Have we played the same game? Most machine guns are doing hitmarkers and barely tapping your wing. Of course 20mm will do more damage, it’s a bloody 2cm wide round ripping through your wing. It’ll do more damage than half a centimetre.
You’re completely missing my point.
This is Italian 12.7mm ‘HEF’ with literally 0.6 grams of filler.
Other countries machine guns can do this damage.
Just about every country’s 12.7mm machine guns can basically blacken or destroy a wing in two shots. While having favorable belts.
U.S. Machine guns can’t do that. U.S. belts consist barely of any incendiary rounds and are almost all reliant on AP. U.S. doesn’t get any favorable belts with their .50s
I dont know about Italy, the entire Zero line has 7.7mm MGs, the Ki-61s have the 12.7s but also have the Ho-5 cannon, which is probably the worst 20mm in the game. (It does NOT one shot people even with the HEF).
All the Spitfires up until the Griffin spits have 7.7mm MGs. All the German aircraft up until around 5.0 I believe also have 7.92mm MGs.
Russians are all over the place. Only some have 3 cannons. Normally its 1 cannon and 2 MGs, or two cannons. Neither of which have a remotely large ammo pool. shvaks aren’t any more accurate than most other cannons, and you’d want even less to spray out to that kilometer distance you claim with them because its literally wasting your extremely limited ammo pool. Which again, you wouldn’t know.
Stop arguing disingeuously yourself.
Your argument directly contradicts reality, as I have already shown with plenty of clear evidence. I dont see a reason to respond to this. Repeating a false statement doesn’t change the fact that it is false
Cherry picking the one aircraft line from the entire tree. The vast majority of Japanese aircraft usually carry 12.7mm or equivalent machine guns. Shouldn’t you know this? You’re a Japan main. Are you not?
Italy is like Russia having multiple cannons if not. Equipped with 12.7s supporting their cannons.
“Your argument contradicts reality” No you proved my point. It’s only useful if the guy doesn’t dodge. It’s funny. I point it out before “yeah, it only works under this specific circumstance” you proceed to show said specific circumstance and go “See! It proves you wrong!” Like what are you even getting at?
The dude was 0.8km anyway. You could’ve hit that with Shvaks or berezins. I think even japanese.50s too could’ve touched you.
I cherry picked… Half the prop fighters in the tech tree?
Uhh okay I guess. Meanwhile the Ki-61s are the least scary planes in the game with consistently some of the most lackluster flight performance.
But thats clearly fine because their 12.7mms get some HEF rounds! Ooh scary! It might blow a wing off with the same number of shots as a M2 browning takes to also down someone!
You are NOT gonna believe this!
The majority of every dogfight is literally GETTING your opponent into a position where you hold all the advantages and they do not. What guns your plane has doesn’t change this.
The whole reason all my clips are showing that is because thats what im doing, intentionally! Not giving them a chance to escape or dodge! Look at the spitfire clips, im doing the same thing even with a pair of 20mms.
If Im proving your point, then what you must be saying is that that a bad player wont put themselves into good positions and won’t hit their shots, which I figured was kinda obvious.
Also, in that clip if I had Shvaks or Berizens, I wouldnt have even bothered firing. It would have been a waste of yet again the extremely ammo those planes have. I might have fired if I had Hispanos or Type 99s, or even MG151s, but would have been unlikely to score a hit. And wouldnt have been able to fire enough to range him in to start scoring hits.
2 Likes
Showed this as untrue. HEF rounds are ultimately stronger and can two hit kill. Still strange that a japan main can’t get things right about their aircraft.
Very easy to use protection analysis. I recommend you use it.
You are NOT gonna believe this!
Firing at an unmoving, non maneuvering target to prove your point doesn’t actually show anything!
When I point out that the ‘long range’ only works if the dude doesn’t actually maneuver and just lets you hit him. And you showed the exact thing I was talking about! Guess what?! You proved my point! It only works if the guy doesn’t bother looking behind him! For you to kill him. You literally have to hope he doesn’t look BEHIND HIM
I guess the P-36G should go up to 5.3 now because you can hit a non-maneuvering target at long range!
Rolling left vs rolling right was night and day.
I waited for the enemy aircraft to cross behind my canopy as required for the reversal and it worked perfectly for the first part of the scissor to the right. Reversing the turn to get my nose on target took too long, I overshot and the next time I tried to reverse I got bursted to pieces.
Elevator damage did less than wing damage. I also have a recorded dogfight where a Bf109 shot off half my tail (stab+elevator - literally fell off) and that fight I could roll just fine and force an overshoot.
In an objective measure - I had roughly the same roll rate with half stick to the right as with maximum stick to the left. Maybe trim could have equalized the roll rates, but I was a bit overwhelmed with trying to survive.
Now, the wing damage wasn’t why I lost. I lost because I got greedy and got jumped after my opponent hid inside the cloud thinking I could jump them instead; however it made the difference between being able to use high-speed/diving scissors to disengage and reset for re-engagement and what I described above.
