.50's deserve a buff

[dovah4]

@PercussionCap

Good thing that you can scale burst mass to whatever time you want, until you have to consider gun overheating or running out of ammo.

Even if your firing window is just 1/4 sec, the P-47D still puts more lead in the air than almost anything else.

dovah4:

Tearing quotes and stuff out of “Flying Guns of World War II; Development of Aircraft guns, ammunition, and installations 1933-1945” by Anthony G. Williams and Emmanuel Gustin.

"The Luftwaffe saw considerable variations in belt loading, as follows:

The 7.92mm MG-17 used in fighters were loaded with 50 percent AP, 40 percent API and 10 percent HEI (a Beobachtungsgeschoss, or observation round, which exploded on impact to show the pilot he was on target). For ground attack and for the MG-15 and MG-81 felxible guns, the sequence typically changed to equal proportions of AP, AP-T and API; v-munition loadings were only used in the MG-17. The 13mm MG-131 was loaded with one or two HEI for every AP/T. Official loadings for the 20mm belts and magazines varied at different times and places. Three types of projectiles were usually mixed in the belts: HEI (M-Geschoss), HE/T and AP/API or APHE. Ratios quoted include 1:1:1, 3:1:1, and 2:2:1 respectively.

Generally speaking, the more powerful weapons were able to provide sufficient destructive power with only one or two projectile types, so belts were less varied. As we have seen, an equal mix of HEI and SAPI became standard in the RAF’s 20mm Hispanos, whereas the 30mm MK-108 principally relied on the M-Geschoss HEI it was designed for. The .50 in Browning fighter belts in US service started the war loaded with 40 percent AP, 40 percent Incendiary and 20 percent tracer. The tracer fell out of favour when it was realised that it was providing more help to the enemy. By the end of the war, fighters were primarily loaded with the M8 API (which appeared in service in spring 1944), as this proved to be a good general-purpose projectile, although the M23 incendiary also saw some use."

So overall, the luftwaffe was using high explosives for their cannons. I have no clue why you want to go “Mmmm But do it with AP!” as if they ran full AP against bombers for some reason. Sounds like you’re moving the goal post.

[PercussionCap]

@dovah4

I have no clue why you want to go “Mmmm But do it with AP!”

First, you’re using the wrong caliber of ammo. Second, you’re extrapolating the damage from one hit, with the cartridge that can be as little as 1/3rd of the belt (as per your own information, and that’s without considering ammo shortages), AND from the worst angle possible.

No, despite all your crying about it, a B-17 will survive about that much fire in-game too.

[berezenboi]

The problem is not that the 151 is doing too much damage. The problem is that it is doing too much structural damage

[dovah4]

@PercussionCap

First, you’re using the wrong caliber of ammo. Second, you’re extrapolating the damage from one hit, with the cartridge that can be as little as 1/3rd of the belt (as per your own information, and that’s without considering ammo shortages)

If you wanna look at 20mms, there’s plethora of 20mm gun cam footage with long streams of fire on the target showing it’s not magically blowing planes apart like we see in War Thunder. My whole point is that a single HE 20mm round in game has enough output to be on par with straight up bombs. I also love how you use the as little modifier to describe the minimum being 1/3rd of their ammunition belt being high explosive. Bro, it’s still 1/3rd of your ammo. That’s still a crap ton of shells in your plane, especially in attackers like the Bf-110 or fighters like the Fw-190. I’m ‘’‘‘extrapolating’’‘’’ off of one hit because for most aircraft in War Thunder. One hit is all you need to take people down. But IRL you’re seeing aircraft shot multiple times with 20mm.

@PercussionCap

AND from the worst angle possible.

Footage of a B-24 being attacked from the front is in the same video. Secondly, what do you mean worst angle? All the modules and parts are lined up, especially for AP where it does it’s damage from hitting spars and modules. You’re just making up stuff now!

The problem is that you’re moving the goal post.
‘W-well, it’s using 20mms! Not 30mms!’
Okay well, if that’s the case, here’s all this information showing that 20mm splits planes in half with 1 cannon round when it shouldn’t be.
‘Buh-buh! What if they’re using AP!’
Well here’s an excerpt from a book showing that high explosive ammunition was more than likely preferential to pilots because the mission entails shooting down bombers.

I have shown multiple times, that 20mm is doing too much damage. You can test it yourself. The amount of fire you need to take down a B-17 is absolutely miniscule as you can send the B-17 down into chunks in game while IRL it took considerable amount of fire. The thing is, this just doesn’t matter to the B-17. It matters to everything in the game as 20mm cannons in general are doing insane unrealistically large amounts of damage, mix this in with paper DMs, you get a complete recipe for disaster.

@PercussionCap

No, despite all your crying about it, a B-17 will survive about that much fire in-game too.

