.50's deserve a buff

[PercussionCap]

@dovah4

It would still be around 44-47% going off the range I hit at. I got the demarcation for the horizontal line to show about 50%
In-game on the other hand is a measly 10%

This is reasonable given that gaijin likely chose 10% as an ‘average’ value for a round that has travelled a fair distance, passed through the skin, internal structure, and possibly armor before finally hitting the fuel tank. APIT fire chance drops drastically as its speed decreases.

@dovah4

One of those rounds would have an over 60% chance to light a single fire per shot.

APIT only gets to 60% right at the muzzle and if it meets no obstructions

@dovah4

Just do the same with .50

ok Wildcat goes to 3.7 right next to J22-B

@dovah4

You got it backwards. 2 hits would give a 75% chance to catch alight, but you would still have a 25% chance of it not catching alight.

I didn’t get it backwards. He is not on fire → 25% chance. 75% is if he was on fire.

@dovah4

With current stats, it would take about 10 rounds to get a 65% chance.

Thereabouts. However the fire chance in actual gameplay is still very high and there’s other causes for kills.

[dovah4]

@PercussionCap

This is reasonable given that gaijin likely chose 10% as an ‘average’ value for a round that has travelled a fair distance, passed through the skin, internal structure, and possibly armor before finally hitting the fuel tank. APIT fire chance drops drastically as its speed decreases.

The testing they took this data from include the actual target itself. Not just the fuel tank.

They used a P-38 Airframe, fired at it’s fuel tanks, and used a slave engine to create windgusts that would quench any small external fires (Like in actual flight) They didn’t just shoot at bare fuel tanks.

Any obstructions would make it easier to defeat the self-sealing action of a fuel tank as you’re making less clean “cuts” into the fuel tank and the heat from the incendiary would scorch and burn the rubber, breaking it off into pieces, making it where the self-sealing function was bypassed.

So this would also include actually striking the airframe.

@PercussionCap

APIT only gets to 60% right at the muzzle and if it meets no obstructions

I was referring to M23 for the 60% figure

It should technically be higher as this value is for completely full fuel tanks. Everyone flies with fuel tanks at 30%. Normal incendiary works even better than API and API-T for ullage detonation.

@PercussionCap

I didn’t get it backwards.

If You have 50% for each round to light a target, two hits would give a 75% chance. Not a 25% chance. I have no clue why you would think the first round being 50% would automatically have a lower chance for some reason.

@PercussionCap

ok Wildcat goes to 3.7 right next to J22-B

J-22 also literally has an HE round which makes it insane when you can blow wings off with just a few rounds. It’s not a good comparison.

Wildcat has only 1 round of Incendiary in it’s belt. Everything else is tracer or regular AP. it wouldn’t be that effective (if it performed correctly) as you still have a huge chunk of your belt just not including the round. Even if it did, you still need to rely on hitting fuel tanks.

You can fix a lot of the perfomance metric issues U.S. planes have by just making every match have Airspawns as this gives less of a strict advantage of fast climbing props from having a massive first contact advantage. BAsically. It’s more realistic since everyone is in the air already. This also stops planes like the P-38 and other interceptors from just towering over everybody.

@PercussionCap

However the fire chance in actual gameplay is still very high and there’s other causes for kills.

The fire chance is very low still. As I’ve shown with the Bf-110. API can’t even go through spars like they should when I tested the He-111. Bf-110 has an insanely high amount of rounds to actually light up. and this is considering the M2HB firs the API-T round almost 30m/s faster than what aircraft spew out.

@PercussionCap

lower convergence would have most likely resulted in a kill, don’t even need to change the aim

@PercussionCap

nonissue

This also got me. I pointed out the problems with point convergence with machine guns, with you calling it a “nonissue”

In the same post you said that the convergence would’ve needed to be different—not the aim. Which shows that machine guns having problems with point convergence.

[PercussionCap]

@dovah4

If You have 50% for each round to light a target, two hits would give a 75% chance. Not a 25% chance. I have no clue why you would think the first round being 50% would automatically have a lower chance for some reason.

do you understand how probabilities work

do you think this plane is on fire or not on fire

@dovah4

They used a P-38 Airframe

a plane with no fuel tank armor and one of the most exposed placements

@dovah4

Any obstructions would make it easier to defeat the self-sealing action of a fuel tank as you’re making less clean “cuts” into the fuel tank.

This is already accounted for in the fire probability graph, the slower a bullet gets the less energy it has to shatter itself or the impacted material. This is seen a lot in low velocity firearm ammunition.

@dovah4

Wildcat has only 1 round of Incendiary in it’s belt. Everything else is tracer or regular AP. it wouldn’t be that effective (if it performed correctly) as you still have a huge chunk of your belt just not including the round. Even if it did, you still need to rely on hitting fuel tanks.

