Exactly, MG151/20 is the bane of open tops. With Shvak one has to hit a lot more, while 1-2 M-geschoss will clear out a turret.
IMO the 25mm vs 37mm is the most extreme example we have, where every single metric is in favor of 37mm, yet damage is almost identical.
Meanwhile, 25mm should be absolutely survivable, especially if a wing is hit (13g of TNT is very little, I guess the ability of fragments to pierce armor and destroy engines would be damn high because the shell is fairly heavy, so some big chunks should continue forward), while 37mm (which even at 108g TNT is massively gimped when it comes to explosive content because Gaijin doesn’t understand high explosives) should be the end of most single or double engine aircraft unless something like f.e. outer right edge of the horizontal stabiliser is hit.
I own the J6K, which has six cannons, 1200 rounds for them, and pretty good belt options. I will be one of the least affected players lol.
Who do you think will be affected the least from a cannon nerf? The guys with one or two, or the one with six?
It matters when you are flying a fat brick, and your nose will be on target for a very small time (unless your enemy is blind and deaf), which is also why I’d prefer the 15mm guns.
Uh huh. How can you know that? I’ve flown great distances with blacked out wings after getting hit with cannon fire.
I am literally shooting wherever, I haven’t used this gun or plane in over a year probably. 15mm has huge fragmentation radius. Again, I’ll take ten, and put them in most of my planes.
It was not random, that’s a 57mm HE shell from the Ki-102’s potato launcher. It will do that every time unless you really get screwed over by damage RNG.
In fact J6K1 will see a buff, 6 cannons will now make a difference other than “headon more reliable”
But aircraft armed with 1-2 cannons will see a difference, specially those with weaker explosive filler.
Maybe after these reworks it will be also seen more favorably on aircraft that are nimbler and use 30mils.
I know because I play ARB, and I try to spread out as much as possible on nations, let me tell you, 20mils are the same in damage in practice.
And how many times you flew with a black wing instead of a “no wing”. Can’t recall it? 1 clue, it’s mostly the later one.
You can shoot “wherever” with a 20mil and it just detaches that part.
Also this doesn’t support a little my point, smaller calibers outclass largers ones by a mile?
And if 15mm fragmentates despite having over half the filler of 20mm rounds of smaller power and being a little bit smaller? So what’s stopping a 20mm round with 6.02g of filler to fragmentate instead of structurally dealing damage?
Maybe, since you said fragmentation is better, it would come as a buff to Japan instead.
Shvak deals same/more damage than MG151/20, basically every 20mm deals same damage?
“Hey guys, you are wrong, look, Ho-5 is still the worst because reasons”.
OK, I checked, analysed and now we know the only reason Ho-5 deals less damage is goddamn shell type name.
What ,happens next?
Back to proving 15mm is super good.
Jesus Christ.
If it’s so good and powerfull why can’t 20mm deal slightly less damage?
All airplane DMs in-game are wet paper and so you have rounds with less HE filler than a packet of sugar blowing up a dude’s wing in 2 shots.
This makes it where a single russian or jap .50 are extremely powerful and they’re essentially cannons at that point because the game lists them as “High explosive.”
U.S. .50s are currently underperforming in the incendiary department on fuel tanks—doesn’t help that the game forces a focused convergence instead of a boxed convergence, ruining the effectiveness of the .50s. It’s also why you see in guncam footage of a P-51 or P-47 shooting a plane up close why some guns seem to go way off.
Normal incendiary rounds don’t even behave correctly in-game as they’re just treated like super weak HE where it just causes super-structure damage to the wing unless there is a listed HE filler. When IRL, they would pass through the skin until they hit a hard object and have a small explosion, and then a spray of incendiary material and copper jacket.
Yes. It will make the planes with single or dual cannons significantly worse. The only reason this thread exists is because some sim larper thinks the only viable planes should be P-47s and FW-190s while everything else hits like a water pistol.
It makes it easier for him to dive back to base and preserve 18:1 KD ratio in sim. That’s it.
