Ki-43-1 isn’t 3.3 worthy, I don’t know what you’re smoking but I want some of that too. And nerfing its ammo just because they can finally do damage ain’t it either.
Me when I lie
Why would we want a nerf to well-rounded but not OP fighters? Besides, they’re not gonna move down in BR after that just like the Ki-43-III didn’t after losing 400hp.
That is true for pretty much all nations.
Probably never gonna happen.
No air compression, that would be an air compression fuze ;)
It just explodes from the brass deforming on impact with aircraft duralumin, causing the unphlegmatzied PETN/RDX mixture in the head to detonate.
The Soviet 12.7mm MDZ-3 uses an air compression fuze and carried around 1.9g PETN and 1.3g Flash powder. The Ma-102 is slightly smaller and lighter but carries around the same filler.
Typical ammo belts were API - API-T - HEI for the Berezin.
(Berezin three round belt: ~3.3g Flash powder, 1.9g PETN)
(Ho-103 three round belt: ~2.9g Flash powder, ~2.35g PETN/RDX)
Yeah would be nice, if more planes had historical ammunition selection.
If the plane never flew with the ammunition it has in WT, it shouldn’t have it. Simple as that.
The guns are just one factor in the BR placement of a plane. Most undertiered planes had bad guns, making it harder to get kills, particular for inexperienced players.
Can’t wait for the Yak-141 to be a player-guided missile.
The ammo uses 断熱圧縮 (Adiabatic process) to detonate, it’s literally exchanging the pressure for heat to make a tiny explosion by its own sealant, the effect itself contains the word air because it usually happens by air containment in the chamber. So search before you use random examples to compare different things. M23 is similar in its construction.
Another fun fact. Initially, the air column fuse was very sensitive. They figured out tweaking the thickness of the outer layer can consistently add a delay & sensitiveness on the hitting surfaces. British Aerial 20mm APHE works on the similar principles.
Ki-44-ii literally climbs at 27mps on ground and 25mps at 2000~3000m, 19mps at 4000~6000m. That’s nearly the same as J2M. Ki-84 is below that. If you hit the enemy even for the slightest, they would die so the extra gun power of Ki-84 is only relevant in bomber interception. Ki-44’s own-weight wingloading is 140kg/m2 in game, Ki-84’s wingloading in game is at 135kg/m2. It’s basically the same. It turns in the almost same turn radius, but the higher power-to-weight ratio allows Ki-44 to turn at higher turn-rate.
Use in-game data instead of wiki’s empty weight for a reference, because the game is using gross weight - fuel to calculate the minimum weight.
I never talked about nerfing top tier Japan, I mentioned about adding the planes of the same designations with different engines. You seem forgetting of the topic’s original subject. We are talking about if the aircraft in this game reflects the performance of the reference aircraft. The engines usually mounted on Ki-84 and N1Ks is different in real life, even though the type is the same, the engine differed depending on the vehicle. Ki-84 ko would have either Homare 11 (1800hp max) or Homare 21 (1990hp) but Homare 21 is de-rated (certainly the most common case), so that it would have the exact same power envelope as Homare 11, which is at 1800hp max. So 2000hp Ki-84 nor N1K happened only at the development stage flight test. Also the flight test datas available are vehicles mounted with Homare 11, so their indicated speed in game is 40 to 50kmph faster than in real life. Even with Homare 21 it would be a rare case. The common knowledge knowaday is that the engine was likely outputting 1600~1800hp, 200hp less than the expected performance again. Because of the deteriorating lubrication oil and fuel quality. So it would be logical to have 640kph Ki-84 as another variant, maybe specifically Ki-84 ko. But if the armament swap could change the BR dynamically, we can have one Ki-84 (Homare 11) in normal tree and it would function as Ko, Otsu, Hei, by just the means of modifications.
Ki-44 by itself is undertiered, Ma-102 is installed on ki-44 after 1944 and they saw a wide service until the war’s end. So it would be logical if the stock ki-44 without access to ma-102 to be at 3.7, and with ma-102 it would be right at 4.3~4.7. Ki-44-ii is not increasing in its BR enough, it needs to go higher. Ki-84 ko with 200hp less would be a good 5.0~5.3 material. But it would be on par with Ki-44-ii, even with the better armaments.
