One big thing Bf109s suffer from in RB is the instructor limit making a pretty massive difference.
With proper rudder, you can get very good turn rate with full real controls while the instructor refuses to allow you such due to risk of assymetric stall and the instructor’s tolerances seem to vary widely with various aircraft.
At least, I feel some of the ways I respond to seeing a spitfire or yak wouldn’t be nearly as effective in RB.
Just had a reminder why we even have this topic.
Faced A6M5, he hit me with 2 shells and wrecked my entire plane. Meanwhile it’s absolutely normal for A6M5 to tank 4-5 MG151/20 shells and keep going.
Actually a single Type 99 Mk2 HE will end you more often than not. And even if it doesn’t - you’re out of the battle because your plane is crippled. This is performance worthy of 30mm. But in the land of real sh*tter it’s business as usual.
The lack of firepower is obvious. As I wrote, especially bf 109 with its single engine cannon feels incredibly underwhelming. Its very weak: damage, ballistics etc
109’s were good as long as MG151 with its mineshells were as sophisticated as in the first years of War Thunder. Now its too weak and others too strong. Also consider that others usually have more than one cannon. Its not balanced anymore.
Is there a way to use full real controls with mouse and not have controls inverted, without using simplified joystick? Which If im correct is worse than standard joystick because simplified has a built in instructor/limiter? This is why I gave up first time trying to get into full real controls, I found I couldnt even do an aileron roll with simplified joystick, but if I went to standard joystick my controls got inverted and I couldn’t figure out how to change it and my brain is just too trained to RB mouse control logic to use inverted.
And if I remember correctly maybe there was a way to invert controls, but it applied to mouse aim so you would have the controls you wanted for full real, but then your mouse aim controls were inverted, so that didn’t solve my problem either.
AFAIK if you invert standard mousejoy, it inverts everything including camera. So you need to invert the inverted camera. However, beyond that, I don’t know.
Relative controls might work for your needs, but I have zero experience with them.
There’s another issue with mousejoy in RB - rudder. Mouse aim handles rudder so you don’t need to worry about flying coordinated (slip, skid) and thus risk of spinning. Mousejoy requires you to manually manage rudder inputs, which to my dismay, (my solution) don’t work if you go back to mouse joystick.
My solution to rudder controls without a pedal is to emulate IL-2’s rudder controls when using keyboard+stick (press Q and it stays put rather than resets). Mouse aim overrides it so you kinda lose the ability to do rudder kicks with RB controls (at least using my layout).
Ya still seems messy ill try some of those out. Isn’t the cobra button they added just turning off the instructor and keeping the mouse aim control scheme? Would be nice to have that for every plane, pretty much just what im looking for, an instructor toggle or at least just removing the restrictions and keeping some kind of stuff in place that makes sense.
Russian 20mm’s are ridiculous at the moment. They should be seriously weak and yet for whatever reason they punch like rapid fire 30mm’s. I’d love to know why Gaijin have made them this way when they behaved correctly before.
If it’s because of people moaning then they’ll have to moan… Shvak’s were weak, they should be weak.
To be fair this could be a Japanese damage model issue or a lag issue. The other night I attacked a B-17 with my G-10 in SB (so not as accurate fire as RB/Mouse aim) and in one small burst the entire aircraft practically evaporated. I won’t lie it was a bit ridiculous.
I actually saved the footage I can upload if you’d like.
They are more realistic now than before, it’s MG151 that is underperforming.
They aren’t at all.
Shvaks were a historically weak cannon which was very publicly complained about by Russian pilots. Some pilots even complained they were insufficient to reliably bring down 190F’s. Happy to provide sources and quotes. The Shvak rounds weren’t just considerably lighter than its opposition but the explosive mass is lacklustre as well.
In game however they’ll saw wings off with snapshots.
The MG-151 in my experience is if anything overperforming. I’ll upload a video later of me in the G-10 with no pods literally dissecting a B-17 with one tiny burst which absolutely should not have happened.
I wish I had had the quote, but I swear I recall reading somewhere that gaijin increased the chances of cutting a tail off (rather than severing traction of tail control) due to player complaints about “dying for no reason” and lack of feedback for kills.
B17s are also generally very weirdly weak. I’ve had them explode from a spray of .50 cal to the belly (japanese b17), and then there’s this (not b17, but gets the idea across):
In the .50 cal thread, I’d mentioned my wish that I wish rather than literally shooting wings off with .50 cals or 20mm cannons like currently; we’d just weaken the wing for it to detach when the victim tried to do a high G maneuver, THEN would the wing fall off. From what I understand, that’d be more realistic of WW2 gunfights.
