Name me one vehicle were this change would make the vehicle suddently unbalanced.
5 Likes
My aim sucks, i need some tracer belts to support a full belt of SAPHEI in my MAUSER cannon
3 Likes
Im the opposit, i want more no tracer belts, especailly Mg FF/M and MG 151/15 and /20 without any tracers. (Ap-I and HVAP mainly.)
3 Likes
Anyway, what the □▽✗◯ with the German 20mm velocity. Protection Analysis says they change the velocity based on the belt. But why.
1 Like
Most likely bugged. I don’t even understand why protection analysis shows “belts” becaus it should just show the individual shells and bullets.
I think it’s because protection analysis doesn’t necessarely show what ammo the weapon uses.
It’s some weird implementation but the MG FF/M for example shows the muzzle velocity for the 20mm Mineshell being identical to the MG 151/20 with 785m/s but in the actual game it of course fires them at a velocity of 675m/s.
1 Like
Sure, it seems like a listing bug more than a reflection of how they actually behave in the game.
I find that unlikely. The 20mm Mineshells were 80mm long, Ho-5 shells ~65mm.
There’s also not a single mention about how the gun would perform firing those shells.
It only fired ~80-90g shells at 740m/s and the RoF of 950 RPM could only be achived when firing the heavier AP-T rounds.
Japan did receive ammunition for the MG 151/20 they purchases. If they started production of 20mm Mineshells, then for the MG 151/20 they already had.
It’s not that simple. The fuzeless Ma-202 has higher fuze sensitivity compared to the fuzed version.
Rounds would simply pass through wooden and fabric covered fighters, maybe even cockpit glass.
And just for comparison:
20mm Hispano HEI Mk. 1 → ~130g, 5.6g Tetryl, 5.7g Flash powder, ~860m/s.
20mm Ho-5 Ma-202 → ~80g, 3.2g PETN, 8.7g Flash powder, ~740m/s.
Even when the Ho-5 would have a RoF of 950 RPM (850 being more realistic) over the Hispano with 600-700 RPM, the Hispano has both better ballistics and muzzle velocity, in addition of shells that can deliver some shell fragments, while the Ma-202 heavily relies on the incendiary filler.
2 Likes
We need this and a showed muzzle velocity for all ammo types and calibres
But muzzle velocity can be seen in protection analysis already 🤔
Wow, i had no clue they straight up showed the wrong velocity.
1 Like
If you look at sub 50mm rounds in battle, you’ll see there is no muzzle velocity for the rounds
But why would you need the velocity in battle?
So I know better where to aim with my SPAAGs
I tested French 7.5 mac gun against both undamaged and damaged flying targets. To see if they ignite the target aircraft. They didn’t. I confirmed the target leaking the fuel, though it didn’t nake a difference foe the poor chance of igniting enemy fuel tanks. I aimed pin-point. I also used turrets to avoid hitting the spars, no use. The gun fires 3000 joules bullet. What the hell Gaijin. IT belt won’t damage a single engine fighter with 800 hits holy molly.
I tested again with ki-45 with its api-t belt. Single burst consistently ignites the enemy, 3 to 10 rounds and the target is set aflame. Again what the hell Gaijin. German 4000 joules rounds? Does it make sense that full fuel tanks in reality actually won’t burst into a fireball from ap-i due to the lack of oxygen, and the small bullet hole is not enough to combat against the CO2 level higher than the Nitro extinguisher. Bullet holes on the fuel tank should create a damage registering area behind the said holes. And mid-air burning type pure incendiary better ignite them. Also, it’s silly the entire aircraft body can generate the fire-putting-out visual effects on hit. Incendiary rounds perform way worse and ap-i rounds are overperforming. Sometimes penetrating the fuel tank with just 1 or 2 rounds alone won’t be enough to cause a fire. They have to create many holes in the tank. The damaged tanks are obviously easier to set on a fire. But damn is it modelled. It feels too consistent in the game. The purpose of the rubber coated self sealing fuel tanks are to prevent the fuel leakage after they start leaking fuel out of thr tanks. Why is that considered a “protection useful in combat to prevent catching on a fire”, because the standard fuel tank in the undamaged state is fire-proof by itself. the rubber coating’s purpose is to revert it back to the original condition. Not only to go back home using the preserved fuel. Once
the fire is casted, the rubber coating is destroyed beyond functioning. Also, almost all He rounds are containing incendiary. The point is to create the high temperature for a period of time. Efficient ww2 design contains Aluminium powder to increase the temperature along with the other materials. Pure HE actually won’t ignite the fuel nor allow the continuity of the fire. It’s a testimony. They need the temperature, length of time, continuous supply of oxygen. And Ap-i is not the perfect all-in-one in real life. It has its cons. I is underforming when mixed with ap. 3 ap 1 i should be more effective. That’s literally the standard composition for small caliber machineguns for a lot of countries. IaI and I is surely different. But they should do a similar work against the fuel air mixture behind the bullet holes. The holes should be of various sizes depending on the damage and the damage type. And it should dynamically interfere with the size of the fuel leakage(trail) behind the hole. The surface area behind the hole doesn’t even have to have a special kind of effect. Incendiary rounds that are designed to ignite on contact with the surface can still mess up with the fuel leak registration area, if the wing surface is happened to be located inside the 3 dimensional area simulating the flammable gas. Instead of creating and then leaving the registration area, The area(box or shaped) can just follow the vehicle’s coordinate. Easier than enabling and disabling the aerobatic smoke-like thing middle in the sky.
2 Likes
Yeah the damage mechanics in WT are basically straight up from an arcade game.
A lot of rounds are not as effective as they should, while others are way more effective than possible.
Wooden planes should be very susceptable to incendiary and explosive ammunition compared to metal structure and a B-17 elevator, twice the size of a Bf 109 wing, shouldn’t take twice the damage from shells.
It always annoys me when I take like 1-2 .50cal hits and my plane catches on fire.
The other day it happened to me in the Pe-3 which has self-sealing fuel tanks with inert gas pressurization. There’s literally no oxygen inside the tanks, so how would some stray .50cals from the ground cause a devastating fuel fire?
There’s a US study on fuel tank fires and incendiary ammo which concludes that the severity of the fuel tank fire directly correlates with the chance to cause a fire.
Basically: Bigger shell → greater chance to cause fires which are also more sever.
I heard the soviet wooden surfaces are actually anti-fire than aluminum for whatever the reason. Maybe something to do with the coating or the steaming process, I’m not sure about the reason. Anyway, Mosquito with mushrooms grown within it is pretty iconic imo. They hide the vehicles in jungle so that the mushrooms grew from the wooden structure.
Crazy.
Seems like WT Mobile actually has some very cool features. Like light, medium, heavy and I think even Smoke Artillery barrages.
Not exactly.
They have Arty, Mortar, smoke Mortar, High Caliber.
Here we go again…sigh…