.50's deserve a buff

I genuinely have no idea what you are on about.

And jeez, if you are so hung up on the Ki-44s guns why dont you go play the thing and find out for yourself? Its right at the bottom of the tech tree so it’d take you like an hour to research even if you haven’t started the tech tree yet.

Having spaded both the Ki-44s (and the entire rest of the japanese air tree), the Ho-103 has definitely never felt like a gun to write home about. It was acceptable and thats about it.

The M2 browning is a better gun in general IMO.

1 Like

https://youtu.be/kQiBG6PPFuA I am hung up over that. The only thing I had was a hit on my rear horizontal stabilizer and then the next shot. I was completely obliterated. I had no other damage on my plane.
The reason I’m focused on it… Is that we know how much energy it takes to blow the tail off…


A 500lb bomb exploding directly under the plane.

We don’t know what the extent of the damage was.

Which are notoriously inaccurate. You might have heard the story of american soldiers in Vietnam who thought .30 Carbine was unable to penetrate the wool clothing of the north vietnamese soldiers because they never found the bodies.

Or for something specific to pilots, any of the extremely exaggerated kill claims which are usually 2x as many as what they actually shot down.

A nuke would blow the tail off too. You don’t know that it took a 500lb bomb to remove it, just that a 500lb bomb succeeded at doing it. Very different things.

2 Likes

So it was the Ki-44-II Hei with the 4x .50s.

And he fired a 2.5 second burst at you, going by the timestamps the first hit was at ~12.10.600 and your tail seperated right about at ~12.13.00. his burst was a second longer or so from his first misses.

Thats a lot of rounds he wasted in killing you

is that from pilots not being on target? or it could be from convergence because IRL they ran very wide convergence patterns unlike those we have in game.

there is a reason that even as late as the early sabers US air force fighters could be armed with 0.50 cals (the navy and marine corps went to 20mm for increased effect on ground targets)

Guess this guy was lying too:

Just forget that Robert Johnson is considered a good resource on the P-47, and we have pictures of his damaged aircraft but alright.

He didn’t fire a long burst. You can hear him fire intermittently. Not continuously. And when it hit 12:13:00 He fired once and it instantly bisected my plane. He fired once, fired twice, realized he wasn’t hitting and held back until 12:13:00 where he fired clicked one more time and instantly bisected my plane

No, you see ther tracers going in every direction in a wide cone, centered on the target.

Because all their attempts at making reliable 20mm cannons largely failed. Even those which armed the Scorpion and Sabre Dog had reliability problems and did not last very long.

Anecdotal. If we want to go down that route, Col. Neel Kearby (which I believe at the time was the leading P-47 ace) was shot down by a mere Ki-43 with its two nose-mounted .50cals. Clearly these guns worked very well.

1 Like

yes, that is what convergence does

maybe its because they were happy with m3 0.50s until then

If they were happy with them, they would not have been trying for so long to replace them. They served well enough for their convenience in logistics and the reliability issues of their replacements to mean that replacing them wasn’t urgent, but there was a definite and consistent effort to replace .50 cals with 20mm guns. 8 .50 cals weigh more than 4 20mms, while delivering less firepower.

2 Likes

The fact that the majority of the kills were from relying on a fire to do passive damage (or just dumb luck in the case of bomb explosions and the pilot snipe) is bad, yes. If you remove any way to show how the 0.50 cals are bad then they might appear ok, but I’m not ignoring that the 0.50 cals are unique in being forced to rely on fire rather than doing actual damage with bullets.

Here is the argument I’m hearing:

When a .50 cal kills an enemy aircraft by setting it on fire, destroying it’s fuel/cooling, or killing its pilot, this is a bad kill, and inherently inferior to the damage done by cannons. The only scenario where .50 cals can be called equal to cannons is one where they have an equal ability to deal structural damage, including tearing off wings, control surfaces, etc. to the cannons that have HE filler. We want this capacity to do structural damage while still retaining the good accuracy, rate of fire, ballistics, and ammo pool provided by the .50 calibre guns. Anything less than this puts the entire American air tree at an inherent disadvantage.

