About the erroneous flight characteristics of the Ta152C3, and also about the lack of historical accuracy about its armament, and the lack of secondary armaments

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
70

Yes, most of the comments are probably talking about the LF Mk IX, LF Mk IXc (the US premium), etc.

These planes are at 5.0 (WTF!?). They are aircraft that would easily fit in BR 5.7. There’s no reason to keep the FW190 D-9, D-12, and Ta 152 H-1 at 5.7, and the D-13 at 5.3, while leaving this UFO-like LF Mk IX at 5.0 in SB mode… I actually think they should lower the BRs of the 190 Doras to at least 5.3, and the 190 A-4 and A-5 to 4.3.

A good practical comparison is to look at the scoreboards for BR 5.0 matches: most of the top scorers are flying LF Mk IXs… Are they all really amazing pilots, or is there a clear imbalance in the gameplay and BR these planes are given? In general, the Mk IXs should all be at 5.0 instead of 4.7, and the LF Mk IX should be at 5.7 at the very least.

71

Günther Hall himself said that the best driver was Marseille, let’s make another comparison, who do you think is better, Adolf Galland or Illu Juutilainen?

72

I was confused that when we compare with TA152C, at least we need to consider like P51H/F2G/Spitfire MK24? Ta152c is just like a better FW190D13, which is 5.0 right now

73

@HeckedDragon-live - Mate - you are watering down the quality of the thread - the topic is flight models and not pilot skill…

@Chocolate_Pasta
Have in mind that the thread deals mainly with Air SB BRs and implemented FMs, that’s why you see SB BRs. As the FMs of Air RB and SB are identical sometimes Air RB is mentioned, but in general the BR setting in SB is not really comparable to RB.

1 Like
74

I can agree with this.

But also do the same to Ki-84.

I think 5.7 might be fair?

F4U-4B, LF Mk IX, Ki-84 all at 5.7 (at least for first pass balance).

The only issue is mostly the Ju-288. For me at least, planes at 5.7 might as well not exist as you only get 1 cycle to play them without going into ju-288 territory so I’d love if we could shove that thing up to 7.0 too lol. Not because it’s OP, more that it makes finding a lobby that’s actually fun very hard.

1 Like
75

I totally agree. The 4.0–5.0 (SB) matches are, in my opinion, the most unbalanced in the entire game. And that’s mainly because of the Spitfire mentioned (the LF Mk IX).

Let’s see what Axis options you have: FW190 A-4 (4.0), A-5 (4.7), A-5/U2 (4.7), A-5/U14 (4.7), and very rarely the FW190 C (5.0), which you almost never see in matches, plus it’s unavailable for players on consoles (@live/@psn/Steam).

Then you face planes like the D-9, which was one of the main opponents of the Mk IX series historically, and yet it’s totally outclassed by the UFO-like LF Mk IX. The D-9 is at 5.7, while the Spit is sitting comfortably at 5.0… that’s not balanced. If virtual pilots couldn’t withstand superhuman G-forces, maybe the LF Mk IX could stay at 5.0 like the Doras. But we see players pulling insane turns, being able to turn the fight around with a single move, or at the very least having an easy time dodging any attack.

Anyway, I think this topic deserves its own thread, and it’s great to see the community agreeing that there’s clearly an imbalance with these planes, especially when you consider 1v1 fights. Because unlike real life, where squadrons fought squadrons, in WT you usually end up in 1v1 situations.

Also, the F4U-4B, Yak-3P, and planes like those are at the right BRs… actually, I’d even suggest lowering the P-51D-30 to the same 5.0 as the D-20; I don’t see any reason to keep it higher.

From my point of view, the FWs have a totally unique FM, and I don’t want to try and turnfight Spitfires — I just want to see some of the real advantages the FW190 had, so we can have dogfights based on skill, not just “I’ll spin like a UFO and get on your six.”

With any FW190, you can’t accelerate better to gain an advantage in a scissors, you can’t climb faster to reposition, you can’t turn because the virtual pilot is a superhuman who can handle up to 13G, you can’t take the fight vertical because your FW190 loses control authority way before the Spitfire does, and you can’t set up an effective energy trap because the Spitfire recovers its responsiveness way too quickly… so why the hell do you keep a plane like that Spit at 5.0, with so many advantages, and keep the FW190 D-9 at 5.7? Just because the FW190 can carry a few bombs if needed? It’s unreal.

