Yeah, 20mm would struggle somewhat.
A single WW2 20mm is generally not good enough,
hence why most nations switched to 37/40mm AA guns or Germany mounted them in quad mounts to keep them somewhat effective.
But right now it’s the opposite, with 20mm hitting so hard that larger calibers are pointless.
Maybe they could buff low tier SPAA by giving them more spawns or multiple vehicles that you can switch between.
Lots of possibilities while keeping the damage inflicted realistic.
Historically speaking WW2 SPAA were pretty weak. They were more of a deterrent that broke up clean attack runs by acting on the fact that the pilot doesn’t want to risk dying even if the chance is low (direct hit to the canopy/pilot that isn’t stopped by the armoured glass or very rare wingshear or engine fire) or be unable to return home (oil, coolant leaks). I dont have the link on hand but there’s a WW2 era training film for Sherman tactics using the rooftop MG while travelling and being attacked by jabos and the idea is described as exactly like this (make the luftwaffe break off their attack run and miss their drops).
Even in ideal scenarios like naval encounters (where the boat is basically a floating village with way more guns and way better aiming than a half-track, truck or tank chassis with a gun welded/bolted on top of it could manage (and often multiple boats)… actual casualties for aircraft were quite low (go to example is Operation Ten-Go where U.S fielded 386 aircraft vs a battleship, a cruiser and 8 destroyers and only outright lost 10-13 of them and 52 were damaged but able to RTB.)
That is not to say anti-air wasn’t dangerous to lone low-flying aircraft, but it’s usually a case of volume of fire and time rather than what we get in GRB or GSB and delayed kills (leaks, which is kinda why the P-47 was so reliable)
USSR Coastal fleet. I feel that some of the stuff they have at lower BRs (2.0-2.7) is absolutely crazy for its br. Naval needs a ton of br changes. The PC-451 also has no place at 2.3. Absolutely broken thing.
Im sorry, is there a alternate world you three are living in? At no point does any APC shell of the American M3 90mm can reliably penetrate the upper front plate of the Panther. Only the APCR can do it at around 150m, but onlt if its dead-on with absolutely no angle.
Because yes, the M3 90mm could in fact kill a Panther at 400m with the M77 and over a 1000m with the T33 shell. Then even farther then that with the improved post-war T33 shells that still can’t penetrate a Panther in WT!
In game you have to ram a Panther and point your down to maybe pen and kill it. If there’s a War Thunder clone that accurate models AP shells of all other nations then by all means share it.
And this is how you let everyone here know that you do not do any research on armored vehicles whats so ever. You just take whatever Gaijin does to their vehicles as absolute fact and then close your eyes and cover your ears when someone says anything otherwise.
The AP irl was able to take out an IS-3 over 1+km away. It’s gun was designed to take out soviet heavies at extreme distances, that’s why both the British and the French adopted it for their own use. But nah, they totally adopted a expensive weapon system that couldn’t what it was designed to do.
Shocker: Nation developes new ammunition that is better than the old :O
Almost like as guns penetrate more armor, newer tanks end up being built with better armor
I’ve been playing this recently and it’s not as good as it seems. The suspension is very bouncy and heavily reduces accuracy when firing if you fire side on. The vehicle is also easy to knock out and defend yourself from because the only gunner is exposed to any MG fire.
Also what IS tank is overperforming? Most are considered underwhelming.
what
what
MIG-29 overperforms in flight performance
Yak-38 can actually fly in game lmao
I don’t think the thread is about realism overperformance
Thats why i said “i doubt”. You dont have to be so pretentious. I was never interested in the M103 so i never truly got into its development history. But i know for sure that “super tank destroyer” that is build in ten times amounts less than the tank it should destroy must be a faulty build. And i also know that most countries adopted british L7 as the modern weapon to counter IS and T-55 serie tanks (which had similar protection in terms). Thus why the 120mm cannon didnt become neither US main anti tank cannon up until M1A1 (which WASNT the same 120mm cannon), nor British up until L21 (which ALSO is highly different cannon). Which also never did shoot solid AP shots. French are the ones left with 120 on solid shots, but i fairly never asked myself on why did they adopt it, so i dont know.
I based my thought on some logic there is, and wanted to hear some information in return, not the “it could pen with ssolid shots because m103 was build to destroy is-3”. Yeah duh, when IS-3 came to production there were tens of T-34-85s still in service thus why solid AP shots. Lol.
Plus i found one pic in my savings:
which is said to be non-penetrated IS-3 with 105mm AP shots (arguably APDS as i have no info about Israel shooting 105mm solid AP shots). Which makes me doubt M103 was capable of slapping the IS-3 armor with its solid shots, when the more advanced L7 APDS couldnt. Yes, the M103 had huge energy, but also was a capped AP, not tungsteen core APDS :/
You shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet.
We know that 120mm AP could defeat nearly 140mm armor at 60° because, guess what, they tested the cannon to see it does what it was designed to do.
If the Conquerors tungsten carbide APDS was able to penetrate the IS-3, how would 105mm tungsten alloy fail?
Tungsten alloy turned all the amazing vertical penetration of tungsten carbide into slope armor penetration.
How would that even make sense that L7 APDS can penetrate a T-54/55s 100mm at 60° but fails to penetrate an IS-3s 110mm at 60°?
Thats fair to say, they did test and there are sheets of penetration results on angled armor in the net. Tho i failed to find any info about testing this cannon on IS-3s. And if it was made to destroy them, surely (at least when the israel got 10s of them) at least one would be shot at with it?
Well, because 105 isnt 120, lower velocity/mass/ect. Idk, them Redditors also believe its APDS of 105 L7, as other 105mm cannon that the IDF wielded is M51 CN105, which had no AP ammuition at all.
I also found info that APDS wasnt able to tho.
Even if it was true. Without knowing the range it’s useless.
And is this info with us in the room right now?
Thats for sure. Distance plays huge role here
well it was about how the L7 of M60 performed on 2000 meters so maybe
Then what is the over performance referring to, just game balance?
yea from what I can interpret
fair and balanced they said
I lowkey don’t care what kind of overperformance you mean. If it’s for game balance, state why. If it’s historical, provide proof or at least what you assume :3
R-77 range seems correct though?