To be overpowered, something else must be getting seriously outperformed and not worth using. But every nation eventually switches to cannons and right now they’re all quite close on performance; additionally .50s are also doing incredibly good damage and they have other advantages.
If I remember correctly, the M16 was limited to 20rd magazines. I always preferred the M1 and M2 Carbines.
“realistic”
…Which is why it dominated the meta for years and years?
The “anti-balancing” is so bad that even the Ho-5 does not particularly struggle at shooting down anything. It is a perfectly fine, below average cannon.
MG151/20 is not “crap tier” by any means. It is also a perfectly fine cannon. 37mm M4 and M10 suck for very obvious reasons.
They are certainly far more balanced now than they were some years ago.
1 case, and even then Ta-152 h-1 won’t keep up forever and it will lose the instant that even the 4.7 Yak-3 takes it to the vertical
And so what does this mean? Should every FM, every flap, every ballistic, every belt, every firerate, every powerplant be the same?
Let’s see
23mils are not worth it, 30mm are not worth it (bUt mUh BAlLiStiC?!!, enjoy your sub 100 ammo capacity and 500 RPM), armor is not worth it, AP rounds are not worth it, more than 2 cannons is not worth it (headon my ass, because under such rules a x4 M3 stealth setup would be top tier), firerates past 700 are not worth it, extra filler centered cannons are not worth it (trades ballistics for more filler).
Wow, there’s TWO different options!!!??, come on, So I suppose the A6M5 at 5.7 is completely ok because BF-109 K-4 and F4U-4B are completely at home at 5.7!
Oh man so sad!, IF only fragmentation centered cannons did fragmentate instead of acting like 30mm hche!
37mm suck because the reward for compensating for such enormous drawbacks are given to everybody else
mg151/20 is simply outclassed for the reason of the drawback of reduced ballistics and presence of low pen AP rounds simply exist for no reason now.
Same examples as I put always, yak-3 vs Yak-3P,. What does the Yak-3P even have for it outside of better chance to cash in the kill in the headon? nothing it is the same yak-3 from 4.7 at 5.0.
And what does the Yak-9P’s armament options even help in? none, you could even remove the center 20mm and you wouldn’t notice.
In the past, XP-50 was OP, but you don’t see it anymore because the sub-sapient players who abused didn’t really know what to do in an inferior energy state, even if XP-50 is pretty damn decent and still a foe to be wary of.
Yak-3 is now 4.7 because the cannon it used was weak and thus justified a 4.3 BR, now it isn’t and finally came up. And now French Yaks are somewhat rare compared to before where a VB.10 was rarer than them.
Past is the past, And I can’t give a single fuck if you are still sulking on it.
Only visit the past for lesson, lesson from XP-50? If it has an incredible climbrate for the BR it doesn’t need an airspawn
Focus on the present
Cannon damage is so mismodeled it starts to flip the logic behind armor, armor piercing shells, caliber increases, cannon quantity, filler upgrades and firerate upgrades
Ta-152H has old as hell flight model that is pure fantasy (the plane is overweight and underpowered, making it work would require throwing away GM-1, additional fuel tanks and half of armor, and nobody did that IRL as it made 0 sense in late 1944).
Thing is, that model makes it extremely fun to play and also to face against.
Take this away and Germany at superprop BRs turns to absolute crap, as He-162 is just frustrating to play and everything else is just bad. This situation is unsolvable in conventional ways.
But I could live with not playing 6.0.Germany ever again, if that meant the weapons get properly fixed.
Ta-152H is not creating problems BTW, it’s slow, bad at climb and it will lose every kind of fight vs 3U at most speeds and altitudes.
So if the guy who now I see I have blocked (I read his post because my login expired) is making some further arguments based off that plane, then whatever, the situation does not really mirror the cannon fiasco.
Quite the opposite, Ta-152H is adding diversity to the 6.0 dogfights, it’s unique and fun.
