I tried to remove the weapon upgrade and fought some battles. It seems to work better against japanese planes, especially those with wing tanks. However it is not ideal against German planes, such as bf-109. The rounds just be too spread-out to concentrate on the wing spar, harder to blow a wing off.
from the f4u4 each M2 12.7mm puts out 0.54kg/s
now if you look at the p38 if you subtract the 2.16kg/s from the 12.7s you find that one AN/M2 20mm puts out 1.47kg/s
so almost 3 times the mass per gun
doing similar if less precise math for each of the other planes shown all the 20mms put out 2-3 times as much mass as an M2 12.7mm
yeah without the modification if you get unlucky you can fire on target to the point your guns start to jam and they wont die
I cant believe, after 400+ messages, despite gigantic piles of literal video evidence proving the exact opposite of your claim, you, the person who still has only flown SEVEN battles in non US planes, and only 41 battles in cannon armed Prop aircraft, for a total of 18 kills, You are STILL trying to argue that this is the case.
You have provided zero evidence of any form to support your claim. Your entire argument hinges on "M2 brownings do less damage because I feel they do, and that I don’t count fires, control surface damage, or anything except a wing snap as “real damage”.
Thats it. that is the extent of your argument, With next to no experience in anything that you are trying to argue against, with people who have literal thousands of games in aircraft of all types.
You even try to suggest that .50s are putting less Mass out lmfao, the game GIVES you the one second burst mass of every plane in the game. It takes you two seconds to look it up.
Useful mass? So what? we make our own argument stronger by taking away the pathetic 7.7s from those Cannon armed aircraft?
1200 Type 99 Model 2 cannon rounds are apparently equivalent to 582 million M2 browning .50 cal rounds. You heard it here first
It only is if you are bad at the game. Which sounds like that might be the real answer to all of your problems
I’m bored of trying to argue seriously with you anymore. At least Dovah had a genuine argument.
Hyperbole. 1.2 = first digits of 1200 in scientific notation, 20 = bore of 20mm cannons.
Except having exceptional games is based on what happens in the match that aren’t in your control. If most enemies are knocked out before you even get to altitude or to the battle, you won’t do as well. If more people on your team hit their shots, you won’t do as well. It’s simple.
It probably wasn’t just one 20mm, but the stall shot on the KABB and the frontal pass on the MiG-3 shoulda done way more. If I had 4 US .50cals I woulda just kept shooting and done so from further away.
Yes, per gun. And it just so happens that most US planes have 6x .50cals and the most common configuration for 20mm cannons is to have two of them.
Japan woulda won the war if they made J6Ks instead, can you imagine what 582 million .50cal bullets could do?
1 Like
US 50cal: Incorrect penetration behaviour for M1/M23 Inc round // Gaijin.net // Issues
I‘ve made a new issue, at least the 50cal Inc round should penetrate the cover and set the fuel tank afire.
And yet this seems to be an issue that only you consistently have, but no one else does.
Its time you looked into yourself for the issue instead of blaming the game. You have 1 day and 8 hours of realistic battle gameplay in fighters. I have 27 days of gameplay.
Theres a bit of a difference in experience levels there
No one else? I’ve only heard you talking about consistently doing amazing despite what happens in the match that is outside of your control.
Because things outside of your control have nothing to do with the guns being good at killing things when you shoot them?
Which is entirely my point? What does getting lucky with having 8 targets (literally half of a lobby) available for you personally to shoot at have to do with wanting more ammo?
I’d say it’s more likely that you didn’t get more kills because there weren’t more targets to go after due to factors outside of your control - like whether your teammates were able to get kills themselves, whether the enemy team was good enough to take out a lot of your team first (and therefore staying alive longer), your positioning in the match versus your enemies (letting you get to enemies before your team), etc.
We’ve already seen that it takes ~150-300 rounds of .50 cal ammo to get kills depending on your aim, so in a P-51 you might run out if you have poor aim - but that won’t be the case if you have good aim or you’re flying a P-47.
Also as an update I did linear regression on the HE versus HEI damage to spitfire wings figure of merit data (for fillings A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, K - not H due to it adding too many variables) and it also didn’t give valid results.
It probably makes sense for RE factors/TNT equivalence being a the very least a cubic function, so if you have more data or could point me towards more data that’d be great.
The number of data points needed is probably n^3 the number of independent variables, which in the case of the spitfire figure of merit data were 9 variables so likely 27 data points required. The independent variables I was able to make were the weight percentages of Mg+Al, Ba(NO3)2, KClO4, Paraffin Wax, C.E. (which I think is just Tetryl?), Common Salt, RDX, TNT, and PETN.