Cannons doing too much damge

[dannaryan-psn]

@FeetPics

Surprise surprise. Look at all the variety.

I don’t know if this was supposed to be a gotcha or if you’re being honest but yes I’d say I fly a variety of aircraft there. Especially considering I fly the G-6 in 5.0+ battles and for fun I drag the C.202 into battles it shouldn’t fight in as well. Case in point that video of me killing the P-47 instantly with my mighty spaghetti .50’s.

I’ve been dragging the LaGG-3’s into matchups where they historically would be fighting as well. You’ll see the LaGG-3-8 in that list above shortly. An aircraft that can apparently rip bombers apart in pretty much one tap of the trigger.

@FeetPics

This has always been the case with the game. Bombers were super easy to kill even in Birds Of Prey back in the 2000s. You could fly through formation of He.111 and easily down most of them in only a few shots. This is game that you insist was more realistic than current WarThunder.

When was Birds of Steel Wings of Prey? The flight models are completely different with Birds of Steel leaning far more into realism. My video clearly shows where War Thunder has become worse than BoS.

@FeetPics

People want gratification over balance.
People want balance over historical accuracy.

Except War Thunder in its current state has neither and it makes some aircraft redundant.

Want to fly a P-47 in a ground attack role or because it can take some battle damage? Tail cut loose.
Want to fly a Mosquito because it can destroy tanks and limp home even on one engine? Tail cut loose.

How about a heavy fighter that can take more damage than a single engine fighter and can carry a heavier armament to shoot down bombers etc? Nope you’re just a bigger target, wings blown off and tail cut loose. Every heavy fighter barring the Hornet and the Ki-83 is completely redundant.

Why add additional firepower to your aircraft that just slows you down for zero benefit? Have you ever flown the 190A-8 and thought “Gee I’m sure glad I have these two extra 20mm’s to kill things quicker”.

Meanwhile aircraft that should historically have a disadvantage in weaker armaments have none. People moan about a lot of Russian aircraft yet you’re against modelling one of their true to life disadvantages.

@FeetPics

There is a reason sim is a dead game mode that is dominated by mixed lobbies and experienced players taking whatever plane happens to be the most overpowered for the day. There is a reason that experienced sim players always end up on the same team and end up farming a bunch of noobs.

That is not why Sim is a quieter game mode than RB. Honestly this is the worst take I think I’ve ever seen.

SB is less populated than RB because the skill ceiling is higher and you can’t just pick it up and start playing like RB or AB. The economy is a complete and utter joke and it hasn’t had any real update since pre-2020. The mixed nation rooms are annoying but people clearly enjoy them, that said some of the most populated lobbies are those that are somewhat historical. Ruhr and the channel maps are almost always full when it’s historical matchups at least when I’m online.

The “sim players farming noobs” is nonsense as well. I only fly solo and at no point have I felt “bullied” and I’m far from an expert pilot. I’d argue that the Sim community is probably the friendliest of all of them.

@FeetPics

Imagine if 20mm cannons actually did damage to bombers in the game that @dannaryan-psn praises for being more realistic than War Thunder which was also developed by Gaijin.

I don’t know how you can repeatedly see/hear “Birds of Steel” and interpret that as “Wings of Prey!”. It’s like say Gran Turismo 7’s physics are awful! Look at this footage of Gran Turismo 6!".

My video literally shows where Birds of Steel is far more realistic. The damage models could still be odd but weapons were far closer to reality on there than here. I can even show you reviews that state that “The Shvaks felt a bit weak compared to other cannons”.

@PercussionCap

How is it balanced that you can just SIT in front of aircraft of a particular nation because you know their cannons don’t do meaningful damage, even after several hits? How is it balanced that against them, you can take incredible, suicidal risks knowing that there’s a very low chance that they can actually do something against you?

And as said above, there is very little feedback for damage, you can only verify that the enemy is unable to keep fighting when you see his wings or tail fall off, or the engine is knocked out, or the pilot is killed.