All HE shells dealing same ridiculous damage with sole exception of Hoe-5 is just a bad design.
Lol. You’re little buddy is one of those players. Vast majority of his fighters are just air-spawn mobiles.
But hey air-spawn is only OP when it’s not Germany right?
They basically have the same number of games in the last month. Frances 2nd most popular 4.7 aircraft with just under 33,000 games played is not rare. Yak-3 is still one of the most popular 4.7s in the game.
The argument that he applied to the XP-50 armament was the EXACT same as he applies to everything else. This argument wasn’t limited to just the XP-50 at the time; it is the part of the forum that got archived. The exact same argument applied to arguing that all 190s should be down tiered and that basically all US planes should be up tiered.
The ideal level of damage is to just make it so German cannons are the only viable ones again and make everyone else’s guns into dookie dogwater. We need to go back to the days where playing Germany props is just guaranteed wins after win.
You think I’m kidding or exaggerating? But same this is the Loofah theory of balancing. Fw-190 should get air-spawn because it’s bad and US stuff is OP. However P-47, with similar performance should not get air-spawn because that’s unfair. Just side climb bro.
Fw-190 should not have historical 3 minute WEP limitation because it ruins the plane but the F8F should have non-historical overheating because it’s needed to balance the game.
Realism is good when Germany wins. The more Germany wins the more real it is.
There is not a single point in the games history where cannon damage was low enough to satisfy Loofah’s demands. Even under old damage model MG.151 was too weak and everyone else’s guns were too strong.
Put the flaps down or something, I’m not a Ta 152 H nerd.
Matchups do not have to be mirrored to be balanced.
Aside from like one plane, you do not get to choose.
Which correlates with real life, prop fighters kept 20mm cannons even postwar UNLESS they were configured to intercept bombers. Even if they were… they often just used four 20mm cannons.
I’ve shown several times that AP arounds are very much worth having.
Go play a plane with 4 cannons and come back to us
And it is.
As above, you don’t get to choose which cannons go on your plane.
Even if I go down to find the tech tree A6M5 Otsu (literally in the second line, #10) it is still far better (statistically) than F4U-4B and K-4.
That screenshot and the video it is from are the ultimate goals of this topic: MG151/20 must be the best, but it is also doing far too much damage. Therefore other cannons (f.e. Type 99, Hispano) must be below it, and ShVAK even lower.
Therefore, that screenshot is the intended ShVAK damage output.
Who else has GOOD cannons at the BR of 2.7, where the P-39N is? Even down there the 37mm sucks.
I was playing the Buffalo the other day and with just four early or mid .50s I was snapping people out of the air with very little shooting or effort. Way better than a slow, temperamental 37mm.
You speak as if the MG151/20 was objectively BAD. It isn’t, at all.
The past is a pretty good indication of why things are the way they are.
outsustains 3U if you’re not mowing the lawn btw
And again, even the Ho-5 still has no issues shooting down anything despite being, apparently, THE WORST cannon. You don’t see me complaining about it like you two and the MG151/20.
Take into account only the powerplants of 2.7 are very vulnerable to damage, easy to lit on fire and rarely armored well outside of an armored seat
oh yeah and 20mm are present since 1.3 with the French hispano 404
and 37mm from 1.7 with the Ho-203.
Maybe if you played other trees you would know.
Which should include the community voting for bullshit like the denial aphe reworks, or not reading “tnt equivalent” (our main culprit) or removal of bomber objectives
Wow, thank you so much, died to a Ta-152 because you only held S? one clue, past 2 turns the Ta-152 h-1 is cooked
ho-5 has some weird formula which makes it red a section instead of black, in the current place of 20mm simulation it is far more likely to “spark”
And as I said, that is only possible if you are mowing the lawn. Go higher and 3U loses engine power to the point that 152H can turn with it.
Damage is a function of per-shell damage and rate of fire. Very few cannons share RoF.