Saying something like “Gaijin won’t change BR anyway even if it’s not right” is not constructive nor matching the topic. We are better off talking about where it should sit at instead of the current BR. First problem being Japanese planes overperforming, my solution is to add a weaker version of them and make the top tier Japan stay as it is. Second problem is them equipped with the final armament upgrade, post-1944 armament is a significant modification done to vehicle fielded in 1942. So the armament swap modification should be made as an option, and it should dynamically affect the BR. With the new BR, K/D and server-administrated results that might affect the BR should be on-par with renewed BR. Also, the scores should be administrated differently like a different vehicle so that it can be used for adjusting the BR of the same plane possible without human interaction after this system is applied. This can be done for other nations, Like on Me 109 (though the performance decrease by installing gunpods is fair trade, and 20-30mm conversion won’t change BR because of its limited ammo and velocity). M2 equipped aircraft should be able to use mid or even late war belts even if they are 1940 or 1941 plane, because they obviously would equip them late in the war, as long as they are not retired of the frontline service. So what about F4U-1 having Late war belts, at 0.3 higher BR. It would be quite logical.
Can’t wait to see F-16AJ removed from this game.
28m/s at low alt, actually. The Ki-84 reaches 27m/s which IS lower, but this is all at low altitude long before the Ki-44-II runs out of breath AND assuming you can actually sustain that, since it’ll overheat very fast unless you use reduced prop pitch and lose a bit of power.
The J2M2 climbs slightly better at low altitude and can reach 30m/s, just barely.
That chart doesn’t account for prop efficiency, but we can just go into a test flight and find out what’s what:
Ki-84 Ko, ~315kph 75% PEFC 15.5s turn time (manually adjusted radiators for sustained WEP use)
Ki-44-II Hei, ~290kph 80% PEFC ~16s turn time (manually adjusted prop pitch to 90%)
J2M2, ~305kph 82% PEFC ~14.8s turn time (same MEC as Ki-84)
So not only is the Ki-84 much faster both high and low, but it also retains energy better in turns and rates better, even at very low altitude where the Ki-44-II has a p/w advantage.
The Ho-103 is strong but it’s never THAT strong, and it is short ranged. The Ho-5 deals significantly more damage per hit and has much greater chance of onetapping enemies.
Of course the flight tests are slower, they’re using a weaker engine. Many engines were downtuned for reliability, namely the DB605A in many german and italian props down to ~1300hp, but you won’t find that configuration in-game because reliability is not a factor here.
We also far exceed WEP time limits in pretty much every plane, but I don’t see anyone wanting that to be changed.
I’d rather have the Ki-116 instead of a straight copypaste Ki-84 with the only change being less power.
The Ki-84 Ko is 5.3 right now. How would a worse version somehow be the same BR?
Are you the same person who manually moved up all the R2Y2s to 8.0? Because this sure sounds like something they’d do.
It is just fine at 3.7, where it is very competitive but by no means undefeatable.
Besides, if gaijin’s trend of picking random japanese planes to increase BR continues, they’ll get to making sure the poor F6F, P-38G, and F4U-1 pilots will NEVER see their historical opponents eventually.
It should sit at 3.7. Eminem’s Yak3 can counter it easily and sits at 4.0. The XP-50 can counter it easily, and sits at 4.0. The P-51C can laugh at it all match long while it is nigh invulnerable.
It’s already widely known that most japanese props are overtiered, why add another to the pile?
You should become a comedian. The problem with japanese planes is that their enemies underperform in the “thinking ahead” department, and will regularly start turnfighting or are completely unaware and get caught out.
Funny you say that, because at 4.3 it’ll see a 1944 fighter (Yak-3), a 1942 model (109 G-2), and even a 1945 one (F4U-4)!
Introduction years aren’t really relevant, and IMO neither are modification ones.
The actual end result is that you’d see almost nobody play the Ki-44-II because it’ll simply be bad, and it’ll never move down just like the Ki-43-III, R2Y2s, N1K2s, J7W, Ki-108… all of which are rarely seen and/or played by above average pilots who will make it seem like they’re balanced to gaijin’s statistiks.
