I think it would be cool, if structural damage affected flight performance more heavily instead of simply blowing a wing off.
If bullet tumbling was a thing and effect armor penetration.
And if maps and matchmaking were more historical.
Like Japanese fighter armament was weak until the the end of the war, but if you’re flying in the pacific with carriers and airfields hours away, any engine related damage could be fatal after some time.
Well, that would show the advantage of german 7,92mm Pz.Geschoss and generally 13+mm ammo.
It’s odd. That 7.92mm solid shot projectile should have been quite effective but it doesn’t seem to have been used.
Like other than the ballistic and penetration table there’s no indication of that ammo being used.
Even though it was known that the SmK was practically useless for defeating aircraft armor plates.
Well, it probably didn’t have a lot of range.
Only ~9mm penetration at 100m compared to the same at 300m for the 13mm AP-T.
But at least it had a chance to go through some armor.
On the other hand no other nation tried to develope a solid shot bullet for their MGs.
Even though it would seem like the effectiveness of high velocity .50cal rounds that could penetrate a pilots armor from long range would be incredible effective against fighters.
Basically a Spitfire Mk I, if planes never had any armor and could be shot down by sending enough bullets into their direction to knock out the pilot.
I was talking about in game, I mean.
Idk, well i saw some pictures and its usage in the 94mm casing for PzB.38/39.
Also ballistically it would be close to the S.m.K L’Spur.
No, jacketed rounds have generally better ballistic.
The solid shot round has that driving band sticking out which makes the aerodynamics worse and tracers have generally better ballistics.
So it would be worse than the SmK aerodynamically while also being lighter.
We can see from the ballistics tables that it rapidly loses speed.
Oh and the penetration table says it’s for the Pz-v. Which would have higher velocity, though unknown.
From the weight probably 875-900m/s.
Wrong choice of word my bad, i meant in terms of velocity. And the -v- would also be 905m/s i suppose.
Reducing the max Gs that a lot of airframes can stand in game in general would be more realistic. As you say though, reducing the max Gs as a response to airframe damage would be a good way to implement this sort of structural weakness without involving overly complicated calculations for the server hamster to juggle. I’d definitely like to see less cases of shots immediately blowing wings off, but then 5-10 seconds later the wing comes off from a harder turn than the damaged airframe can stand.
and because its well known usa tech tree is #1 or very close to it (its #1, let’s be real)
Moving to Correct thread from Here: How to fight A7M1 and A7M2? - #65 by _Zekken
-“You only hit his elevator!”
-Game says “lost control of flap” while you can physically his flap fall off (not an elevator) after a pile of rounds peppered their way down the entire length of the aircraft, causing him to trail a big thick line of black smoke (which is never caused by an Elevator, or even flap being shot off) and as I come around you can hear that his engine has also shut down as well, which would explain the black smoke.
Well thankfully I did hit anywhere else, I hit pretty much everywhere else in fact. He flew through a literal wall of lead.
I dont know what video you watched, because it wasnt mine. And I dont know what game you are playing because it clearly isnt War Thunder Realistic Battles
The game will list the first thing you critted with a short cooldown so it doesn’t spam you with messages on what you broke. If they didn’t do that, Every HE cannon round would flood your feed with damage that you caused to the flight surfaces or engine.
Never said you only struck his elevator. But that the kill you received. Was due to you striking his elevator as evidenced by the missing elevators and complete loss of control. He literally stopped manuevering and just went straight down into the ground. If you think a lost flap is what caused him to decide to suicidally smash into the ground. I have no words for you.
Also you can literally see the elevators missing in this shot.
Like, dawg, the shapes aren’t even the same anymore.
Engine damage, sure. Whatever. You got a good shot on his engine, due to his angle. But if this was a standard deflection shot. You would’ve done jack squat hitting his wings. That’s basically the only way to kill enemies reliably or for engine damage (Less so for radials)
Right so, you are agreeing that I didn’t just hit one part, but I hit multiple areas all over the aircraft including the engine, wing, and tail. All of which did some level of critical damage. Just losing your elevators doesn’t result in a severe damage award by itself.
Anyway, I’m getting sick of arguing tiny details and accusations of luck about one specific kill I had on one video I just happened to have on hand, which when I saved it wasn’t about the kill itself but more the fact that I won the dogfight at all.
So I spent tonight playing a whole bunch of games. I was playing GRB instead of ARB, partly because I was playing with a friend who doesn’t play air, and partly because dogfights in GRB are much more fun than they are in ARB, since ARB is stale and boring these days. It doesn’t really matter because the damage models aren’t any different between modes anyway.
I picked the P-51H to use for several reasons:
Here’s the video, I concede that the first few kills are on low tier stuff. But most of the video I’m killing enemies well within the 5.0-7.0 regions, or at the very least aircraft that a P-47D-28 would expect to fight, since thats what the original argument was discussing. (also that super satisfying snipe on the BI, that thing was so god damn annoying to fight)
Side reference, my KDR in it after tonight is 2.61 with 33 total games played. I didn’t check what it was at before I started so whoops.