Nice joke. Literally look at any war thunder video of the B-17 (Or most bombers in general) and it’s collapsing from the air, split in two by a split second click of rounds and you go ‘Yes, this is accurate’ in fact, what blows my mind the most. People for years have been complaining about bombers being too weak. To the point that they are almost unplayable. Yet here you are basically going ‘Nuh-uh, my 20mms should be able to 1 click people’

[Loofah]

Remove 3-plane stabilization from the gunners, and we can talk.
Also try to spread your fire around B-17 - it’ll happily tank 30 20mm rounds and keep flying.
Sometimes ridiculous things happen and wings/tails break super easy. But many times bomber requires prolonged clobbering, most of my bomber kills come from fire/pilot snipes.

[SpeclistMain1]

If there is stabilization for the gunners, it doesn’t help pretty much at all. As it is the bullet spread, ammo belts, AI gunner range, and AI gunner accuracy are just bad. Not to mention the AI gunners appear to be unable to shoot at multiple targets at once (from what I can tell).

[Loofah]

You can tumble through the air with broken wing and your gunners remain rock steady.
I’ve been sniped by a bomber with no wing quite a few times. The gunners are perfectly stabilized, I can make a video if you don’t believe me, and it greatly helps bomber users to snipe the fighters

Good B18B griefer is virtually unkillable, and decent B-17 user will usually land a few hits too.

I don’t care about AI gunners, I’m talking manual gunners.
Fighters are more accurate than IRL, but bomber gunners with their perfect synchronisation, great accuracy, ability to perfectly handle 40kg gun in a bomber rolling and tumbling around are just simply broken.

[PercussionCap]

@dovah4

there’s plethora of 20mm gun cam footage with long streams of fire on the target showing it’s not magically blowing planes apart like we see in War Thunder

And there’s other 20mm gun camera footage, as well as multiple eye witnesses that say planes were brought down by very few shells, especially if one is reading about Marseille and his sorties in Africa. The vast majority of pilots missed pretty much ALL their shots.

https://youtu.be/Iew9cu_9nf4?si=ICPGuyYRZDZy_sT6&t=1805 (timestamped)
When they DO hit a high deflection shot in the right place, as on the timestamp in that video and as we would in WT since we have MOUSE AIM, a single hit is enough to bring it down.

@dovah4

Bro, it’s still 1/3rd of your ammo.

Which is quite bad if that’s your “good” shell.

@dovah4

One hit is all you need to take people down.

I wish I had clipped a battle I had yesterday where a 109 tanked like 5 short bursts from my Ki-100.

@dovah4

But IRL you’re seeing aircraft shot multiple times with 20mm.

We had that during the great RealShatter fuckup, and everyone disliked it. I don’t remember seeing a single player whose opinion I even slightly value saying they enjoyed needing to fire for 5x longer on something while .50cals were still stupidly overperforming and doing MORE DAMAGE THAN CANNONS at the time.

@dovah4

Footage of a B-24 being attacked from the front is in the same video.

Of which we don’t see the aftermath. Who’s to say that B-24 wasn’t set on fire and didn’t go down? Also, as I said above, IRL pilots were far more inaccurate than we are in WT.

@dovah4

Secondly, what do you mean worst angle?

Go on, shoot a B-17 from straight 6 in a real match with just two MG151/20s. Or better yet, do it with sim controls so its more relevant.

@dovah4

The problem is that you’re moving the goal post.

Since when is pointing out the obvious flaws in your argument = moving the goalposts? IRL pilots were notoriously inaccurate, with hit rate in the single % digits. Of course with aim like that, you’re gonna need a lot more than just a handful of 20mm ammo to shoot anything down.

And pilots like Marseille DID shoot down plenty of aircraft with minimum ammo usage.

@dovah4

‘W-well, it’s using 20mms! Not 30mms!’

It’s a claim made by every room temp IQ bomber main that claims that the gun camera that is right in the middle of the Bf 110 G2’s MK108s is somehow recording the supposedly 30mm tracers coming from far below it, and not from the pair of 20mm cannons below the gun camera.

@dovah4

‘Buh-buh! What if they’re using AP!’

Also not what I said, but nice try at actually moving the goalposts.

@dovah4

The amount of fire you need to take down a B-17 is absolutely miniscule as you can send the B-17 down into chunks in game while IRL it took considerable amount of fire.

You can replicate the exact situation in the video in-game, from that angle and range. Especially if you do what this pilot did and spread your damage around the tail and wings.

@dovah4

People for years have been complaining about bombers being too weak. To the point that they are almost unplayable. Yet here you are basically going ‘Nuh-uh, my 20mms should be able to 1 click people’

And here’s you here, complaining your .50cals with 4x the ammo capacity, comparable burst mass, and often 2-3x the number of guns on board are NOT onetapping people.

Bombers are perfectly playable in Sim (and arguably very OP there thanks to all-seeing 3rd person gunners) as you don’t have the accuracy to just put a stream of 20mm shells all in their wing root.

[SpeclistMain1]

@Loofah

I don’t care about AI gunners, I’m talking manual gunners.

Why should the manual gunner’s position be even worse? It’s barely viable as it is, and the AI gunners aren’t viable at all.

@Loofah

Fighters are more accurate than IRL, but bomber gunners with their perfect synchronisation, great accuracy, ability to perfectly handle 40kg gun in a bomber rolling and tumbling around are just simply broken.