But hey, maybe that’s actually your plan.
I agree actually, the XF-2A will be a great replacement right at 12.7 and should have been added a long time ago.
The Ki-27 climbs even better, and I killed P51Hs with it. Put it at 6.0 please.
OP, try fighting a player in a fast plane that keeps his speed. You will see how useless your plane is when you chase someone in a shallow climb.
Don’t confuse ‘easy to use’ with ‘overpowered’
Offtopic:
Oh my god thank you for showing this website, I can learn so much with this
I’ve decided to fly my F4U-4 (no cannons) at 4.3. I’ve encountered a Ki-44-II (3.7) at altitude (~3.5 km) flown by a level 97 player.
The F4U-4 could easily stall flight the Ki-44-II (meaning: drag it in vertical with WEP on and make it fall out of the sky).
Maybe it’s powerful against 3.7 planes but it has absolutely no business being at 4.7 or 5.0. At such BRs, it will be completely useless given the 4.3 F4U-4 could fly circles around it with WEP.
If anything, from what I see spoken about by ARB vets - japanese planes are overtiered, american planes are ridiculously undertiered. Why make that problem even worse?
As a random fun fact, in sim Ki-44-II is 3.0, F4U-4 is 5.3.
It’s fantastic, just keep in mind that certain metrics aren’t accounted for (namely radiator drag and prop efficiency) and that can skew the numbers quite a bit sometimes. But generally it’s a great guideline.
You seem just trying to fight and make somebody else lose in whatever an argument is.
The plane you compared to it is 5.0 plane (J2M2) and Ki-84 ko (5.3) and the performance is barely different except for the armament and speed, though the ground-level speed has a smaller gap. Just because it has like 10% performance difference doesn’t make it “right at 3.7 because Ki-84 and J2M2 is better at 5.0~.” It doesn’t make a goddamn sense bruh. Yak-3 early, F4U and XP-50, P-51C altogether with Me-109F & Me-109G-6 are the most undertiered planes, maybe not Me-109G-6, but it’s significantly lighter than later G models of Me 109. You talked about lowering the prop pitch, but how much. The prop pitch efficiency is affected by the altitude and the plane’s speed. I never faced the issue with Ki-44-ii overheating with 10%~20% radiators, because you can just keep the texts orange the whole match and it won’t even damage the engines to the point you get a problem with. I said about “adding” stuff, not “changing” the currently available stuff.
I literally talked about “What if, applied modifications dynamically changed the BR of the same plane”. You must know that you can check and uncheck the modifications, using M2 or 20mm M2 like a shotgun without the gun accuracy upgrade is a valid tactic. Having “Ho-103 early” and “Ho-103 late” exactly like on M2, and swapping armament like Ki-43-i. And if it changed the BR by 1 or 2 steps we would be able to have “strong armament ki-44 at 4.3” and “weak armament Ki-44 at 3.7”.
It’s so crazy you only talk about meta planes as if these are the standard, that’s just because you only play those popular ones. Despite there is like waaay worse planes than ki-44-ii at 3.7.
Ki-44-ii is just not right at 3.7, and it’s an obvious fact. And when did a lot of players started saying that? After the cannons are buffed. Ki-44-ii used to be at lower BR for years, but the good performance of the vehicle is countered by the shitty armament where the game required you to hit like hundreds of ammo to shoot down a single engine fighter. If you are new, you can just search it online, like on reddit. This place is no better than reddit, so you can just check some footages on how weak Ho-103 without explosive rounds used to be. And now we have air target belt with 3/4 HE rounds. It’s making a difference worth 1 or 2 step BR change.
Ki-44-ii outclimbed Ki-84 in the actual game test flight.
The ingame weight of ki-44-ii is 2100 including the weapons and ammo. The wiki, the most reliable sources state 2100~2150kg own weight. Assuming the weight in this game doesn’t include the weapon mass, Hei must get extra 160kg, Otsu has to get its 180kg armament weight. Every other vehicles list the mass with weapons so Ki-44-ii can’t be this light at 2100kg.
