Do 50’s get burst mass like early spits 7.62’s?
Imho every communication after this request (“cannons to be just slightly better than 0.50 cals”) was just a waste of time and energy for the other contributors.
It makes no sense to use rational arguments vs irrational viewpoints.
This guy is just trolling. Don’t feed trolls.
You misunderstood my point.
Unless you can get a full on solid burst from such extremely far ranges, the velocity and range of the .50’s won’t serve you well. I’m not talking typical engagement distances of 0.9 km and below. You would need to have specific convergence to take effective use at the distances I’m talking about, and whilst german cannons would struggle due to the shells bursting mid-air, the British and especially russian cannons would have significantly less issue. In fact, I’ve been struck by russian cannons 1.2km away whilst running from them. My issue is not “getting a burst off on an enemy” it’s “You can’t get a burst off on an enemy from over 1km away and the damage you do is miniscule”
Again see my point above. Cannons need one lucky shot to severely damage your aircraft. .50’s need multiple.
Again, like above. the volume of fire with the scrapes you provide on the enemy do very little unless you luckily hit a radiator, at which point your rounds have already lost enough energy (If he’s running from you) that they merely tickle the enemy aircraft
I’d like to repeat. My issue is that 2-3 cannon shells can literally split my plane in half. If I have to unload a 3-4 second burst, and 3-4 seconds is very long in this game especially when closing in, while having perfect accuracy with perfect convergence. That’s utterly stupid
So lemme get to the crux of this:
a short burst of 20mm cannon fire can literally split my plane like this.
So gaijin is saying that 3-4 of these
is on par damage wise to this:
This is why I say I don’t care about the “realistic” aspect of damage, because the damage modeling has gotten so cartoonish, that asking for .50’s to hit a bit harder shouldn’t be too much to ask for, when I can simply snap people in half with minimal effort with 20mm cannons.
Again, I wouldn’t ask this, if the damage modeling of the game wasn’t so goofy that 3-4 20mm cannon shells had the explosive output of a 500lb bomb.
Now I want to say, you argued with me in good faith, and I’m thankful for that. But at least you should understand why I’m asking for it, even if to you it seems unwarranted.
I need to achieve very long, and accurate bursts to even milk out the possibility of the the same insane amount of damage as 20mms can pull in this game.
Maybe it could be as simple as buffing the basic incendiary round a slight bit to allow more super structure damage, or who knows, replacing one of the API rounds with an extra incendiary to maximize super structure damage potential. All I want is to know my glancing shots for the most part, leave a lasting mark on the aircraft that affects their performance in some way. I’m not asking for the insta snap success.
I’m sorry I spent this much time trying to argue this. The only thing I understand from this is that Uncle_J_Wick was right. I have learned a very valuable lesson from all this.
You haven’t even used any other nations planes, so you can’t draw any experience from actually using 20mms other than the few the US has that only use AP-T and HEF-I. Your experience is only dying to them, which explains why you think they are sooo deadly. You mostly play arcade, where everything is more “cartoonish” to begin with. It makes perfect sense now. Enjoy, good luck to you.
It seems you’re upset simply because I disagree with you.
Mg151 cannons, ShVAKs and Hispanos are all OP. You simply don’t like the fact that I am stating what is true.
Think whatever you need to to help you sleep at night. Good luck to you.
Pilot snipe? No. Troll yes!
Individuals have been good to you and all you do is throw it back in there face with scutter
While it is quite annoying only getting “Critical Hit”, there’s is probably no way to actually buff them (without being non historical).
I mean, literally everything is capable of pilot sniping, while tail ripping is not really a thing if you’re using .50 cals (at least I don’t remember doing it).
And I personally never understood people who say “aim for the pilot!”, I may get like, half a second of firing time when the enemy intersects with my aim, I can’t really precisely aim at that short time (especially on something like a P-51D where you can’t really control due to rudder).
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6V6sEORuH4nU
You can help out buff all kinetic rounds, by having Gaijin fix this bug.
1 Like
No, off topic
It affects guns that rely on AP and API rounds, so .50cal are inherently weaker at the moment.
1 Like
I would love for 50cals to have a buff for my p51d20na. Tbh it does ok, like you said if i can get on target due to rudder
You will get a reply that says “not a bug”
Still fighting over this BS?
Not arguing about .50cal damage but this random fire and extinguish chance is a complete BS mechanic.
When I shot an La-7 with Japanese 20mm HEF-T I set him on fire and the fire went out after 5 seconds while here my plane goes from completely undamaged to destroyed from a few .50cal API rounds.
