“learned to adapt” by simply not playing those trees. Avoiding britain air was common advice for a very long time because Hisparkos did not work.
A heavier F-4 that climbs worse, turns worse, isn’t any faster, and overheats even more.
…Which would make it a straight downgrade to the F-4. No, it was the gunpods.
If I did, I made a mistake and was punished for it. And for 99% of players, if they were hit by two shells, there’s ten more on the way.
he doesn’t, because apparently the confrontation must end as swiftly as possible so it may move on onto the next kill.
click and kill atp
I get it, funny reddit snark.
You should know I’m referring to machine guns with HE filler in general stop dancing around it.
If I’m having higher firerates, 1-4 of the same gun—bonus when supplemented by the actual cannons—it’s damage is not far off. D-9’s armament is legitimately better than the D-12’s armament in my book as you’re having near .50 cal ballistics, and you’re getting high explosive ammunition in that 13mm belt
Same thing with the Bf-109 k4 1 cannon, 2 Machine guns that are basically cannonettes that still crap high amounts of damage.
Again, you can say whatever you want. but when just 1 jap .50 is doing stuff like this. That’s not normal damage modeling.
Outside Yak-3 and Yak-3U, most planes react to damage in quite similar way so no real “FM reworking” is required.
This is a false statement made only to support a conviction that current piece of shit state of the game is somehow inevitable AND desirable. It’s not.
Increasing the aerodynamic impact most likely does NOT require doing some kind of extremely intensive work, as it most likely works as X damage = Y change of behaviour of FM.
The idea would be to increase said reaction.
Of course we would have to set the structural HP to more reasonable values (tail too weak etc.), and that would actually take some work.
I guess a smart 25 yo dude would have to work for a few months to fix it, as basically fixing Bf 109 G6 would fix entire 109 G to K family, fixing 1 Merlin Spitfire would fix them all etc. etc.
I understand few months worth of salary of such guy would be way out of Gaijin’s financial capabilities, so yeah, I guess you’re right :(
That’s literally an absolute lie.
Average WT user is completely clueless and accepts the game as it is. He doesn’t understand f.e. that HE shells in Ground RB are absolutely broken. Can you see any topic discussing how stupid it is that explosion starts from a spot at the tip of the shell?
Oh wait, I started it.
Or that the “red square” in Air RB has been broken since its introduction in like 2016?
Oh wait, I was the guy who made such topic and nobody bothered.
Or the whole “MG151/20 doesn’t fuse on plywood”?
Who noticed, who discussed it, reported etc.
SAME “5 FORUM GUYS”.
So maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t attribute any kind of EDUCATED OPINIONS to random WT players. They are clueless and also they don’t understand:
WRONG.
Thin aluminium with metal supports is WAY more resistant to HE shells in particular compared to other materials.
This is one of the biggest things. You have players come into the game, expecting the game to be realistic, and take the cartoonish DMs as word of gospel that planes back then were literally all flying wet cardboard paper tubes when that simply wasn’t the case.
I’ve had a 20mm graze my wing tip, and it made it where my P-47 was completely unflyable. I couldn’t roll and my drag increase was so large, that Spitfires, Bf-109s and Yaks actually surpassed my top-speed flatline speed. Meanwhile, unless I get my convergence DIRECTLY into the enemy or he flies through one of my wing guns and in the right location, my rounds will sail through and he can still fight back as his wings are merely yellow or light orange
Forgot to add. We literally can disprove that notion by the literal P-47 picture I posted just a few posts before. The flap was a mangled mess and the flap linkage was snapped clean in two and yet the spars were untouched.
Mineshells were literally created because Germans realized that monocoque dural airplanes could eat regular explosive shells for breakfast.
Single 12.7mm MDZ-3 (1.9g PETN, 1.2g flash powder) vs. Yak-9 wooden wing:
Meanwhile: Many 20mm ShVAK vs. Bf 109 dural wing:
12.7mm explosive bullet rips wooden wings appart it’s not even funny, compared to how a 20mm does to a dural wing.
That’s why FN could market their 13.2mm explosive bullet as needing just one to bring down a fighter. At a time when full metal military airplanes were only just starting to appear.
This is a funny one.
So are you telling me, nobody ever enjoyed Quake 3 Arena or Unreal Tournament, where some weapons take dozens of hits to kill?
