I hope you do realise we want general damage overhaul, which should include reviewing damage impact on flight model.
But currently everything is wrong. I remember chasing Yak-3U with 1 and a half wings missing. He was hauling ass and managed to rtb and land. In another case I barely caught the guy while flying Do-335 B2 myself because damage to wings has little effect on Yak-3U speed. Of course it’s wrong!
But it doesn’t make nuke-firing MGs and cannons right.
You’re not going to “insta kill” a pilot with that kind of damage:
It’s just a heavier Bf 109 E-4 with larger wings and a bit better top speed. It used to be 3.3 or 3.0.
There are a lot of US planes that are basically untouchable by same BR planes.
The difference is that one plane has fuel tanks in the wings and another doesn’t.
That doesn’t mean that 12.7mm HEFI should blow both planes wings off, just because the one with wing tanks would potentially die to a fire.
They are not unkillable. They just have an unfair advantage. And the damage system is non sense anyway.
You can have 20mm HE round explode on a IL-2s armored fuselage and the damage is still big enough to reduce the wings hit points by more than 50%. So you can break a wing without even needing to hit wing directly, since blast damage has become irrelevant.
Why would they redo like 90% of FMs when they can just increase gun damage to the point that staying undamaged enough to fly back on one wing is very rare?
It’s certainly not instakilling the tail either.
I love the 109 E-4, but it has NOTHING on the Ki-61 in terms of handling. It’s a huge difference and readily apparent when flying the two.
Unlike the Ki-61, US planes trade climb rate and maneuverability for top speed. The Ki-61 does not, only climb rate is slightly affected vs a 109 E-4. Its other attributes are equal or superior, and it only loses out on top speed against F models - those overheat badly and unlike Ki-61 cannot easily counter it with 90% prop pitch and effective radiators.
So you’d have a plane that can outspeed, outturn, and in many cases outclimb its enemies all at once… with the simple downside of having to aim a little harder. No thanks, I’d rather it move up to 3.7 instead of ruining my favorite BR with another OP plane, even if it is in a nation I main.
I have never had a japanese 20mm HE shell fail to do significant damage to a soviet plane in recent matches. Protection analysis seems to disagree for the Type 99-2’s but only when set to too short a range and/or aiming at the thinner wing sections with high angle of impact. Otherwise they work as expected.
Still doesn’t change the fact that it’s much easier to damage a planes structure that is much larger than the single pilot thats inside it.
Which makes AP pointless when 50% of the time it won’t actually deal damage.
It turns better but the E-4 climbs better.
The Ki-61 outturns pretty much any non Japanese plane but the E-4 doesn’t turn half bad either.
There’s an entire topic on this issue, if you’re interested
Because I don’t want to get instant-nuked from 1200m away by a single shell and I want higher calibers to actually have an advantage. I want planes to have different levels of survivability based off armor and construction/materials. I want weapons/ammo types to have different strengths and weaknesses. Right now everything’s paper, there’s barely any difference between Me-410 and Yak-1, both get hit with 2-3 shells and they are usually GONE, but Me-410 is way easier to hit, and HE is superior to everything while incendiary is super crap.
If incendiary was as hilariously broken as HE, fuel tanks should be set on fire each time an incendiary hits within 1m from the tank.
But hell no, this can’t be, but 1-2 Type 99 Mk2 HEF shells breaking P-47 wing? No issue!
Also I want more realistic damage models instead of pure fantasy, which is what pew-pew shooter guys are forcing upon us in this topic.
WT was supposed to not be yet another pew-pew shooter, but we’re already in the magic plasma blasters and cardboard planes territory.
What I find absolutely hilarious is Gaijin “fixed” ballistics to make guns more realistic, but somehow deliberately made damage as unrealistic as possible. Why the hell?
Unless simplified mousejoy or some other thing, I’ve not ran into any instructor behaviour in Warthunder. If anything, planes in Warthunder are far twitchier and harder to control than their equivalent brethen in Il-2:Great Battles (I cannot speak for DCS as I cannot run it, but I’d love to compare my 109 and P-47s thru it as well.)
