Apache’s 30mm is superior.
And getting kills with Ka-50’s gun is the hardest due to no turret.
The APDS ammo is what balances it, otherwise it’s worse than the 20mm turrets.
1 Like
bad takes is your gimmick isnt it
4 Likes
If you think facts are bad takes, then we aren’t the problem.
the apaches gun is by no means better than the BMP 2 gun mounted to the side of the ka 50/52, the ONLY thing it might have over it is pen over distance, but the gun is so inaccurate its negligible
The problem with facts is they are often meaningless in WT. The great myth attached to dual rotor systems is they can loose a tail boom and continue as if nothing happened. As with any aircraft C of G, center of gravity is extremely important for flight characteristics. The C of G for a rotor aircraft is centered around the main shaft of the rotor. Remove a significant amount of rear weight (tail boom) and the pilot suddenly has to apply forward cyclic to compensate for the imbalance. This may still allow for a small amount of level flight but certainly he isn’t going into combat as a nose down configuration is pretty well outside his play book. Getting it down without considerable damage to the airframe is still possible. This difference is about the only thing that separates the Ka50 from tail rotor helis. Helicopters are often referred to as 10,000 moving parts all flying in close formation. The Ka50 transmission is not protected by armor and as such any damage to it is catastrophic and would result in no flight control or possibly rotor separation. The Ka50 transmission is extremely fragile and any introduction of foreign matter (bullets) is fatal.
the 30mm on the apache is pretty inacurate though
The problem is not the fact that the Ka-50 can continue to fly and shoot after being “killed”, rather the missleading kill notification. It’s accurate that the Ka-50 can fly without it’s tail, so you shouldn’t see a killfeed after you manage to rip it off.
After everybody sees the killfeed everyone stops shooting it giving the Ka-50 the opportunity to keep spamming everybody without any counterfire.
If everybody would keep fireing until it’s really out of action, the Ka-50 wouldn’t get away with such “afterlife-kills”.
Does not matter if it is realistic , Gaijin uses realism only when it suits their SOVIET propaganda.
Leo2A6 DM53 should have over 750mm pen , but they decrease it due to balance , reload times on abrams , slower due to balance . Imaginary side era on t80bvm stopping 500mm+ rounds “realism” , KA50 flying w/o tail “realism”
I know, I know… armor of the Merkava, or these 2 shells behind the engine in the Mk. 4s that make absolutely no sense, artificial reload nerf. The list goes on, but still… it’s actually a real feature and I like it being modeled, but as I said… the misleading killfeed gets abused and that’s not okay.
I think this would help you understand that razer is just a generally confused person already.
States he gets russian mains blocking him but defends russian equipment in game?
1 Like
The Ka-50/52 can fly with some damage to the tail yes, but if that happens it’s a mission kill:
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1670820821680390146
Look at how carefully the pilot has to fly and the fact that it has to jettison some of its ordinance. You’re not making any attack runs in that state.
And keep in mind that they only lost part of the tail.
That said, other helicopters can exhibit the same behavior in game. The Huey comes to mind, its just less of an issue because its rockets are nowhere as deadly.
Still, gaijin should seriously review helicopter damage models. They’re just awful right now, with the ka-50/52 being the most infuriating to deal with.
stay out of the line they are right above you do you want me to dig a hole? where am i meant to go exactly??
Its not misleading kill notifications, its straight up “game gives you kill” and just like with ANY aircraft you have a timer that J’s you out (this doesnt happen in KAs half the time) EVEN after you are credited a kill.
Also you might want to do some research, the KAs cannot fly without a tail, the design premise behind it being able to stay in moderate “hover/stable flight” when tail is cut off is to help the pilot escape/land, that is why the KAs have 2 main rotatory blades (to counter the torque they generate from each other) hence single rotatory helicopters have a tail blade (to counter the torque generated from the single rotor when it spins to generate lift)
And considering the tail houses the KA’s rudder control surface, I dont even have to explain what that is for? but this is what allows it too turn in flight as it doesnt have a tail rotor like Apache’s or MIs do, so would you also mind telling me how a KA can turn in game when its tail is completely removed and its lost all rudder functionality?
