Name me one vehicle were this change would make the vehicle suddently unbalanced.
3 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
Probably over 90% of the in-game belts are fictional. I get that it’s for balancing purposes currently, but if the pure HE or AP (+ Favorable Tracer composition) belt is gonna make certain aircraft stronger than where they sit currently, they can just go up in the BR. That’s like having 1 more cannon grants 1 or 2 steps higher BR. So it’s okay for few guns to get more valuable, that’s exactly what the custom ammo belts are for. Maximizing the efficiency by having belts specialized for different purposes. The current presets are supposed to fill the role, but they are not always representing the supposed purposes.
The ratio of the tracer rounds are inconsistent for guns, M2 Browning and French Hispano 20mm cannons as examples.
Talking of real life belt composition. If having just 1 or 2 types of shells grants a higher firepower, they would have done that. I know Post war US military investigated the effectiveness of the different shell types afterward. AP-I would be the most efficient for 50 cals, just like in the game. I don’t know how few grams of incendiary fillers in the modern 50 cal rounds are calculated in this game, pure incendiary rounds don’t act like an explosive rounds in this game. It feels so underwhelming.
If a specific bullet type is more favored, they would have done that. I’m pretty sure having different rounds in the belt played a significant role in making the guns allrounder when fired at the same area of the enemy aircraft.
Few documents suggest a proper ammo composition for the aircraft guns of the era. Like Ho-103, they got AP-t, IAI(Ma-102), HEF(Non-Italian type fuse) in repeat. The in-game representation got the “default” AP-T, AP, HEF. And air target "AP-T, HEF, IAI, HEF. Which is all wrong. US 50 cal turrets got AP and I, but the late war B-17s and probably other bomber types of the era got no tracers, for tracers actually hindering the gunner’s ability to aim properly. They are not even AP-I. So US bombers would be nerfed to death until Post-war jets if they introduced the “Real life ammo composition”. I’m definitely against it for obvious balancing reasons.
US fighters got more tracers as they are near the empty magazine, to avoid they run out of ammo during a heated action. As they got no floating HUD showing the ammo count. The functionality is nowhere to be seen with the props only having pure API-T.
Speaking of which, some guns got pure API-T like Brezin & M2.
Noted, the Japanese M2 copy chambered in 13.2mm doesn’t even have a tracer belt.
And Pure FI-T(the most damaging soviet 20mm rounds) for most Soviet cannons. What boggles my mind are the Soviet ammo belts for pretty much all machineguns and cannons, like they got the best of them all. I wonder if that’s for the so called “Softcore Balancing purposes” If you look at Shkas, you can guess how much firepower decrease could be expected with a belt comprised of “Ap, ball, Ap, t, t” Something like that.
If they change how the game is played based on the nationality of the guns, the decision to make some guns weaker intentionally is racist. It’s a bias(racism) straight up. I’d say they’ve done the job rather fair so far. Though they’ve ignored the similar reports on the existence of Ma-102 for years. Gaijin left it as a copy of the Italian 12.7mm, the gun’s data used to be exactly 1 to 1. So there is no consistency in the gaijin’s effort to make the ammo belt follow the documents, or keep it “balanced”. As they basically meant nothing, I say it again, over 90% of the WW2 era guns we have in the game are having completely fictional belts. To begin with, real life airforces won’t even have multiple belt templates for the same ordinance unless it’s specific for tank busting activities.
If Soviet 20mm ammo belt compositions are justified, French and British 20mm cannons deserve better. They even got a lower fire rate. British SAPI round is not even functioning like supposed to. If they got the certain “Weak” rounds realistically valuable, the “mixed bag” belts could be actually good enough. Still, it’s the gaijin’s modeling issues in the round types, making certain rounds stronger than others.
If I could make a custom belt for my own deed, I would setup something like this.
