Cannons doing too much damge

I just dont see what major difference it would make. Im finding it takes me about 10+ rounds to score a kill in a spitfire against any enemy fighter. most of those rounds I guess are landing around centre mass. Based upon everything i’ve read. it should rarely take more than that to cripple an enemy fighter to the point of being unflyable. More often than not, it could be a lot less. The difference between 2 rounds and 7 or 8 rounds is faster than you can blink (metaphorically speaking)

if it suddenly took 15 rounds due to a nerf (aka 25% damage reduction), the target would still die extremely quickly. I can only feel that some of the people on here, dont want realism, instead they want an arcade experience where you can survive someone being on your tail for extended periods of time

A wing falling off might be unrealistic, but its a game limitation. But IRL, that same amount of fire/damage, might have crippled that wing, destroyed landing gear, weapons in that wing, maybe radiator (in aircraft with wing mounted radiator), the flap is probably gone or disabled, the aerodynamic lift from that wing is vastly reduced, etc etc. And maybe even compromised the wing enough that a high G turn, like say trying to evade an enemy fighter firing at you. Could cause the wing to fail completely.

Would that kind of damage be amazing to be modeled yeah, but its totally seperate issue to how much each individual round may or may not do. Especially when some people are comparing rounds that as far as I am aware, arent even affected by real-shatter currently and as far as I am aware, they have no plan to fully ommit them, they just havent added them yet. Until all guns are on the system properly, including 7.7, 12.7, 13, etc mm guns. Then its impossible to “balance” anything.

When considering something like the MG151/20, they might get added to realshatter next week and destroy everything in one shot. Would someone like Loofar still be complaining then? I doubt it

1 Like

I think this is the key point that some people misunderstand. War Thunder flight models have parts fall off for visual effect to signify that the part has sustained maximum damage. It’s a design decision that makes the game more visually appealing to most players. In a lot of ways that it is cosmetic; i.e the visual model doesn’t necessarily line up with the damage model which is part of the reason that you can fly back to base with only one wing in a lot of planes. The visual model shows that it is missing but in the damage model it is still there but just had its ability to produce lift significantly degraded.

If the game embraced realism then structural failures would be rare for pretty much all guns and planes would have to physically crash before being counted as killed. It would also mean that other players would be able to pump damage into planes until they hit the ground. Like if you look at actual gun cam footage you will practically never see a wing get sheared off…yet in the game I can shear wings off with just a burst of .50 caliber API-T.


Yeah, from a gameplay stand point. Id rather blow an enemies wing off and immediately get the kill, than cripple them and leave them to slowly glide into the ground just for a teammate to come along and steal the kill. Killsteals are not a thing IRL.

This i think is a good example of this


Spitfire engagement - YouTube

Should my weapons fire have blown off his tail. No. But probably would have destroyed his elevator and he would have gone down either way

1 Like

You know, you’re perception of hitting 10rds might not actually translate to actually getting that many hits.
I showed how a 20mm will take of the wing of a bomber when hit twice.
I also have a video of me firing 4 rounds of Hispano 404 ammo into a Bf 109, two being Tracers and two being HEI, taking of his wing when he was trying to dodge me at low speed.

Here he fires 10 rounds, of which 2 rounds connect, riping of the wing of a B-25.
From the Crit message poping up to the aircraft destroyed message it’s 6 frames, but from shot to shot it’s 8-9 frames, meaning that the aircraft was destroyed after being hit from both cannon once.

That would be the result of hitting a B-25 with 30mm rounds, not with 20mm cannons.
And I for myself don’t even belive that 30mm Mineshells would cause a B-25 wing to rip from two 30mm Mineshells.
The structure of it is just too big to be lethal. However since they most likely end up hitting the fuel tanks, it’s game over anyway.

But apperently in WT it’s either “Hit” or complete structural failure. No in between.

1 Like

Precisely my point, Its hit, crit or kill. When the reality/realism is far more grey. Yeah, that probably wouldnt have done that kind of damage, and may or may not have been a kill. But is that real-shatter doing too much or is that the damage model not doing enough? Honestly, I don’t know. But I think “nerfing” rounds, is a recipe for disaster.


Spitfire engagement - YouTube

This is farily typical of my engagements in the spitfire. yeah, occasionally I may destroy someone faster than I expected, but most are like this. This is defiently more than 2 or 3 rounds. Maybe this is just Hispanos not over-performing, but performing correctly. I do have a biased view point, I dont really play many other nations.

This is also a pretty good example of what I mean about visual models vs damage models.