I support this claim. According to my tests the Ki-44 climbs slightly better than the Ki-84 at low speed, at the deck. The Ki-84 climbs better (at the deck) at around 435 KMH IAS or higher.
using the website already linked in this thread, can u explain to me where are the common altitudes in most games where u can drag a ki44ii and make it fall out of the sky? there are many possibilities for that encounter, ki44 could have cooked his engine from not using mec or sustained engine damage. It does not deserve to be 3.7 with its very reliable HEF 12.7s now, just like the usual xp50, wyvern, yak3 and yak3(e) and others. and who are the arb “vets” that u talk about? only the zeroes are heinously overtiered
F4U4 at 4.3 is a joke. It was doing just fine at 5.0
4.7 at least.
Generally, this BR range is broken.
4.0 Yak-3 belong at same BR as normal Yak-3 - 4.7 (right now regular Yak-3 sits at 4.3).
XP-50 is busted at 4.0, belongs to 4.7 - I’m a proud owner, the plane is not really that enjoyable, but it’s v. annoying to face right now. Bf 109 G6 has to really pull tricks out of its ass to manage. A fighter that sits 0.7 BR higher. Let that sink in.
XP-55 should go to 4.7 too (for whatever reason it’s super good at 4.3) - I’m a proud owner.
Once all of that is fixed, Ki-44-II can go to 4.3.
Remember, G.55 S0 is 4.3
It’s marginally faster, climbs a lot worse, it’s a bit better armed, but bigger and turns worse, has worse flaps too. But I find it quite ok.
You fly towards the Ki-44-II at ~400 km/h IAS in a head-on at ~3.3 km. You dodge the head on, dive down to 2900, until you got some decent distance as the Ki is turning around. You climb with WEP on and begin spiralling climbing with some time horizontal and that’s more or less how I remember it, while abusing the F4U’s low stall speed with its flaps.
The F4U-4 on WEP accelerates very stupid fast. I did not record the Ki fight, but I did record a fight in sim where climbing from 400 TAS@947m to 193 TAS@1739 took 20 seconds, then I was back at 280 TAS@1713 after 10 seconds of flying with stick forward just a little. You could probably assume similar numbers with the Ki just at 3-4km altitudes.
Using TAS as it’s not altitude dependent.
Also agreed on the F4U-4 at 4.3 being a joke.
It’s 5.3 in sim and it does perfectly well against stuff like N1k2j, Ta-152 H1, Ki-94-II and probably more, but these are fights I remember distinctly.
Yeah, F4U4 can deal with Ki-44-II if it’s higher than it and uses a hit and run tactic that Ki-44-II can’t effectively counter by climbing. Yes, it’s doable. But I wouldn’t base my gameplan on it happening, I died to F4U recently - but I was literally getting attacked by 2 in turns (amd they started above me) and it took them so much time once I was dead, they were getting swarmed.
I mostly die in Ki-44-II due to my own stupidity and my team melting. It’s super hard to blame the plane even in full uptiers, where I generally feel 0 threat from Bf 109 G6 and Yak-9U.
Yak-3 might not be as good as you think since testing shows it has only the most marginal advantage in ITR over Bf-109F-4, and a slight advantage in STR, less than P-63.
But the energy advantage is significant.
It has enough of an advantage. It’s also a lot faster down low, doesn’t overheat and is way better armed for fighter killing, unless gunpods are involved.
not sure what you plan on doing with that when i already showed the large difference in performance, from testing the ki44ii otsu (wtrti says its 80kg lighter than hei) outaccelerated the f4u until 450kmh ias. the ki44ii also has good flaps and the stall warning appears on both around 118kmh ias so the f4u4 doesnt really have an advantage there, but the top speed is a lot higher around 610kmh while the ki44 otsu is 510 with rads fully open to prevent red temps.
not a sim player, why is the f4u4 at 5.3 in sim? from what i know its main strengths are low speed dogfighting with its strong flaps, roll rate, high top speed 610kmh ias at sea lvl. it doesnt turn that well, rudder compresses and its climbrate doesnt appear to be that good unless im missing smth