Is Arma the only game anyone enjoys playing and using guns in?
Has nobody ever enjoyed using SMGs in Counter Strike?
Was WoT a gigantic failure nobody wanted to play?
(I had more fun at the peak of WoT than I ever had in WT ground, because WT ground is just frustration brought to 11).
The GOOD weapon design is definitely not “everything 1-shots”.
Good weapon design is based off consistency, feedback and relative performance.
When 1 gun f.e. kills in 8 shells average and 1 gun kills in 4, the latter will be clearly perceived as powerfull. Now add proper sound and visual design where there are small explosions, pieces of a plane fall off and aerodynamic damage actually does something.
Only if some other gun of the same class starts outperforming the rest, people start to see problems.
Gaijin created those problems themselves, breaking various guns to the point of uselessness several times in game’s history.
But there’s no inherent NEED for weapons to be 1-shotting.
If proper sound and visuals are present, and weapons are consistent, then they are satisfying to use.
If you know you have to hit a few times, you’re less annoyed when you score a “hit”, because you’re not expecting a plane to go down just from that.
I really like killing people with MGs, I enjoy C.202 and S.205 Serie 1. I don’t expect the guns to 1-shot people. I am not frustrated when single bullets do nothing, because that’s just how it is. When I land a solid burst, enemy dies. I feel a sense of some accomplishment, because I had to actually, you know, aim.
If you think a Ki-61 is better than the P-51C for 3.7 you’re out of your mind lol.
D-12 armament is pretty much specialized for anti-bomber work. There is no upside to putting in the MK108 otherwise. The 13mms will hit the same target as the MG151/20s, so they will increase your damage. The MK108’s shells will be flying well behind the enemy.
And I’ve had times where four of them fail to do just that. You got lucky.
In your thread about .50cals (and even in this thread), you also made MANY claims that american .50s are somehow doing little damage and was disproven by me and several others.
I landed like this the other day. Minor damage right? I’ll just walk it off?
Even this was perfectly stable, only making the plane slower.
So again, if you want them to redo 1300 FMs you’re gonna be waiting forever.
How is “every gun that isn’t german should do poor damage” educated? This thread was created because an airfield camper was shot down, and he didn’t like that very much.
In fact, this is one of the things I claimed would happen, many messages ago. Players would go “I am damaged time to land” and camp the airfield for the rest of the game, because there would be no fast way to kill them.
Tarkov is a good example. It may take dozens of hits to kill you… but a random guy with a cheap shotgun only has to get lucky once since the head is very fragile. Anything explosive is extremely deadly, by the way.
Of course, FPS and even TPS games have no relation or relevance to war thunder air battles.
Funny you say that, because their player count has never been smaller while WT’s keeps increasing. So yes, there’s a LOT of people that don’t want to play it.
Consistency has always been a suggestion. Feedback is great when the enemy’s wing falls off. Relative performance already exists, you just don’t like it because top spots don’t have germany on them.
Are you gonna personally add all this to the game? Test all of it hundreds of times? Fix any bugs that show up?
There is no amount of sounds or bling you can add that won’t have players going back to older videos and thinking “wow I wish my guns worked like that…”, which will inevitably be a widely-held opinion. Worse, players WILL remember and they WILL propagate the fact that guns were nerfed and the sounds spiced up to try to fool them. It’s incredibly disrespectful to treat your players like they’re that stupid (even if they do deserve it sometimes).
Good for you. The rest of us will be enjoying our very functional cannons.
I was referring to the Ki-44-II.
It climbs out the wazzoo. can almost sustain 500+kph flat speeds, 4 Ho-103 machine guns that hit extremely hard, good high alt performance. It basically does what the Bf-109 F-4 does but just straight better in every regard and it’s at a lower BR. I’ve had a friend bring me up into 5.0 in that thing and you can still succeed in it. It’s a heavily undertiered aircraft.
Because your evidence to the contrary for the Ho-103s was literally blasting areas that weren’t programmed to snap off, or raking someone’s engine nacelles and being surprised only the engine was damaged.