1 Like
An M2 browning 2 shots an engine, lights a fuel tank on fire in 1 or 2 shots, and kills a pilot in 1 shot except it MIGHT not with max vitality.
The protection analysis only shows what colour the module turns. It does not show whether the module is removed, set on fire, stopped from working etc. I have flown with black wings that are still attached plenty of times.
Why are you focusing on one kill only?
If you are talking about the latest clip, the Bf109 wasnt manouvering because he was crippled by the head on, just like RunaDacio explained to you.
In almost every other clip, enemies were maneouvering and in combat with me. Heck, if you go alll the way back to a full week ago, and remember the very first clip I sent, in the A7M2 thread, was me in a full on maneuvering dogfight with a P-47N vs a higher energy I-185, and he still died in a sub 2 second burst while maneouvering.
Also, the two clips you posted of the Ki-43, neither of those enemies were maneuvering. They were flying straight with no attempt to evade
1 Like
The .50s will still land more hits thanks to having incredible ballistics, better than most 20mms and certainly better than the Ho-103 HEF shells. If I’m 1km away from almost any other plane I can basically just ignore them. If its something with US .50cals, I have to constantly dodge because their range and volume of fire actually presents a threat and if hit they almost always will set a fire.
Lol they suck. Not that you’d know since they’re not the primary armament of any fighter (maybe a stock high tier 109 since the MG151/20 default belt is literally useless) and you’ve never used a plane with the MG131s.
Also you have NO IDEA how many times you’ll have people just… fly through your shells when using cannons. Especially common with Oerlikon-derived ones.
Alright then, for these two aircraft, would you mind indicating to me which of these belts does more damage respectively? And then we’ll see if your theory holds up.
All of the Navy aircraft have 20mm cannons as the main damage dealers. The 13.2mm Type 3 only shows up very late and it’s very overshadowed by said cannons. Getting a feel for how much damage they do is almost impossible unless you gimp yourself and turn off the Type 99s.
The Army aircraft only have solely 12.7mm armament at low tier, with the 20mm Ho-5 taking over as the main damage dealer - at this point the 12.7s aren’t really noticeable about 95% of the time and the Army fighters are quite low in firepower at higher BRs.
I have endless videos of me hitting people over and over again with Ho-103s and getting nothing done. Especially bombers which get immediately fucked over with US .50cals thanks to high penetration and fire chance.
2 Likes
You are better at explaining that than me, thanks.
Also you have to lead less so if you are fighting a dodging enemy, you dont need quite as much nose authority to get a good lead, which is a big drawback of most cannon armed energy fighters.
1 Like
I think the A7M2 is the only (tech tree) plane thats actually usable with the 13.2s? The only other plane I can think of off the top of my head that actually has them is the A6M5 Hei, but that thing is so weighed down and so slow and over BRd that its practically unusable in ARB.
1 Like
A10 Late + matching tank usa Best British premium rank 7 and rank 8 premiums plus tank i played wot for 10 years and played world of planes or aircraft its beta on pc, now on xbox series x 12 terraflops of computional data capabilities, and connected turtle beach controller. Keyboard and mouse i have evolved into a post cancer posr warthunder addiction…
The two A7Ms are the best candidates yes, and even then you only get two. The A6M5 Otsu has just one, fired alongside the 7.7mm Type 97. The J6K also has two, but only 200rpg (A7Ms get 300rpg) and it’s on a vastly worse airframe at a higher BR. This is pretty much where the list ends.
Maybe if we got one of the A6M field mods with more 13.2s and on variants that aren’t bricks, they’d be more noticeable.
You are going by pure filler and not TnTa, which is with the Pent filler of the HEF rounds a good tat higher.
You are 100% and very, very, very correct that just because the wing blackens that doesn’t mean it’s removed or broken off. But protection analysis does give a good baseline on how damaging a shot would be.
In my P-47. A Blackened wing is a death sentence. If I pull up, my plane almost goes into a spin and it rolls like the wing was snapped off. But that’s my thing. It’s very easy to get your wings hit. In general, for everybody. Especially when it’s one of the biggest parts for the enemy to hit and many countries have belts that are more than happy to supply the proper ammunition to damage it no matter what gun it is at all.
I just don’t like the fact that everyone has belts mostly consistent of ammunition that do this to my wing in a stray shot.
While the ammo in my belt does this.
When I could be having rounds that hit like this.
I mean I’ve used tracer belts and yeah they can set things alight if you get things to align just right. But if you strike anywhere that’s not something important. I’ve had Spitfires, Fw-190s, I-185s, A6Ms where I’ll dump a good burst and they just eat it as if it was a three course meal and I have to go for another go around. I want my 3 or so rounds that hit bad too.
I want a belt that actually has substance.
Oh definitely. I never said you wouldn’t have any flight problems. but the fact your horizontal stabilizer was damaged actually affects your turning performance greatly. You produce insanely more drag.