Do I have the right understanding?

3 Likes

Yes, quite literally yes. 0.50 cals in real life were less effective than 20mm cannons, but the gap was not as massive as it is in game currently. With a comparable amount of mass of bullets being shot out, 0.50 cals should not be several times worse than cannons or even 12.7mms with HE shells.

0.50 cals should not have to rely on essentially RNG in order to get kills.

Except that currently the accuracy, rate of fire, ballistics, and ammo pool do not mean anything when 0.50 cals are much, much, much worse than 20mms in terms of damage. Gaijin could increase the damage dealt by 0.50 cals by 50%-75% and they’d still be just equal to cannons.

… Im sorry what?

“if we remove the way that the 50 cals do their damage, they don’t do damage”

I mean… duh? If you remove all the HEF shells from 20mm cannons, they don’t do damage either. Have you tried a belt filled with practice shells? they’re pathetic. Just like a .50 belt filled with Ball ammo is pathetic.

Regarding fires, the only planes that died because of the fire was the FW-190, and maybe the Ki-61. the Tu-2 would have burned out too if I had let it. The rest of them, the fire was in addition to the fact they had been completely ripped to shreds.

Look, here is even a clip of the La-9 in that video dying form his perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1e1LNCBlH8

the first shot hit him at 9.02:945, and rounds stopped hitting him at 9.03:520. That is just under 1.6 seconds of fire.

Ignoring the fires, because that isn’t enough time for them to really do any extra damage, in that 1.6 seconds he had destroyed:

-His Right tail fin
-His right Wing tip
-His Fuselage
-His left aileron
-His entire left wing

I even ripped his wing off, That wasn’t the fire, the fires weren’t in that wing.

I genuinely don’t understand how that “isn’t enough damage” for you.

They don’t rely on RNG, they rip enemy aircraft to literal shreds.

4 Likes

Making 0.50 cals rely on passive damage should not be acceptable when they were not glorified lighters IRL. They should be doing more damage than literally nothing.

Except the entire reason he wasn’t able to do anything was due to the fire destroying the right aileron and snapping off the tip of the right wing, limiting his control.

They were not, it wasn’t possible to tell in the earlier replay, but in this replay I could see that it took three (three!) near perpendicular shots to the wing spar for the wing to snap off. That’s not even mentioning the possible damage the wing spar might have had from the fire near the fuselage.

Relying on fire = RNG. Ripping to shreds =/= relying on fire.

They quite literally do damage. I had 12 kills of proof of that

Fires quite literally do not do that much damage that quickly. It takes several seconds at least for a fire to burn through something. The rounds themselves are what destroyed it, not the fire.

As I said, only two of those kills relied on the fire for them to die

You had 2-3 where the 0.50 cal bullets did most of the damage, the rest were fuel explosions, bomb explosions, or fire breaking control surfaces/the tail.

Incorrect, from what I can tell.

Relying on fires is not RNG.
Hell, relying on pilot snipes is not RNG.

Shoot from closer, shoot within convergence range. Aim for the fuselage.

Pilot snipes occur when you fail to hit the enemy engine. Are they accidental? Technically - but that accident is a very positive outcome for failure to achieve the primary objective (wrecking the enemy engine, causing a engine fire).

Tertiary outcome is striking the fuel tank near/under the pilot and causing a fire. You have two scenarios with high risk of fire - engine strike and striking just behind the enemy pilot.

Maybe it’s because in SB average engagement distances are ~300-500 meters, but I’ve never in my life thought that pilot snipes and engine kills were RNG. The target jinking and being non-compliant does make them harder to execute but that’s where .50 shine over 20 mm and especially 37mm. With .50 guns, I can squeeze the trigger every time I might have a shot, while I have to make every shot count using 37mm or 45 mm guns. .50 calls are consequently more resistant to enemy attempts at evasion. And this is not even considering the differences in rate of fire (it’s kinda hard to evade a wall of lead)

Fire is somewhat RNG but burst mass vs enemy pilot reacting appropriately weigh the dice heavily in either direction.