Its unrealistic and and I can also bet if this happened IRL the pilot’s last thought wouldnt be “lets kill these ground units” they would be prioritising safe landing or ejecting
This doesnt even touch on the potential of “splash damage” hitting anything near the engine or main rotatory shaft either which again when KAs are surviving multiple hits from AAMs and proxy shells and lose the tail they still function (after someone got the credited kill) as if its unphased.
so you’re basically saying that it can’t fly without a tail, but it’s designed so it can fly without a tail.
you gotta decide yourself.
yes… that’s why it’s misleading. When I read “aircraft destroyed” I would assume that the aircraft is… well destroyed. If it’s able to still operate it’s weaponry it’s definitely not destroyed, hence it’s misleading when the game says so.
TheCloop:
also TheCloop:
and more wisdom of Mr. senior teacher TheCloop:
You wrote the answer yourself, but don’t worry: I got you covered.
no its designed for emergency landing… learn the difference.
except losing a tail DOES mean it cannot function, the tail houses the rudder controls so you literally CANNOT control the yaw of the helicopter as a result hence when tail is gone the entire purpose of it providing “stable flight” is to allow the pilot to emergency land or if required eject from the helicopter using the ejection seats.
and thank you for proving you know nothing about the basics of aerodynamics and applied forces… WHY DO YOU THINK a rudder exists… when you provide different rotational force to the top or bottom rotor to “apply a turn” you STILL need the rudder to counter the torque enough to give the helicopter stability during flight… thanks for proving you have no knowledge on this subject.
the rudder IS LITERALLY meant to control the torque when you change the blade pitch during flight, all a duel rotary setup does it allow for a balanced torque distribution but the moment you move forward hence when tail is gone YOU CANNOT control turning the helicopter without risk of spinning out by providing to much torque (collective) to either rotary blade if you tried.
Its also ironic where you got this image from because I know from where, and its clear you cherry picked this image and intentionally didnt show from where or the comments surrounding this image which you got from “Quora” and almost all of the comments have said similar things, while you can control yaw using pitch this only applies to stationary flight or windless conditions, but the moment you move forward the RUDDER is needed to allow for directional control otherwise you have no nose authority end of.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Ka-50-control-yaw-without-a-tail-rotor that is the link btw (first post on that link) of where you pulled the image from (you can argue you didnt but either way) the tail is crucial in it being able to turn especially during forward/rear motion otherwise they never would have designed it with a RUDDER in the first place (so it clearly has a substantial purpose) that for some reason you just want to ignore
What is the endfect about? It doesn’t matter what the helicopter can actually do. As it is in War Thunder, it has to remain fair play. Otherwise we can just say yes, the Americans also detonated the first atomic bomb, so they should drop one every round, complete nonsense!
You are correct in your assessment of flight controls lost from rudder and nose trim being removed (tail). The center of gravity is around the main drive shaft to the rotors. Note why the ordnance is centered under the rotors (C of G). 50% of the stability of attitude of the Ka is balanced between rear and forward weight kept centered under the main shaft (C of G). If you were to suddenly remove all the rear weight (tail blown off) the pilot would find himself in a very serious nose down situation, cyclic full back to compensate. There would be little or no rear cyclic control left, no yaw control and a landing is now reduced to a controlled crash. Only in war thunder can a Ka 50 keep on ticking after taking a licking hahahahaha
Firstly, nobody claimed that it’s able to fly with it’s full capability and secondly the coaxial rotor design is designed to work without a tail, period. The rudder on the Ka-50/52 just improves flight performance, but it’s not necessary.
If you can’t comprehend this simple graphic, I’m sorry to say that I can’t help you. I can’t think of a simpler way to explain how two opposing forces act.
Cherry picked, huh? I picked it, because it illustrates in a simple way how two opposing forces affect the motion of an object if one is greater and conveniently fitting to the subject. I’m confident to say that there’s no need to know basic aerodynamics as we’re hardly leaving elementary school territory here.
There’s one comment and it’s a question. Lying is usually not a solid foundation for a discussion.
Why should I, that is the source. And?
I wrote it above, but I’ll mention it again: The rudder is there to improve the flight performance, but it’s not necessary. I’ll leave this here. Scroll down to “flying controlls”. It’s about the Ka-32, but since it also uses a coaxial-rotor the same principles apply.
I’ll also leave this here. Feel free to explain how this is possible then, but don’t force yourself as I won’t bother anymore.
1 Like
it is the same with the horizontal stibilizers, they are not neccesary on an helicopter but does help with the flight porformance, specially at high speed where they actually do something, at low speeds the rudder and the horizontal stibilazers cant put any sustancial imput
1 Like