Because cannons still do damage and you’re a pretty crappy pilot if you’re just going to sit there and be shot at. You’re still going to take damage and run the risk of being shot down. Even that 190D footage provided earlier from WT back in the day shows elevator and rudder damage along with fuselage and aileron/wing damage. You’re making out that with realistic damage aircraft would be invincible which absolutely isn’t the case.

You also know when you’ve critically damaged something as the game literally tells you so in the bottom right corner.

I’m actually in the process of making another War Thunder damage video at the moment. Had another fun one last night where I believe a whopping 4x Hispano rounds ripped a Stuka’s wing clean off. His gunner then shredded my Spitfire as he spiralled into the ground for the true War Thunder experience.

[FeetPics]

I am pointing out the inconsistency of your argument and that your claim that Marseilles only got 4-5 kills is something that you have almost certainly fabricated out of whole cloth. The rest of your argument is not even worth considering when you cannot even answer a simple question.

Marseilles claims of 17 kills in 3 sorties has been disputed in much the same way that most other kill claims during WW2 are disputed. If you had read earlier in the thread you would see that even the dispute regarding the claim is called into question because it appears that dispute hinges on only looking at the aircraft loss records for British units and not the totality of commonwealth units in the area.

Your argument is that Marseille overclaimed. This is not a bad argument in and of itself; if it is well-informed. There are a few pieces of actual scholarly work that have sought to address the issue of overclaiming, and specifically by the Luftwaffe.

Verified Victories: Top JG 52 Aces Over Hungary 1944-45 by Daniel and Gabor Hovarth provides an interesting case study for attempting to reconcile Luftwaffe claims versus actual losses. In the book the authors look at a very narrow window of time and attempt to use Soviet records to verify kill claims from Luftwaffe pilots. They were able to verify 20% to 90% of kill claims by the small sample of Luftwaffe pilots with the records that they had access to. They were able to verify 131 out of 255 claims; which is a total of 51%.

This finding is also broadly speaking in-line with other less rigorous case studies into pilot over-claiming during the war and is not something that is unique to the Luftwaffe. British and German pilots during the Battle Of Britain also over-reported the number of aircraft they destroyed by roughly a factor of 2; at least that is the case when using similar methodology and cross referencing against loss records.

A safe estimate would be that Marseilles likely only shot down around half the number of planes that he claimed. This is assuming that the loss records at the time are 100% accurate and that historians have found 100% of them which is an unrealistic assumption. However more research into that aspect of the historical record would have to be done as well. This also assumes that the process for the Luftwaffe to credit claims was just as rigorous in Hungary in 1945 as it was during the rest of the war; this is an assumption we also know not to be true.

Instead of going with the safe estimate that would be backed up by scholarly research, you have decided to go with an estimate that you have completely pulled out of your own posterior. Your estimate that he shot down 4 / 17 planes is basically the lowest possible estimate. It is not one that is backed up by anything other than you simply wish it to be true that Marseilles was an even more prolific liar and charlatan compared to even your average fighter ace.

That is surely within the realm of possibility but you have posted absolutely no proof or reasoning to believe such.

[FeetPics]

@dannaryan-psn

I don’t know if this was supposed to be a gotcha or if you’re being honest but yes I’d say I fly a variety of aircraft there. Especially considering I fly the G-6 in 5.0+ battles and for fun I drag the C.202 into battles it shouldn’t fight in as well. Case in point that video of me killing the P-47 instantly with my mighty spaghetti .50’s.

I’ve been dragging the LaGG-3’s into matchups where they historically would be fighting as well. You’ll see the LaGG-3-8 in that list above shortly. An aircraft that can apparently rip bombers apart in pretty much one tap of the trigger.

I am not going to bother breaking down exactly how many games you have in each plane. But one can see just at a glance that most of what you fly has historically had pretty reliable guns as far as the game is concerned; or compensated for by having 4 cannons. I am also ignoring the C202 since it is just an ultra-low-tier clubber.

