You have to work much harder for a single hit, so it’s not worth it. If it was an MK103 it would be much more popular.
The MK108 is made to shoot bombers, it’s fine if it doesn’t do great against fighters. Other 30mms with shell velocities higher than a hand-thrown rock work great.
And this is how we get abominations like He 100 seeing reserve biplanes, which are terrible for the health of the game. Not much can be done about that one, but we can keep everything else from becoming so unbalanced.
They won’t have the same guns. Even right now there’s a noticeable difference between something with four, and something with six cannons.
Why doesn’t it make sense? You shoot someone with cannons, they are either heavily damaged or unable to keep flying. The attacker made the right play and was rewarded with a kill.
Must I remind you that this is a game first and foremost?
Also, again, I don’t get it - why the hell bother with realistic ballistics in otherwise fairly unrealistic game (the entire setup of 13G turns, mixed matches, people being warned of your presence by sound and markers, bombers and thus specialized bomber interceptors being largely irrelevant etc.), while introducing completely otherwordly damage model?
Unrealistic setup has very seriously hurt only select few planes, like Me-262, because it has absolutely horrific armanent vs aware enemy fighters while being stuck at 7.0 because “well, it’s a jet” or Bf 109Z, which sits where it sits simply because Gaijin hates it with a fiery passion (seriously, can’t see any other reason). A lot of planes were hurt to a lesser extent, but that usually could be adjusted via BR changes over the years.
But unrealistic damage basically means that everything using MG151/20 which was the prime case of “lets sacrifice ballistics for damage” is all of the sudden in deep shit.
And lets not forget MG151/20 is being slapped 2-fold. Because unrealistic setup has already been hurting it quite a bit (as ballistics and shooting past 400m is WAY more common and important than IRL, also the target is not a bomber, but usually aware fightger and also with most fighting happening at sea level poor ballistic coefficient is much more hurtful than at f.e. 5000m) before Gaijin decided to remove damage advantage.
If Germans knew what’s coming, they’d just make a 15mm shell with 4g of PETN (perfectly doable BTW, maybe even with tracer) which would be the ultimate anti-everything (that’s flying) shell, probably downing bombers with 3-4 hits. Imagine having guns that fire shells going 960m/s that actually have decent ballistics.
Noticeable by whom?
You do realise, that time to kill for both is exactly the same down to a milisecond assuming they have equal ROF?
So as you guys said, they’ll end up at a lower BR… right?
Me.
Sure doesn’t feel like it. I clicked on a Ju288 the other day - one moment he was there, and the next his wing was gone and there were at least 2 huge fires!
I know from experience that with a 4-cannon plane it wouldn’t have been this easy.
Look how concentratred the damage is, no fragmentation, just pure explosive power cranked up to eleven. And take into account ALL offensive shvak or B20 are nose mounted and closely packed, if one landed, 3 landed next to it.
You can see it because the previous rounds left only yellow sections, these rounds left black and red sections
This isn’t a FI-T, this is a HEI-T disguised as a FI-T!.
It obliterates the aircraft in an instant.
And everyone recieved this treatment, basically turned into a mine round
It’s made irrelevant by 20mm cannons that can kill bombers from much further away.
And it’s not made to kill bombers it’s made to mount a 30mm in small fighters like the Bf 109 since the MK 103 was far to large and heavy.
Only the Fw 190 F-8 carried MK 103 gun pods because it was supposed to attack ground targets.
Likewise the Me 410 with MK 103s is a night fighter, which targets nothing but bombers.
If anything, the MK 108 is a anti-air cannon because it didn’t have ammunition to target ground targets.
And if you have to shoot down a P-47 and one 20mm Mineshell doesn’t blow off the wing in one shot, like in WT, but deals a quarter or less the structural damage, a MK 108 makes a big difference compared to a MG 151/20.
Reality isn’t like WT, where pilots will see an attack coming from 2km, preparing to dodge out of the way of a MK 108.
The most important criteria for fighter vs fighter combat is RoF.
Hence why Spitfires and Hurricanes entered the war with the most guns mounted to any fighter, thinking it would be a major advantage.
Yet they learned that LMGs aren’t effective anymore against fighters carrying armor and self sealing tanks.
12.7mm is the next step to regain some sort of effectiveness but the answer was obviously 20mm cannons that would make armor and self-sealing fuel tanks irrelevant, and that also had much more punch per shot.
In WW1 and at the start of WW2, two machine guns was a pretty standard armament.
Then it become two 20mm cannons and even four to gain more RoF, since planes also become much faster.
What difference does it make that a He 100 sees reserves planes or a Ki-27?
I know that a Ki-27 doesn’t cook it’s engine from a having a single 7.7mm hit it’s wing and that it outclimbs any plane below 2.0.
In which world? 😂
No one in their right mind would actively take two extra 20mm cannons, when already having four, instead of not having that weight on the aircraft.
The only time you even want more than one or two 20mm is when Gaijin gives you ammo that isn’t HE, like on Hispanos or MG 151/20 where you have to deal with SAPI, API, APHE or good forbid IT that could have been a shell that blows a planes wing or tail off.