I’ve been playing WT in simulator mode since around 2022, and after many updates over these years, we’ve seen the FW190 series get totally nerfed and outdated, both in performance and in drag physics. This is just my personal experience and might not mean much here in this topic, but I think it’s worth saying. The way Gaijin treats the FW190 compared to other fighters is just unfair and doesn’t make much sense. I used to have matches where I sometimes went undefeated with high kill counts, which was clearly unbalanced too, but after the last big update that heavily nerfed the Anton series of FW190s, the balance against other planes — which kept their overperforming features — was lost.

It’s not that flying the FW190 is impossible now, far from it, but there’s no real competitiveness in close engagements. You always have to keep insane amounts of energy just to deal with situations that should come down to skill and precise control. But that’s ignored. The main reason I’m commenting here is to point out this disparity between two planes that were direct rivals, and how one of them (the Spitfire) has a very clear advantage in tight dogfights.

I really hope something changes, because the FW190 was an iconic aircraft just like the Spitfire. I don’t want one to be superior to the other, but there should be balance like there was in reality. I respect Spitfire fans and I truly think it’s a beautiful plane with amazing history, but there’s another side of the story — the FW190’s side. After 1942, when the Mk V started falling behind the FW190 A-3, the Mk IX came into play, and there wasn’t such a huge gap in maneuverability. The Mk IX had many advantages, but the 190, even the early Antons, was still a tough opponent. So what can we say about the Dora versions? Anyway, I think the BR and the drag physics plus mass center of the FW190 really need fixing. It’s not fair to treat the Spitfire LF Mk IX with the Merlin 66, or even the Merlin 61, as something so vastly superior in overall performance.

And honestly, I don’t feel frustrated losing dogfights. I’ve fought against worse planes and lost, and that often comes down to your own mistakes or the other player’s skill — and I always like to learn from that. But against the LF series Spitfires, there’s not much you can do. Any strategy leaves you in trouble; any defensive attempt, even when you have the advantage (like forcing an overshoot or winning an energy fight in a scissors), that Spitfire can just turn and catch you. So I don’t see much of a real fight here, just “Gaijin made me unbeatable, unless I’m distracted sipping tea and you shoot me down.”

2 Likes
76

Could you compare the Ta 152C with the P51H, Spit Mk24 etc, in the most advanced versions of the same, equipped with the DB 603N of 2,750HP and aerodynamic refinement, even with the H, which in this case would be the H-6, with the Jumo 213J generating around 2,700HP, and 300KG of thrust at 9,000 meters of altitude, which is the same amount of thrust of the Me 262 engines

77

The F Mk IX is fine where it is, it’s completely balanced against the 190’s but the LF IX absolutely should be 5.7. The Yak-3 also needs moving up to 5.0 along with the P-47N and the 109G-6.

1 Like
78

Again, I have to agree. The Yak-3 would be fine even at 5.3, and the LF Mk IX would be perfectly comfortable at 5.7. Like I said, unless they change the G-force modeling. But I think that’s unlikely to ever happen unless we make a big topic with a lot of engagement.

We also need to talk about the Yak-3’s supposed fragility — it was a plane made of plywood, yet it can take hits from explosive 20mm shells… try shooting a piece of plywood with a 9mm pistol using hollow-point ammo and see the damage it does. Now imagine it being hit by a 20mm explosive round… Gaijin is really dreaming big when it comes to these old Soviet planes. Anyway, I agree they should raise the Yak-3’s BR, especially that premium Yak-3(e) which for some reason has ammo that can destroy you with a single hit.

2 Likes
79

Some planes are clearly modeled as using wood, as at the moment HE shells simply don’t fuze on impact with parts made out wood, including the most famous wooden WW2 aircraft, the Mosquito.

However in WT it doesn’t seem to make any difference when it comes to structural strength.

Wood should be more susceptible to blast damage, but isn’t in WT.

But right now explosive rounds disassemble planes like every one is made out of wood.

When FN produced their 13.2mm explosive bullet, with 3.5g explosives, it was marketed as taking out a plane in one hit.
But that was during a time when full metal aircraft weren’t yet common, and were still constructed from wood and fabric.

When Oerlikon built a new AA cannon in the late 50s they considered 35mm to be the optimal caliber for the job, being able to take down an aircraft, Jets at that time, with a single hit, firing a 35mm Mineshell filled with 120g Hexal.

Even a P-47 could survive getting by a German 30mm Mineshell afterall.