Plus loofah repeatedly claims they’re not all the same, since Ho-5 is super terrible or something.
So what’s the problem?
And four is still much better.
What am I supposed to see here? A bunch of planes best played in their lightest configuration, as the alternative is bringing heavy and draggy gunpods?
What is there to see? They’ll be like Ho-5s with better damage.
That’s what I said, so you agree with me?
Looking forward to it so I can then say that the Zero is actually a superprop
-a single cannon with 60rds for many
-overweight night fighters
-attackers/strike aircraft
-some of the worst fighters in the game
-a biplane
-a bomber
Real good selection here. Oh, and the Ki-45’s 20mm sucks.
And? Even without the API-T belt, four .50s are incredibly effective, more so than most cannons and aircraft on that list.
What the TNTe number says is irrelevant. Players will look for the belt that provides the best damage output.
You already know which nation’s props I play the most and why this wouldn’t happen to me.
yeah its called “it does less damage” and results in less damage being done when hitting a target
It fires at like 800rpm, what an individual shell does is largely irrelevant when any target is eating several, and the minimum configuration is one cannon.
This weird formula essentialy sets damage to “relatively crap” with 0 regards to filler or anything else (range and impact velocity make no difference basically, at 200m M61A1 HEFI still hits weaker than Shvak’s HEF at 1200m).
Hence HEF-I from Hoe-5 is bad (compared to godhammers everyone else has), and even m61A1 HEFI with 16g of TNT turns wing section red (just like Hoe-5_, while everything else turns it black despite much smaller filler and dogshit ballistics (in comparison), I’ve used Shvak HEF as it has a sub 6g filler, yet it hits much harder:
Top shell types: FI-T, HEFI-T (black almost every time), Soviet HEF, I think HEI (seems to be marginally better vs B-17 wing than FI-T, Hispano and MG151/20 deal same damage despite completely different shell design).
Crap shell types: HEFI and FI and Japanese HEF
The fact FI just worse in every way than FI-T despite having larger filler is simply hilarious.
There also seems to be no logical reason for Japanese HEF to be as bad as it is, while Soviet HEF is good.
So there seems to be some code favoring… lower explosive filler for certain shell types.
But why?
oh yeah and the stadistics is to show I played a lot of aircraft, I have lots of perspectives about these cannons, 452 pages of 30 aircraft each, most spaded and with a positive K/D.
I know what I talk about and I know past 2 20mm there is no difference
and 4x 20mm cannons? only useful if you are a brainless moron who only makes SL via headons.
And even then
Tell me? Who has the better chance in a headon? The Firefly FR Mk V or the La-9? The answed is Firefly because filler doesn’t matter and the hispano has better ballistics and firerate than NS-23.
And then said firefly can easily beat a SM.91 because mg151/20 also has terrible range compared to hispanos!
Funny ™!
20mm meta makes no SENSE, is IT so hard to understand? Even if prioratize “gameplay”, you just punish people who look for info by making numbers irrelevant.
The issue is that in game you don’t need 4x20mm as we all know. Literally 1x 20mm or even twin .50cal Breda’s can and will saw a bomber’s wing off in a single pass as I’ve proven.
Surely mate you can see there’s a massive problem when literally 2x 20mm cannon shells can rip tails and wings clean off of what are supposed to be tough aircraft like 190’s/P-47’s etc?
It doesn’t matter if it’s a Shvak or an MG-151 it absolutely should not be happening.
Yes? You don’t select individual shells to fire, you select a belt which hopefully contains the shells you want in a significant number.
Why do you think four 20mm cannons firing quite heavy shells should have any issues taking out a fighter that completely lacks armor in frontal aspect aside from armored glass?