20mm is the end-all caliber, higher caliber weapons generally don’t bring anything to the table, that 2 20mm can’t do, other than (sometimes!) a bit more range. But f.e. MK108 is absolutely useless while it used to have its use, even if it mostly made no sense due to MG151/20 overperforming even pre-real sh*tter.
enemy plane falling apart is not a “wow, I hit him REALLY GOOD” moment, or “wow, my plane has so much firepower”, it’s “well, I hit him”, which greatly dimnishes satisfaction from getting a kill this way.
the damage “has to be” boosted because aerodynamic damage is mostly wrong, and instead of actually fixing that, we have this horrible bandaid that people support, which means it’s not going away (thanks guys, really, no better way to show Gaijin that they don’t have to do anything, than defending a POS solution to a problem they should have solved long time ago, this way the POS solution becomes permanent with no chance of improvement).
consistent gunnery and mediocre gunnery bring same results, if I fire for 0,7s and hit 10 shells using Yak-3U cannons, or if enemy flies through my shells while I just piint at 1 spot, because it doesn’t really matter most of the time if 2 or 10 hit, unless it’s from dead 6 that is
Weapon differ greatly ballistically, while there’s 0 diversity or realism regarding ammunition itself. I Which of course makes the gaming experience simply boring and flat and un-immersive. Want to have hard hitting guns? Oh well, everyone has super hard hitting guns, so GL with that, your German/Italian guns simply suck because they were designed with damage in mind, sorry. There’s no consistency to the rules. Why are ballistics, ROF and belts somehow a viable way of making weapons different, but damage isn’t? Imagine an FPS where every gun deals the same amount of damage. Now that would be pretty funny. Even in fairly realistic shooters like Rising Storm 2 there’s a difference between AR-15, AK and M-14, because it’s just fun to have some guns hit harder.
plane toughness does not really exist, everything is wet paper. This kills immersion and when your entire wing departs from a single hit, from a random spray - it’s EXTREMELY annoying. To be honest, I don’t even feel the satisfaction of kill when I land said spray. I feel like RNG scored the kill, not my skill, but I’m just going back to point 2 a bit.
For ground:
the SPAA balance being completely broken, with quad 14.5mm MGs being able to 1-click a Do-335 size plane out of existence. As a result users of higher caliber SPAAs that suffer from shells randomly not dealing damage are at a disadvantage, because their MAIN advantage - huge shell with tons of damage, is actually dealing same damage as way smaller caliber and faster firing weapon, while suffering from reliability issues that faster fire weapon can circumvent without much problem simply due to relative ease of scoring more than 1 hit, hence milktruck > Ostwind when trying to shoot down a plane.
For half a year I’m trying to get this fixed but the suggestion always get shut down.
I reported it as a bug, then I was told it should be suggestion. Then it was shut down like 3 times and the last time it took them 2 months without any change before it was denied again.
I even had a suggestion to tone down structual damage based on a German WW2 document about why the 20mm Incendiary shell was developed.
Unsuprising: 20mm Mineshells aren’t causing sufficent structucal damage to wings to bring down four engined bombers, while existing 20mm HEFI-T aren’t satisfactory for setting the fuel tanks on fire with attacks from behind.
While 12.7mm explosive bullets are causing as much damage as 20mm Mineshells in the game.
So your Ki-61 with four of them is equipped like a real life Fw 190 A-8 that had four MG 151/20.
The best part is, it’s just a horrible state of affairs, yet people are defending it, because they somehow think that “nothing else can be done”. And thanks to them, nothing will be done, because we’re not just in a horrible spot, we’re making ourselves at home in this horrible spot.
Is it possible that the exaggerated damage also affects helicopters? Lately I’ve been using the French H-34, and any SPAA kills me with one HE shot; a single 20mm or 23mm bullet usually breaks its tail.
It was you guys who claimed shell type does not matter, but then you also claimed every 20mm has the same damage (you did it just now)… as long as you don’t count the cannons that do have less damage, that you also just admitted?
Get your story straight.
Six cannons is a frankly outrageous and unnecessary amount of firepower. This is just to say that a cannon nerf would affect me the least, and maybe even benefit me. Regardless, I do not want it.
Very recently when playing the Shiden-Kai, I was caught in a 1v3 up high since my team decided to go farm tomatoes or whatever the hell, took serious damage from an F4U-4B in a headon (one wing root, center fuselage blacked out, engine almost dead, definitely more than one hit). Dived out to escape and would have made it with plenty of altitude to spare if a 109 K4 hadn’t come out of nowhere to shoot me on the airfield (and crashing in the process).
You say a single shot from 20mm can take off a wing. The 15mm can’t do that, so how does it outclass them?
It has less filler than the Ho-103’s HEF shells and deals way more damage. But also it’s perfectly fine as is. It’s a good gun.