20mm Mineshells were produced because regular 20mm explosive shells weren’t as lethal against full metal aircraft, while regular shells were devastating against wooden airframes.

2 Likes
80

The German 20mm cannons are really underperforming in the game. First, the fuse time is very short, so they can’t do damage to distant targets (800m or more), which is a huge disadvantage compared to American and Soviet .50 cals.

Also, even when the shells hit something like the wing, they often don’t cause enough structural damage to affect the enemy’s maneuverability — the opponent can keep turning normally after being hit.

The explosive shells, which should detonate and shatter inside the fuselage, damaging spars and hydraulic systems, simply don’t work as they should.

The Yak-3 in particular seems to have some kind of “force field” — the first hit almost always does nothing, you just see the “hit” message… so you need long bursts to actually cause real damage that stops it from fighting or lets it lose energy. But theoretically, a 20mm round hitting a plywood-made fighter should at least blow a huge hole in the fuselage or wing… anyway, I see that German 20mm shells are becoming less and less effective. I use stealth belts for the 20mm because they have more explosive shells than other belts, but many times I see very little damage being done. And the most frustrating part is these planes that should be fragile but are portrayed as if they can withstand severe damage.

“Flying Guns – World War II”:

“The Germans introduced a revolutionary 20 mm shell for the MG 151/20: the Minengeschoss, or ‘mine shell’. This was made with very thin walls and contained a much greater explosive filling than any previous 20 mm shell. The weight of the shell was reduced from around 115 grams (for a conventional 20 mm shell) to approximately 92 grams, with up to 18 grams of high explosive. This resulted in a much more powerful effect on the lightly built aircraft structures of the time, often causing catastrophic damage with a single hit. The thin shell walls meant the Minengeschoss would fragment into fewer, larger pieces, but the massive blast inside the aircraft structure was usually enough to break longerons or cause structural failure. This type of shell gave German fighters a significant advantage in destructive power.”

Flying Guns – WWII:

“The Minengeschoss caused exceptional damage to the light structures of enemy aircraft. Even a single hit could break wing spars or longerons, resulting in immediate loss of control.”

🔹 1) Accounts from Luftwaffe pilots:

In interviews and memoirs compiled in books like “JG 54: A Photographic History of the Grünherzjäger” (John Weal), Fw 190 pilots reported that in dogfights against Yak-1s and Yak-9s, a single 20 mm hit often caused immediate destruction, tearing off wing sections or breaking the fuselage.

In “Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Eastern Front” (John Weal, Osprey), there are accounts of Soviet fighters being destroyed with just a few bursts, with mentions of the fragility of wooden aircraft like the Yaks — although the term “Minengeschoss” isn’t explicitly used, it’s clear they refer to the standard MG 151/20 ammunition.

🔹 2) Technical documents and combat reports:

Luftwaffe documents (e.g., evaluation reports from the Reichsluftfahrtministerium – RLM) indicate that the adoption of the Minengeschoss significantly increased lethality against British fighters, specifically mentioning “fighters like the Spitfire” — but these references appear only in internal reports, not in postwar books.

These reports state that enemy fighters could be destroyed with just a few hits, attributing this to the M-Geschoss’s effect on thin structures and unprotected fuel tanks.

🔹 3) Operational comparisons with Allied fighters:

In “Luftwaffe Fighter Aces” (Mike Spick), there are sections where pilots recount Spitfires being damaged or shot down with only one or two well-placed 20 mm hits — but again, there’s no explicit mention of the Minengeschoss, just references to “20mm shells” in general.

🔹 4) Modern studies:

Technical articles in specialized magazines like Air Enthusiast and Flight Journal discuss the Minengeschoss’s superiority in destroying Allied fighters, but they speak in general terms about “aircraft of the Spitfire class” or “lightweight fighters of Soviet design."

2 Likes
81

Game damage was weird last time I played. You either magically ripped a wing or tail clean off with a tiny burst or aircraft could fly on like nothing had happened after receiving damage. Having half an elevator ripped clean off does almost zilch to manoeuvrability no matter what you’re flying.

They seem fine for me. I was flying the 190A5 recently and reasonably short bursts where ripping wings off… a bit unrealistically to be honest especially when a P-47 evaporates from in front of you.

I’d also be careful in advocating for Mine shells to become even more powerful… a couple of patches back you could one-shot wings clean off and there were videos online of a single round chopping bomber tails clean off. Mine rounds were powerful but they weren’t that powerful… they should absolutely be a competent round but they should never punch like a 30mm.

