Killing anything in one shot that didn’t involve the pilot dying back then was like hitting the lottery…
1 Like
And yet if you scroll back 3 years they were all getting 1 shot constantly to the point that they even asked for fragmentation damage to be turned off.
1 Like
Ingame fragmentation boost is just unreal. Thick walled shells with tiny amount of explosives shatter like a nailbomb + 250g Semtex. Some shells black out whole sections of any given plane.
For me it looks like certain nation communities requested more damage again and again and finally Gajin complied and now we’ve got Mineshells everywhere.
3 Likes
A single 20mm can do that as I’ve proven multiple times with video evidence. Sometimes it’s a whopping 2x anaemic Shvak rounds that can literally lop a 190A’s tail clean off. It’ll do the same to bombers too.
I’ve also shown the Hispano using a whopping 2x rounds to completely tear a Stuka’s wing away. I’ve got a clip saved at the moment where I attack a 109 and 2x Hispano rounds delete a 109’s right wing, then I give it another tap and 2x more rounds then remove the left wing.
The damage models are clearly borked and I still have no idea why or how you’re defending this.
Exactly this. I might do an experiment and ask for aim assist and see how the community votes. To the logic of some of the posters of this thread if I’m putting my nose on you then you should just die right? The game is already pretty much a point and click adventure anyways.
4 Likes
Even during the HE bug where Air modes became almost unplayable you lot were still wanting further nerfs. The vast majority of players, even highly skilled ones, enjoyed high gun damage much more.
1 Like
It isn’t. GRB is the most played mode with some margin. If you’re thinking of the AzimuthZero video, the methodology used for sampling there was simply flawed, as explained here Data Analysis #7: The AzimuthZero data: the good, the bad, and the interesting
2 Likes
Only for the MG-151 in my case, as I’m sure we’ll both agree it was stupid. The issue is that now as Thodin has said every gun is now a fridge launcher barring maybe the U.S .50cal. Anything with HE obliterates fighters.
It’s plain stupid, but I won’t go further as we’re beating a dead horse at this point.
1 Like
Right.
US .50s have probably never been better. Even the early or mid war belts are great and take anything apart in just a few hits. Don’t know how the Buffalo isn’t any higher with four of those.
Especially in ground rb and naval. Its not all about arb. There was a recent BP task where you had to kill 5 ground player targets and 5 boats with fighters. I took the P-47 after I tried several others without much luck. Cal50 is the best weapon all around imho.
Especially dreadful vs bombers (all game modes). I suppose cause of the rather high AP values, cal50 almost always instantly detonating the bomb load. Short burst and result is a huge midair detonation. Even dropped bomb series which detonate in a chain reaction until explosions reach the bomber ;)
2 Likes
ShVAK derangement syndrome goes all the way back to the old forums. This some the remnants of the old Loofah cope when FIT rounds were changed so that fragments actually did some damage 4+ years ago.
This is what damage for them looked like before then.
1 Like
(your video is missing btw) god forbid red team’s cannons actually do damage
I am also vindicated yet again
I in fact, want this to be the case, and it would be exciting if this was the case. I want the structural integrity of an aircraft to become favorably strong enough that you can’t just snap a plane’s wing off with a single stray hit. This would make the game outright better and punish players for solely relying on HE to win.
Cannons were on planes, for a huge reason, space efficiency reasons. Initially, it was assumed you can just pack a bunch of explosives and blow planes to pieces. Germany learned that didn’t work until you made it BIG, Britain learned that didn’t work and the U.S. learned that this didn’t work.
Until you had an ample volume of fire to actually make it work. Which is why when the U.S—specifically the Navy—added cannons to aircraft. They stuck with 4 because this provided the ample volume of fire needed, and the high explosive ammunition had enough incendiary filler that it provided high fire chances from single shots unlike German HE mineshells. Same reasons why they moved onto incendiary ammunition.
Guns with HE filler in-game get rewarded an exorbitantly large amount of damage for single shots, whilst also being very light and nimble for the type of gameplay that’s expected.
20mm cannon fire should damage the flight characteristics of an aircraft. But being able to down bombers with just a few hits shouldn’t be a probable cause. That’s sheer insanity.
In contrast with .50s. their flame chances are heavy dice rolls that underperform.
And spars can shield fuel tanks by allowing the round to simply ghost through.
