Cannons doing too much damge

[PercussionCap]

@iegaatdao

You can choose tracers with 100% hef-t with 6.02g
or
You can pick stealth for 3/5 rounds to be hef packed with 11.98g
or
Universal with hef-t/ hef/ hef/aphe

You pick tracers because almost double the filler doesn’t mean a thing, you just want more yellow.

Which I’ve also shown repeatedly you actually want the APHE in there, and I believe I have the most matches out of anyone here in planes with these cannons.

@iegaatdao

More burstmass doesn’t mean “better in headon” only, you should be able to feel it anywhere when you land your shots.

And you do.

@Loofah

What? Where? Did it fall off?

@PercussionCap

@PercussionCap

even all-metal P-39 would be disabled, on average, after two hits from front or behind

This is exactly as in-game, except for the lack of spar damage.

@Loofah

while in all other tests it didn’t

You got a source for that?

@Loofah

But I guess if there’s a single case ever documented, then every shot should be like that or more, lol.

Yes, just like earlier in the thread where you guys posted a single example of a plane that survived extraordinary damage.

@Loofah

Wow, yeah, single HE shell hits and the guy dies

What happened to those oneshotting shvaks that always remove wings in one shot??

@Loofah

high deflection shots are way more common.due to pilots pulling 12G like it’s nothing which means bad ballistics hurt more

Even if we were limited to 8G, we would all still be doing insane deflection shots because unlike real pilots, our POV is outside the plane.

In Sim, deflection shooting looks much more tame:

Spoiler

@Loofah

being all-metal etc

All-metal P-39s did barely better than the plywood Yaks or mostly-metal La-7.

[iegaatdao]

@PercussionCap

Which I’ve also shown repeatedly you actually want the APHE in there, and I believe I have the most matches out of anyone here in planes with these cannons.

Except you can just spray more HEF-T to the tail /wingand it will fall off

@PercussionCap

And you do.

You do not se any difference outside of headons
did you fly any of the examples?
Stop trying to lie trough your teeth.
It doesn’t make a damn difference outside of headons

And headons are still won to the plane with more range.
Firefly mk.V is sill has better chances at a headons vs a fw-190 a-8 than the A-8 does

[Loofah]

@PercussionCap

What happened to those oneshotting shvaks that always remove wings in one shot??

I have lmentioned several times, that sometimes shell don’t do damage they should.
Also nobody is claiming it “always” removes wings, my Do-335 testing shows the damage inconsistencies quite well. So nice strawman, bruh.

And that IL-2 damage is just that, damage. It’s clearly poorly translated, as in slavic languages “destruction” and “damage” can mean the same, f.e. in Polish and in russian I think also.

There have been multiple tests posted throughout this thread, whete one thing was consistent - 20mm shells do NOT create gigantic holes.
IL-2 has been the most shot down aircraft of the war and I wouldn’t be surprised if the materials used were sub par in some cases. Still, one case of higher aerodynamic damage (still far from lethal most likely) does not invalidate multiple proofs of 20mm HE-F shells not doing great vs aircraft structure.

Here in the “state test” we don’t know what ammo is exactly used, where is the plane getting hit exactly, is the kill immediate, delayed, or just repair is non-viable, even if plane can still RTB no problem.
All this shows is whatever they are using absolutely sucks vs IL-2.

@PercussionCap

Even if we were limited to 8G, we would all still be doing insane deflection shots because unlike real pilots, our POV is outside the plane.

You missed the point completely. I do not expect the game to become realistic in every aspect. I’m just pointing out the highly selective approach to realism that hurts certain aircraft/weapons.

All-metal P-39s did barely better than the plywood Yaks or mostly-metal La-7.

Wow, one would be tempted to think as if Germans designed their M-geschoss rounds to be highly effective vs all-metal fighters, because wooden aircraft were already not doing great vs standard HEFI rounds.
Of course this can’t be true, right?

Oh, wait…

Also with no known methodology, this test is as good as worthless.