Bombers should be more than XP pinatas, though.

[conglat]

50. is MG ofc 20mm gonna be stronger

[Gale_Cleven]

Wdym, 50’s need a buff? But I do agree with that.

[berezenboi]

fundamentaly the problem is not damage models (though those do need some work. tail snapping is pretty BS), but the fact that bombers are implemented in an incredibly stupid and counterproductive way.

[Reisel999]

The .50s in War Thunder are one of the most effective, most ammo-heavy and easiest to use weapons in the game. It only takes one well-placed burst on any fighter to render it useless. They also have no bullet drop or recoil and are very easy to aim at both long and short range, thanks to their high convergence, unlike some guns whose recoil causes the plane to move, making aiming difficult. In short, if you find the .50s to be bad weapons, especially the American ones, it’s not a Gaijin problem, it’s simply a skill issue.

[SpeclistMain1]

@Reisel999

It only takes one well-placed burst on any fighter to render it useless.

This is sarcasm, right?

[Reisel999]

It’s not a joke. A good burst at any part of the enemy plane with the .50 will surely set it on fire.

[Reisel999]

It will also depend on the ammunition you use, as another player said earlier in this same debate, do not expect to split a plane in two with an anti-armor tracer.

[Loofah]

Shouldn’t be worse. Gunners should be more realistic. So no stabilization, and no iron-armed gunners who can shoot.upside down no problem.
But since they aren’t, bombers shouldn’t be any tougher than they currently are.
Bombers are useless in Air RB. So are some fighters. Such is life.
How do you even imagine a mode where bombers are useful and not completely broken?

[SpeclistMain1]

@Loofah

How do you even imagine a mode where bombers are useful and not completely broken?

Spoilered since it's long

@SpeclistMain1

To add to this, here are my suggestions:

1. Make AI gunners useful - On an Aced crew they should be firing at 1.0-1.2km, with Expert 0.8-1.0km, then 0.7-0.8km without Expert. They should also be fairly accurate, due to the general firepower disadvantage bombers have (most bombers can only point at most half of their MGs towards any target, of which the total amount of MGs are usually at most half of the firepower of a fighter).
2. Decrease bomber BRs across the board - Imo, there should be no prop bomber above 6.3 - maybe 6.7. Put the Tu-4 at 6.3, B-29 at 6.0, and move downwards. This will of course require adjustments to the base HP. The jet bombers should also be moved down, especially the ones with little to no countermeasures; the main things that will have to be worked around are the prop-to-jet transition BRs, or putting certain types of missiles too low.
3. Make bombers tankier, they shouldn’t be paper - This applies to every bomber, especially the bigger and slower ones. Short of a 40mm+ cannon, one shots should not happen under any circumstances - and for most types of MGs/cannons multiple passes should be required to take them down.
4. Increase bomber spawn altitude - The current spawn altitude is just far too low, virtually every nation in the game at all BRs have fighters or interceptors that can outclimb bombers. Imo, 5-6km should be the minimum spawn altitude for most BRs.
5. Fix MG bullet spread/ammo and targeting inconsistencies - Generally the bullet spread for bombers is massively larger than for fighters, and this just shouldn’t be the case. Additionally, some bombers don’t have access to their historical ammo belts (iirc), which also makes their defensive/offensive capabilities worse than necessary. Additionally, add the MG targeting system to the B-29.
6. Increase the rewards for attack aircraft/fighters hitting ground targets, but massively decrease rewards for them hitting bases - This will generally just stop attack aircraft/fighters from taking bases at all BRs.
7. Move the jet bomber/attack aircraft spawn be much closer to bases and ground targets than the fighter spawn - No fighter should be getting to a base before a bomber, even a supersonic fighter against a subsonic bomber.

Responses to other people within the thread:

@BleedingUranium

One of the main things we need is a gunner rework. Not just for aircraft, but a rework and unification of the aircraft, ship, and tank gunner systems.

• Gunners should not open fire without prompting from the player (unlike current air/ships)
• Gunners should fire on targets assigned by the player (system already in place with ships)
• Gunners should open fire at far enough range to be a deterrent, but with poor-ish accuracy at range (like vs-ship ship gunners, thus a notable buff to air gunners, but a nerf to vs-air ship gunners)
• Tank secondary AA guns (roof .50s, etc) should be included in the same system

The AI gunners should most definitely fire on their own, and the accuracy of the plane gunners should be made to be as accurate as the AA guns in Naval, tbh. Their accuracy should also be good, to the point where fighters would be 100% shot down without dodging.

PS respond in the linked thread if it’s about the bombers

[Reisel999]

I haven’t read the whole thread, but just lowering the TU-4 to 6.3 is a nonsense. And also raising the spawn altitude of the bombers? Do you want the games to be only Russian TU-4s against the Chinese TU-4? Bombers need a change, but this is too extreme. If you are such a fan of realism, you shouldn’t complain about a B-29 fighting a Mig-15, since it happened in Korea.

[PercussionCap]

Put the Tu-4 at 6.3

LOL