I would argue that that being to force an overshoot even after losing the stab and elevator is highly dependent on the aircraft. Some planes, when you lose an elevator just become a bus.
Depends.
The TNT equivalent in WT is based on the destructive power of the explosive.
Like you need 1g TNT to penetrate 2mm of armor but only 0.6g of PETN.
It would also influence fragmentation of shells, since the explosive blows up the shell.
More explosive means more fragments and higher velocity, with a more powerful explosive taking up the same volume but being better at it.
As I’ve explained in this bug report:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/AyCoq2Bai3nc
Incendiary blast performance isn’t any worse than that of explosives. Infact it’s even better.
Just ignore that big brain mod that shut my report down with his copy & paste response, despite my report not even mentioning any TNT equivalent.
The burning flash powder doesn’t create a powerful shockwave like any explosives, that can destroy sturdy material like steel easily but it will result higher pressure generated that last for a longer time.
This pressure is what can rip weak structure, like airplane skin, apart from the inside.
And it’s whats used on Torpedos to create a large gas bubble under a ship. The ship breaks apart, from the rapid formation and collapse of the bubble below it, which puts immense stress on the hull.
You also know about the Mine effect of explosives.
Where shells fired with a delay, into the ground or buildings, destroy them from the inside, caused by the pressure built up.
Which is several times more destructive than the shell exploding on contact, where the blast has little effect and the shell mainly causes damage from fragments.
So flash powder would have an equal blast effect of probably 0.8 times the TNT, potentially more.
M23 uses even stronger flash powder, so the blast effect is probably 1:1 to TNT.
So we are talking equal blast performance as 5.83g TNT.
Nearly as much as a ShVAKs HEFI with 5.6g RDX/Alunimum and certainly as powerful as the HEFI-T with only 4.13g.
So M23 would be an incredible powerful round, both in incendiary performances and structural damage, for a 12.7mm bullet.
But it’s potential is greatly held back by its heat sensitive nature.
Preventing long bursts without having the bullet self ignite.
So in reality it’s basically a gimmick.
3 Likes
What makes you think it’s 1:1?
Is Potassium Perchlorate that powerful? Because today they moved on to Ammonium Perchlorate?
I decided to just google the difference. Surprising to see how easily it is to find people talking about the differences due to it’s use in rocketry.
But everyone is saying that Potassium Perchlorate has too much of an aggressive burn rate that it produces a shockwave when under pressure. I guess it’s a case of ‘it’s too powerful’
I found that DTIC report interesting, it shows that an M23 can penetrate fuel tank on the P-38 quite easily, and at the same impact velocity it makes the tank less likely to seal when comparing with an 60cal API round. Which may tell that M23 will punch a larger hole on the fuel tank.
Overall chance of fire, in current game M23 has a fire multiplier of 12.0, which is larger than M20/M8’s 10.0. It should be noted that in game fire chance is calculated as intrinsic fire chance( defined by fuel tank/engine, a piece wise function correlates with remaining HP) multiplies with the fire chance of the munition. So in game, even a 20mm HEI with the same 10.0 fire chance will more likely to set afire due to larger damage value given to the fuel tank.
Another thing can be verified is that the fuseless nature of US 50cal Inc makes dud quite often, if the impact wasn’t strong enough, the flash powder may not react as expected. So that 2017 gun damage, with M23 to have HE damage but with large randomness was quite accurate.
I don’t know if Gaijin willing to give 50cal Inc blast effect, since they make M1 Inc an HE round in naval M2 but not for the aerial one. If they model M23 as HE just like today’s ho103, then with its 1000ms muzzle velocity it will mean the end of air battle. So I think at least gaijin should rework to make the Inc round be able to penetrate the cover and fuel tank, making them function as usual.
2 Likes
I‘m talking about the British test that showed that flash powder had an equal or better blast effect than a RDX/TNT mix.
In that US report „ Airplane Vulnerability and Overall Armament Effectivness“ the M96 Incendiary with 10.8g of flash powder is shown having a greater chance to kill a P-47 due to structural damage than M97 HEI, which has 5.5g Tetryl + 2.2 flash powder.
That‘s because the M96 actually has bigger blast power.
Thin structure is going to be blown apart from the pressure of the blast, rather than the strengths of the shockwave, which at first has to break up a shell.
Flash powder is denser than explosives, by around 50%, so I’m not sure how exactly a blast equivalent would be to TNT.
If it was 25% more effective by volume (replacing TNT with flash powder), the mass equivalent should be 0.833.
M23 with Perchlorate should be more efficient on a weight basis since perchlorate is a stronger oxidizer.
2 Likes
Could it be that the flash powder and shattering projectile had caused a lateral effect, similar but somewhat different to an HE round? I heard that the M61 Vulcan used specifically designed projectile with lateral effect, though with less explosive filling, it was claimed to be as effective as a 30mm round.
I remember when I was visiting an air museum in Canada, an veteran(presumably the ground crew) told me that F86 sabre actually used dum-dum bullets for its 50cals. I assume he was telling the M23 Inc.