Although a Yak-3 can achieve high speeds, it can’t sustain high-G’s without ripping its wings. Even more-so than the fabled Spitfire wing ripping.
Imagine planes actually ripping their wings instead of pulling Gs that pilots nor the airframe could realistically sustain.
😄
What a nice little time capsule of a post.
You might consider watching the video that is linked in the post. Or actually reading the post.
The Yak-3 was at 4.0BR at the time by the way.
1 Hit fire.
Oh look the tail fell off of the bomber. Isn’t that way too much damage and unrealistic for ShVAK? That is what we have said repeatedly in the thread.
3 Registered hits and the P-51 explodes and the left wing falls off. Once again this is unrealistically high damage according to this thread. 20mm cannons should not readily saw off wings.
You might want to look up what survivorship bias is.
That has nothing to do with survivorship bias.
You can keep your fake counter arguments.
It merely shows that planes aren’t flying hitpoints that never survive more than 2 20mm hits.
It actually is. Your example is an anecdote of a plane surviving multiple 20mm hits. This is literally textbook survivorship bias.
Your argument is because this happened in real life that it should happen all of the time in the game with a high degree of certainty.
I have shown multiple times earlier in the thread examples of myself surviving after multiple 20 mm hits in the game with the current damage model.
You’re the one complaining about planes being able to return to base after getting hit, like it’s not possible or unfair.
But we have it black on white that a P-47 getting hit by a 37mm has more than a 50% change of making it back from the mission.
So when you’re a calling me out saying „survivorship bias“ it’s simply reality.
It’s also the reality of every modern flight game that planes survive many hits without going down immediately, unless you take out the pilot or blast them to pieces.
The entire point of differentiating „immediately“ lethal damage vs. damage that can’t be sustained indefinitely.
“1 Hit fire”.
Really? Because if you watch the video back he fired 37 rounds directly into the engine, his ammo counter goes from 350 to 313. I don’t think anyone here would say a Mustang should shrug off that much damage from three nose mounted cannons and at that range.
Once again, wrong.
He hits the P-51 with 170 rounds remaining, the Mustang explodes (it does look stupid I agree) with 103 rounds remaining once again at point blank range. Even if we said only 50 rounds hit no one here would argue that a single engine fighter would have a massive chance of surviving that much damage.
We both know this is still considerably more damage sustained than the cartoon we have now. Again I remind you I’ve literally provided videos of even a Stuka going down in two… yes TWO Hispano rounds. I probably spent less ammo ripping the wing off of the P-47 in my C.202 video than what was seen here.
To make another point right at the start of the video you even hear Magz say “I don’t think the Shvak is as powerful as the MG-151 or Hispano”. Even just that single anecdote screams damage was more realistic back then even if just in relation to the Shvak. Of course things could still be stupid but it’s nowhere near as dumb as what we have today where one tap from a Shvak can tear a bomber tail clean off… and this isn’t just me spouting bull, I’ve provided videos of that as well.
Yeah it’s completely stupid isn’t it?
However the things you’re not mentioning whether intentional or not.
1: The bomber was already clearly damaged before Magz attacked it.
2: Did you not see the sheer amount of rounds he put into it before the tail came off? In WT today you can do it in two with a Shvak. His ammo count went from 313-191 and you can see the rounds clearly impacting. That’s 122 rounds coming from a concentrated battery in the nose of the Yak-3P.
I think tails separating from anything below 30mm’s looks stupid depending on the aircraft. But after 122 rounds at fairly close range that B-25 isn’t existing any more.
Meanwhile in War Thunder today even in the damage viewer literally ONE Shvak round will turn a sector of a fighter’s wing black. Do you see the problem now?
It’s not just returning to base. Anything short of deep black wing root damage, a dead engine, or actually missing controlled surfaces is easy to fight through without any difficulty.
I can take something like an Re.2005 which is basically similar to an LF IX except with more cannons and I will be exponentially more impactful in a match than the LF IX. In fact I can probably beat the LF IX player simply by forcing a head-on engagement and gambling that my gun damage is higher than his.
The whole entire premise of RB is basically that 32 planes will die in a 25 minute engagement timeframe. Real life missions were hours long and minor damage would result in loss of aircraft. The whole entire setup for Air RB is nowhere representative of any conditions found in the war sage for some instances on the Eastern front.
We are moving the goal posts then.
So by todays damage model we are characterizing 1 “hit” with ShVAK actually being the multiple rounds. But by the dated model we are assuming that multiple rounds hit for every registered “hit”.
This is nonsensical.
If we had this old damage model then all of the people in this thread would still be complaining that damage isn’t realistic enough because of guns removing tails and not being 1 for 1 representative of cherry picked tests from the war.
No we aren’t.
No, we aren’t. You’re trying to put words in my mouth and you’re skewing the evidence provided.
On that video each aircraft took a lot of Shvak rounds to destroy. In game today as I’ve proven literally TWO Shvak rounds can destroy a fairly chunky bomber like a He-111. Off memory in the same video 4x rounds ripped the wing clean off. You can literally count the rounds as I’m tapping the trigger. To further back this up as mentioned go into the armour viewer and put one 20mm into a Spitfire’s wing… or any fighter for that matter. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Shvak or MG-151 that wingtip etc is black/gone.