So you have .50s underperforming in most regards for it’s damage and their only saving grace is that they can at least break spars if you have enough hit. So you loop back again for diceroll damage that makes aircraft damage like this occur
These were all good passes with the Bf-110 literally taking a full on burst and just eating it.
It’s understandable to gamify things. But making it where it leans so far in one direction is not the right way to push the game forward.
This is just your sheer biases at this point for hating U.S. aircraft.
3 Likes
Except this isn’t really true.
US aircraft gun development was concentrated on a .60 caliber hyper velocity until well after the war. That was considered the “ideal” even after GUNVAL report that is commonly cited by Kiwi.
Missing the point. Look at the F4U-1C. The U.S. put four on the aircraft because they were very aware that volume of fire was important. While they were wanting to go for .60 caliber. Aircraft that used 20mm almost always carried 4 cannons due to volume of fire concerns. Some of the exceptions were aircraft like F6F-5N but that required changes to the airframe to fit it.
Look at how many F4U-1C with quad cannon armaments were used and then compare to how many .50 caliber armed Corsairs or Hellcats there were.
USN doesn’t really standardize on 20mm until very late or even after the war. USAF is even slower to standardize on it considering outside of a few F-86s they pretty much universally use .50 caliber in Korean war as well.
Even the post-war Yak-9P uses the 2x Berezin + 1 20mm ShVAK arrangement. Korean War era La-11 uses 3x23mm on dual stage trigger where first stage only uses 1 gun.
You’re not getting what I’m heading at. I’m talking about needing 4 eggs to make waffles and you’re telling me “Well, actually, they mostly made pancakes” I’m aware, but I’m talking about the waffles.
What I’m getting at is that the U.S. was aware they needed around four 20mm cannons to get enough volume of fire. They would generally go the 4 20mm cannon route when they could.
It’s not really tied to volume of fire and more about just not having different ballistics. Look at direction US actually moved; i.e more complicated and accurate gun sights.
So you’re literally proving my point? That thread was about the MG-151 being underpowered and I had even created videos to show that no… no it wasn’t. I’ve even included the MG-151 in my latest videos in regards to the damage they’re doing and it being a bit silly.
“Shvak’s being the main culprit”, tell me what exactly is wrong about that? The Shvak’s are punching even harder than the MG-151 right now which is all manner of wrong, we both know the Shvak was known as a weak cannon, even Eric Brown said that one of the negatives of the La-7 was its weak armament and I can pull multiple Russian quotes as well.
So to clarify, yes… the Shvak is easily the main culprit where overpowered guns are concerned.
To further clarify and to put to bed the notion that I’m some sort of German fanboy here’s two videos, one of the Shvak and one MG-151 gameplay, once again excuse the terrible aim.
The “weak” Shvak.
Me showing that MG-151’s don’t need a buff.
The MG-151 took more rounds to drop aircraft than the Shvak did is the funniest thing and no this is not me saying buff the MG-151… that’s also a bit stupid at times and could do with tuning. But if you can’t see the blatant problems here with cannon damage (especially the Shvak) there’s no point in further trying to persuade you. It punches like a high velocity 30mm. Once again count the rounds that dissected aircraft and that was in game against player opponents… not AI… and we both know it’s not the only round to be doing this in today’s War Thunder. It’s flat out stupid/indefensible.
2 Likes
Congratulations! You’re very much in the minority.
They kept using the MG151/15 even after the /20 version was made.
…Which is why they all switched to cannons and never went back?
This would reward players for standing in front of your guns, like Mr Loofah apparently loved to do in the past where he did what every good player tells you not to do, and stalled in front of someone to later turn the fight around.
We’re already gone over this flavor of cope in your thread.
Wow, very cool. Now let’s see paul allen’s gun passes.
A few aircraft in the USA tree are some of my favorites, this is just not true. .50cals especially I would love to put 4 of them in my A6M3 32, even if they had “just” mid war belts.
The cannons were bugged, MG151/20 and Shvak included, and not doing anywhere near the damage they had been doing the patch before. As said above this was one of the lowest points in damage for many cannons and it STILL wasn’t enough for you guys.
You’re right, they should be more like this!
Then we can all just stand in front of Yaks and Las just like the pilot reports said.
It’s a mystery how germany ever lost any aircraft when apparently you can just sit in front of them and take no damage.
So is this better? Is this realistic? This is what ShVAK damage looked like before FIT was buffed over 5 years ago and before ShVAK derangement syndrome took hold.