3 Likes

One kill was due to a bomb explosion

and we are straight back to “if you pretend all the ways that the rounds do damage don’t exist, the rounds don’t do damage”

2 Likes

I dunno what Speclist is getting at. But to avoid all this talk about ‘muh realism’ and ‘Gubment said boolet deeid theiiss’ or ‘this plane flown by Joe Michael Bob survived by his scraped anus’ I wanna get to the gist. my general point is this:

20mms are insanely overpowered. They can obliterate vehicles that shouldn’t be obliterated the way that they are and Gaijin needs to fix the insane discrepancy in damage models and I think everyone agrees to some degree. (Fly the P-38 using only the cannon. It’s possible and the only thing you have to mess with is the velocity and that’s it.)

If they refuse to do that (because y’know. It takes effort). Buff .50s to be akin to Swedish 13.7mm guns or slightly below. Cannons take invariably less skill to use, glancing blows will either melt your enemy, if it doesn’t, it cripples them, and if that didn’t happen. You were plain unlucky which I find rare, but it does happen. There has barely been a time I have taken a hit where I go “That’s okay, I can return from this”. even in aircraft that’re supposed to be ‘tanky’.

You’ll need to put a considerably large burst (90% of your rounds hit target) on an enemy all on a focused area to actually make a hit that matters or… You’re lucky. This is difficult when one: You’re usually in an inferior plane. A Yak-3 will utterly gank me, A Ki-100 is nightmare fuel, and spitfires make me gag. While I’m in a P-47D or a P-51D. I can’t really do anything. I don’t turn good, I don’t climb good, I don’t even really roll good, my matches will either end up with me dead or I’m stuck doing like in the japanese aircraft replay. I’m running and running and running to get separation only to take really really risky headons at them and repeat the process while my guns basically do nothing and I pray I hit the engine while my enemy just has to hit me literally anywhere. For a good chunk of U.S. planes. You get very little if any chances. While with other aircraft. You can screw up and make it up.

If I decide to get ballsy, even with my better altitude performance, it’s a massive risk to take as one round will utterly end me while I need a good burst to hurt them or else I am now scrambling to get away. All this while fighting the clock as well.

Think about it. Like what Zekker said. “You need to fire within convergence and hit the fuselage”. Think about that! Your guns will be WAY WORSE, if you do not fire within that specific range in your convergence and if you go outside you will do PIECEMEAL damage. Even in wing mounted cannon armed aircraft, you’ll know that at least 1 cannon round might do something important. You can only do—for sake of argument—equivalent damage of a cannon within a SMALL window while most of the aircraft you fly are usually inferior in most ways compared to the enemy you’re fighting.

Like with any aircraft, performance can make subpar weapons ‘work better’ because you can position yourself where you’re more likely to get hits compared to your opponent. A-36 (Though this is partially due to nose mounted .50s allowing that square pattern–this makes me believe custom convergences is required in this game but I digress) You can go almost 600kmh flat while having six 50s in a favorable config.

P-51H. Literally one of the best props in the game because you basically have a crap load of options for yourself. You can make those guns work, because their performance is so great. I may take 3-4 passes. But I know I’m in control and have great performance and can position myself as I please. Like boxing. Weak arms, but great legs.

The same can be true somewhat vice versa. F6F-5N. Good armament, but the performance sucks BALLLSSS. I feel like I have nuke blasters on each side but the plane has the performance of a covered wagon. Weak legs but strong arms.

I don’t think it’s fair to have an aircraft that you have to play the complete opposite way Gaijin built the game while having guns that are atrociously finicky and you need to be PINPOINT PRECISE to succeed in when you fly aircraft that punishes you greatly for even the slightest misdemeanor in performance where your foes beat you in most ways while also fighting the clock. While on the opposite side of the fence. You can fly quick climbing, relatively fast, aircraft with great gun performance where even at altitude you’re still seen as a threat where you can be confident that you’re going to get several kills. (cough cough yak-3) That’s not to say there’s nothing REDEEMABLE about .50s as they have a few distinct advantages but the advantages they have do not seem much better than getting good quick kills with a cannon.

This is my whole Shtick.

1 Like