Toghether with the question, whether this change was necessary or reasonable, and the fact that many more vehicles could have ammunition that they either should have or potentially, makes this somewhat controversial.
There’s certainly no denying that a 45mm APHE round would be reasonable from a historical point, particular for attacking boats and small ships.
It’s just that this probably never happend outside of tests and that the this round has a huge impact on the game for how easy it is destroying ground targets.
A much more reasonable change would have been a ground target belt that contained 50% HE rounds, but instead Gajin implemented a full APHE belt.
If APCR existed, then this would be the historical correct round for targeting tanks, but in no way would a 45mm aircraft cannon be loaded with just AP rounds for attacking ground targets.
This would still be a huge boost in the ability to destroy ground targets but not in such a way how Gaijin implemented it with a full APHE belt.
Literally no one is going to use the APCR belt, because the APHE is just so much better in destroying tanks, even if the belt merely contained 50% APHE.
Adding this shell wouldn’t be such a problem, if this didn’t boost the CAS potential of planes with the NS-45 by such a ridiculous amount.
One of the inherent issues seems to be lack of recoil that would affect the plane.
The lack of recoil probably comes from the implementation of the recoil affecting the entire airframe, while it should affect the center of gravity, shaking the plane off target after every shot.
True. I think I’m gonna make a report to nerf the German 5cm cannons 🤔
They also wouldn’t fire HVAP, since they were not being used as tank hunters and in the case of the BK 5 and BK 7.5 the HVAP again would not be necessary for attacking tanks anyway.
It’s very odd. They could fire HVAP, but never did. We have HVAP in the game but no one is using them.
Of course it would be a lot different, if APHE wasn’t so much better in WT.
Excuse me, what are you reffering to?
(If its that is has Pzgr.40, dont bother, they dont care.)
And im not shure wheter it is even incorrect, as the Bk5 was placed on multiple plance including desicated AT runs, and most of the time (especially with the JU-88 P-4) top down is unrealistic.
Why?
Also belts are part of ballancing as well as what makes you think that they didnt used full Pzgr.39 against armored targets?
(Except 4000/10 which is ideal usage to base your need on, which doenst specifiy the usage for sayed 5 cm gun.)
Coming back to the Ju 88 P-4 Ausf.B which is also handloaded(with support), they would also choose what ammo to shoot at what targets.
I never tested it much, but in the past I heard a lot about MK 103 dispersion nerfs. Specially Ho 229 was considered a menace to all ground vehicles thanks to it’s agility and we still have a separate MK 103 cannon model for Ho 229. I’ve heard it’s less accurate than the others. When it comes to the few planes with NS-45, they should have plenty of room to adjust the accuracy in one way or another or push the BRs up. Still it should have been obvious how well this round would perform, so they could have already adjusted something. Sure we still get other grossly overpowered things now and then, but lately they have been able to react to those sooner.
Have you found anything more and can you give name of those documents? If there is a photo of the round, then I would expect there to be at least the weight as well. Unfortunately that 66.6% might indicate they only tested as low as 3 rounds.
At any rate I really want to know how little is considered enough to implement new ordnance for WWII era aircraft. I couldn’t find a guideline about it, so I might as well try writing one about Ho-401 APHE and see how it goes. It’s definitely not any useful round and will result into many nose plantations if someone would try top attacking with it. A fun one at least.
As was proven before NS-45’s shells are completely different to soviet’s tank’s 45mm 20-K which are mounted on best soviet low-rank tanks. I won’t argue with the fact that 45mm gun has harder recoil anyway. NS-45 has more power (as were proven several times), but not in game as compare with NS-37 when shooting air targets (okay I can live with that), use it against armored vehicles until holy APHE still can penetrate. NS-37 has a significant advantage in gunspray and large amount of blast power in game, so it’s better to be used against aircrafts. NS-37 can be used against ground vehicles when on low rank battles only and with armor-piercing shells (if you try to learn it’s gunnery well).
That’s all folks.
The NS-37 HEI-T is one of the few rounds that doesn’t use realShatter, so at the moment it’s somewhat less lethal than 45mm HEI-T, but in general both will one shot a wing or tail off.
Good evidence there. This is so poorly and lazily added. The magic autocannon, seeing that now it makes sense how there is basically no dispersion.
Let me guess, we actually have to bug report this obvious lack of care?
It’s extremely obvious they are well over performing and wholly unrealistic. I tire of seeing the same plane in the air every match, getting 3-6 kills per belt and ruining matches. I can’t play SPAA all the time.
It seems like usual 4.0 round has up to 5 Yak-9Ks on air. Quite surprisingly I haven’t seen a single TIS MA so far. They used to relatively common up to 6.3 BR. This month their price jumped from 75G to 125G and there aren’t a lot left in stock. Can’t think if I’ve ever seen Su-8 or Tu-1. The latter would be an easy target for AA of that BR anyway and both are too clumsy for top attack.
Yes, but it’s HVAP in a default belt with 91mm pen. Almost as much as what the MK103 had before, and much more than what it has now.
The solid shot for the 3.7cm Flaks would have ~67mm, and the HVAP would have ~110mm. Both are missing, while other nations have much better AP ammo in their 37 and 40mm SPAAs. Just adding that solid shot as an AP-T belt maybe mixed with some HE or APHE, would put them on par with other SPAAs in their ability to defend themselves, instead of the current situation where they’re pretty much useless the moment something remotely armored shows up.
Said many times but the ability to destroy vehicles is irrelevant for SPAA.
Some SPAA are decent for air and ground combat while those that aren’t good against ground vehicles are much more effective against air for the same BR.
Destroying planes is incredible valuable. A guy that spawns in a plane after getting one kill is out of the game when he gets killed without earning any more SP.
What if you spawned an SPAA, and the 1-3 CAS planes (or however many there were) instantly crash the moment you spawn in - as has happened to me many times - you’re then screwed if you’re playing germany.
Other SPAAs like the M53/59, ZSU-37, the 25mm GAZ trucks, any of the swedish 40mm ones, can reliably defend themselves. The Ostwinds are lucky to pen a 1940 T-34 anywhere.
