The argument of mouse aim and accuracy has been rebuked on this thread already, of which I’m not blaming you for not reading the entire thing. This thread is huge enough as it is. So I’m just going to quote the whole thing for you. Me and Killa already went out of our way to determine how much AP roughly it would take to saw off a wing in War Thunder. Look at the Aug-7 posts on this thread. Similarly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmVDExnysHY
You can see where there are clean 20mm hits on bombers. In game, this would destroy them and these are sufficient bursts.
Loofah already made posts on 20mm effectiveness on here as well. I’ll also need to find the other gif I showed, demonstrating that a 20mm to the P-51C’s fuselage can snap it with one round.
No, they’d still have a purpose. As one shot machines. Like they already are. but the incendiary function of .50’s are missing heavily on hits that would set an opponent alight. That’s the whole point:
Leave 20mms alone as they are in game, you hit me. I snap.
Buff .50 incendiary effects to 2016 level. So everyone has cartoonishly OP weapons now. So when I hit your oil, or when I hit your fuel. You burn.
20mm cannons can split planes in half or severely cripple them with singular hits but as we saw with IRL british testing, 20mm cannon fire shouldn’t be doing that large amount of damage. The gun footage shows an 190 A-7 shredding a B-24 and it did nothing.
1/3rd is not “most” of it missing, and you’re taking the worst case scenario. Not only that, you’re forgetting this portion of the source information
“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…”
You’re using the 1/3rd argument as that was a generalized amount for how little they might put in their planes depending on the mission. I.e. ground strafing lightly armored targets. But you try to push this to the worst conclusion possible, while trying to ignore the information literally in the next paragraph as it stated that cannon armed aircraft carried less varied shell types and relied on what would be their bread and butter ammunition types.
To assume 20mm armed aircraft going to interdict bombers are going to be carrying the utter minimum of high explosive ammunition and incendiary when their whole mission is bomber interception, is insanity, and to make your point, you have to actively bank on pilots and their ground crews being actively dumb.
You’re trying to argue to strengthen your point while ignoring what the resource said literally a paragraph later. Your whole 1/3rd argument you’re banking on is either done out of case of arguing in bad faith, or you literally never read past the first paragraph. At which, I’m heavily inclined to believe the former.
Of which only popped holes into the side of which british testing concluded these would be dangerous but survivable (Unless you assume you’re smarter than the countless engineers testing the ammunition)
