It’s clear that a projectile caused the wing ammunition to cook off. Neither the Bf 109 nor Fw 190 have wing fuel tanks.
3 Likes
Spoiler
he already knows this, he pulled the same stunt on me
Only case is a video with a 109, where the wing tip is destroyed and plane spins out out of frame.
2 Likes
All I’m asking for is that Incendiary gets buffed/fixed chances HE gets nerfed—including .50’s damage on wing spars of aircraft. That way, you’re having it lean more realistically where incendiary is the function of an OHKO of an aircraft, it’s still simplified in function. This also makes every machine gun armed aircraft stronger as it reduces the sheer random factor of striking a tank multiple times and just… Not doing anything to it, makes .30 cal equipped vehicles actually dangerous and 20mm incendiary actually has a reason to exist.
You deflected on this btw.
2 Likes
Sim players have been lobbying to remove mouse aim gunners from sim for years to no success.
One of the extremely fun consequences to a bomber damage model buff is going to be using the Qing-6 as a dogfighter and using mouse aim gunners to obliterate fighters. You can already do this but overperforming guns means if they do get hit a few times it might be a trade; if they lower it to structural damage then I would expect 5.3-6.0 to be basically unplayable.
This can be partially fixed by just… Nerfing structural damage caused by HE rounds.
1 Like
Under the ideal circumstances of “realism” there will be a very high differential between how much a bomber can sustain and how much a fighter can sustain. The Qing-6/Be-6 are already notoriously tanky and Soviet 23mm has always been very good against fighters.
No matter what way you split it…any kind of damage change towards more realism is going to create a problem with gun shipping / dogfighting bombers.
they aren’t really tanky, just 3-4 rounds to the tail or wing and Voilà.
The literal next reply was Kiwi basically stating to the effect that incendiary chance needs to be reduced.
Seems pretty self- explanatory.
You can also try searching their post history for what they were saying about fire chance for specific guns in the past as well; i.e getting very upset about high chance of Berezin setting fires in the past.
So the HE system has to be reworked to cause less damage. And the incendiary system has to be reworked to cause less fires.
That question was directed at you. Not Kiwi.
Kiwi doesn’t like the random dice roll. And I explained to him as above: making it more realistic won’t fix the random chances, and it’d make it worse because it’s one thing to suddenly burst into flames, it’s another when your whole tank just goes kaboom because there’s a huge amount of ullage in your gas tank and a small strike detonates you.
He’s wanting to make it where incendiaries are very strong at lighting people on fire up close, but weaken at farther ranges because ignition chances are directly correlated with velocity. The problem is that you still have the rest of the fire triangle to worry about and a fuel tank filled with vapors is still gonna go boom-boom, and even if a round doesn’t light your tank in a single shot, it’s going to pour fuel into your gas tank, and every penetration that ignites the ullage would damage the tank and surrounding structures. It’s basically the “Critical hit.”
of plane combat if you want to add a video game aspect to it.
1 Like
Do you think any of those planes that had the wings blown clear off were able to fly back to base?
Also is ammo cook-off / explosions modeled in the game?
No it’s not. This is an arcade game. Even the turbo supercharger on the P-47 is not modeled as part of the damage model and hasn’t been for 10+ years. This is on a plane who is basically a turbo charging system with a plane built around it
Wings falling off from getting hit is not something that is unrealistic in and of itself. It is a thing that happened. I’ve shown it happening 3 times in the same reel.
Meanwhile this is a flyable plane in WarThunder. And it happens fairly frequently.
This is the question you have asked. The very next reply is Kiwi arguing for reduced fire chance.
You can also go back and search Loofahs post history and you’ll see similar comments regarding Berezin in the past because he got set on fire with 1 hit. The guys whole entire post history is basically coping over whatever plane was able to shoot down his Ta-152H. This posting goes back years and years by the way.
Ok so model those then.
And I love people ignore that maybe AP will have an use in finishing off planes and maybe it would be time to load more of it.
Also once again.
chase the enemy, it can’t even manouver properly.
1 Like
And nearly any damage short of that and they can maneuver properly. As shown multiple times in the thread. And the start of the thread wanted to reduce even the effects of that damage / increase the threshold for black wing roots.