@dannaryan-psn

When was Birds of Steel Wings of Prey? The flight models are completely different with Birds of Steel leaning far more into realism. My video clearly shows where War Thunder has become worse than BoS.

Both games are basically the same thing as far as flight models and damage models is concerned. I played both when they were out. Birds Of Prey was before Wings Of Steel; one focused on Europe and the other focused on the Pacific.

- YouTube

Note how in the one you are claiming is more realistic that Japanese 20mm cannons cause the wings and tails of the dive bomber to detach after a very short burst.

See that tail falling completely detached? I bet the animation is basically the same as currently in War Thunder.

@dannaryan-psn

Want to fly a P-47 in a ground attack role or because it can take some battle damage? Tail cut loose.

This is more a product of how ground based AA in the game works and how accurate it is. This is effectively a separate issue from cannon damage. The projectiles that you see fired from AA in game are not even physical projectiles. They are some form of quasi-hit-scan garbage.

@dannaryan-psn

Want to fly a Mosquito because it can destroy tanks and limp home even on one engine? Tail cut loose.

Same goes for above.

@dannaryan-psn

Why add additional firepower to your aircraft that just slows you down for zero benefit? Have you ever flown the 190A-8 and thought “Gee I’m sure glad I have these two extra 20mm’s to kill things quicker”.

Yes. I fly the Fw-190 A-8 and I think having the extra guns and extra ammo is nice to have. It is better for killing bombers and especially bombers that you need to kill in one pass like Be-6 or Qing-6.

@dannaryan-psn

Meanwhile aircraft that should historically have a disadvantage in weaker armaments have none. People moan about a lot of Russian aircraft yet you’re against modelling one of their true to life disadvantages.

People moan about anything Russian in the game having any viability in the game regardless of whether or not it was justified. I had people telling me time and time again that the old Su-27 flight model was more maneuverable than the F-15A flight model and had to consistently prove those people wrong time and time again.

@dannaryan-psn

The “sim players farming noobs” is nonsense as well. I only fly solo and at no point have I felt “bullied” and I’m far from an expert pilot. I’d argue that the Sim community is probably the friendliest of all of them.

Note the guy at the top of the leaderboard. If I join a game he will always join on my team. If I join the other team and kill him he will leave. The best player in the enemy team is a bomber.

He has actually messaged me in the past and said that he will not play against me.

Experienced sim players do not like having bad team mates and don’t like dying. So they all tend to end up on the same side of a match or split into two separate matches to farm noobs. In a lot of cases it is not explicitly intentional but it is the de-facto norm for the game mode.

@dannaryan-psn

Because cannons still do damage and you’re a pretty crappy pilot if you’re just going to sit there and be shot at. You’re still going to take damage and run the risk of being shot down. Even that 190D footage provided earlier from WT back in the day shows elevator and rudder damage along with fuselage and aileron/wing damage. You’re making out that with realistic damage aircraft would be invincible which absolutely isn’t the case.

Except in cases where they don’t which used to be quite common.

This is damage from 20mm MG.151 in symmetrical PM-1 duel. The critically hit stabilizer had absolutely no effect on the flight performance of my aircraft. I was able to absorb this damage and then win the rate fight in a few more loops. This includes easily controlling the plane all the way into stall speeds.

This is on an aircraft that is made out of wood by the way. In real life that portion of the stabilizer would be a splintered mess and represent something a little more than the most minor of inconveniences.

[dannaryan-psn]

@FeetPics

I am not going to bother breaking down exactly how many games you have in each plane. But one can see just at a glance that most of what you fly has historically had pretty reliable guns as far as the game is concerned; or compensated for by having 4 cannons. I am also ignoring the C202 since it is just an ultra-low-tier clubber.

Which gun isn’t reliable right now in game, Is there a single gun even from WW2 tiers that is underperforming? I’ve used aircraft with 4x cannons because that’s what they come with. If I could swap out two guns for less weight and better performance you know for a fact I would. The 109G-6 and K-4 have on MG-151 and we both know I don’t fit pods on them. The first thing we all do with the K-4 is rip the 30mm from it no matter if it’s to hunt bombers or fighters.

