Spitfire F Mk.22 and Mk.24 Use Wrong Modifications of Hispano Mk.II Cannon

[AqcessDenied 1,590]

1. The full name of the vehicle affected. If the problem is isolated to one difficulty setting (e.g. Simulator), specify which.

Spitfire Mk.22 & Mk.24

 

2. A detailed description of the issue you have or what you see as being erroneous regarding its representation in-game.   

As of patch 1.87, both the Spitfire F Mk.22 and Mk.24 received Hispano Mk.II cannon in place of their earlier Mk.V cannon. This is correct. However, it appears that the devs failed to give them the late mark of Mk.II cannon, and instead provided both with the initial, unupgraded Mk.II cannon. 

 

In other words, the Mk.22 and Mk.24 are both missing access to the 1943 mod of the Hispano Mk.II cannon. 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, earlier Griffon Spitfires such as the Mk.14 variants and Mk.18 all have access to the improved modification of the Mk.II cannon.  Even the Mk.Vc has the ability to upgrade to the 1943 cannon as shown below.

 

 

 

3. Proposed Fix

 

Both the Spitfire Mk.22 and Mk.24 should receive the Hispano Mk.II mod 1943 seeing as that they are 1945+ planes...which are apparently using 1941 guns despite their earlier counterparts using the final Mk.II variant.

 

4. Sources for Fix.

 

Because Hispano “year modifications’’ (i.e. 1941, 1942, 1943) are a mechanic designed by Gaijin for game research progress, there are no direct sources that correlate the year-correct Hispano Mk.II modification to the Mk.22/24.

 

However, by inference, we can tell that the Mk.22/24 should both be using the latest and most improved modification of the Hispano Mk.II 20mm aircraft gun simply by comparing the dates that these aircraft were built.

 

Mk.22: 

 

 

 

Mk.24: 

 

 

And of course, further proof can be found with the Pilot's Manual for the Spitfire Mk.22/24, which is dated to September 1947. 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/uk/supermarine/spitfire/a-p-2816-b-c-pilot-s-notes-for-spitfire-22-24.html

 

Books used for sources:

1. The Supermarine Spitfire: A Comprehensive Guide for the Modeller, Part 2: Griffon-Powered by Robert Humphreys (ISBN: 978-0953346547)

2. Mark 1 Guide: Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire F Mk.22/24 (ISBN: 80-86637-03-4)

 

 

----------

Thus, as shown, with the Spitfire F Mk.22 and Mk.24's build date, first flight date, and date of introduction, we can infer that it should use the latest 1943 Hispano Mk.II modification available to contemporary (and some earlier) fighters in the British Tree.

 

 

 

[Pony51 6,536]

Hello,

 

Are you sure the module does not already incorporate the 1943 upgrade?

(And a CLOG of test flight still wanted.)

[AqcessDenied 1,590]

13 hours ago, Pony51 said:

Hello,

 

Are you sure the module does not already incorporate the 1943 upgrade?

(And a CLOG of test flight still wanted.)

 

...I have attached screenshots showing the differences in how the mods are labelled and represented in War Thunder. A simple reference test flight will confirm that they are using 1941 mods. 

 

I made a near-identical bug report for the MB.5 when it was rolled out last year, as it had the same issue: 

 

I didn't require .clogs or video evidence for that report, but if you insist...

 

Below are a series of screenshots showing the mod types. This is all the proof you should require to file the bug report. 

 

Mk.22: 

 

Mk.24: 

 

MB.5, initial Hispano gun mod: 

 

MB.5, 1943 Hispano Mk.II mod: 

 

-----------------------

 

Notice how the early modifications of the Hispano Mk.II denote a 40% increased period between failure. We can assume that they are all the same mod, because the 1943 mod has a 300% increased period between failures (using the MB.5 as an example since it has both the early and 1943 mod, *and* I had to bug report and prove this same exact thing a year ago...).

 

Should be a pretty simple BR to implement.

 

 

 

 

2019_03_18_00_52_40__6920.clog

[Pony51 6,536]

Excellent!  Thank you very much (gave you 2 thanks)

 

I shall use your earlier report as supporting evidence for this one.

 

18 hours ago, Aquilachrysaetos said:

I didn't require .clogs or video evidence for that report, but if you insist...

 

I'm sorry, but order came down on insisting on CLOG files.

We have been getting too many reports without CLOG and that tremendously delays fixing game.

[AqcessDenied 1,590]

Fair enough. Let me know if you need anything else. 

[Pony51 6,536]

All good now.  Working on it.

 

aaaaand done!

 

===

Archived.