There is just no logic when it comes to fuel fire. When you shoot non self-sealing fuel tanks and they catch fire, most of the time the entire tank is just drained and the fire stops, as if the was just ejected into the air.
Going off of the report titled “Airplane Vulnerability and Overall Armament Effectiveness” (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA800394.pdf), I was able to find data (on page 23 of the pdf) going over the probability of a single bullet of different calibers causing a kill resulting from the structure of a P-47 failing. It more specifically describes the type of kill I was looking at (an “A” kill) as any damage that would cause an airplane to become uncontrollable within five minutes of the hit, which was the closest analogy to a kill in War Thunder I could find. Essentially the math I am doing is taking the probability of kill that they found from their initial conditions, multiplying that by the fire rate of each type of gun (to get the amount of kills each caliber should be getting if aimed perfectly), then comparing the values of different configurations of the 0.50 cal’s and other guns.
I am planning on going into the protection analysis later to check to see if the amount of damage done by each type of gun/ammo matches those found by the report, but before I go through and do all that I’d like to make sure the math I was doing is correct; I used a way too complicated formula in the hope that it would be easier to use but I probably just made myself look at Excel documentation more than I ever have. Could someone here check the math on these calculations? I used the higher probability of kill ammunition for each type of gun to save on time, as well.
General Formula:
Excel Sheet Results:
Very Confusing. Shouldn’t one of the fields for German 30mm/.50cal read MK 103 instead of MK 108?
Also shouldn’t the RoF for the 20mm M2 be 600 RPM instead of 750 and for the M3 750 instead of 800?
I also don’t get how in the comparison row with .50cals the M3 fare so much better when according to the data you show the difference is mere 50 RPM difference (looking at the 2x and 4x column).
Yeah it should, that’s my bad. Somehow the values are actually correct, I think the formula I used is messing that up (although the value seem to be correct, just referenced wrong). My initial formula pre-fixes for the 30mm German guns is this:
German 30mm Guns Formula
=INDEX(Table1[[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],MATCH(IF(OR(COLUMN()=4,COLUMN()=5),$D$12,IF(OR(COLUMN()=6,COLUMN()=7),$F$12,“Error”)),Table1[Gun]),MATCH(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(13,COLUMN())),LEFT(Table1[[#Headers],[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],2))) / INDEX(Table1[[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],IF(OR(OR(ROW()=14, ROW()=15), ROW()=16), 1, IF(OR(OR(ROW()=17, ROW()=18), ROW()=19), 2, “Error”)), MATCH(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW(),3)),LEFT(Table1[[#Headers],[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],2)))
I’m working on fixing the formula now, I’ll update when it’s done.
From this source, no (at least from the values they gave):
I believe this is due to atmospheric conditions? In their testing they sprayed for 20 seconds, but I don’t think it was all at once since otherwise the barrels would melt. At altitude I believe it would be fine (remembering this from a Greg’s Airplanes video, not anything concrete).
Alright it’s fixed, here are the values I got now:
And then for anyone who wants to know (for some reason), here are the formulas I used:
German 30mm Formula
=INDEX(Table1[[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],MATCH(IF(OR(COLUMN()=4,COLUMN()=5),$D$12,IF(OR(COLUMN()=6,COLUMN()=7),$F$12,“Error”)),Table1[Gun],0),MATCH(LEFT(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(13,COLUMN())),2),LEFT(Table1[[#Headers],[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],2),0)) / INDEX(Table1[[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],IF(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW(),2))=“M2”,1,IF(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW(),2))=“M3”,2,“Error”)),MATCH(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW(),3)),LEFT(Table1[[#Headers],[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],2),0))
American 20mm Formula
=INDEX(Table1[[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],MATCH(IF(OR(OR(COLUMN()=4,COLUMN()=5),COLUMN()=6),$D$22,IF(OR(OR(COLUMN()=7,COLUMN()=8),COLUMN()=9),$G$22,“Error”)),Table1[Gun],0),MATCH(LEFT(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(23,COLUMN())),2),LEFT(Table1[[#Headers],[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],2),0)) / INDEX(Table1[[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],IF(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW(),2))=“M2”,1,IF(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW(),2))=“M3”,2,“Error”)),MATCH(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW(),3)),LEFT(Table1[[#Headers],[1x PASSS/min]:[8x PASSS/min]],2),0))
Odd. Maybe 650 for the M2 but 750 seems weird.
On the other hand it is a US built Hispano so maybe they just buffed the RoF.
It always confused me how the French Hispano 404 has 700 RPM while the British Mk I and II have only 600, at least in-game.
137lb (62kg) for the M2 is also super chunky :O