So why not just replace damage system with hit points where 1 hit point reduces top speed by 10km/hour and reaching 100 hits caused a kill? Give .50 cals a 1x multiplier, MG151 a 25x multiplier, and then place everything else between those? ShVAK should just get a 1.25x multiplier. Hispano 3x. So forth and so on?
That way German players can never really worry about dying to inferior slav planes. IRL the Soviets didn’t even have an effective air force at the end of the war according to the OP.
The entire set of nations don’t need to worry about the complete abuse of low tier USSR, since they remained with the residual BRs of when the ShVAK was an actual fragmentation round and not a 30mm mine round.
Oh yeah, and ALL 20mils are overperforming, Il-2 or P-61 wouldn’t be knocked out by 1 burst aimed vaguely at the direction of it.
germany is simply 1 issue, Mineshell’s unique way to deal damage (poor fragmentation but concentrated blast damage) was given to everyone and then since those people can’t read a stupid number, they went “No fair!, I also have a 20mil!”, it’s like an sherman complained that it’s 75mil doesn’t pen as much as the Panzer IV’s 75mil.
Better than the current “SuperHot” system of a one second stare and death let me tell you.
how hard is it to wish for all calibers and differences in filler to have their own little niches?
Maybe actually 6x 20mils will make a difference, maybe the 23mil and 37mil mods on the Yak-9P will see some use, maybe yak-15s won’t feel like shit when the firerate ruins a shot normally possible with the shvak.
It not only benefits german planes, it literally benefits everyone and makes for more varied cannons, because currently it’s only a label of “20mm cannon”.
1 Like
Well, self-sealing tanks make .30cal pretty ineffective.
Even when a tank gets set on fire internally, it most likely will seal the entrance and the fire is extinguished very quickly.
Likewise external fires are unlikely as not much fuel is spilled compared to larger calibers.
I see them more like fire starters for already damaged tanks. Like with a 20mm + LMG Combo.
US .30cal are certainly the most capable of all LMG caliber but it’s still a small bullet with just half the incendiary of a .50cal API.
I would also differentiate between different fire intensities. Maybe forcing a bail out for a „sever fire“ that would be 100% lethal, allowing for insta kills, instead of pilots controlling a burning wreck till they die. Also for fires that effect the pilot directly. Like Spitfires fuel tanks in front of the pilot.
While smaller fires might extinguish or increase in severity over time.
1 Like
add an award for bailing out of a critically damaged or burning aircraft.
Maybe it will make players bail out and simulate the self preservation of real life pilots.
1 Like
It benefits people that want to fly through guns multiple times and then be able to fly back to base. We already had a period of very low cannon damage just recently and it was almost universally disliked; hence every video on realshatter implementation was basically made the same claim that the “more realistic” system was worse.
Even the tank he change got voted down as you mentioned earlier.
and current damage shits over everyone who isn’t a super nimble single engine aircraft or doesn’t have the best firerate/ballistics.
Every cannon that sacrificed firerate, ballistics and even both eat shit.
It is simply not fair.
Balance can be thrown out the window, because we all know the largest caliber put into an aircraft was 20mm.
Every other caliber was just dumb stuff and a complete mistake with no use that the 20mil already did.
1 Like
No, I don’t like that the current system makes incendiary shells effective at any range and under every circumstance.
.50cals should be very effective in causing fires from up close but their effect should diminish from longer ranges.
It’s the same deal with HE shells that don’t have their kinetic component modeled despite „realShatter“
I had instances where an undamaged fuel tank started to burn instantly from a stray .50cal API hitting the tank directly from below at 1km, burning the plane down in seconds.
Even when flying away from a SPAA, which decreases impact velocity further.
Even setting the tank fire should be very unlikely but it causing enough damage for an undamaged self-sealing fuel tank to burn down is practically zero.
In stark contrast to 20mm shells, which would still be very likely to cause a fire and damage the tank enough for it to burn down.
Which makes it clear why .50cals aren’t ideal for attacking bombers but perfectly adequate to destroy fighters at typical firing ranges.
1 Like
you mean the velocity of the bullet to affect the fire chance? sounds pretty nice.
1 Like