Should a Ta-152H be able to return to base while missing the majority of both of it’s wings? Not really. It’s not even remotely possible.

1 Like

Before we had spheres of doom that would damage the whole plane or at least in range of the shells explosive capabilities.
Now with realshatter the damage seems to be more focused, so one or two components receive massive damage, resulting in wings and tail being constantly shot-off.

I can’t really say how exactly it’s implemented but, if planes structure receive a massive buff while the damage to other modules stays the same, it would end up being a whole lot more realistic without destroying the effectivness of cannons.
Cannons should be more effective than HMGs in general, at least when it comes to time to kill.

Why do we need cannons in the first place? (rhetorical question)
It’s entirely possible to down planes with LMGs or HMGs, taking them down or critical damaging them.
With fighters you can stay out of their guns while shooting them, with bombers it’s not so easy.
In general they can open fire at the same time so there’s always a risk of getting shot down.
So we need guns that deliver a big punch whenever we’re able to get into a firing position and preferable are still effective at great range.

I remember a time when I enjoyed hunting B-17 with my Bf 109 G-6, using 3 Mk. 108s.
I could take them down with a volley of shells but I had to be careful not to get too close.
This was at a time when the MG 151/20 was quite lethal to fighters while other cannons were not as effective.
It was quite hard to take out a bomber like a B-17 with 20mm cannons because at best you set them on fire, but they could extuinghish it and you were exposded to their defensive guns.
One Mk 108 still wasn’t enough but with three you could destroy a wing and bring it down.

Then some years later, suddendly all (20mm) cannons were buffed and started to cut off wings and tail, even from bombers.
For the last couple of years any fighter with 2-4 20mm cannon was enough to shoot a large 4-engined bomber to pieces.

Back in the day people would make statements like “use AP” against bombers because their armored.
Which of course was bull but apperently it worked.
Destroying the engines of a bomber with 20mm AP would certainly be more effective than sparkling the wings with small explosive rounds.
A B-17 is massive. The tail has more wing area than a fighter and wings so wide that 20mm fragments would lose most of their energy before reaching even the fuel tanks, let alone the engines.

Now a single 30mm takes of the wing of a B-17 and probably 3-4 hits with 20mm in the same area as well. There’s no point for 20mm AP or Inc when HE takes down even bombers with a few shots.

1 Like

Well, should be possible. It’s just a matter of producing enough lift and having control over the plane.

Probably 99% of pilots would simply bail out since it’s unlikely to land savely.

Now should it be possible in-game? Maybe. As long as you land, you are repaired in 30s and can take off again. So following that logic you should be able to pull it off.

You know, when using the Airbelt with Hispanos 3/5 of the rounds are basically trash compared to the 2/5 HEI shell.

Tracers are obviously bad since they deal very little damage to any component but SAPI basically just HE rounds without realshatter enabled. They turn a chunk of the plane yellow but HEI is currently doing all the killing by destroying wings and tails with 1-2 hits.

Which is why I normally run stealth belts HEI > HEI > SAP-I > AP.

clip above I threw air targets on to help visualise how many I was firing through the tracers. But may have been why the Fw190 tanked as many rounds as he did

so thats only 2/4 rounds doing full damage, and AP is usually fairly consistant (not high damage, but not low damage either), and was the only thing pre-recent changes that did any damage and SAP-I still do a little. So assuming a full 1 second burst that is still 10 rounds of HEI, plenty to take out most aircraft. Even with maximum realism. The 10 rounds of SAP-I and AP and the 80 ish rounds of .303 is just icing on the cake.

It’s battle damage and the plane is missing control surfaces. It’s not even remotely possible.

Here is another example:

It would not be possible if the game was realistic.

The whole argument is that cannons should be nerfed to promote realism while the entire environment that War Thunder exists in is fundamentally unrealistic.

Has only happened once IRL I think, and that was in an F-15 and the pilot had to engage afterburners to maintain lift.

Landed that a while ago (RB)


and this in SB


and who needs a rudder with VTOL in SB


I have landed a Lightning F6 with the same kind of damage (No rudder) in an SB match, the mig-21 that did that too me was both impressed and kinda pissed

Just a clipped wing Spitfire ;)
Nothing unusual here :D

1 Like

Yeah, though wasn’t even hard to fly and control. Landed it with ease back at base. The others I had to maange throttle, or thrust vector to maintain control. In that I just landed it with ease. Even limited roll rate if I recall. What is giving me roll control :D

rudder most likely

1 Like

Maybe, probably should still be a rough landing. (maybe this is evidence for instructor nerfs in RB)