I’ve seen it happen plenty of times, even with hispanos. The difference in damage models between massive bombers and small fighters in Warthunder is miniscule.
1 Like
I would like to see more rigid bombers. But without 3rd person in sim, and nerfed guners. You have to do some work to kill a bomber, or, position yourself good enough to kill it with 1 burst of 20mm. The FW 190 was able to do that. But a bomber with the most kills on the battlefiield never existed…
I just was in an battle. And our team got 1 tapped by a Mustag MK 1… That shouldn´t be possible. I left the match. Coz it has nothing to do with good enjoyeble fights, where even the guy that got shot down had his fun…
So no… .50 deserve a hughe nerf, not a buff…
50s do not need any sort of nerf. That is silly talk. They’re barely adequate as is and a laughable joke compared to what they SHOULD be.
So why do you think, they had to put so many of them, including a hughe amount of ammo, on these planes?
It´s an engeneers nightmare to put guns on a plane. They are heavy and they reduce the planes performance.
The needed to put so many guns on these planes coz the litterally were bad. Simple, right?
The 109 has 3 guns and there were many 109 aces.
So yes. the .50 need to be nerfed.
I’m sorry but you sound ridiculous.
1 Like
I sound rediculous because I want good and hard fiights between 2 opponents? And not fights like: “Oh… enemy… ok… lets point my nose for 0.01 seconds barley towards him and boom… I won… God… I´m the greatest pilot ever lived!!!”?
Yes, how rediculous.
.50 are just OP atm.
That is not a very good argument since you forget that most German aces used gun pods on their 109s.
2 Likes
It may not split the plane in half but the damage it can couse from one hit can render the planes unusable some times multi hit can down a fighter, and actually according to US military tests it appears that 20 to 25 direct hit from 20mm mg151 where enough to down a heavy bomber, and it took 3 to 5 hits from 30mm to down a bomber.
Effects of 30mm rounds on planes:
4 Likes
No you don’t German 30mm and 20mm Mineshells where self distruct the fuse was a time fuse and not impact the shells pen almost to 2/3 in side and then explodes inside the plane.
I suggest you watch these two vids
Bc if anything the only thing that really underperform is the 20mm and 30mm cannons
2 Likes
Mustang mk1 has 20mm, not .50cals.
So no… it’s 20mm that deserve a hughe nerf, not .50s
Flaps destroyed and the bent structure would cause a lot of drag on one side.
Here’s what appears to be a 30mm hit against a P-47:
Spoiler
The Pilot died in a crash-landing from what I’ve read. The hydraulics were destroyed, yaming the landing gear.
Not necessarely lethal damage but enough to take out the plane for some time.
In WT, you can not take two 20mm Mineshell hits without a wing breaking.
3 Likes
no
The plane in the picture is a spitfire not a P47
P47 is under “spoiler”. It even says P47 in the picture.
2 Likes
Don’t even need to know how to read, the big cowling and slotted flaps are a dead giveaway. The P-47 itself was probably THE toughest single engine fighter of WW2, and even it didn’t fare too well.
6 Likes
My fault
yes it shows the effectiveness of sustained fire from multiple cannons on aircraft. There are videos of bombers collapsing and Fw-190s having ammo explosions from sustained fire from .50 rounds. They’re not underperforming.
Honestly, if 20mms get insta-collapsing action with their 20mms, then american .50’s need to get back their 2016 flamethrower status.
Bombers collapse as a result of the wing spars being hit, not holes in the skin of the aircraft being hit by a .50 cal. .50 cals don’t leave very big holes, their damage comes from hitting critical components, like engines, fuel, and wing spars, and this is already modelled. They are, in fact, significantly better at that in this game, not just because of mouse aim like most cases in this game, but because the .50 cals are significantly more accurate than in real life (even when just measuring a single .50 cal shooting in a straight line, this is without even considering the box setup on .50 cals that would have them spraying all over the place if they were modelled accurately).
Cannons, in particular when firing HE shells, do their damage very differently. They use the explosive power and the subsequent force of air resistance to blow huge holes in the skin of the aircraft. .50 cals can already accurately hit targets as far as 1.8km away without too much trouble, whereas cannons are restricted more to 1.2km, or even as close as 600m at most if you’re talking about the German ones.
If you get hit by a burst of .50 cals from an early P-51, that’s four .50 cals firing around 10 rounds per second, so at most it’s likely 30-50 rounds hitting. 30-50 hits is an optimistic estimation, assuming a full second of accurate fire (which is longer than you might think). 50-80 assumes more than a full second. While .50 cals leave a larger hole than a rifle calibre bullet, it’s not by much, so even with 30-50 holes in your wing you’re not going to have a very significant aerodynamic effect. .50 cals require hits on important components to do significant, let alone crippling damage.
On the other hand, a set of German 20mms from an FW 190 is four cannons firing 11.5 rounds per second. With the comparative inaccuracy, fire rate, velocity, and range, we can assume that there’s maybe half a second of accurate fire, meaning 5.75 rounds per second between four guns, which is 21 hits. That’s 21 hits with 2/3 being an HEI round with around 30g of TNT equivalent, which, if I recall correctly, is around 3/5 of a hand grenade. For context, this means 14 HEI rounds (on which the incendiary effect isn’t even modelled, to be clear), equaling the effect of 8.4 hand grenades exploding directly on the surface of your wooden/aluminum ww2 aircraft. This is before factoring the subsequent air resistance of high speed flight flowing against the new holes in your wing, and also before factoring the turbulence effect of a ton of air suddenly rushing into the vacuum of space caused by the explosion pushing the air away from your wing. Realistically, if those shots didn’t tear your wing off instantly, they were extremely likely to do so around five seconds after, which is not currently modelled in the game. Compared to the .50 cals, this does not need to hit critical components to do crippling damage, which means if you nick a wing instead of the engine it’s still likely to tear the wing off, or at least the control surfaces.
If anything, cannons are underperforming and .50 cals are overperforming.
EDIT: Formatting and adding context.
4 Likes
We’ve already shown the guncam footage of Bf-110s sitting on the direct rear of B-24s and B-17s not instantly sawing their tails off with 2 shots and the damage tests Britain did with their spitfires showing that 3 shells shouldn’t be splitting planes in half with the high explosive shells
Even when taking a belt that carried the least amount of mineshells in game, we still get wing snapping action. within the single digits while IRL, it took substantial firepower to take down a bomber in the way we see in War thunder.
Like what @KillaKiwi said. Everything is overperforming, but 20mms are overperforming moreso than .50’s.
I can score a snapshot on a P-47 and split the plane in half, just ignore that most of it’s fuselage is consistent of a massive turbocharger and large exhausts, while with .50’s I need a sustained burst even though historically, .50’s were able to very easily set fires with an M23 incendiary round having a 60% chance of lighting a fire with a single round, yet we don’t see that in game.
.50’s are ‘overperforming’ in structural damage, yes. But so are 20mms to a cartoonish degree.
the best option is to bring back the 2016 .50 flamethrowers where .50 incendiary rounds practically guaranteed a fire.