So… the legacy damage system, which is what the MG151/15 pretty much has? But which you also said you don’t want? But which would cause a disproportionately high amount of pilot kills, which would itself be kinda unrealistic?
Hell no. The guns already work more than fine and the LAST thing they need is a reason to move them up again.
For this reason alone, cannons shouldn’t ever be nerfed.
But what would this ACTUALLY change? Like great, you hit his wings and the lift imbalance caused him to lose control, despite no wings falling off. What is the DIFFERENCE between this and his wing simply being gone, also causing him to spin out of control, and also causing his death?
They do not suck at all. German guns might be the most consistent performers across this entire game’s history. They were good from day one and rarely, if EVER truly sucked like the ShVAK did.
Posted a bug report that .50 API and AP are not penetrating Spars like they should. I went through a replay and I’m noticing that spars are basically just giant shields to fuel tanks.
Secondly fuel tanks even when taking extreme damage, are just not setting alight, even when these are supposed to be heavily damaged fuel tanks
the Ho-103 at 3.7 is also nuts when you have the best 3.7 aircraft get close to cannon damage performance while having machine gun ammo pools. I’ve already demonstrated time and time again that the Ho-103 is a ridiculously powerful gun. Going so far as to use only the outboard wing guns, purposely jamming one, and then snapping other aircrafts’ wings with just one gun and in around 2-3 shots.
Meanwhile when you go with just two guns of U.S. .50s, even when raking the opponent with rounds it still didn’t even light a single fire.
Honestly. you can see this effect to it’s most extreme when people pull out the T-18B and use it as a fighter because that single machine gun behaves almost exactly like a cannon but with all the qualities of a .50—I think it actually has even better ballistics at farther ranges.
Ok so why did they add more cannons? Are Japanese engineers stupid? 2-3 are overkill practically
Why did german engineers make Mine rounds? because Stupid too? Just load up the stupid FI-T round that saw action in the spanish civil war
Soviets replaced 20mm w 23mil? Are they also idiotic? 23mil loses an ammo and firerate, I don’t want more filler! I just needed a fatter propellant section to fling my 6g of TNT 1km further.
Why were 30mils created? Are engineers super-tards? A 20mm can already amputate an enormous tail/wing section in 1 swipe
Only 8g of TNT can split an aircraft in 2 after all, why bother?
Why even invent AP for the cannons? Why add armour? Why make full metal aircraft?
AP won’t work because armour won’t work, why? Because I only need 2 pinkies of TNT equivalent to amputate over 30% of an aircraft’s volume. No need to get into “vital bits” protected by armour, I’ll just remove this part from the enemy!
Why use metal?, metal heavy and still can be split in half by the aforementioned pinky of doom, just use balsa wood and make super prop performance with lawn mower engines.
And what really the chance you survived the F4U’s headon? Really think about, or you know.
Because I want to remember that basically al pictures you posted, all these cases you talk me about, are the air equivalent of volumetric for tanks.
And you so forget to say that said 15mm has a thinner case than the 20mm. So why does the 20mm deal structural damage instead of fragmentation?
Blame gaijin, you can’t try to defend an obvious flaw in simulations because of a petty you have with current BRs.
I think he means to cripple the ability to manouver even harder.
Keyword, DID.
Where is ShVAK now? maybe top 3 perhaps?
You won’t mind if the next reworks makes all ballistics the same and all belts the same don’t you?
Because the chances and reliability are from “90% chance to instakill” with 6g of TNT to “99% chance to instakill” with +25g TNT.
But noooooo, we can’t have even proper separate simulations for different case thickness
Because spar in reality are not the “Blocks” you see in WT, hell even some WT aircraft do see a little more of a realistic rendition.
They usually see an “upper” and “lower” spar and you see a large gap where stuff can fly in and out without ever touching
When you see aircraft recieve “updated and detailed models”, the spars usually evolve from blocky to the double spar.
Example
old XF5U with “blocky” spars (they practically make the engines and propeller shafts untouchable from behind)
New “XF5U”, notice the enormous gaps that now let bullets hit vital stuff.
It would take several hits compared to 1-2 currently AND also structural and aerodynamic damage would be 2 different things. Right now shell just deals “damage”.
And yeah, all 20mm don’t do same damage. Shvak does the most, Hoe-5 does the least, does it change anything for this topic?
Nope.
Does it make sense?
Nope.
Edit: the shell type is more important than explosive content, shell mass or velocity. This is the only explanation to Shvak making Do-335 wing black more reliably than Mg151/20 and Hoe-5 being consistently behind on damage.