In fact, I personally find myself able to confidently dogfight in a low altitude furball with Il2 Spitfire Mk IXs on combat box while in Warthunder spitfires still terrify me.
On note of Il2:GB -
Cannons ought do more pilot damage.
Once in Il2 I was flying my Mustang D. My canopy gets hit by a gustav’s cannons and my pilot blacks out from the shockwave. I almost crash and die before recovering my conciousness the last second and pull out to bail from my damaged aircraft. It led to one hell of a cinematic moment (literally waking up with trees filling my front canopy!)
And generally degrading pilot performance from injuries. A yellow or even orange pilot seems to fly just a swell as a healthy one.
True
If cannon damage recieves a rework then pilots must be made a lot more fragile/sensitive to damage.
Currently they can survive 20mm AP rounds if they are behind an armor plate and the cannon manages to penetrate and barely be affected.
Also would make fragmentation rounds more likely to kill pilots, which currently due to how cannons are modeled the’ve all been turned into very concentrated High explosive, funnily enough, mg151/20’s FI-T round still behaves like a fragmentation round.
I have a question. I haven’t played ARB in a while, but I’ve been watching GRB lately. Is it possible that fires on planes are much less significant than they used to be? I remember that a fire used to be almost a death sentence, since it rarely went out, and if it did, it had caused so much damage that you could barely fly. Now I see that fires go out quickly and, on top of that, they hardly cause any damage.
They have changed a few things to fires a few years ago. But generally I find them pretty deadly if started by 12.7mm+ weapons. I have some planes that do survive those, but I die like 9 out of 10.
If we base this on the high prevalence of armor for the pilot, then it should definitely be considered one of the most vulnerable aspects of an airplane.
But if we want to reflect this properly, then the crew damage model should be segmented. It doesn’t make sense that a shot to the foot would have the same instant lethality as one to the head. Otherwise, why have a head plate at all, right?
Meanwhile 30mm incendiary to the face: “It’s just a flesh wound”.
Yeah that makes fragmentation very inconsistent.
Before realShatter Italian and Japanese 12.7mm would constantly pilot snipe because they made such big fragmentation clouds.
Now they often won’t even damage pilots when they explode right in their face because the fragmentation amount is so low.
Pilots and fuel tanks are both very poorly modeled.
One problem is that bullets start to tumble after impact, which isn’t modeled.
10-12mm armor protecting the pilot will generally stop a .50cal AP bullet, while in WT they go through and the deal light damage to the pilot.
Cannon shells can also lose a lot of penetration, or hardly any, depending on the design.
Next is that HE shells and fragments are lacking armor penetration.
When a 37mm explodes, big chunks of the fuze and tracer assembly are going to travel forward, punching through armor plates that would stop LMG or even HMG bullets.
Shooting into the direct rear of a P-63A-5. Remember, my belt is still half HE, and a lot of the hits went straight into the tail.
But it was his engine and pilot that were taken out long before the tail or wings fell off (they didn’t at all).
Does not climb better enough to compensate the huge difference in handling. And E-4’s cannons are pretty poor unless you are very close to the enemy. It may be my favorite plane but it has plenty of weaknesses that make it noticeably worse than the Ki-61.
I am aware. But every time I’ve shot at one, my shells have done exactly what I expected.
Dodge better.
They do have an advantage in damage.
They… do? .50cals have the best ballistics, higher gun counts, and very deep magazines. 30mm cannons rarely require more than one hit to bring someone down, and with the exception of the MK108 also usually have better ballistics than other cannons, at the expense of being rare and having small ammo counts. 20mm cannons are a middle point between the two.
Even just loading more AP or more HE makes guns feel substantially different. AP always makes kills from directly behind much faster.
Go play an american plane with APIT belts and come back to us.
And what would be “realistic”? Planes losing control from a blacked wing section instead of losing the wing entirely? That’s just the same thing. You do enough damage, they lose control.