If NS-23 is specced much more into shooting down bombers, of course its slow shells and low RoF will be suboptimal against a fighter-like target.
even I have been hit many times by ShVAKs and they failed to kill me
don’t be careless, don’t stall in front of someone, don’t half-ass your energy traps, and don’t get hit
The issue is that this isn’t the normal experience for most encounters as most of the posters of this thread are attesting to. With my crappy aim and whilst using a Ps5 controller I’ve proven I can consistently one-tap aircraft apart. The fact you’ve taken some hits without dying theoretically could happen… but having such a weak cannon rip aircraft apart in as little as two rounds and frequently as well absolutely Should not happen.
As I’ve said before I’m not just picking on the Shvak’s, Hispano’s are broken as well as are most 20mm’s or anything with explosive filler. I’ve already mentioned what Breda’s are doing.
This is great and all but has zero to do with weapons wickedly overperforming making certain aircraft’s strengths redundant. I’m sure bomber pilots that have climbed or flown for minutes at a time just to get shot down instantly in a microscopic burst would find that advice somewhat useless, you can add that to every larger/historically tougher aircraft that sacrifices speed for payload or strength.
“Cannons are fine… just don’t get shot in your gigantic bomber or slower/less manoeuvrable fighter”.
Yes it does. Loofah earlier in the thread expressed his dissatisfaction with no longer being able to stall in front of people, eat their cannon shells for no significant damage, and then shoot them down.
Current cannon damage forces you to get good and stop being sloppy, or die. Which is great.
If only we had some kind of system where aircraft are matched on a scale roughly according to their performance.
Not that lone bombers would be much harder to shoot down. If you can hit them once or twice you can hit them twenty times just as easily.
And this is far better than the alternative of having damage model similar to Il-2 Great Battles where even having good aim with machine guns still necessitates high volume of fire and presents multiple opportunities for enemy plane to just eat the shells and counter-attack for little risk.
The difference in damage between M2 .50 cal vs MG.151 or any 20mm cannon in that game makes planes like P-47 not even worth flying except as a mud mover. That style of damage model would not work in WarThunder and would just result in Germany winning 90% of the time.
(Which is ironically what the game was at one point.)
I can get banned, whatever, my mistake for ever reading your post, as both you and Feetpics make up random lies about me when I’m supposedly not looking.
This is way past “creative interpretation”, this is just lying. And of course it comes from a shitter who can’t even play on the same level as “stalling in your guns” idiot Loofah stat-wise.
Because why the hell discuss actual point, when you can happily go ad persona with a guy you couldn’t beat with arguments.
Oh f me.
God FORBID a set up leading to multiple shells landed works while a random spray hitting a single shell doesn’t. The horror, the HORROR!!!
And guess what, that set up worked just fine for Soviet aircraft too as long, as they did not eat well placed M-geschoss and it actually fused, lmao (hitting anyone during any kind of energy trap is way more difficult with MG151/20 due to horrible ballistics, Yak-3 f.e. can very reliably devastate a plane from 1100m away with Berezin, with German aircraft one is mostly safe at 850 as long, as your plane is still moving, I have killed people from further away, but sure as hell I can’d do that reliably dnough).
It’s just like in fighting sports, other computer games, chess, and in real life strategy - you give the enemy a weak opening, to capitalise big time. But again - god forbid this gets used in WT, as surviving even a single shell is PREPOSTEROUS.
But why shell. Maybe a single bullet should be enough???
I love how even your misrepresentation of my argument ends up being some idiotic crap, which is understandable, as your entire position is extremely hard to defend, as you have 0 examples outside of WarThunder of “artificial non-historical unrealistic weapon balancing” deliberately making weapons even less balanced (even writing this hurts my brain).
I can’t even properly insult you, as I simply lack the proper vocabulary.
You are just trolling at this point, you are completely ignoring valid arguments and just repeating your own mantra.
But the absolutely dumbest crap is this whole “but, but, cannons right now don’t 1-shot that reliably” we discussed for 100000 posts. WOW, and it somehow makes it ANY better that on top of damage being ridiculously high, unrealistic, unbalancing the weapons, it’s also unreliable?
Over and out.