As for the C.202 being an ultra low tier clubber I have no idea where you get that idea from. Even if we ignore the fact I fly it in 5.0-6.3 matches even in its own bracket it’s not even close to being the best aircraft.

@FeetPics

Both games are basically the same thing as far as flight models and damage models is concerned. I played both when they were out. Birds Of Prey was before Wings Of Steel; one focused on Europe and the other focused on the Pacific.

No, they aren’t.

Play Birds of Steel and then play Wings of Prey back to back and they don’t handle similarly at all. The flight models in Birds of Steel are much less arcadey. Even in sim mode Wings of Prey had over exaggerated acceleration for certain aircraft (the Spitfires in particular) compared to BoS. The stalls in BoS even had far more depth to them compared to the scripted wing drop of WoP.

@FeetPics

Note how in the one you are claiming is more realistic that Japanese 20mm cannons cause the wings and tails of the dive bomber to detach after a very short burst.

On average it does take more to kill an aircraft even in this clip compared to WT. Notice during the first attack on the bomber stream multiple bombers actually took quite a few hits to actually bring down.

As a side note… this is arcade mode sir.

@FeetPics

This is more a product of how ground based AA in the game works and how accurate it is. This is effectively a separate issue from cannon damage. The projectiles that you see fired from AA in game are not even physical projectiles. They are some form of quasi-hit-scan garbage.

The AA is rubbish but I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about being attacked by fighters etc and getting instantly shredded the same as a lightweight single engine fighter. Even against players in tanks you can have a single roof mounted MG rip your entire wing clean off.

@FeetPics

Yes. I fly the Fw-190 A-8 and I think having the extra guns and extra ammo is nice to have. It is better for killing bombers and especially bombers that you need to kill in one pass like Be-6 or Qing-6.

We’ll just have to respectfully disagree here. I’ve never even with one MG-151 been concerned about destroying anything.

@FeetPics

People moan about anything Russian in the game having any viability in the game regardless of whether or not it was justified.

Here I agree with you. I don’t entirely believe in “Russian bias”. Russian aircraft can be dealt with as long as you don’t play their game. The only place I draw the line is Shvak damage and to an extent the Shkas are ridiculous as well. The Shvak is a weak cannon… therefore it should be weak as it’s a characteristic of the aircraft. Otherwise with their rate of fire you end up with a completely unrealistic death laser like they are in game.

@FeetPics

Note the guy at the top of the leaderboard. If I join a game he will always join on my team. If I join the other team and kill him he will leave. The best player in the enemy team is a bomber.

He has actually messaged me in the past and said that he will not play against me.

That’s one game. Players can join a squad and do the exact same thing on RB. This does highlight one of the other turnoffs with Sim however which is the overpowered mouse aim bomber gunners. As far as I’m aware the only time I’ve ever fought a squad is when it’s GreekAirForce and he has a buddy with him most of the time and he does fly overpowered aircraft at times.

The thing is that in Sim new players have far better survivability and a more level playing field compared to RB. You can choose the best aircraft at that BR just like those “evil” players do and on top of this you can actually complete your mission at times without being seen as there’s no radar or display saying “HERE I AM!”. Sim has a steep learning curve but RB is by far the easiest mode to dunk on people. But again this is just another somewhat off topic subject we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on.

@FeetPics

This is damage from 20mm MG.151 in symmetrical PM-1 duel. The critically hit stabilizer had absolutely no effect on the flight performance of my aircraft. I was able to absorb this damage and then win the rate fight in a few more loops. This includes easily controlling the plane all the way into stall speeds.

Elevator damage is another area that needs reworking on this game. This isn’t a gun damage issue but a flight model issue. Losing half of you elevator barely inconveniences your aircraft at the moment and I can speak from experience that a 109F with half of its elevator blown off will still out turn an La-5. Not that it matters as 90% of the time your tail would’ve fallen off first anyways.

Damage to the fuselage mostly results in drag in game without affecting actual flight response etc.