You can see some interesting fighter vs fighter footage here. Lots of damage but no massive structural failures. Even on the impressive shot on the Spitfire that causes the wing to burst into flames the wing is still firmly attached.

That’s not to say that wings being blown off shouldn’t happen as it did… but it was very rare that an entire wing would evaporate. The Hispano was every bit as powerful as the MG-151 but off memory I’ve only ever seen one clip where an aircraft falls apart and that’s when a Tempest mauls a 190D.

82

Something I’d love if we had as a replacement for current wingrip mechanic would be instead to make HE shells introduce cracks and structural weakpoints into the wing. If target keeps flying straight, wing stays attached. If target pulls hard, wing falls off because of over-G.

Il2 seems to do that and I like it, even if it seems rare with my puny early-war guns in BoM.

2 Likes
83

That’d be perfect.

I’d be happy with more of a focus on damaged components with 20mm’s instead of just one burst and then wing gone.

So a burst into your wing would cause a loss of lift along with flaps/ailerons being damaged.

84

Yesterday I shot down 5 planes with a Fw 190 A-5/U2. Set fires and disassembled them.

But in another match I also sprayed a burst in the direction of a P-51C and took off his tails with two ShVAKs.

So it’s not that 20mm Mineshells deal too little damage, it’s that other cannons deal too much, particular ShVAKS with their 4.13g explosive mass compared to 18.7g of Mineshells.

ShVAKs are literally more effective than NS-23 cannons, which replaced them.
The 23mm deal like 25% more damage, yet the ShVAK or B-20 also have 33% higher RoF and better ballistics.
The 23mm should deal at least twice the damage compared to the whimpy Soviet 20mm shells.

3 Likes
85

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m referring to. This flight model mechanic where the aircraft loses maneuverability feels a bit unbalanced, because planes hit by 20mm rounds—with spars and control surfaces damaged—seem oddly “resilient” in some cases.

Take, for instance, the Yak-3 and other fighters built using plywood. A well-placed shell into the wing should almost completely compromise its ability to maneuver, or even maintain stable level flight. If the pilot insists on pulling high G-loads, the wing would likely fail structurally, considering the spar and the outer skin would already be weakened.

German shells also seem oddly ineffective when it comes to starting fires, which I’m not sure reflects reality accurately.

In IL-2, for example, structural damage is modeled more severely—if your spars or frame are compromised and you pull hard Gs, the aircraft will simply break apart. That kind of mechanic feels far more grounded in physics.

Fuselage damage is also poorly represented in WT. You can be riddled with holes and still fly like nothing happened. But in reality, flying an aircraft with massive holes across its surfaces would significantly disrupt aerodynamics—just like filling a container with holes and expecting it to hold water. Air is physical and unforgiving in that regard.

Anyway, back to the point: German Minengeschoß shells should be far more devastating than they currently are, especially against fragile aircraft designs with wooden wings and aluminum spars. Their destructive power is vastly underrepresented.

Maybe it’s not that they’re underrepresented, but rather that the consequences the enemy faces after being hit often don’t affect performance as they should. In the very video you shared, this is quite clear—each hit causes visible explosions, ripping off parts of the wing, landing gear, even breaking the elevator… In short, the operational consequences of those hits should be devastating to any chance of performing aggressive maneuvers.

1 Like
86

Nope, or actually Gaijin aware what they do, if you have tested the newest russian pack, sdkfz251 spaa, you will find how powerful it is, the fuze of ammunition is different(even though they are the same thing but only Russian SPAA get the good one)

87

The Soviet 251 uses 20mm, the German one uses 15mm guns.
They are not the same round.

The Soviet one is also 4.0.

88

Yet the vehicle in the Soviet tech tree used Mineshells implemented with much better ballistics.

They practically match the API-T shells in trajectory and flight time while the same Mineshells on aircraft are significantly worse, like they should be.

Just shows how aircraft and tanks are basically two different games.
Instead of using the data thats already there it get implemented again for ground vehicles.

The same happened with the 15m MG 151 on the Sd. Kfz 251/21. The shells had different names and implementation.

In both instances Gaijin implemented an API-T shell, even though such shell doesn’t actually exists.

For the 15mm they turned API into API-T and now they copy and pasted the stats of 20mm APHE and called it API-T.

The data was already in the game but somehow they still implemented it wrong.
Only Gaijin can mess something like that up so badly.

2 Likes
89

I only talk about MG151/20, and their ammunition.