Ah, I thought he meant the 30mm incendiary shells.
Has anyone actually calculated the theoretical fire chances of .50 based off the stats? I haven’t washed up on math, but wouldn’t a binomial distribution work here for probability?
I plugged the number in for a single success in a calculator. I’m working from a binary so the other successes don’t matter. You’re either on fire or you’re not.
Wouldn’t this mean that after 10 rounds hitting a fuel tank you have a 65% chance to start a fire?
That’s actually extremely low when you consider that you’ll sometimes only have 1-2 rounds hitting a target.
1 Like
Search reports I’ve included in previously discussions, those reports available on DTIC showed test results on chances of gas/kerosine fuel fire caused by M8. M20. M23 from various angle, distance, altitude.
Again IRL conditions would be way more complicated than in the Lab, which is why early conclusion of “M1/M8 causes fuel fire in average slightly more than one shot” may not hold solid from the observation of gun cam footages.
1 Like
I tested incendiary performance in the past against AI targets.
From what I remember, firing two API (at the same time) would always set an AI P-40 on fire.
Firing a single API-T against AI Bf 110 set them on fire in 1-3 hits.
I’m specifically use the Ammunition handbook as a guide simply because you get to see the direct results of those test bench studies being applied in a real world setting, I.E. the engineers are commenting on the real life results of their work while showing proof of such.
I think that is in some ways is better than even the most rigorous testing as you’re having the developers of these exact rounds see the results of their ammunition being used mixed with the test data being specifically curated and designed around fighting the enemy at the time. This isn’t an “After-the-fact” study where there’s no real correlated follow-up besides what we interpret based on what nameless figures in Air Force brass chooses or makes changes to. Instead it’s the closest you can get to a description of how these rounds realistically behaved. I believe everything else afterwards should act supplementally to that document.
I don’t trust A.I. targets as shots that should prove as just pilot snipes, the plane will still explode in a blaze of glory. Even against slow flying players I find things being weird.
It’s penetration & where you hit. Against slower players, it’s consistent and easy to keep a prolonged stream of shots going, increasing probability
I’ve torched a P-51C with 2x Mg17 (7.92) universal belt in Bf 109 F4.
If your shots actually penetrate and also deal damage to the component - they’re very reliable at starting fires.
Hard part is getting them to penetrate through aircraft skin (angle of impact, range) AND having enough volume to actually hit what you want. I imagine Angle of impact has a pretty big significance for things that we usually forget (given the bulbuous/rounded shapes of wings and fuselages).
1 Like
Well, I can tell you that I also used AI targets to show how ineffective many Incendiary rounds are in setting fires.
20mm IT was basically worse in setting fires than Soviet 12.7mm API against AI Bf 110s.
Rarely setting a tank on fire in one hit, often requiring 3-4.
Actually double that because I used a Bf 110 with double MG FFs for testing.
1 Like
I tried to use SDK and edit a custom belt that only contains incendiaries to test the effectiveness, but it failed to be loaded in game.
P-38G, J, L, K. P-39N. F8F-1. P-51C. There’s more that I don’t recall right now.
Maybe your hand really does have extra fingers! Mine only has 5.
AN/M1 barely worked at all even in a controlled environment and was deemed wholly unsuited for use. AN/M2 was an improvement but still quite bad and more trouble than any other mainstay 20mm cannon, to the point that Hellcats delivered with inboard AN/M2s were often swapped to .50s instead.
This is one of my major issues with using gun camera footage as “evidence”. Nobody knows what ammo was in those belts and often not even what guns were being fired - many claim the:
video is showing the 30mms doing little damage, but it can’t be the 30mms because those would be firing from either side of the gun camera, and we see the tracers coming from well below - clearly a pair of 20mm cannons mounted in the bottom of the nose or in the belly pod.
If you’re a little unlucky, you can replicate the video on an in-game B-17 pretty easily.
Japanese 13.2s are relatively not-an-issue because they’re always mixed in with at least an equal number of 20mm cannons, and also never in great enough numbers or at a low enough BR that you’d consider them to be a generous armament on their own.
Which is a real shame. I’d pay for an A6M3 with 4x Type 3s.
Same above for these, a plane with .60cal guns would be pretty interesting.
brb doing this to my J6K
3 Likes
LMAOOOOO “P-38 undertiered” like bro wtf are you smoking?
The P-39s can maybe technically be considered undertiered, however it’s literally a 2.7.
F8F-1 . . . if you’re still under the delusion that the F8F-1 is undertiered then I feel very sorry for you.
The P-51C is the only one you’re correct about. I also find it funny how you ignored the FR-1. The only other undertiered U.S. prop I can think of is the prem Spitfire XD.
P-39? Undertiered? I’ve heard everything now
It is undertiered though? He’s rarely correct and this is one of those instances. In fact 90% of that post you’re responding to is purely wrong. He is right though about the P-39!
2 Likes
I have never died to a P-39 bar the P-400. I mean maybe??? I just never have died to one but have died to literally every other thing he spoke of.
It’s telling that this is how you view game balance instead of just objectively viewing the planes from a performance standpoint.
3 Likes
My viewpoint is from how I’ve seen them flown/driven. I mean that’s caused some pretty wild takes, and this p39 thing could be an example.
I implore you to review the P-39s actual flight performance at 2.7.
1 Like
The P-39 has a large amount of guns, a weak engine, high rip speed, and mediocre turning. 2.7 to me
Not true. Don’t even know how you come to this sort of conclusion
Also not necessarily true
2 Likes
Ok I had no idea that the P-39N has a 1300 HP engine, that’s actually insane for 2.7
I havent been outturned by a P-39 in a while, and even then I managed to squeeze my way out of a shitty scenario. however, I mostly see P-63 not P-39 in my usual matches and those might be an entirely different story
1 Like
Please stop trying to use personal anecdote as evidence for any sort of claim regarding game balance. Purely use statistics and facts.
1 Like