Mean while here’s me snapping a Ki-61 in half using just the outboard guns. If you look closely before I do. A single round from a “”““HE””“” bullet. Blows off both of his elevators.
the only point you proved was that “if you have a large number of any round whatsoever smack into the enemy is going to mess them up.” You didn’t prove a point when you just sit there on a dude who’s slow (Because most footage was from Ground RB sneaking up on an unaware guy) and just grinding him up. Not high aspect deflection shots from fast opponents who are actively trying to fight you.
Because the only functional round is API. The .50s becomes some of the most inconsistent guns in the entire game. Which makes it worse when you have some of the least meta prop aircraft in the entire game in that tree that use that gun. Let’s not forget the listed issue with AP rounds not penetrating spars, so you have it where important components can be shielded with internal structural elements, mixed with the inconsistent fuel tank flame chances. where it can take up to ten shots to light an aircraft fuel tank up.
Yes, gaijin. I really enjoy being one tapped by some shmuck because his guns have “High explosives” even though there’s less filler than a packet of sugar I put in a McDonald’s coffee.
Meanwhile, my API rounds are just constant dice rolls where I either kill him, or do absolutely miniscule damage to his airframe that he’s still functional to fight me. Meanwhile I get damaged slightly and I produce so much drag that A6Ms are literally able to catch me.
Ki-61 can clear a furball in 60s.
It is not the “smart players I-win machine”, but it’s still extremely good.
It is better if you want to just drop right in where the action is, and shoot everything to pieces
Dude, I’m not talking about “now”. I’m talking about the game’s peak.
1-shotting is not a sign of good gun design.it’s exact opposite. It’s “we can’t make good weapons so we dial the power to 11 so idiots are happy”, thus ruining the balance, immersion and making damage modelling absolutely useless.
Gaijin won’t fix aerodynamic damage, because they don’t have to, as people like you actually support the current horrible state of the game.
Because why make it good, when you apparently just want paper planes and per-pew magic lazors?
There’s A TON of games where you need multiple shot to kill. COD, Fortnite, PUBG.
But hey, they all suck because guns don’t one shot. And this is even funnier, because they actually should, for the sake of realism and immersion.
But they don’t, because “everything one shots” is just crap game weapon design.
This is straight-up idiotic take.
Lets see, imagine in Counter Strike in 1 specific round your MP-5 magically starts dealing AWM damage.
Ok?
Now, it lasts for several rounds.
Why would that peeson want their MP-5 to not 1-shot everything?
Yet, it would be extremely detrimental for the fun and balance of the game.
People want their favorite planes to be OP. That’s nothing new, really. They feel like they “own” the planes and they get emotionally attached. Current BS gun mechanics mean nothing can be buffed or tweaked, as every HE shell is absolutely overpowered anyway.
So people are happy with the damage they deal.
Of course every heavy fighter, bomber, attacker is absolutely shafted. Every plane with tons of guns is shafted to some extent too. But who cares, right?
Currently SIZE is absolutely crucial, as P-47 and Yak-3U can take basically same amount of punishment, that is 0 HE shells to the wing or tail (unless from dead 6 for the reasons explained before).
There are no downsides to plane being small and not exactly tough, as everything is paper. But hey, since that would require some effort, lets never fix this, right?
But you don’t care. Your ENTIRE reasoning is: I want paper planes and pew-pew guns. There are no real arguments behind it.
Like with the WoT argument: instead of explaining, how WoT would be so much better if everything died after 1 penetrating shot, you derail by pointing the game eventualy lost popularity which had NOTHING to do with how many shots it takes to kill. That’s dishonest and malicious.
LMAO. Buff everything to the level of BI, because otherwise it’s dysfunctional I guess.
How about you explain, why shouldn’t all planes have UFO flight models, if nuke launchers is absolutely fine?
Also, you continue trying to force this idiotic narrative that it’s either nuke launchers and paper planes or “dysfunctional guns”. I know you’re doing this maliciously, to show your approach as reasonable, while in reality, you’re supporting an absolute extreme, as Shvak basically can’t be buffed much beyond what it already is. Yak-3U mostly 1-clicks enemies, the only thing that could be donr is to make it always 1-click fighters AND bombers alike.
I bet almost nobody but bomber players would notice.
Oh and 1 more thing.
Current guns are actually way more annoying.