Also engine in the back while protecting the pilot and being nice for interception (as bomber gunners will just be hitting front armor, and not engine) is not so great when it comes to aircraft surviving fighter attacks that happen mostly from the back. I wonder if pilot survival rate was higher for P-39 than for other fighters used in a comparable fashion.

[PercussionCap]

@iegaatdao

Except you can just spray more HEF-T to the tail /wingand it will fall off

more shots needed = worse damage

More shots that you might not have the opportunity to make, as the game is not a series of 1v1s, you are fighting a team.

@iegaatdao

You do not se any difference outside of headons
did you fly any of the examples?

I flew too many examples, actually.

@iegaatdao

It doesn’t make a damn difference outside of headons

This is with a plane with two cannons. I had the same situation repeat itself more times that day.


As it turns out, the “cannons that always remove wings with one hit” don’t actually do that.

This is a plane with four cannons, with otherwise identical placement and of the same type. It never failed to perform.

Even the scary wood planes that don’t fuse shells don’t survive!

These are only a couple screenshots per plane, but they are highly indicative of what you will see when playing them. Four cannons is simply a much superior armament to just two.

@iegaatdao

And headons are still won to the plane with more range.
Firefly mk.V is sill has better chances at a headons vs a fw-190 a-8 than the A-8 does

If you just stand there and don’t dodge, sure. 190s have great roll rate while Firefly’s is abysmal.

@Loofah

I have lmentioned several times, that sometimes shell don’t do damage they should.

So a plane with more cannons, that hits you more times in the same trigger time… is undeniably better, yes?

@Loofah

And that IL-2 damage is just that, damage. It’s clearly poorly translated, as in slavic languages “destruction” and “damage” can mean the same, f.e. in Polish and in russian I think also.

You can see daylight through the hole. That section of the wing will provide hugely reduced lift.

@Loofah

20mm shells do NOT create gigantic holes.

You mean like the one where the light and slow mineshell hit a spar and its unique construction prevented it from doing further damage? Of course it didn’t do more, it’s a merely 90g shell.

@Loofah

Here in the “state test” we don’t know what ammo is exactly used, where is the plane getting hit exactly, is the kill immediate, delayed, or just repair is non-viable, even if plane can still RTB no problem.
All this shows is whatever they are using absolutely sucks vs IL-2.

Sucks? Its performance would be greatly degraded from that single hit. And we are told the ammo used.

@Loofah

Also with no known methodology, this test is as good as worthless.

You shoot at the plane and you go look at the damage. Highly complex.

@Loofah

Wow, one would be tempted to think as if Germans designed their M-geschoss rounds to be highly effective vs all-metal fighters, because wooden aircraft were already not doing great vs standard HEFI rounds.

So did everyone else. Who else was facing a large number of wooden aircraft in WW2?

[iegaatdao]

@PercussionCap

more shots needed = worse damage

More shots that you might not have the opportunity to make, as the game is not a series of 1v1s, you are fighting a team.

more shots = 2 shells instead of 1.
Even then you need to aim the AP towards a pilot vs explosive rounds which just need to land on any part but a flap and control surface

You also have a team of your own, or did you let them die off.
At least I try to save my teamates every once in a while.

@PercussionCap

I flew too many examples, actually.

Dude you’ve literally didn’t nail any of the ones i’ve shown.
In fact you’ve never fired a ShVAK, B-20, hispano 404, Oerlikon, hispano Mk.II, hispano Mk.V, Akan M/41 or M/45 I dare say

Spoiler

At least when I made my ShVAK thread I bothered to play USSR until I reached 3-4 20mil armed planes.

@PercussionCap

This is with a plane with two cannons. I had the same situation repeat itself more times that day.

No tracers? Look its your aphe shell “savin your ass” too bad those weren’t tracers with a speck of TNT, at least a black root would have helped a lot, enjoy your yellow module.

@PercussionCap

If you just stand there and don’t dodge, sure. 190s have great roll rate while Firefly’s is abysmal.