You also said previously you wanted more Incendiary in the belts. Why would the poor old Wildcat be excluded?

@dovah4

You can fix a lot of the perfomance metric issues U.S. planes have by just making every match have Airspawns as this gives less of a strict advantage of fast climbing props from having a massive first contact advantage.

That would be boring, I wouldn’t see people explode as they somehow fail to throttle up and gently move the mouse cursor up anymore

@dovah4

The fire chance is very low still.

yet at least half my targets go down in flames

@dovah4

In the same post you said that the convergence would’ve needed to be different—not the aim. Which shows that machine guns having problems with point convergence.

The only “problem” is your convergence being way too far away. So in all those up close shots they go nicely around all of the enemy’s vitals.

[Wheres_My_Dad]

Positive

[dovah4]

@PercussionCap

do you think this plane is on fire or not on fire

@PercussionCap

that’s about a 50% chance per hit. An orange fuel tank is like 2 hits, so 25%

To be entirely fair, you didn’t word this the best because it sounds like you’re saying that the ignition percentage is 25%

“It’s about 50% chance per hit, and after 2 hits would be 75%, you got unlucky and got the 25% chance of no fire.”

Don’t forget either there’s a dark orange/reddish fuel tank as well that didn’t go off either.

@PercussionCap

a plane with no fuel tank armor and one of the most exposed placements

It still counts, and if we go back to the vulnerability tests, which gave less comprehensive exposure on exactly HOW incendiary works and more along just the strict data. We have hits on the A-35 (P-47 stand-in), B-25, P-59 and P-38.

But if you want direct armor.

This was from 400 yards with M20 API-T with the tank 3 feet behind a 1 inch plate

The report for Aircraft Vulnerability and overall armament effectiveness states that M23 and M20 are “Practically the same”

I would imagine this is due to the velocity of the round helping with armor penetration

It’s actually a little faster compared to in-game 16m/s more.
but they used the P-38 fuel tanks for the chart.

Much of the direct incendiary study was not specifically geared towards just P-38 tanks

But for M23, it’s safe to say it was less than the M20 API-T.
With much of the penetration of the M23 coming from it’s velocity.

They did the same with japanese fuel tanks with dural screens rounds had to pass through multiple of.

Again, these are fast moving rounds going through aluminum. They’re not going to start flipping all over the place like this

This is what M1 incendiary looks like right before passing the last ‘dural screen’

Still straight. Nose broke off.

But if you really want to. You can use the WT wiki’s Demarre calculator to see how the pen of the rounds would look in gaijin’s eyes. Before you say “This doesn’t actually work.” or “It spews out a random number” Put in the stats of the .50 API, API-T, and AP round in-game and it will give you a value.

Since gaijin doesn’t count incendiary filler as part of “explosive mass” I decided to include the weight of the filler in grains converted to kg as part of the explosive mass, as it makes no sense for the M23 to have more pen than the M20 API-T (only by 1 mm)

@PercussionCap

You also said previously you wanted more Incendiary in the belts. Why would the poor old Wildcat be excluded?

I want them to have what they realistically had at the time. Even if they had the proper M1 incendiary composition, you’d still be reliant on actually hitting fuel tanks. Or y’know. Just custom ammo belts for everybody.

@PercussionCap

The only “problem” is your convergence being way too far away. So in all those up close shots they go nicely around all of the enemy’s vitals.

And these are machine guns meant to catch people on fire. It shows the weaknesses of point convergence when you can’t saturate an area since all your guns are converged at one point.

[_Zekken]

A full year and a half later and Dovah still only proving that his entire problem is his inability to aim. You’d think you would have figured it out by now.

Hmm yep, Brownings still 100% fine, despite my own lack of aiming ability as this was the first game in at least 6 months with a plane that uses them lol.

[PercussionCap]

@_Zekken

Hmm yep, Brownings still 100% fine, despite my own lack of aiming ability as this was the first game in at least 6 months with a plane that uses them lol.

It took more than 1 hit to kill, buff NOW

@dovah4

Don’t forget either there’s a dark orange/reddish fuel tank as well that didn’t go off either.

That’s still about 2 hits. Maybe 3, which would then be 12.5% to not be on fire.

Do you think something with a probability of 12.5% is impossible to see in a real match?

@dovah4

It shows the weaknesses of point convergence when you can’t saturate an area since all your guns are converged at one point.

Why are you saturating an area when you should be shooting the enemy? And taking the gun mod off achieves this anyway. In my gameplay I’m getting a nice spread of fire even at the convergence point of 400m.