Within 1 shell type explosive content plays SOME role. But the differences are way too small either way.
Another quick video showcasing the “fine” damage model some seem to be desperate to defend. Once again this is in Sim mode with no mouse-aim assistance. In most of the footage I’m literally firing individual rounds and you too can bare witness to how 2x historically weak Shvak rounds can rip wings clean off.
Not a burst, not even rounds hitting an aircraft pulling G. Literally two rounds and even what should be a relatively strong aircraft like a 190A has its wing ripped clean off.
The final clip is with an A-36 attacking a 109 in a very quick snapshot far from convergence. The entire aircraft is dissected and bursts into flames.
Please tell me how this isn’t completely and utterly broken, why should I even bother with up-armed aircraft usually with worse performance when two piddly Shvak’s can literally one-tap fighters and as proven in one of my previous videos bombers as well?
So far as I’ve proven with actual in game footage:
.303’s will insta-snap tails off.
.50 cal Breda’s can shear bomber wings clean off along with fighters in microscopic bursts.
Shvak’s will destroy anything in literally two rounds.
Hispano’s can rip wings off in literally two rounds.
The MG-151 can make fighters explode in microscopic bursts and can rip a B-17’s tail off in just 7 rounds.
Despite our more “in depth!” damage model World of Warplanes, despite the health bar… is literally more realistic than War Thunder right now. At least you have to some rounds on target to actually kill another aircraft instead of literal one-tap delete.
It’s not “just a machine gun”, the casing was largely unchanged when it was necked up to 20mm. And it’s certainly not as strong as a 20mm.
Since when did late .50s have “close to cannon performance”?
IRL pilots have hit rates in the single digit %s. Such armaments are intended to achieve instant kills at much more permissive ranges than earlier aircraft, and maximize trigger time.
Consider that a japanese pilot going into the air this late in the war would be outnumbered 10:1. So of course you want to ensure any hit is devastating.
In some cases, yes! Removing bubble canopies (or never adding them at all) was a terrible idea.
But back to the cannons, from the 30mm A6M3 suggestion:
Giving your pilots the ability to bring down aircraft in a single hit is highly valuable, especially when the enemy is so numerous and flying large aircraft.
This is less noticeable in RB mostly because we are insanely accurate.
The answer to this is not because the thin aluminum used would eat HE shells.
I don’t take such risks very often, so I can’t tell you. But I either die or I don’t, so it’s 50% )))
Again, what does this actually change for the game if your enemy’s pilot dies to fragmentation, or if they die because they lost a wing? Either way they’re shot down, that’s the intended outcome.
…Which would involve redoing every FM in a game with how many aircraft? All because a small minority doesn’t like how aircraft are destroyed?
I do mind, but the likelihood is that they will break cannons again this year instead. And just like ShVAKs used to suck and are now amazing, it’s guaranteed that they will rework cannon damage again and they might go back to sucking for a while.
Which literally nobody except like five people want to see. Nobody wants to sit there dumping a dozen shells into an enemy for no kill. You can go back and re-read all the RealShatter release-era posts and comments for what that was like.
See above part about reworking every FM in a game with… 1298 aircraft, according to the wiki.
It’s almost as if players have NEVER in this game’s history enjoyed bad gun damage. Unless it was on the enemy team, and for a nation you didn’t play.
Why do you think 109 G2 was so popular? The three cannons that would nearly one-hit anything you saw certainly helped, with the inaccurate gunpods compensating for bad aim especially in head-ons.
People may not “enjoy” bad gun damage but plenty accept that it’s how they were and learned to adapt, because it’s a trait/characteristic of certain aircraft. As I said before, when Russian cannons were weaker people still screamed the Yak’s were OP. A historically weak gun can still kill aircraft.
I flew for Russia and Italy plenty of times when they behaved more realistically, I still shot people down… it just took a longer burst. It takes no time at all to adapt and it felt considerably more rewarding.
Because it was/is a great aircraft. To counter this the general advice from most was to not actually fit the gunpods as you lost performance. Advice I’d still give today.
I also complained back in the day when the MG-151’s were overperforming, I don’t know if you can access the old forum any more but if you search my name you’ll see my posts criticising them. The problem is that instead of reigning in the Mine shell they stupidly buffed everything else.
I don’t know if you watched my video or not but do you genuinely not see what we’re talking about here, you genuinely have zero issue with being shot down in just two rounds?