Fire lethality depends mostly how full/empty the fuel tank was when hit and set on fire, how bad the damage is, and if it is self-sealing or not.
For example, a plane with many non-self sealing tanks, that gets hit in a fuel tank that was almost empty, and it is blacked out immediately, will just burn and leak out all the fuel before lethal damage can be done. Whereas if you set a late 109 on fire with its single, large self sealing tank, surrounded by armor (so it will take less damage), will 99.9% of the time be a guaranteed kill.
The only exception is if you are firing a big enough shell to detonate that fuel tank. This is restricted to 30mm or larger shells. For example DEFAs can do it pretty often.
I’ve also never experienced this. Just the other day I shot down a P-51C with a hit directly into the cockpit, and a Hellcat with a wing root hit that took out the pilot (but somehow the instakill HEF didn’t take out his wing, ain’t that funny?).
I haven’t played with planes in a while, but I often use SPAAs for their intended purpose, and I could safely say that 95% of the planes I set on fire survive without problems and return to combat, until I break their wings or tail in the following bursts. On the other hand, I remember that a few years ago (when I played ARB) being set on fire was quite dangerous, since you either lost almost all your fuel almost instantly and the fire went out, or you ended up losing the plane to the flames, and only in very few cases did the fire go out when you shut down the engine and gained speed.
They just saw wings and tails off.
I rarely get kills by fire nowadays. Instead a short burst and their plane falls apart.
Wow a plane with an engine mounted behind the pilot has its engine destroyed from shots in the back. Never expected that.
Enough damage is the point.
You think it doesn’t matter whether a wing gets hit by a 20mm shell with 5, 10 or 20g of filler?
You think you lose your tail controls from 2-3 20mm explosive hits?
The main reason a 20mm is going to take down a bombers, is because it sets the fuel tanks on fire.
Not saw off wings or tail with a couple of hits.
Not long ago I shot down two B-17s in a Yak-3 and still had 55 20mm rounds left.
One lost its wing, the other the tail.
65 FI-T shells, thats just 265g of explosives. For two flying fortresses. Thats peanuts compared to 350-380g expected by the Germans. And I probably only hit 20% of that at best.
If that’s all it took, the MK 108 wouldn’t make any sense at all.
You can just load a 20mm HEFI shell with 5g explosive and flying fortress no more.
Better Ballistics, higher RoF. Mineshells made redundant.
Don’t even need to invent 20mm Incendiary shells. Why set fuel tanks on fire when you can just blow the wings off? lol
40mm Ho-301?
Pointless. Two 12.7mm is all you need.
37mm Ho-203? No bro, just give me a 20mm Ho-3 with 100 rounds instead.
Why invent wings when planes can fly without them?
They can’t fly very well without them
Both in real life and in-game
You already showed that you can’t tell apart a wing tip from a wing root so please leave.
LMAO, typical noob talk with strong “ignore list” vibes.
I played BF 109 F2 when 15mm HEF-T was bugged and every fragment of those had insane fire chance. Scored 12 kills and still had some ammo.
It was essentialy what incendiary would have been if it was as broken as HE.
APIT rips planes apart, yes, it starts fires too, but most of my targets get disassembled.
Currently you punch 2 frying-pan sized holes and they lose the wing. That’s the problem.
If you are hitting the rear edge of the wing or tail, 90% of your fragments are not hitting the target due to how the “fragmentation sphere” works.
Shell explodes on flaps or ailerons or elevator/rudder, even if they are GONE, the explosion range is very low in real shtter, so nothing reaches the main wing/tail area, and since the fragmentation is a sphere and not a cone like in reality, only small portion of fragments travels forward.
Hence real shtter HE is surprisingly bad when used from direct 6, but A LOT more potent if you are firing at some, even relatively small, angle.
None of these planes were able to RTB. Note how some would only have wing rip missing in WT. Note how they were all 8th Air Force victims in 1944 who were primarily flying Mustangs.
Instead we want the game to be balanced around exceptional edge cases where planes did RTB while missing wing tips / wing sections. You are literally advocating balancing the game around survivorship bias.