[dovah4]

@_Zekken

A full year and a half later and Dovah still only proving that his entire problem is his inability to aim. You’d think you would have figured it out by now.

I’d recommend you actually read what was said before making a comment.

@PercussionCap

Do you think something with a probability of 12.5% is impossible to see in a real match?

Well, considering in-game it’s only 10 percent and it can take 10+ rounds I would complain.

If we had the flame chances of 50%, I would’ve chalked any lack of fires to just “bad luck”.
But as it stands in-game. We don’t have any high percentages for fires.

@PercussionCap

Why are you saturating an area when you should be shooting the enemy? And taking the gun mod off achieves this anyway. In my gameplay I’m getting a nice spread of fire even at the convergence point of 400m.

Is English your second language? Not even trying to poke fun or make fun of you because I don’t think you’re understanding because you’re taking it very literal.

“I saturate the area” can also mean “I saturate the area of the target.” The target is also an “area” since he occupies physical space.

Gun mod disabled doesn’t fix the whole issue. That shot on the Fw-190 was actually done with 400m convergence

You can see in the video too that my guns hit his fuselage, narrowly missed the pilot right in front of him, and then worked itself into the wing and back into the fuselage where I did most of my damage

If there was actual box configs you could make with your convergence,

He would’ve been smoked. fuel tanks are too inconsistent now but it would’ve resulted in a pilot snipe. (I know it’s a D-9, just reusing an image)

[_Zekken]

@dovah4

d recommend you actually read what was said before making a comment.

I did. I read a whole bunch of the comments after that clip I quoted, and watched most of your videos.

Every single one where you said “see, they do no damage!” You just missed.

And then the one clip where you actually did aim properly, you claim its just “a dice roll”

@dovah4

Meanwhile .50 calibers are constant dice roll machine where you either insta kill the dude or you do absolutely nothing.
One hit, you tear the guy apart.

https://forum-en-cdn.warthunder.com/original/4X/9/8/1/981392c8e3292cacb1f870d61cd55071217ad5df.mp4

The only dice roll here is your aim lol. Funny that when you actually hit the target, the target explodes. Shocking how that works

[dovah4]

@_Zekken

And then the one clip where you actually did aim properly, you claim its just “a dice roll”

I also hit the target here.

Here

here

I got hit here and ate it. With the engine fire being the only thing (Which i’ve shown even basic AP can do)

here

Real k Soze hit the target here, and this was all cumulative after several passes.

I said before and I’ll say it again. I don’t care if I fire 1 million rounds at somebody. The end result is all that matters.

These are shots that should’ve caught the enemy on fire.

Again. fuel tanks just eating hits.

- YouTube

- YouTube

I was originally using the He-111 for these test, but I can’t even do that because AP won’t go through spars for some reason as they just get swallowed into a black hole somewhere.

That’s why I say they’re dicerolls, you hit the pilot and instant kill, or you smack the dude a bunch, hit modules that should’ve mattered and he gets to keep fighting.
Will you get fires sometimes? Sure, you can sometimes still get 1 shot fires too. Rare, but they still happen. It’s not impossible but the inordinate amount of fire you have to put in on average is astronomical

For rounds that are designed to set targets on fire, in-game they really suck at doing that.

[_Zekken]

And yet, you seem to be the only one having these issues.

In 2 and a half years and nearly 1600 replies, Almost every person who has commented here has disagreed with you

@dovah4

For rounds that are designed to set targets on fire, in-game they really suck at doing that.

Lmfao.

[dovah4]

@_Zekken

And yet, you seem to be the only one having these issues.

In 2 and a half years and nearly 1600 replies, Almost every person who has commented here has disagreed with you

So you aren’t saying I’m wrong. I just took the time to actually look at the damage I did to the enemy in the replay, not just move to the next match and went on without questioning anything.

Percussion Cap even showed himself that if he didn’t hit the Pilot of the aircraft, all those hits into the fuel tank would’ve done absolutely nothing

[_Zekken]

No, im saying there is no point in arguing with you.

Everything that needed to be said I already said over a year ago. I provided my opinions, my experience, and spent quite a fair number of hours of my time collecting evidence to prove my position.

You disagreed with it all. It didnt change your mind then, and clearly havent changed it in the 1.5 years since.
Nothing else has changed with guns or damage models of the aircraft involved since then, so there is nothing more to say. The argument is still going around in circles and is pointless to put any more effort in.

@dovah4

I just took the time to actually look at the damage I did to the enemy in the replay, not just move to the next match and went on without questioning anything.

I spent plenty of time doing that a year and a half ago. But I dont have the free time after work, or even need to go into the replays and meta analyse every single kill or lack of kill because for me the answer has always been: I hit them and they die, or I miss them and they dont. Sometimes rounds whiff but 20mms whiff just as often, as does every other round in the game.

