said they werent as effective because planes were faster, and were made of better metal, then said Ive seen guncam vids of Sabres with .50s  setting migs engines on fire. Im not comparing myself to any pilots. I was saying basically that against jets they were showing their age, but could still effectively kill.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt anything has changed, these are just somewhat inconsistent weapons. Sometimes it's a sparkle-fest, sometimes they are wing-tearing  flamethrowers. Been like that before the patch and from what I can tell they still are (granted I've only played sim battles since patch so far but that shouldn't matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaijin is doing it again....First buff, then nerf, then nerf again, then buff, then nerf then buff......It's just the way they do it. 

 

 

The .50 cal should be able to wreck shit up. As someone above stated, they found the .50 inadequate not because it's "bad" it was because it's harder to hit something at 700km/h than 400 km/h....So when you hit you want it to be worth it!---> You move up to higher caliber so that you can pack more exposive filler.

 

Go fly simulator with a joystick....Then you start to realize how hard it is to hit something at all whilst flying....?

 

6 .50 with mousaim should wreck! Even the 2 or 4 .50 cal's on the Italian, German and Jap should wreck shit up.... I have seen the damage caused by .50 on various items and its not like shooting peas. And when you then ad API....Well GET REKT!

  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean shooting 102.4 API bullets each second at a non-armored target filled with fuel shouldn't easily put it in fire ?

I can use the same argument about cannons in many cases and they were much more effective in damaging aircraft's and setting them on fire's. Yet not in this game.

I'm really being tired of USA pilots special snowflake syndrome.

Edited by RastahMan
  • Upvote 7
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, they could have kept the structural damage they were doing (or even buffed it) and simply reduced the fire chance. Instead they made them do less damage and cause less fires. One thing at a time, Gaijin! One thing at a time!

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can use the same argument about cannons in many cases and they were much more effective in damaging aircraft's and setting them on fire's. Yet not in this game.

I'm really being tired of USA pilots special snowflake syndrome.

 

Dat... Doesn't have... Anything to do with the subject...

 

  • Upvote 8
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you so surprised? It's machine gun, not cannon. They took away Browning magic ability to set everything on fire and now you actually have to aim at wing spar, pilot or engine, control surfaces by yourself.

That's a good change cause they clearly over performed.

You're right, there's no reason why a heavy MG round designed to kill armored targets should be able to damage vehicles.

  • Upvote 9
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, there's no reason why a heavy MG round designed to kill armored targets should be able to damage vehicles.

Why you think cannons firing HE rounds are more effective in taking our aircrafts? Oh I know, maybe because they can do damage to wider area after hit and they just don't fly through a plane without doing anything when they don't hit crucial components.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, it's because, as far as I can tell, the *way* 50 cals damage doesn't seem to matter in regard to how they damage anything in game. At the moment, they just kind of do less damage apropos of nothing. I know they don't have explosive filler, and have a smaller diameter than a 20mm round, but the .50 BMG round can, and will, cause severe structural damage to an airplane. Furthermore, incendiary .50 caliber rounds were more than capable of causing fires without having to hit a fuel tank or line. Sure,it was less likely, but, again, none of this seems to have factored in to how .50s actually damage thing in game.

 

Also, a round "Flying through a plane without doing anything" is impossible. If it goes through the plane, it's already causing problems. There's a reason airplanes don't leave assembly with wings full of random holes.

Edited by The_Lieutenant
  • Upvote 8
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, it's because, as far as I can tell, the *way* 50 cals damage doesn't seem to matter in regard to how they damage anything in game. At the moment, they just kind of do less damage apropos of nothing. I know they don't have explosive filler, and have a smaller diameter than a 20mm round, but the .50 BMG round can, and will, cause severe structural damage to an airplane. Furthermore, incendiary .50 caliber rounds were more than capable of causing fires without having to hit a fuel tank or line. Sure,it was less likely, but, again, none of this seems to have factored in to how .50s actually damage thing in game.

 

Also, a round "Flying through a plane without doing anything" is impossible. If it goes through the plane, it's already causing problems. There's a reason airplanes don't leave assembly with wings full of random holes.

 

You can't easily set metal planes on fire without hitting something that's actually *flammable*. As long as there are not enough holes in a single area to significantly impair structural integrity, simply hitting the target does not suffice.

 

I've seen plenty of control surface/system damage caused by M2s (early war belts) and IMO, that's actually how they should be performing.

 

With late war stealth, I easily ripped the wing off of a Yak-9P in a snapshot, but I admit I haven't really flown late war belted planes in 1.59 yet.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't easily set metal planes on fire without hitting something that's actually *flammable*. As long as there are not enough holes in a single area to significantly impair structural integrity, simply hitting the target does not suffice.

 

I've seen plenty of control surface/system damage caused by M2s (early war belts) and IMO, that's actually how they should be performing.

 

With late war stealth, I easily ripped the wing off of a Yak-9P in a snapshot, but I admit I haven't really flown late war belted planes in 1.59 yet.

 

Remember that most planes in the earlier war period only carry one or two cannons, while most planes in the US tech tree carry at least four .50 cals, and far more commonly carry six. Six .50 cals converging on a target should do comparable damage to two 20 mils, not just "control surface damage".   The .50 out of the M2 was considered to be a very effective round in WW2, so I'm pretty sure you're getting the .50 and the 7.7 confused with that statement. 

Edited by Chopstorm
  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.