A cannon isn’t a 7.7mm or 12.7mm, though.
The right play is to hit where rounds deal damage, carry the correct ammo for the job and not waste it on shoots that have very small chance of either hitting or being effective.
Also it can climb to like 13km, if I remember right, because this game absolutely doesn’t give a shit about high altitude performance and I think almost everything overperforms at high alt (sans Ta-152H which manages to overheeat at 8000m going 320 IAS, I don’t have to explain how cold is the air at these altitudes).
EDIT:
I had this game, where I shot a guy using last of my ammo, I was in some relatively mediocre plane,. dude was in a higher BR spitfire.
I damaged his cooling, then made him chase me (I was out of ammo) till his engine basically gave out while I was dodging his shots.
Eventually he got “critically damaged”, so he dove a bit down, sprayed at me from 1200m away, hit me once and it removed my entire wing.
GG.
It was a 1 v 5 game I carried to 1 v 1.
I guess he made “the right play”, by hitting me with 1 shell of 12g of TNT out of roughly 140 he fired in that final burst.
There is a very big difference beween a plane with two cannons and one with four. The 190 A-8 is the highest BR Fw190 model. Not even the Doras are 5.3.
And both of those require hitting specific parts of the enemy plane to do anything.
…which is all much easier if you have more guns.
He got lucky, that’s all. You should have dodged better. Or go further back in the battle and waste less ammo.
Pre-Real Shatter ShVAK was similar to current MG.151 FIT and the people in this thread were still apocalyptic about it.
Prior to major ShVAK buff around 3-4 years ago the best ShVAK belt was armored targets because effectively the game would only occasionally keep track of fragmentation damage. This is also why Hispano had the reputation that it did as well; the degree of variability was much higher than currently. A solid burst might do no damage or it might remove both wings.
Prior to first ShVAK buff the Yak-3U was all the way down to 5.3BR.
As far as I can tell most of the people advocating for nerfed damage want 20mm viability reduced by massive orders of magnitude to the point that it would be much weaker than even it’s weakest point in the games history.
No, I got … in the … by ridiculous damage of real shatter which heavily benefits sprayers and people with horrible aim and people who can’t set up their kills but have decent aim for “snapshots”.
Seriously, entire wing gone to a shell that at that point had lost like 90% of its kinetic energy (or more) and had 6 big firecrackers worth of explosive power.
It’s probably a stupid reason when the P-51H is 6.3 and the Mk 24 is 6.7 as well.
I can only imagine it having the performance of a potato but moderately good turn.
They don’t. Especially not explosive 12.7mm that will take a wing off in a single pass.
But I’ve seen plenty of planes also having wings and tails shoot off by LMGs.
If one 20mm HEF-T, from which you get a full belt, is enough to rip a wing, you don’t need 5 extra guns just to get 10% more kills, when you could instead get much better flight performance.
You want those guns in reality, you don’t want those guns in WT because they are basically dead weight.
Remind me again why the A6M5 is 5.7?
Maybe because player stats determine BR?
The majority of players are bad, so easy to play planes have high BR.
And because bad players have both bad aim and very bad defensive flying skills, bad players kill bad players more often with more guns.
In which world, where my well aimed shot hits an aircraft and potentially kills in one shot, do I need more guns?
Sure, if every second shot is not a kill, hitting twice with two guns makes the chance of getting a kill more likely.
Then again it might be more useful to have more ammo instead of firing twice the shells.
But there’s a night and day difference, when I need 1-2 or 5-7 hits on average to get a kill.
Or, if we look at the IL-2, whether it takes 18 20mm explosive shells or 2-3, simply cut it in half with .50cal AP rounds.
You see how needing more hits, like reality, also requires more guns to achive a satisfying result?
Or alternatively more destructive power per shot.
I do just fine in F8.
I do slightly better on average in A8 because actually arriving a bit later to the fight allowed me to not fall victim to a goddamn Yak-3U hordes. I know it sucks and I’m a bit more cautious, with F8 I play stupidly for whatever reason
In all honesty, the difference in armanent was not really of any importance, hence F8 has been my go-to plane in the funny period of every 20mm sucking with sole exception of MG151/20, I know, I know, I’m a bad guy.
D9 doesn’t have airspawn, and maneuvers slightly worse and basically overheats if you look at it wrong. I used to have highest score in D9 mind you. I preferred F8 and A8 because I got into action faster and on some maps it also meant energy advantage. D9 can’t really enjoy that early game as its climb, while very good, is not good enough.
Edit: and today D9 is a piece of shit that gets one-shot by everything, so you can’t win head ons, can’t outmaneuver people and if you want to outrun them - tough luck since your’re overheating constantly
Must be you hallucinating, like what you do most in this thread.
Where you must always turn something someone said against them by completely misinterpreting their original meaning, or take everything they say literal.
You see, YOU WANT everyone, that is against overperforming cannons and advocates for realistic damage, to have the opinion that guns should be useless and make ShVAKs and Hispanos deal no damage for no apparent reason like they did at one point, or have every cannon have bugged realShatter damage.