Roll and Roll but you still won’t move shit if you can pull nice AOA, firefly bests fw-190 A-5 any day on a headon, either with a victory or a trade.

@PercussionCap

So a plane with more cannons, that hits you more times in the same trigger time… is undeniably better, yes?

Which is useless because the enemy already came down

@PercussionCap

You mean like the one where the light and slow mineshell hit a spar and its unique construction prevented it from doing further damage? Of course it didn’t do more, it’s a merely 90g shell.

Yeah not even the Mk-108 / Mk-103 have 90g of TNT equivalent.

[Spil1tia-psn]

@iegaatdao

Which is useless because the enemy already came down

look at how awesome hitting airplanes with overkill amounts of gun is nerd

[Loofah]

@PercussionCap

So did everyone else. Who else was facing a large number of wooden aircraft in WW2?

Nope, other shells were not as effective.
And IL-2 and 18 shots is proving that 20mm is not great, and that single case of shell doing a bit more aerodynamic damage is just an outlier and not a norm.
And with no methodology, one can’t tell what was shot and how was the lethal effect achieved. Judging by the fact IL-2 is the only one with armored engine being 9 times more resistant than P-39, it seems wings and tail might not have been the primary target.

[PercussionCap]

@iegaatdao

Even then you need to aim the AP towards a pilot vs explosive rounds which just need to land on any part but a flap and control surface

If you are chasing, the fuselage presents the largest target. So while you’re aiming for a razor-thin wing, I can just shoot center mass anyway, ignore control surfaces eating shots, and get the kill.

@iegaatdao

You also have a team of your own, or did you let them die off.
At least I try to save my teamates every once in a while.

I don’t know what they’re doing most of the time. Probably getting themselves killed while I’m fighting for my life, like this time. We only won this match because I could capitalize on the ability to quickly dispatch enemies, despite being severely outnumbered.

This outstanding result was only possible because cannons actually do damage now. Otherwise it’s just a matter of which team has more players.

@iegaatdao

In fact you’ve never fired a ShVAK, B-20, hispano 404, Oerlikon, hispano Mk.II, hispano Mk.V, Akan M/41 or M/45

MG FF, FF/M, Type 99 Model 1 and 2 are all Oerlikons. I’ve used Hispanos in the Mosquito FB and various american planes. The Akan 20mm cannons are also hispanos.

I’ll get to the ShVAK someday when I can be bothered to go play russia. The NS-23s were very enjoyable, only a shame they were on such lackluster aircraft.

@iegaatdao

No tracers? Look its your aphe shell “savin your ass” too bad those weren’t tracers with a speck of TNT, at least a black root would have helped a lot, enjoy your yellow module.

The tracer is followed by two HEF shells. On the video the impact happened right as the HEF-T shell reached him.

As I’ve said before, I don’t use the Tracer belt often because it is worse. Just that game I penetrated a Bearcat’s armor and killed the pilot in a single shot.

@iegaatdao

Which is useless because the enemy already came down

Why would the plane already have come down if “sometimes shell don’t do damage they should”? This is about minimizing that very possibility. With four cannons you ensure that even if you have four CONSECUTIVE bad damage rolls (incredibly unlikely) on each of your 4 hits, they will still do enough damage to put them out of commission.
Even if you hit a particular spot where shells do less/no damage, your 3 other hits will be elsewhere and will avoid this.

Unlike…

@PercussionCap

@iegaatdao

Yeah not even the Mk-108 / Mk-103 have 90g of TNT equivalent.

As I’ve said before, HE filler is not everything. This shell is just too light and does not have enough energy to penetrate hard obstacles.
Meanwhile IL-2 wing spar was pretty much snapped in half by Hispano HE.

@Loofah

Nope, other shells were not as effective.

If they were not as effective, why did nobody else switch from them? You are presenting an alternate history where everyone else is stupid, except one of the ones that lost the war.