If it takes f.e. 8 Shvak hits to the wing to down a plane, you hit once, nothing happens - even if it’s due to same bug that makes 30 and 37mm do negligible damage - you are fine with it. Hit more, and it’ll work. So non-bugged takes 8, bugged takes 9. Small difference.
But now we buff all the guns to 11.
I fire Shvak at some angle, hit Bf 109 in the rear fuselage just before the stabiliser starts, tail falls off.
But if I hit stabiliser, part of it goes black, nothing happens really.
If I hit the middle of a wing, it snaps.
I hit the flap, flap goes black, I can hit same spot 6 times more and the non-existent flap will just tank it.
See the problem?
Yeah, that’s a gigantic inconsistency.
You hit the enemy and have no idea what to expect.
Guy dies?
Guys is 100% fine?
And fun thing usually there’s not much in-between.
And one has to plan for 1 and done kind of passes to maximize effectiveness. One has to go for extreme short firing opportunities, because one shell is oftentimes enough.
Setting up a kill is pointless, because set-up allows to hit the enemy multiple times, and you don’t need that. So I’m just rolling the dice!
It’s even funnier with Hispanos or MG151/20 because now there’s also the “what shell did I actually land” lottery. If HE part of the belt, dude dies, it AP/SAPI/IT, probably nothing has happened.
At some point I enjoyed Bf 109G6 with MK108, because while MG151/20 was sufficient in the past, the guaranteed (due to pre-real shatter excellent damage pattern of 30mm) effect on enemy aircraft (it was dead or at least crippled almost every time, unless windshield was hit, which I think I mentioned as being a suboptimal way of handling it in the past as IRL pilot survival after 90g of TNT exploding after hitting the windshield would be far from guaranteed) was something I valued.
Nowadays, I get hit and I die. Or I get hit and I casually proceed to dismantle the other guy because the nuke launchers are not consistent.
To sum it up - if 1-shot kill almost never happens
Edit: poor choice of words, should be “rarely happens”
and you know you have to hit multiple times, you don’t feel cheated when your single shot fails.
But when guns are like in WT today - not only I don’t feel an accomplishment when 1 shell connects and kills, I also can’t even predict what happens if I land something, because the effects are so random. I also have to play it super safe, because 1 random shell can ruin my plane.
Or a few random bullets.
The fun part is, people are very aggressively pushing head-ons, because if you don’t dodge every single shell out of a spray, you die.
Funnily enough, oftentimes a few .50 cal bullets will.also remove your aerodynamic ability to actually dogfight, which is hilarious in its own way. I love getting hit in a wingtip when flying Ta-152H by 2 .50 cal bullets and being forced to RTB because the plane keeps rolling to that side and can no longer turn. But hey, why bother fixing aerodynamic damage like ever, if most of in-game weapons make it irrelevant, as your plane disassembles before the aerodynamic damage is a real problem.
BTW, that’s not fooling.
Ripping a wing off with 4 shells (lets say someone get lucky with MG151/20) is a HUGE thing.
Just like a gun that can kill in 4 quick shots in CoD is considered VERY hard hitting. These are autocannons we have, they are low caliber, they are supposed to hit multiple times to destroy the target.
Ripping a wing off should feel like an accomplishment. Currently almost every plane I shoot dies from few issues at once, as losing both wings and tail snd pilot and engine after getting struck with 8 shells is nothing unusual.
But players perceive it as normal, because Gaijin FOOLED THEM into thinking WW2 planes are made of hardened chinesium and brake apart if.you look at them wrong.
It’s exactly like people started to expect armor to do nothing in movies involving ancient to reneissance era melee combat, because in such movies trained soldiers get 1-shot and easily dismantled by main hero, who goes around without helmet.
And it’s not because armored melee combat is not spectacular or brutal. It’s because movie makers convinced the audience it works that way and audience became fine with it and it’s just easier to ignore the existence of armor and go with standard choreography, than to actually pay a few dollars for some expert advice.
Outclimbed by P-38s and Spitfires
lol, it’s hot trash up high
109 F4 has infinitely better nose authority. You can even see it in your own video.
You mean the middle of his wing isn’t programmed to snap off?
Even when he’s doing a cobra in front of me?
But a single round just does it, according to you?
Except when I or someone else that’s not you uses them.
Like, we’ve gone all over this in your thread. .50s somehow don’t pen or do damage when you use them, but when I or Runa or someone else does, they pierce through the entire enemy plane and come out the other end, damaging everything on the way.