[dovah4]

@_Zekken

Everything that needed to be said I already said over a year ago. I provided my opinions, my experience, and spent quite a fair number of hours of my time collecting evidence to prove my position.

Because your evidence more or less pointed out what I said over and over again as the only means to actually kill people. You smack the pilot or you hit the spar.

The machine guns, with the ammo meant to start fuel fires. Aren’t starting fuel fires.

Modules that exist to catch alight aren’t working properly.

Like the video you showed of you grinding someone down with a P-36 before you killed their pilot, Or a P-63 before you snapped their spar.

“This is the only measure of which you can ‘reliably’ kill people, when it shouldn’t be the case”

So you wind up with the .50s being hot and cold on if they work or not. There’s no ‘inbetween’ like cannons where you snap a dude’s wing tip off and he’s out of the fight, or he’s been made completely combat ineffectual, doing substantial damage in just a few hits.

[_Zekken]

@dovah4

Because your evidence more or less pointed out what I said over and over again as the only means to actually kill people. You smack the pilot or you hit the spar.

I just shot at the planes and they died dude. Idk what more you can want or ask for.

@dovah4

The machine guns, with the ammo meant to start fuel fires. Aren’t starting fuel fires.

Like 90% of the clips I posted had the enemy plane on fire, either as the cause of death or in addition to the cause of death.

This is why Its pointless to argue. The arguments you are making is the complete inverse of my entire experience of these guns.

@dovah4

Like the video you showed of you grinding someone down with a P-36 before you killed their pilot,

Neither of the kills in that clip were pilot kills. Both planes caught fire.

- YouTube

@dovah4

Or a P-63 before you snapped their spar.

First kill on Su-6 wasnt a spar snap, or a pilot snipe. The Spitfire burst into fire with the severe, I cant see on my phone if his spar snapped as well. (First two clips)

- YouTube

[dovah4]

@_Zekken

Both planes caught fire.

Were these fuel fires? or just engine fires?

Engine fires can be done, even by regular AP.

Meanwhile fuel tanks just won’t light up.

@_Zekken

I just shot at the planes and they died dude. Idk what more you can want or ask for.

Like I said, they’re inconsistent. You can shoot at them and they “just die” or you tear through them and they just take it and move on. It’s why I said they’re dice rolls. You do absolutely nothing, or you kill them.

There’s no “Well, this dude is alive, but he’s either barely able to fight back or he has to make it back to base.” unlike with literally any HE armed weapon in the game.

[_Zekken]

@dovah4

Like I said, they’re inconsistent. You can shoot at them and they “just die” or you tear through them and they just take it and move on. It’s why I said they’re dice rolls. You do absolutely nothing, or you kill them.

They are arguably some of the most consistent guns in the game lol

The only inconsistency is your aim

[PercussionCap]

@dovah4

Well, considering in-game it’s only 10 percent and it can take 10+ rounds I would complain.

If we had the flame chances of 50%, I would’ve chalked any lack of fires to just “bad luck”.

I’m just making the point that even if it was 50%, you’d still easily have 1 in 10 players just flying away from your hits unless you really lay into them.

@dovah4

He would’ve been smoked. fuel tanks are too inconsistent now but it would’ve resulted in a pilot snipe. (I know it’s a D-9, just reusing an image)

Pilots can and will eat a single .50cal round. He most likely would survive.

@dovah4

that if he didn’t hit the Pilot of the aircraft, all those hits into the fuel tank would’ve done absolutely nothing

Because I missed a good 95% of my shots lol, with a stock belt on top

[dovah4]

@PercussionCap

I’m just making the point that even if it was 50%, you’d still easily have 1 in 10 players just flying away from your hits unless you really lay into them.

If you didn’t hit their fuel tank that would be fair.
But if the fuel tanks actually functioned as they should. There wouldn’t be a problem because they would actually catch alight.
2014 Gaijin had it decent enough, but decided to ruin it because German and Russian players complained that the country with the machine guns that catch things on fire, is catching things on fire too well.

@PercussionCap

Because I missed a good 95% of my shots lol, with a stock belt on top

Stock belts still include API, not counting the incendiary round that should be penetrating. You dumped a crap load of rounds into the dude. misses don’t matter, only the rounds that hit and you hit a load

[PercussionCap]

@dovah4

Stock belts still include API.

1/4

And I don’t think I hit that fuel tank more than twice with the single APIT in the belt.

@dovah4

only the rounds that hit and you hit a load

And I got unlucky. Boo womp, come back for another pass if he isn’t dead. Happens with cannons all the time.