@Loofah

And IL-2 and 18 shots is proving that 20mm is not great, and that single case of shell doing a bit more aerodynamic damage is just an outlier and not a norm.

They shot at the IL-2 many times from different angles and cannons. Most hits recorded there were from 37mm guns. However the 20mm ones also could take it down when targeting specific areas.

And P-39 has engine armor as well.

[Gnza10091441]

@RedEye_ツ

That’s how it works already.

Yeah, but this only makes it worse.

Since the outcome is almost always determined by the first damage trade rather than a better long-term energy trade, it’s no longer worth it to take on some damage (or even risk it) by performing evasive and progressive maneuvers to secure a superior position, like working your way onto the enemy’s six. As a result, head-on engagements become the favored option: the lowest-effort, highest-reward tactic. Whoever shoots first or aims better wins, simple as that. That is the essence of low time-to-kill fight.

In a bomber, I can’t even force an enemy to overshoot so he ends up defenseless on my tail, simply because I cannot survive the initial pass anymore.

@RedEye_ツ

mediocre guns allow players to make mistakes and not be punished for it, likely resulting in them diving back to their airfield bubble.

No matter how weak the guns are, if you couldn’t finish him off, it means you didn’t actually outfly your enemy. You did nothing to wear him down enough to turn him into an easy target where you could finally land a long burst; it simply means you just took a small window of opportunity to land a single hit.

It makes sense that a single success or a single mistake shouldn’t carry the weight of the entire outcome, because in the end, a true test of skill is ultimately about consistency. If you couldn’t land more hits, let the enemy slip away, or even allowed him to turn the tables and kill you, then you simply weren’t better than him, nor did you beat him, you just had luck.

Also, if the other managed to completely disengage and escape despite being at a disadvantage, achieving such a feat shouldn’t be considered a “mistake” that went unpunished, it takes skill to pull that off, you know?

@RedEye_ツ

I don’t know what kind of great comeback you are talking about. Getting hit countless times and diving back to the airfield to repair?

No, I mean taking damage but still managing to turn the fight around because you were given the time to still stay in the fight and prove you were actually the better pilot

This can be compared to any sport. Imagine if football matches ended the exact moment someone scored the first goal, with no second chances. The game would become boring, slow and excessively conservative. No team would take any risks, since a single mistake would mean losing everything in an instant.

[Spil1tia-psn]

@Gnza10091441

No, I mean taking damage but still managing to turn the fight around because you were given the time to still stay in the fight and prove you were actually the better pilot

if you are a better pilot then you wouldnt be getting hit in the first place

[Gnza10091441]

@Spil1tia-psn

if you are a better pilot then you wouldnt be getting hit in the first place

And you aren’t a better pilot just because you were just throwing bullets at the wall to see what sticks, and one just happened to hit my wing

[Spil1tia-psn]

im actually throwing bullets at your airplane not the wall

[Gnza10091441]

@Spil1tia-psn

im actually throwing bullets at your airplane not the wall

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throw_things_at_the_wall_and_see_what_sticks

[Spil1tia-psn]

you are saying that aiming at a target and hitting it is “throwing shit at the wall” are you dumb like i really dont know what you want me to say

let me walk you through the process of aiming in warthunder because you dont seem to understand.

infront of me is an airplane, i would prefer if this airplane did not exist

to accomplish this we will shoot at it, we make a guess based on the distance between us and the speed he is going and fire a short burst.

HOWEVER we can see from our tracers that our shots are falling short this is no good!

based on this information we can assume we are under leading our target so we will adjust and fire again.

and this time SUCCESS!

i hope this helps you understand.

[Gnza10091441]

The line between “premeditated anticipation” and “throwing at the wall to see what sticks” isn’t as obvious as it seems.

Many times I’ve been shot down from over a kilometer away just relying on a high volume of fire and dispersion hoping that at least one bullet would hit me, and given that the inflated damage leaves no room for shit, of course it cut my wing off.

