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
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.

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.

1 Like
89

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