No way, the slow maneuverable plane is good in situations where it can take advantage of its agility and its low top speed is irrelevant!?
It’s not horrible by any means. Aside from a few things, it has never been better. AI ticket bleed has been hugely reduced, XP-50 lost its airspawn, XP-55 was nerfed, Yak-3 moved up, all nations are now playable instead of half of them expending all their ammo just for some pretty fireworks…
Aim for the head.
How is this relevant to WT?
I care far more about gameplay than “I should be able to stand in front of an enemy actively gunning me down because MY cannons have more explosives in them”.
Being rewarded for hitting your enemy is better for gameplay.
Your argument implies that not oneshotting everything would not make the game unpopular. But as it stands, you both can’t oneshot tanks at all (outside of some very specific matchups), AND the game has never been less popular than now. There’s no correlation here.
This has been the state of the game for years, yes. One patch M3s were fantastic, and the next they were hot garbage.
If I had a dollar for every time you guys described the legacy damage system down to the details, but then claimed you don’t want the legacy damage system…
Like they did back in the old days, but with the knowledge that the other guy’s guns straight up could not do enough damage to kill them? At least now you can take damage in return.
How is a crappy FPS relevant to WT?
Do you need me to repost the planes that fell apart from .50cal fire in gun camera footage or can you just scroll up?
This argument is very similar to the argument that sim players were making about reducing multipathing from 100m to 60m; that even if the change was unpopular or that if it ruined certain aircraft that the player-base would just “adapt” by learning to BVR and notch.
The actual adaptation is not that noobs learned how to fight BVR or that a bunch of new players were attracted to the game mode that was all of a sudden more realistic.
The people that wanted a more realistic game got exactly what they wanted, and multipath was lowered to 60m. Once that was done and a few players learned to notch better than they knew how to, and learned how to force fights on their own terms, the “realism” players then moved the goal posts that notching in game is not realistic enough. There was a period where chaff literally did not work and these players were hailing it as the next great advance in realism for the game.
Guess what happened to these players? They stopped playing the game as soon as “realism” didn’t pan out into them winning as often as they thought that they should.
The other adaptation?
The vast majority of players and games still happen on maps where multipathing is the name of the game and where flying at 30m is the move that most PvP players take. The difference is that these players exist in enough numbers to actually support the game existing.
The other difference is that these players don’t immediately nose dive to the nearest AA source like the “realism” crowd will and doesn’t quit the game as soon as a decent player manages to shoot them down.
Literally the 3rd post in this thread is the OP complaining about wing damage…not even wing detachment.
It is no coincidence that this post came out basically a few days after I had shot him down in a sim game with the J2M2. I haven’t seen him play the P-47 D-25 since then either…and that was 2 years ago.
The realistic ideal is to never be able to take enough damage in your boom in zoom plane to not be able to make it back to the airfield. That is what these people basically want.
Nope. Also you can always aim for the pilot and engine.
It’s an example of how people will not let go off their unfair advantage. It was pretty simple, so why are you acting not-smart?
Stop acting like your IQ is in mid double digits, please.
Well, what kind of gameplay improvements does ABSOLUTE LACK OF GUN BALANCE AND DIVERSITY of damage per shot bring to the table instead of working gun balance like in ALMOST EVERY OTHER SHOOTER GAME EVER RELEASED?
Who ever said hitting your enemy should not be rewarded?
And right now aiming better is not rewarded, if you fire 10 shells and hit 8 or 2 - same effect.
Using heavier guns is not rewarded.
Using bigger plane that is easier to hit is DOUBLE PUNISHED because it brings ABSOLUTE 0 advantage in resistance to gunfire, while the heavier armanent of bigger plane is NOT REWARDED.
Properly setting up your kills is not rewarded as you are wasting time while all you should be going for are 0,1s firing opportunities.
Yup, sounds like 1-shot nuke launchers create more issues than they solve (they solve no issue, that wouldn’t be solved by even mediocre gun balance).
Well, it did not. The game changed in 1000 ways since the days of its glory. It’s barely same WoT I excelled at back in 2012.