Annd, my aim notwithstanding, it only takes very short bursts to leave them crippled, burning, and falling out of the sky. As someone who doesn’t actually fly US planes that often, Its just as fast as most of my cannon armed aircraft.
The fact of the matter is that while no, you aren’t going to be blowing a wing off very often when firing .50 cals, you ARE going to be leaving them a burning wreck. If you notice in that video, every single kill left the enemy in a giant fireball. Thats how the .50 cals do their damage. Not by blowing part of it off, but by ripping the whole airframe to shreds with a giant wall of lead.
Also, regarding your Ki-44 comment, the Ki-44 doesn’t get 20mms, it gets 4x .50 cals, two in the nose, two in the wings.
Destruction 1: On a slow-moving I-16 at ~40-60 degrees at close range (0.3km as a guess?), 1856 rounds before the first hit, with the hit being fuselage damage (likely fuel due to the explosion). The severe damage and destroyed happened at 1759 rounds, so it took ~100 rounds at 0.3km, with a fuel explosion, with a spray of 1.87 seconds (4.51s - 2.64s). That’s not really great.
Destruction 2: On a slow-moving IL-2, likely a bomb destruction (so not really applicable to the circumstances we were talking about).
Destruction 3: On a Tu-2S moving in a predictable manner, ~1373 rounds before the hit, then a critical hit damaging the right flap in addition to starting a fire on the back of the wing/engine nacelles. In the second part (when you’re behind them), the first hit happens with ~1302 rounds, ~1260 after you get the kill, which also seems to be a bomb explosion.
Destruction 4: On a Fw-190F moving moderately, ~1735 rounds before the first hit, ~1726 rounds after the destruction, with it appearing to be a destroyed elevator (going off of the guy not being able to pitch up despite being able to roll).
Destruction 5: On a La-9 moving slowly, ~1507 rounds before the first hit, ~1404 rounds after the destruction, starts a fire on the right wing and destroys the right flap, the wing looks intact (maybe the very tip of it is cut off, although the debris that can be seen could be the right flap). I assume the right aileron is also broken or made inoperable.
Destruction 6: On a La-7, the outer half of the left wing does come off, but this appears to be the result of a fuel explosion.
Destruction 7: On a Ki-61-I, the left flap comes off and the left wing is set on fire, likely making the left aileron inoperable.
Destruction 8: On a Do-335A, breaks the right flap, sets fire to the tail, the fire (eventually) breaks the tail off.
Destruction 9: On a BI, pilot snipe.
Destruction 10: On a Su-9, damage to the left engine, tbh I have no idea why the guy didn’t pull up unless the elevator controls got cut.
TL;DR: Basically every kill either was the result of a fuel explosion (2x), fire breaking the controls/tail (3x), bomb explosion (2x), destroying an elevator at an inopportune moment (2x, maybe 3x), and one pilot snipe.
I’m not really sure how that shows 0.50 cals are good when basically the only thing going for them are incendiary rounds, which other nations with good weapons get.
you just happened to play what is arguably the best prop in the game?
did you not consider that despite having a 25% reduction in volume of fire, you would have well over 25% increase in time on target?
It does. Like it literally lets you know you critted him because that’s a critical component. He would’ve fought for WAY longer (Which, btw, his engine probably still had some fight in it. That’s what a plane sounds like in this game when you don’t WEP 24/7)
I wish the “Argument of burning wreck” is what I get but my enemy’s aircraft usually survives almost any onslaught I give it no matter the aircraft and it boils down to “Does my plane pilot snipe?” Also, I misspoke, one was a Ki-44-I
Almost every single fight I get it just devolves into “Did I pilot snipe the guy?”
The U.S. Army Air corp at the time stated a 20mm is roughly on par with 3 .50s
I took out the P-38J and used only it’s 20mm cannon, and I was reliably 1 tapping people with the few exceptions of the time my AP hit the enemy wing or fuselage. Especially in deflection shots. compared to the .50s that take a full burst
The first two shots of your video you just sniped bombs killing bombers. and the majority of your kills basically consist of unaware enemies who are caught slow (due to it being ground RB) where you can almost dump your entire burst accurately into the enemy aircraft and no one actually fought at any speed against you. You’re trying to prove that .50s can hang with 20mms. But you aren’t showing me magic shots of .50s utterly decimating an opponent while you and him are getting into a knife fight. Or you have split second shots to make. You’re basically just casually pointing and holding click while barely having to account for lead or even think about your convergence.
This is generally what I get with .50s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mB012FQlEE
In fact, I would even argue that your video proves my point. To even get similar damage that a 20mm can spit out in literally the quarter of the time, you have to hold a full 3 second burst on a slow enemy and have almost every single shot hit to score the same damage, while some shmuck Yak-3 or japanese aircraft can just float by, click for a split second and kill you. @Irregular23 was right. Incendiary rounds need to be completely reworked so they can actually DO something.