[PercussionCap]

@KillaKiwi

What if I tell you that a 37mm and even 20mm cannons can already hit outside of bomber gunners range?

And you can do the same in DCS, I’ve seen a player in a 190 D9 easily do it.

@KillaKiwi

With 5% hit chance a 37mm with 30 rounds can’t in reality even shoot down a four engined bomber attacking from range on average, but a 50mm cannon that only requires one hit can.

But we don’t have a 5% hit rate. Even someone who isn’t half bad can hit 50% of their shots.

@KillaKiwi

They are absolutely lethal but don’t have a lot of ammo and are best used at 250m or less.

You need paid actors to sit in front of you at 250m or less. The problem isn’t the ammo, it’s that they’re so slow a rear-aspect target at just 600m becomes very hard to hit. All this while having faster shells and much more ammo than the MK108.

@KillaKiwi

Imagine: Realistic damage 🌈

.50cals are simply worse than cannons.

If it would take 10 20mm hits to rip a wing it would take 200 with .50cals.

No thanks.

@KillaKiwi

And you shouldn’t expect hits to wings to cause kills but hits to components.

You mean like the control surfaces? Which were being hit by shvaks repeatedly in that one video and nothing happened?

@Loofah

Also red part of the wing for a lot of planes means you’re now getting outmaneuvered by goddamn Wyvern.

Most are perfectly flyable. I’ve won countless fights with damaged aircraft.

@Loofah

and you clearly have an agenda.

Yes, the agenda of not wanting gameplay to look like this:

- YouTube

@dannaryan-psn

Why add additional firepower to your aircraft that just slows you down for zero benefit? Have you ever flown the 190A-8 and thought “Gee I’m sure glad I have these two extra 20mm’s to kill things quicker”.

Which is why the 190 A-8 just went up from 5.0 to 5.3?

@dannaryan-psn

Meanwhile aircraft that should historically have a disadvantage in weaker armaments have none. People moan about a lot of Russian aircraft yet you’re against modelling one of their true to life disadvantages.

Because for a lot of them, their BRs are too low for their flight performance, and that’s caused primarily by old ShVAKs doing very little.

@dannaryan-psn

You also know when you’ve critically damaged something as the game literally tells you so in the bottom right corner.

It also tells you when you get Severe Damage, except that can be for something as meaningless as a horizontal stabilizer being blacked out.

@dannaryan-psn

Even that 190D footage provided earlier from WT back in the day shows elevator and rudder damage along with fuselage and aileron/wing damage. You’re making out that with realistic damage aircraft would be invincible which absolutely isn’t the case.

Go ahead and count how many hits he took to a small part of his plane and kept flying like nothing happened.

[KillaKiwi]

@PercussionCap

But we don’t have a 5% hit rate. Even someone who isn’t half bad can hit 50% of their shots.

Don’t you understand the argument here?

The 50mm was designed because a 37mm wouldn’t one shot a bomber all the time, thus a larger caliber was required.

If you have better aim in WT than reality, good for you but that doesn’t change anything about the amount of damage that should be inflicted with each shot.

A 37mm simply outperforms the 50mm in WT with no drawback. And the same is the case for many other calibers that are simply outperformed by 20mm cannons.

@PercussionCap

You need paid actors to sit in front of you at 250m or less. The problem isn’t the ammo, it’s that they’re so slow a rear-aspect target at just 600m becomes very hard to hit. All this while having faster shells and much more ammo than the MK108.

Nonsense. I really hate it when players pretend or even believe that only their made up reality happends in the game.

It’s not hard to get within 200m on a player, especially when you’re in the best turning plane of all time and can always cut in on someone’s turn.

I’ve putting MG FF/M and Type 99s on 200-250m convergence all the time and have planes evaporated when I‘m on their six.

@PercussionCap

No thanks.

Cool so you finally made your point that you’re not interested in realistic damage and want WT to play like am arcade game.

@PercussionCap

You mean like the control surfaces? Which were being hit by shvaks repeatedly in that one video and nothing happened?