[Spil1tia-psn]

if you are getting hit at 1km then you are making yourself too easy of a target

[Gnza10091441]

Well, it’s not my fault Gaijin made it so the B-17 can’t even pull evasive maneuvers because it rips at 2G (meanwhile some fighters pulls 11G like it’s absolutely nothing)

[PercussionCap]

@Gnza10091441

it’s no longer worth it to take on some damage (or even risk it) by performing evasive and progressive maneuvers to secure a superior position, like working your way onto the enemy’s six

Of course it is worth it, dodging someone is far less risky than a head-on. And if you also shoot before dodging, before merging, you also force the other guy to dodge and not just hose you down the entire way.

This should encourage you to learn how to dodge properly instead of just tanking hits. That’s very low skill.

@Gnza10091441

No matter how weak the guns are, if you couldn’t finish him off, it means you didn’t actually outfly your enemy.

Go ahead, get your “good long burst” in when the match looks like this (there are three more off-screen and two are MiG-15s)

@Gnza10091441

it means you didn’t actually outfly your enemy. You did nothing to wear him down enough to turn him into an easy target

If I am in a situation where my enemy cannot avoid my fire, I’ve already outplayed him.

Do you happen to be a newer player? Because I’ve seen quite often that new players think they messed up much later than they actually have, or think the enemy just got a lucky shot, when in reality, when viewing a replay or video, they already lost long before that point and the enemy was just setting up the kill.

@Gnza10091441

It makes sense that a single success or a single mistake shouldn’t carry the weight of the entire outcome

Why should it? A single mistake is very possible to lead to your death. Roll the wrong way in some situations and you’re done for.

@Gnza10091441

a true test of skill is ultimately about consistency

So dodge consistently.

@Gnza10091441

If you couldn’t land more hits, let the enemy slip away, or even allowed him to turn the tables and kill you, then you simply weren’t better than him, nor did you beat him, you just had luck.

This means non-meta planes or those with poor energy retention would be near unplayable, as the former often rely on you sacrificing a lot of speed for one shot opportunity (f.e. Firefly), or for the latter, that’s just how they are and if the fight drags on you just run out of speed. If you miss that opportunity that you CREATED (not with luck) you’re basically boned.

@Gnza10091441

Also, if the other managed to completely disengage and escape despite being at a disadvantage, achieving such a feat shouldn’t be considered a “mistake” that went unpunished, it takes skill to pull that off, you know?

Disengaging only requires skill if you set up your fight such that you will have the speed or positioning to allow you to disengage without having someone 400m behind throwing shells at you. If you find yourself in such a situation you’ve already lost.

@Gnza10091441

I mean taking damage but still managing to turn the fight around because you were given the time to still stay in the fight and prove you were actually the better pilot

If you were the better pilot, then dodge properly and don’t get hit. Or accept that everyone gets lucky sometimes, and this time you were the bug on the windshield.

@Gnza10091441

And you aren’t a better pilot just because you were just throwing bullets at the wall to see what sticks, and one just happened to hit my wing

“Aiming” is a skill.

@Gnza10091441

Many times I’ve been shot down from over a kilometer away just relying on a high volume of fire and dispersion hoping that at least one bullet would hit me

@Gnza10091441

Gaijin made it so the B-17 can’t even pull evasive maneuvers because it rips at 2G (meanwhile some fighters pulls 11G like it’s absolutely nothing)

1. the fighters can actually do 11G
2. shooting B-17s from far away was a very real tactic

[MeanBROSofD72805]

Every plane in the game has a 1.5x multiplier towards structural strength and G load, we all got the love the 15G the EFTs pull

[PercussionCap]

Even without the 1.5x structural strength, fighters like the Zero and P-51 (and many others) had an ultimate overload factor of 12G, and it was then affected by a safety margin down to ~8G. Between this 8G and 12G, the wings were expected to take some damage, but you could still get home safely.

Others like the Ki-61 just had extremely strong wings and if you could pull hard enough on the stick and not die doing it, could just go ahead and do 12G without any damage.