I think you exploded the bombs he was carrying but either way I can’t lie Runa that made me laugh.
I also agree especially with the stupid tail separation mechanic. I’d love it if we could go back to control surfaces actually getting damaged causing a crash/kill like we used to have instead of one-tap aircraft dissection.
I haven’t seen anything in any gun cam footage that looks even close to what we have in War Thunder.
Your bullets most likely penetrated through the fuselage hitting the bomb bay, resulting in the plane blowing up.
.50 cals are pretty strong, but not that strong.
As an update to my initial statement:
I have now >250 matches with the F6F-5 and the A-20 G-25 in Air RB and i have to admit that their early war belts with 60-75% AP-I are way less effective than the late war belts with 100% AP-IT.
In hindsight this assumption was correct:
What i found quite remarkable is the “hit to kill” ratio for early war belts is about 2 times higher for offensive weapons - and at least 3 times higher for defensive fire from the upper turret of the A-20 G.
This looks very strange as the offensive belts have 60% AP-I whilst the defensive belt of the upper turret has allegedly 75% AP-I (both universal belt).
Especially the analysis ( i watched lots of replays) of the A-20 G-25 matches (forward firing fixed 6 0.50 cals) showed that the lack of heavy damage and fires produced a high number of “B” kills (=delayed, enemies tried to rtb) as the speed difference allowed fighters to extend. There were also a lot of guys able to survive up 5-6 hits.
The damage output of the upper turret is actually a great disappointment as at least half of my 19 deaths in > 100 matches were a combined result of low damage output, gunner reloading at inconvenient times and artificial gunner spread. In other words: I got killed by chasing enemies despite i was able to hit those guys usually 2-4 (often 5-6) times upfront.
From a holistic pov the lower damage output of early universal belts with 60 & 75% AP-I compared to 100% AP-IT of late war belts leaves just 2 possible conclusions:
As a side note:
The 3.0 Fw 190 as major threat in the A-20 G-30 (together with MiG 3s and Yak-1Bs) seems to catch way more often engine fires than any other non-Japanese aircraft. I-16s and Spitfires burn similar often whilst other USSR fighters have a tendency to get a clear one shot engine kill without fires.
any 109 after the F4 is “overtiered” because they have a hard coded instructor limit on turntime and most opponents not only do not posses this block but are also undertiered themselves. like the yak family, which is 90% undertiered except for the yak-9T (it kinda of just there, not weak at all but actually balanced).
Sure 109s do death spins if they turn for too long, but so do 90% of their opponents, some of them are even worse.
and 190s, well, from the “190 A” family only the first 190 A-1 is worth it, A-4 to A-5 are ass (A-5s are A-4s but at 4.3 instead of 4.0), Doras improve so beautifully, Ta-152 h-1 is a king thanks to it’s flaps, Ta-152 c-3 is overtiered.
190 A-8 is kinda buns and F-8 is the F-8, is a strike plane that can do A2A.
So remove the 109 turn limiter, or at least make it so they can snap pretty easily on deflection shots, balance rank III and rank IV PLEASE.
190 A family should be spread around 3.7 to 4.0 in ARB.
I still wonder why Ta152C-3 is classified as BR6.3.
Prolly moving it to like 15.5 deg AoA (rather than the theoretically optimal 15.0 to make it require some tapping of elevator to get best turn idk) from the current 12.0 or so would be pretty safe (give critical is 17.1) while massively boosting it.
It’s somewhat good in headons, and that’s about it. Ta 152 C-3 can still be a scary opponent to head-on even for a F7F because of the mk-103 and rollrate making it easy to be unpredictable.
But you lose the flaps and a lot of wing area, the only thing that kept the Ta-152 capable of air combat.
Since the ballistic drag patch for 20mm Minen, bullet drop is to high to be any good @ headons.
Two yeats ago this was true for all MG151 capable planes. But since several adjustment happened, MG151 + HEI is inferior compared to other cannons or cal50.
the Fw 190 D13 and other Fw 190 flight model was changed to worst long time ago it used to really great high alt fighter i really hope snail rework all Fw 190 D flight model it used to be on of the best fighters at 6.0 but now it can’t even stand chance at 5.0 br and the model is so outdated and old over 10 years old need a rework !
so in my end I would actually vote for 2 options.
“gaijin buffs them some how”
“gaijin changes the brs of overtired planes”