But my ENTIRE argument was: weapons in WoT were NOT one-shotting and despite that, the game reached extreme popularit and was great fun. Actually the game started going downhill when Wargaming started to introduce bigger and bigger guns and removing convenient weakspots from the tanks for the sake of “realism”. This resulted in demolition of the standard “tank dueling” model and destroyed heavy armor meta.
It has been the state of some guns at different time periods that caused huge imbalance.
Thing is, it was never difficult to fix, Gaijin just refused to do this.
So now, when the balance is super-broken because all planes almost regardless of size have same “HP” (shown by Do-335 mid-wing going black from 1 Shvak), when every type of ammo but HE is beyond useless, now we somehow should keep it.
And yes, we will keep it because people like you think that “if it’s acceptable to me, no need for it to be actually good”. Which is a horrible attitude and is the reason why there are so many restaurants serving shitty food - because the owner also think “well, it’s good enough by my standards, it’s super-mid, but why bother with making it actually good”. I know a lot of people who treat food and drink like that, so I’m not surprised exact same attitude results in exact same results in gaming.
I described what happens now, what happened before to the lesser extent because YOU WERE NOT EXPECTING TO 1 SHOT PEOPLE, and what SHOULD NOT BE.
New system should be different from everything we had before, as no weapon damage system in WT air battles so far was any good. Quite honestly, they were uninspiring, low effort pieces of shit, but with community being composed of people like you, low effort piece of shit is “good enough” as long as “gun go pew, plane go boom”.
In the past less maneuvrable plane with more guns pushed head-on, while more maneuvrable plane with less guns dodged. It made sense. Planes actually had advantages and disadvantages in gun department, even if these advantages were in some cases TOO EXTREME.
Typical example - Fw 190 A5 going for Yak-3 or Spitfire Mk IX or A6M5.
Nowadays Yak and A6M5 reliably win vs A5 as they are way smaller and have better guns, and so does Spit Mk IX, unless it gets unlucky with SAPI/AP OR convergence shafts him.
Even if 190
A5 gets hit even once, it loses a wing, and if it somehow doesn’t - it’ll be an easy catch even for A6M5 most likely.
And how many times were they hit, what was hit and how often did that happen?
But hey, sure as hell there’s no “survivorship bias” among gun camera footage and you just watched 50 consecutive kills from western theatre chosen randomly and planes breaking apart from 10 bullet impacts was somehow a norm, right?
RIGHT?
Meanwhile, nobody bothers to upload the most boring shit where nothing interesting happens. I mean, we have some boring Luftwaffe gun camera, but that’s just because THAT’S ALL WE GOT, because everything else burned in Dresden.
Happened at least 3 times in 1944 to the extent that they all showed up on the same propaganda reel. It should also be noted that the AAC did not adopt 20mm cannons during the war and that their effort for a next-generation aircraft gun at the time was centered around a .60 caliber hyper-velocity gun. They didn’t even bother copying the MG.151 to any extent.
AAC actually killed a lot of attempts to arm planes with 20mm cannons during the war as well citing the fact that they didn’t really have the need at the time for a dedicated interceptor / bomber-destroyer.
The Russian’s also ended up standardizing around lighter armament throughout the war; they removed firepower from a lot of their lend lease planes.
P-38 literally can’t do anything against a Ki-44 besides run. Lol.
The ki-44 carries the same amount of horsepower at 4780m as the P-51C whilst being multiple tons lighter. That only switches drastically once the Ki-44 starts hitting 5000m. But at that point. The match is already over and that P-51C wasted all that time climbing that high. So sure… 5000m and above the P-51C outmatches that… But who cares? You’re not going to spend all that time climbing that high because the Ki-44 is already higher than you by almost 1000m before you reach that point.
Ki-44 figures
P-51C figures
Which video lol.
The Bf-109 F-4’s instantaneous AoA is better by like… Half a degree. better minimum turn radius by like. 4 Meters. That’s not much. Meanwhile the Ki-44 outrates the Bf-109 by a significant margin.
What’s with you and single rounds?
That was literally from last year.
bonus Ki-44 clip
Literally snap both wings off a P-63
Because all you look at is when you get the lucky fire or one shot kill because you got all your rounds to smack a hyper specific target.
But as I’ve shown time and time and time and time again.
They
All these people should’ve caught alight.