Because then you can argue that it’s bad for gameplay and others want you to suffer and not have fun.
Because otherwise they’d be unusable. Come on, you ALREADY KNOW why things are the way they are.
Which is why… J2M3 is much higher than J2M2, despite being heavier? N1K2-J higher than N1K1-J, despite being worse in every regard except top speed? Why Ki-61s with cannons are a whole BR higher than those with 12.7s, which you say can rip a wing off in one pass? Why Ki-84 jumps a whole step just by switching the 12.7s for another pair of 20mms?
There is no in-game example of a plane with more cannons being the same or higher BR than another model of it, being identical except for guns.
Remind me why A6M5 Hei specifically is 5.3, even though it is much heavier and flies worse… but gets two more Type 3 13.2mms? Higher than the regular A6M5, which is otherwise much better?
So more guns makes a plane better. I’m glad you agree.
You do not have 100% hit rate. I don’t have 100% hit rate. And true one hit kills are rare with 20mms. 30s work much better.
After the video shared earlier showing IL-2 damage, no I don’t think I will.
A-8 and F-8 suffer from both of these too, and they’re slower.
It was you who said a Fw190 should be able to just sit in front of a few ShVAKs and get hit continuously by more than a dozen shells, and not be shot down.
That „amazing damage“ is a 12.7mm with 1g PETN filler, as it deals basically the same as Italian 12.7mm HEF.
It will rip your wing in 2-4 hits.
Which translates to holding the trigger for 0.5s to destroy a plane.
Simply hitting the wing a few times during a deflection shot.
I rather have a pilot getting knocked out by a single .303 than seeing planes dismantled by LMG bullets.
And they aren’t unusable. The other day I got 3 kills and a sever playing the D4Y3. With just 2 pathetic Japanese Navy LMGs.
Well, they won’t bring down a plane in an instant but why would that be necessary?
It’s simply the weakest armament you’re going to find.
Just because 12.7mm can kill doesn’t make them 20mm, that can kill in less hits.
Already explained that players stats determine BRs.
Or what are you trying to argue here?
That despite guns killing much faster than in reality, more guns make the plane better?
I happily trade extra firepower, which I don’t need, since it‘s not 2015, for better flight performance together with lower BR.
For all we know more guns makes players just hit more often in head-ons. Which is probably the number one method of bad players gering kills, since they don’t know what else to do.
Well; did it’s BR get changed in the last patch?
There are plenty of bad planes at high BR.
So arguing with them is pointless.
I fly the A6M5 Hei as an attacker. Did you know the IL-10 is 5.0 despite never going to win against a fighter?
Doesn’t mean they won’t end up killing other players regardless. Even a fat Zero can still pull one good turn to shoot someone out of the sky.
More firepower is better than less firepower.
Except when you don’t need it and the there’s no real benefit, than it’s irrelevant.
Also it depends what price you have to pay.
If you get more firepower but have to fight better opponents, you didn’t gain anything other when you’re a bad players who doesn’t win because he used the plane to its strength but was just in the same situation as always but this tlme the outcome was different because he could land a hit.
No clue what video you shared.
I‘m also the one pointing out that today Fw 190s don’t have the armor for fuel tanks anymore.
So taking 20mm hits through the fuselage from behind could result in a fuel fire from API and explosive fragments hitting the tank.
Technically API could have done this before but I was mostly focusing on the explosive shell, since thats the whole part about the discussion about overperforming cannons. You just expect wings and planes to fall off and when they don’t, it’s guns not working correctly.
At the same time you could ask me what should happen when a Fw 190 takes those hits to wing and the answer would be: Not a lot.
It will take some aerodynamic damage, maybe even kill a flap but the best case scenario would be 20mm fragments finding its way into the cockpit.
Explosive shells causing massive structural damage is wishful thinking.
This characterization is not unfair to you at all.
When shown examples of old ShVAK doing what most people would consider no damage your response that it was basically accurate. This is the FW-190 clip and the DEFYN Yak-3U clip.
Your current argument is that 20-23mm cannons detach tails in one shot. And that current level of performance is equal to 30mm. This was shown to be untrue with Yak-23 test I posted where you argued that the control surfaces and the stabalizers were not actually part of the tail.
This statement reads to reducing MG.151 damage by a factor of 4 or more over the current model.
Reducing damage by a factor of 4 again.
Once again reducing damage by 4-6 orders of magnitude. And this is for 20mm shells like MG.151 or Hispano. ShVAK would be reduced in damage capacity by an even higher order of magnitude.
Keep in mind the worst cannons in recent memory were when realshatter was implemented and it caused some 20mm to take around 10-15 hits to destroy a plane.
For instance this instance that is framed as very egregious in this clip is around 12 hits if we are counting the puffs of smoke. And in this case it actually does damage to the P-38 in the sense that some components fall off…which is something that you are seeking to reduce because it is not realistic.
BTW 13.2mm MGs have insane range and nuke bullets. On a plane that thrives on reversals ability to just hose someone down from 800m away and disable him with a single bullet is quite important.