In my other video the MG-151 only took around 7 hits (you can see the impacts) to rip a B-17’s tail off.
For the ultimate comparison you just saw it took 37 concentrated 20mm hits to destroy the engine/start a fire on that P-51. Meanwhile in what was less than a half second burst my C.202 with two piddly .50’s can rip a P-47’s wing clean off, once again as proven with the video I’ve provided. I’ve already said things could be stupid back in the day as well but it was still clearly better than what we have now.
At any point in this game have you ever felt that Shvak’s were weak, or even just simply weaker than the Hispano or MG-151 as they should be?
How about have you ever wished you’d brought a 30mm to help knock down the heavier bombers? I sure haven’t. I can rip the wing off of a B-17 in one pass with a C.200. Imagine being knocked out that fast after sitting for minutes climbing in your lumbering bomber in Sim. Our damage models are beyond stupid and I think you know it.
We probably would still call the tail separation etc stupid because it is. But as mentioned it took a lot more to do it as you saw… so it still isn’t as stupid as what we have now.
Mate it’s not just “cherry picked tests” it’s just common sense. Even if you lack that (not insulting you personally) just use your eyes and watch some guncam footage. Observe the lack of tails not instantly falling off etc.
So you think that the clips shown are instances where the player had 100% aim accuracy?
Do you think that .50 cals should be unable to cause wing failures in game?
There was also a similar timeframe where single MG.151 would cause tail detachment.
Is it common sense? Why shouldn’t 50 caliber M2 be able to cause wing failures on something like an FW-190?
Weakened spars that end in structural failures during high stress manouvers ≠ Instant wing amputation.
We are not calling to revert to old calculations or mechanics, but for a new system to properly simulate different explosive equivalents, different methods of damage (fragmentation vs high explosive), and proper balance of round types.
Currently cannons is just ranked by “Who has more yellow” and “Who flies better?”, In the end any depth and differences cannons had were just reduced to amount of yellow in the belts and ballistics.
It can as I mentioned, not with half a second of trigger time an under specific conditions.
Also we never brought up about the M2 50cal.
In fact
Also why did we move into the M2 50cal, the one common armament that solely relies on AP and doesn’t use explosive rounds?
talk about messing with the rudder, pretty ironic from someone who just accused another person of:
So the wing shouldn’t pop off while flying straight?
So how much trigger time? What are the specific conditions by your estimation?
I am asking about a specific weapon for a reason.
unless the damage is extreme like for example…
Drilling into a spar for 4 seconds.
M2 already depends a lot on the incendiary factor and armor penetration for pilot snipes.
Also has advantages in ballistics and volume of fire.
It’s method to deal with opponents is very different to even other weapons of the same caliber.
Which reason? M2 50cal is as relevant as a 7.5mil fabrique nationale in here.
We would assume that .50 cal is weaker than 20mm cannons.
So what is this 4 seconds time of fire and into a wing spar based on? Are we assuming a burst with majority hits for 4 seconds?
How many seconds of .50 cal fire do you think this took? Do you think he flew back to base like you can in War Thunder?
They are? They pack less kinetic energy due to reduced mass and explosive filler on the american 50 literally doesn’t exist but said 50 has incredible penetration thank to high muzzle velocity and needle like point compared to 20mils.
US simply packed more 50cals on their planes and thus the firepower is felt.
The fuck I know, you gave me a picture if you can call it that since I don’t even know for sure what plane that is.
Maybe a Fw-190 D due to the thin tail, what appears to be a rudder extending past the elevator and blunt nose.
Looks like 60% of wing gone, even in-game the fw-190 D can’t come back from that, even from an instructor you can’t stop losing altitude.
And I repeat myself again.
You can literally RTB and land practically and plane in the game with only 1 wing. Some cases it can be done with even less.
But more to the point…how did the .50 cals cause the wing to fail if it is supposed to be such a rare occurrence? How did it cause that failure in a fraction of the time on target that you claim should be required?
In the photo it appears the fw-190 was in an intense manouver, probably trying to peel off whatever was attacking, an incredible amount of stress, not simulated in WT.
1st
False, just literally a lie, because if technically “if you are at +7km of alt then you can land from any part of the map”, shut up
2nd
And its over and over and over…
Chase and KILL, IT CAN’T EVEN MOVE PROPERLY, IF YOU DIE TO A DUDE SO BEATEN UP IT IS SIMPLY A SKILL ISSUE.
This is another one from a plane that was flying straight. Is flying straight an intense maneuver?
I have done it.
In real life both planes would have been pulverized the pilots almost immediately dead.
It can’t move properly in-fame because the wing is gone. The argument that has been made in the thread is that basically under most circumstances that the should never be gone because the wing being gone is unrealistic damage; especially for things that are not high caliber cannons with large HE filler.
99% of the time you spin out of control from having most of your wing blown off.
