True, from what I can find he said that the armament wasn’t the average pilot.
Werner Mölders saw it as an improvement.
but the armor part from 2 July 1941 is proof that armor will save you, of course maybe we forget to take into account round tumbling but it shows.
So sometime engineers do need to step their foot down and take with a grain of salt what pilots say
Ki-27 was my fault mb
But you can see how 109s also saw a similar issue, F variants were really good in the low speed range.
Their succesor specialized more on higher altitudes, better climbrates and just more speed.
In more in general on WT wiki’s words,
“for the future development of the Bf 109 family, with a greater focus on engine power and armament(?)(prob about 20mm gunpods because 13mm didn’t appear yet) and a lesser focus on weight.”
My ass dropped this then.
Because, is it really fair you? that you recieve this unreliable formula, meanwhile ShVAK with similar fillers just black out stuff like it’s no deal?
ho-5 (more "unreliable" one)(Or reliably fails to perform compared to other 20mm?)(I really don't know)
Type 99's tracer
Skips issue entirely or happened to be very rare and I haven’t seen it yet, I suppose the non tracer variant will be miles more reliable then?
Type 99's non tracer
At least it isn’t as unreliable as ho-5, but it is technically worse and it will show these “spoofs” more commonly than it’s tracer variant
So even with extra filler the Type 99’s universal belt still has issues and ho-5’s is simply not reliable in the structural destruction part…
Let’s see ShVAK’s hef with just 5g of TNT equivalent, maybe it is an issue related to shell type?
Spoiler
So it’s not a shell type issue and more of a weapon specific issue, maybe nation.
Must have been that the I-16 already was pretty badly wounded on that wing, it happens a lot.
But tell me, do you feel like mere 7.7mm fire should do that?
If A-8 lost it’s outward cannons would you feel a difference? There’s the F-8 but the airspawn isn’t the same, it’s at 5.0 and it has a lot more armor. It is as similar but it won’t do.
We have the antons of 4.0 and 4.3, where one can even mount up to 6x 20mils, but does it really help past 2?
Because it is:
1- found in a pretty relevant line and it is needed to progress
2- Needed to progress
3- It isn’t ass, but the fact the “upside” isn’t very real is still true, I feel like even a Yak-9U is more 5.0 material because it actually outperforms the 3P, I mean it is found at 5.7 as the Yak-9UT.
4- If we use this justification that would mean A6M5s are at home in 5.3 /5.7, since they are common somehow, I suppose an effort to tank the stadistics, I hope it works out.
They had less perfomance in areas where pilots were used to, the gustav’s playground was a little bit higher in altitude.
galland said armament was not really good for average pilots, I mean it is the 500ish RPM one with 60 rounds so it is understandable.
Some E models had armor too, main improvement was extra armor on the fuel tank and simply better layouts
Let’s see from in-game models. (I skip models with no distinct modifications)
E-1: no armor
E-4/E-7/T-2: recieves armor and this aditional and very intrusive headrest armor plate
F-1: removes said headrest armor but extends the backseat armor downwards so it forms a “L”
F-2: Add the headrest back and double down, so it extends above your head now.
F-4: additional thin plate (10mm) to cover fuel tanks + previous armor
g-2: Thicker fuel rear plate (21mm) and now thinner side plates cover the fuel tank (4mm)
g-6 and onwards: replace armored headrest with an armored glass block(60mm) , remains until K-4.
And you can see on all WW2 aircraft families, see how armor slowly thickens and takes more space, if there’s a step back it is corrected inmediatly or simply whatever it protected ceases to exist (I.e Late Ki-61’s radiator armor plate is venishes when Ki-100 steps in, radiator doesn’t exist anymore so the plate is removed).
But I say 109s because they are the most noticeable and more extended family.
Armor really only fades away when missiles start to appear and the whole “cannons are obsolete and not needed” mindset takes over, only exception are dedicated attackers.
And armor past that doesn’t bother to come back. Well maybe because now you are protected by fuel tanks and entire jet engines.
Only half exception are the spitfires where the super enormous back plate was removed and replaced by a more square and smaller one, and the non-seal fuel tank’s armor was shifted from top cover to frontal protection and backwards every once in a while. But past that you see stuff like the ammo behind armor plates. We both saw that video of a 190’s outer cannon ammo be boom boom.
You can see how late Japanese backseat armor is thicker than most nations(around 13mm), those 50. cal may stumble a lot but it is still pretty deadly. Only really beaten by layered armored plates or the tempest (16mm).
Even A6M family recieved armor later on, once range was no longer an issue and engine did look that maybe it can afford to fly similar with some armor on it they went ahead and did it.
Engineers (plural)are not dumb, only “dumb” decision you see are result of 1 dude only and not a team.
But do you really notice that extra armor? Sure stumbling rounds don’t exist in WT, if you add them AP eats a slap for no reason, so that 13mm plate barely does it’s job
Meanwhile if we just take down explosive blast damage it really doesn’t work very well, I showed you how explosive damage will rarely pen then skin and reach a module. I mean imagine you land it next to an unprotected pilot but the 1 fragment that came out missed him and you did a whole flavour of nothing. I said drag is no joke but 1 orange fuselage section is a meh compared x4-5 sections on yellow/orange + leaks, damaged control systems or crew.
Evolve it into similar pattern as 15mm does currently (but stronger), that pilot is dead. (we did agree pilots are too tanky, c’mon you can’t just barely flinch for a 7.5mm bullet to the torso.
You did like 15mm? Well 15mm does make amount of cannons be more relevant, armor a lot more relevant, size (fragmentation has a cap on distance traveled) and so on.
When I used the Fw-189 C (don’t buy it), I did feel that extra 15mm shredding enemies faster and did feel how my opponent’s size (When I shot down a g4m) or armor (Attacked an IL-2 and needed to stick to it’s 6 and hammer it until my AP found it’s pilot) as an extra number to account for.
Uninteded side effect is a general feel of “nerf” because a round to the wing tip won’t just clip it, but shots closer to the generally unarmored center will feel like deadly hits or very crippiling to least make an opponent be no different than a floating ballon.
But I will call it a nerf instead of a rework because in reality it is just that.