If the incendiary effect is your main concern, then I think it’s worth mentioning that in the video you sent, you didn’t appear to hit his engine or fuel until the same burst that killed the pilot, so in all likelihood you wouldn’t have caused a fire.
I’m not sure whether the incendiary factor of .50 cals is currently accurate. Some time ago I saw a reference to the incendiary factor being overstated in the code, but since I can’t remember the source or context, I can safely disregard that. What I can attest to is that .50 cals in-game are significantly more accurate and farther-reaching than in real life, and that’s before factoring the convergence settings on the guns.
If the incendiary effect receives a significant buff to put .50 cal damage more in line with 20mm guns, the .50 cals should receive a corresponding nerf to their accuracy and ease of use, lest .50 cals entirely outpace 20mms in effectiveness. I think I said this somewhere earlier in the discussion (it’s been a while since I tuned into it), but the US used .50 cals because they were strategically convenient, not because they were actually more effective than 20mms.
Never said they were more effective. The issue is that the amount of damage that .50s dish out compared to 20mms especially in terms of realistic damage is a huge disparity with 20mms acting as if they are 88mm flak able to blow planes apart when that simply isn’t the case.
Like the guncam footage posted above, even when the guns were converged to have a box pattern, not like the convergence we have in game where it’s pinpoint. .50s were able to snap and destroy bf-109 and japanese aircraft wings with ease. But in game, as shown here. I completely flooded his wings with rounds and yet his aircraft was able to take hits but still maneuver well unlike P-47 or P-51s where a single black wing makes the plane completely uncontrollable. Like with the I-185 screen cap I posted. My shot only pilot sniped, not set the aircraft alight. The incendiary we have acts like tiny crappy HE when it should also have a penetrative effect. You can scroll up and see documentation showing that M23 was insanely effective. But in game? It does jack crap.
Look at german guncam footage of them shooting P-47s and how tanky they are. Some P-47s taking up to 20 rounds of 20mm and COUNTLESS rounds of 7.92.
If it was war thunder physics we were working with. The aircraft would’ve been shot once or twice and explode.
Why is gaijin doing all this effort when they tried to completely rework how APHE behaved. Give new modules to modern tanks so there’s more things to damage. But for aircraft it’s basically. “If you have a cannon, it dominates”
I dont think they are significantly more accurate in game than IRL. 0.50s are known to be very accurate when they arent very wornout. the big issue with game is the convergence settings being for a convergence point instead of a more complex pattern and there being no vertical convergence.
I believe it was a mix. where the 20mms the US had tested had many jamming problems and had many 0.50s but it was known that against the fighter targets that US planes were often shooting at a few hits of 0.50 were often enough to disable them or at least force them to disengage and while using 0.50s they could have more volume of fire and trigger time per a weight of armament to ensure they get hits on target
Oh please no. 20mm are already a big pain for us bomber mains, but a buff in .50cal? sure it’ll benefit US bombers and Fighters, but it’s a pain for German/Italian/British/and every other nation bomber mains. Just a mini 20mm with more ammo and less weight.
Are you working under the assumption that setting the target on fire is the expected result of a solid burst from the .50 cals? Almost all of the footage I’ve seen has shown plenty of fuel and radiator leaks when shot by .50 cals, but only the occasional fire. Whether the incendiary effect should be buffed or not remains to be seen, but if it gets to the point that it’s your main method of killing an aircraft, then it will have been buffed to an unrealistic extent.
I’m not sure about other 20mms, but I know at least that German minengeschoss rounds should blow planes apart, and you can see it doing so with some regularity in the gun camera footage. I find your mention of 88mm flak funny, because to my knowledge British analysts did actually misidentify damage done by 30mm minengeschoss as being direct impacts from flak, but that’s mostly besides the point.
Notably, you don’t get very many solid hits on his aircraft for most of the video, and those hits land on the less structurally important halves of his wings. It’s only toward the end that you hit the front end of his aircraft, which is when you hit the engine/fuel, pilot, and the first point where I see a decent number of rounds hitting the wing spar areas. This correlates with the footage I’ve seen, where .50 cals tear wings off only when a very significant number land on the same spot in short order, or preceding a sharp turn.
As for damage models, it ultimately comes down to two things. The first is that we’re mainly discussing ww2, and Gaijin has unfortunately largely abandoned ww2 content in favour of modern vehicles. They have little interest in updating old models. The second is that aircraft, believe it or not, are mostly made of empty space, and while the control lines and a few other modules could probably stand to be a little more pronounced, that wouldn’t make them any more vulnerable to .50 cals than to 20mms.
I have thus far not found any direct footage of P-47s being shot by 20mms, though I’m still looking. Even preliminarily though, I can almost certainly say that they would not be surviving anywhere near 20 minengeschoss rounds, which are very noticeable by the large clouds they form on impact.