You really think that hitting an elevator with the weakest explosive round in the game is going to be more effective than fragments destroying an aircraft’s radiator or fuel tank?

Clearly you do.

You disregard the instances where a single 20mm can destroy a plane and want it to that ALL THE TIME.

Yes you are going to destroy control surfaces but you’re going to need a lot of hits, which is the complete opposite of what’s happening in the game when a 20mm acts like a 30mm.

@PercussionCap

Which is why the 190 A-8 just went up from 5.0 to 5.3?

It went up because Gaijins balancing makes no sense. If it wasn’t for the French version, nothing would have changed.

No one was playing the A-8 because it sucks and there’s no point of using a worse D-9 at the same BR.

It especially makes no sense since the La-7 are 4.7 and 5.0 firing full explosive tracer belts that are much more deadly than MG 151/20 with Mineshells that have much worse ballistics and you only get 3/5 with the only belt that makes them be fired at their actual velocity of 785m/s/

[Loofah]

@PercussionCap

isn’t half bad can hit 50% of their shots.

Against what? How about MG151/20 vs G8N1? GL HF.

[FeetPics]

@KillaKiwi

It went up because Gaijins balancing makes no sense. If it wasn’t for the French version, nothing would have changed.

This is another instance of you just making things up. The French FW-190 has been in the game for years and years at this point.

[FeetPics]

@KillaKiwi

No one was playing the A-8 because it sucks and there’s no point of using a worse D-9 at the same BR.

Why do more people choose to play the FW-190 F8 if the D-9 is clearly the better choice? Why do people play the FW-190 A-8 when the D-12 is the better choice?

Why does the FW-190 A-8 perform better on average when compared to those two?

@KillaKiwi

It especially makes no sense since the La-7 are 4.7 and 5.0 firing full explosive tracer belts that are much more deadly than MG 151/20 with Mineshells that have much worse ballistics and you only get 3/5 with the only belt that makes them be fired at their actual velocity of 785m/s/

And yet the average kills per battle of the FW-190A8 is higher across all variants than the La-7.

[Thodin]

@PercussionCap

Which is why the 190 A-8 just went up from 5.0 to 5.3?

No one understands that. A8 is a plane “under the radar”. Almost no one plays it. Thunderskill shows only few games per month. Compared to others. There were simply better planes at the same BR or even at lower BRs. No point playing the A8. Now it got BR bumped on step up the ladder…just a FW190A version at 5.3 now. In reach of very top tier WW2 prop.

[FeetPics]

It’s not really hard ro guess what has happened.

[FeetPics]

@dannaryan-psn

On average it does take more to kill an aircraft even in this clip compared to WT. Notice during the first attack on the bomber stream multiple bombers actually took quite a few hits to actually bring down.

As a side note… this is arcade mode sir.

The ones that took “quite a few hits” were when the guy completely missed with the 20mm and was only hitting with 7.7mm machine guns.

Also I didn’t see any lead indicator so I’m pretty sure that was the “realistic” mode. Regardless I did play both games when they were out and active; killing bombers in single passes was always something that was relatively trivial with 20mm cannons.

[KillaKiwi]

@FeetPics

Why do more people choose to play the FW-190 F8 if the D-9 is clearly the better choice?

Bruh, the F-8 carries bombs and is played much more in ground rb.

Is that so difficult to grasp this concept that some planes are more played in ground mode.

Both the F-8 and D-9 are played ten or more times than the A-8.

When a plane stops being played it’s stats go up because only experienced players are even bothering playing it.

As such there’s nothing to discuss.

The Sea Fire Mk. III or how it’s called is literally a worse Spitfire Mk IX at 5.0.

The G-6 at 4.7 is practically identical to the G-14 at 5.3.

So how does that make sense.

It doesn’t.

And it’s not related to the discussion.

[KillaKiwi]

@FeetPics

And yet the average kills per battle of the FW-190A8 is higher across all variants than the La-7.