That La-5 in the last image is a great example because that was from a great match in the Bearcat where me and another team member clutched the game from a 2 v 8(?) I need to find the replay. He was still a pain in the ass because he wasn’t really missing any flight performance from this. Even when I got good kills, I’m still noticing that I either have to make 2-4 passes on a guy to kill him. Or he just catches alight. There’s no inbetween. There’s no “heavily damaging” him where it makes the secondary pass much easier. Hell, there are times where I grind people into dust and they somehow keep flying. It’s not like cannons where a stray hit will either kill him, or completely cripple him to give me breathing room. Nor is it like the “HE” machine guns of Russia and Japan where just a few hits is extremely dangerous. Everyone I fought I had to make sure they died because I knew I wasn’t causing any significant damage to them until I saw their plane snap a wing, or burst into flames.
Hell, when trying to make my bug report for flame chances for .50 incendiary. Even Kiwi was exasperated by the fact that spars as thin as paper are considered as thick as 20mm of RHA for some reason and this made it difficult to re-enact the tests that were made on He-111 wings since the spars kept eating the rounds, and not only did they eat the rounds; sometimes, they would penetrate, but then ghost through other structures and fuel tanks.
Your main mode of killing your enemy is literally with AP and you’re dealing with buggy ass physics that don’t work so again. Everything is a coin toss.
oh no you don’t understand!
It’s only “good damage” if it can kill in 0.1 sec + travel time, if I need to sustain lead for more than 1 seconds it is “bad”.
So explosive 12.7mil = bad
You mean they removed rifle caliber MGs from Hurricanes and replaced them with 12.7mm and 20mm guns? lol
They removed the gun pods on the P-39 because it obviously would cost the plane performance, range and time in the air.
It already had a 37mm that could deliver lethal blows.
Yet they also mounted VYa-23s and NS-37 in LaGGs.
The issue was that those limited the amount of ammo and increased the weight from heavier guns and heavier ammo.
They produced 2500 Yak-9Ts but then on the Yak-9U they went back to the older lighter armament.
Only for the next generation of Yaks and the La-9 to carry much heavier armament, as soon as better, more weight efficient guns become available.
Three US .50cal with API are around as effective as a Hispano Mk II for targeting a fighter.
So your typical US fighter had around the hitting power of a typical mid to late war Spitfire, slightly less.
An engine mounted ShVAK is probably as effective a a single Hispano Mk II, with its higher RoF, but is limited by the low ammo count.
A MG 151/20 would be more lethal to a fighter, firing Mineshells, but also with worse ballistics.
Considering that 7.92mm MGs are mostly useless, a LaGG 3 or Yak with one 20mm ShVAK and one 12.7mm Berezin has around the same firepower as a Bf 109 F-4.
Both are small light fighters with relatively low firepower but in the same ballpark as US fighter with four .50cals.
A Spitfire Mk V offers superior firepower and a P-51 slightly less but with a lot more trigger time.
But .50cals are weight inefficient.
A P-51 D-5s guns and ammo weigh around 420kg.
A Spitfires Mk V or IX around 215kg.
A Bf 109 F-4 around 130kg and a Yak-9s around 130kg as well.
For the G-6 it changes to around 190kg and for the Yak-9U and Yak-3 to 170kg.
Meanwhile empty weight of the aircraft:
P-51 D-5 → 3.85t | Fuel: 0.74t
Spit Mk IX → 3.07t | Fuel: 0.29t
Bf 109 G-6 → 2.92t | Fuel: 0.3t
Yak-9U → 2.8t | Fuel: 0.38t
Heavier armament:
Tempest Mk V: 420kg weapons | Empty: 4.64t | Fuel: 0.43t
Fw 190 A-8: 440kg weapons | Empty: 3.75t | Fuel: 0.41t
So the armament of Soviet fighters is pretty much in line with their smaller size and weight.
Not to mention that you can simply make up a lack of armament by having more aircraft than the enemy. Similiar to how RoF wasn’t seen as an issue with tanks, since twice the tanks with half the RoF are still going to fire as many shots as the enemy.
When realShatter damage was fixed and before 20mm started to get turned into 30mm cannons again, I was still quite capable in killing other fighters using the Yak-3, without having to saw their wing off by hitting them once with all three guns.
gun damage good when its my guns gun damage bad when its the enemy guns i am very intelligent