For Type 99 Mark 1, HEF HEF-T HEF HEF-T (A good tracer composition with the HEF’s higher destruction capability)
For 13.2mm Navy API-T (It’s obviously easier to aim)
I know Japanese 20mm belts are not too shabby either, APHE deals damage, the pure HEF-T belt is welcome. But the extra customizability doesn’t harm the game’s functionality. It doesn’t change the firepower too much for the guns I listed anyway. You can either say “If it doesn’t aid in the power, the custom belt doesn’t have to be introduced” or “If it changed the fire power of the certain guns, it could change the game balance drastically” though the unbalance caused by the improper BR could be temporarily.
And I don’t see a difference from the current M2 20mm (US) & ShVak 20mm belts.
Look at the French 20mm, the gun has SAPI round. But it’s limited in a stealth belt, and it’s just 1/4. How relevant is that. I just don’t think it’s fair. Except the VB.10 family, 60 rounds magazines are common for most French fighters. Meaning every rounds count.
M4 & M10 37mm cannons for P-39, P-63. It’s historical that they got AP in the belt for the ordinal usage. Even they I’d rather have 100% HE round, It’s nice to have a realistic ammo belt just to roleplay, but does it make sense to force players the bit of the realism. This game is already filled with unrealistic elements just make the game a little bit more fun as a game. I still remember it, the gun got a pure HE belt for once. But a consecutive patch booted it back to the current state. I don’t know why they would do that.
Hope you guys get the point.
1, It doesn’t break the balance anyway. Because the BR can catch up the damage increase.
2, It doesn’t increase the firepower that much anyway. Guns usually have 1 or 2 “Highest DPS loadout” already. Almost everyone uses that one outside Ground RB.
3, The possible meta loadouts are just “Only AP-I” or “Only HE”. Which is already available for certain guns. And some guns don’t have access to the possible highest DPS.
4, APHE rounds and pure incendiary not getting favored by the players, is partially Gaijin’s fault in modeling some types of rounds “weak” than they should be. Some rounds are underperforming compared to the real life counterparts.
5, Fragments went through so many changes, the functionality of the rounds are just so random throughout the years of developments. The gun damages are not reflecting the real life. Which is understandable, Gaijin is at its effort. I think it comes down to the fact it is just hard to define a damage model. I don’t blame Gaijin for this part.
6, Some guns are forced to be historic, while others are not. So having less customizability is just a disadvantage for players at this point. Most ammo compositions are not following the documents even if they are available.
7, Favorable Tracer ratio for each player. Instead of having one stealth belt, “CAS tracer” “ATA tracer” “CAS stealth” “ATA stealth” can be made. I don’t know how relevant the “CAS stealth” belt is, though.
8, Turret belts are weird.
9, Having different types of ammo is valid anyway. You get a wider range of damage sources. Some aircraft parts are more valuable to certain damage types, if few rounds hit the same location, the chance of critically injuring the target would be increased. The problem in this game’s damage model is that, the damage charges up even if the damage source is small caliber. So that if you keep hitting the target, more or less they would fall down. In real life, if the target is immune to 7.7mm, no matter how much you hit the same vicinity, it won’t matter. You are not digging a hole in the armor plate, unless you are precisely hitting the bullet hole. If it’s not the vital spars, the 7.7 bullets to the same spot shouldn’t be chewing the aircraft like they do now. This game doesn’t have small spars modelled, they should be separated form the skins. Like, the pure AP should get a chance of passing through the skins, to simulate the chance of hitting the fuselage spars in the area. I seriously don’t think the holes to the skins alone could cut the aircraft in half. In short, damage model is not reflecting the real life. In real life, having different types of ammo is a practical method to increase the chance of crippling the target when the gun is fired at the small vicinity in the target plane.
10, I really love to remove the rounds of dubious firepower from the magazines. I really wish balls and practice rounds gone, they don’t have to exist in my belts when we got AP for the same gun. Why do we even have balls. Speaking of which, no balls.
4 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.