Spoiler

Wow a vehicle that is significantly less played than the average vehicle also has on average better stats. Never seen that before.

[FeetPics]

@KillaKiwi

Both the F-8 and D-9 are played ten or more times than the A-8.

Then why does the A-8 outperform the D-12 when the A-8 is actually played more?

[KillaKiwi]

It’s a mystery.

Maybe because the performance difference isn’t all that big while the A-8 gets an air spawn.

The D-12 stats are still better than the D-9 despite the D-9 having better flight performance.

But let’s not focus on BRs but on the actual topic, that 20mm cannons with non Mineshells perform as good as Mineshells without any drawbacks and they make not only any other shell type but also larger canons obsolete.

[Idledan]

Wow! This is crazy I from the way I get killed by these things in War Thunder I would have never known.
I was really under the impression that these things were made to one shot things. One Cannon round in war thunder kills you, it will destroy your engine, it will rip off your wing, it will break you in half, and here look the actual footage it doesn’t do any of that. The ammo is more of a danger to the pilot the the plane wtf thats wild war thunder should fix that. On second thought that would mean the russian planes would become weaker because they don’t have enough ammo, so what do you think that will never happen?

[iegaatdao]

@Idledan

On second thought that would mean the russian planes would become weaker because they don’t have enough ammo

not only low ammo counts, but specially low explosive power (specially WW2 era 20mil cannons)
They would more AP-I than FI-T in most cases.

[poopooo]

I’m reading a book about the Fw 190, and it’s interesting because, to combat heavy bombers, the Germans generally used Bf 109s to engage the escorts while the Fw 190s attacked the bombers, often trying to tie them down from above and head-on to try and destroy the pilots’ fuselages. They also mention that to destroy Il-2 Sturmovich bombers, German pilots generally attacked them in the same way to bring them down, with the Fw 190s being primarily responsible for this task. This indicates that aircraft of a certain size could withstand considerable damage, requiring heavy armament or an experienced pilot to know where to shoot to bring them down.

It’s clear that the damage from aircraft guns is somewhat exaggerated, as evidenced by how, as the war progressed, the Germans increasingly armed their aircraft with Mk108s to engage heavily armed enemies, while the MG151s were used to combat other fighters.
It would be interesting if they either reduced the damage from the cannons or increased the aircraft’s durability, but above all, if serious hits had a significant impact on the aircraft’s mobility and speed. In my opinion, ARBs should have cannons with realistic damage and accuracy to encourage closer combat, without enemy markings to allow for surprise attacks (as was common in real life), without the ability to hear the enemy aircraft’s engine (for the same reason as before), with aircraft damage accurately affecting performance by making the aircraft slower and less maneuverable, and also so that if a heavily damaged aircraft returns to the airfield, it can be repaired but counts as a loss for the aircraft that caused so much damage (if the match ends before it does, it will count as a loss).

[KillaKiwi]

@poopooo

I’m reading a book about the Fw 190, and it’s interesting because, to combat heavy bombers, the Germans generally used Bf 109s to engage the escorts while the Fw 190s attacked the lbombers, often trying to tie them down from above and head-on to try and destroy the pilots’ fuselages. They also mention that to destroy Il-2 Sturmovich bombers, German pilots generally attacked them in the same way to bring them down, with the Fw 190s being primarily responsible for this task. This indicates that aircraft of a certain size could withstand considerable damage, requiring heavy armament or an experienced pilot to know where to shoot to bring them down.

The radial engine of the Fw 190 was more damage resistant. And it also acts as a shield to protect the pilot from incoming rounds.

For attacking B-17s and B-24s, some Fw 190s were equipped with additional armor plates.

But they would also remove the wing mounted guns, probably to maintain some level of maneuverability and not completely fall victim to enemy fighter escort.

At higher altitudes the Fw 190 didn’t have the performance so I imagined that for very high altitude interception Bf 109s were needed.

Afterall they could equip MK 108 gun pods.

Unlike the Ta 152, neither 109 or 190 were built for high altitude interceptions.

So they used them however it worked best for them.