Real shatter 1.0.....2.0....3.0?

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
102

Ah the classic “The entire community disagrees with you” post.
A favourite among people who make the best arguments.

Here’s the deal:

Realshatter was implemented and bugged which led to all cannons with realShatter to be almost worthless when using explosive rounds.
Then, Gaijin buffed all shells to make up for their lack of damage. Making explosive rounds viable as well as performing more akin to a real 20/23mm explosive damage against airframes.

Now here’s the deal: Gaijin fixed the bug which basically unintentionally lowered the damage of explosive rounds by 80%.
However: They increased the damage of shells before they fixed the bug, meaning now, that the bug is fixed, shells deal waaaay more damage than they ever intended to cause.

Of course, the majority of players have a brain like this:
If I shoot plane, I want plane to go boom.
Plane go boom = good.

They don’t give a single fuck about whether their guns should obliterate the enemy or not, they just want them to do that and they don’t care about realism.

If someone buffed their vehicles to an unrealistic extend, 99% of players won’t complain and the majority of players will try to use any opportunity to use overpowered vehicles when they can.
Because winning = good

You see, the scenario of a wing loosing 50% of it’s area is completely unrealistic.
A 20mm shell makes around a 20-30cm hole when it strike the wing from above, and that’s for a fighter. That’s the equivalent of 0.07m² (for 30cm) and even a small fighter, like a Yak has a wing area of around 15m², meaning 7.5m² per wing.

There is absolutely no way that a fighter wil go down from receiving even 10 random 20mm hits into the wing from just the damage caused by the blast to the wing area.
Only if you add other components like fuel, oil, water, engine, control surfaces and pilot will you end up with a high likelyhood of the plane going down.

But wings and tails getting shot of from one or two 20mm shells containing 6-10g of TNT is completely ridiculous.

4 Likes
103

When and where. The only post RealShatter Fix I found in the patch notes was “Adition of more fragmentation for 20 mm cannons”, which was promply followed by a Dev Q&A Post along the lines “RealShatter is fine we consider HE damage to be sufficien”

Disagree. Damage is now very similar to pre RealShatter with the exception of the Amercian AN M2 and M3s which now actually deal damage again after almost two years

Cannons obliterating planes is real as I already showed in a post above.
Again in real life ToT (Time on Target) was less than 1s in late war and around 2s in early late war hence why the nations switched to cannons. a single 0.5s burst from a cannon was expected to destroy an enemy plane. So it can not be unrealistic to have the same in WT

Again where is the buff. When comparing to the damage dealt prior to real shatter there is no noticeable difference. It is only different to the 0 damage we had for months.

No there is already a video above showing the damage of a single 20mm shell which shows a fuselage hit on a Spitfire. The fuselage had to be abandoned due to the damage and if any more damage had hit a wing the plane would not have made it back to base. A Cannon shell will destroy 50% of a wings lift with a single hit with ease. At least for single engine WW II aircraft whith some exceptions like the IL series.

This is not even 10% of the damage caused by explosive fragmentation shells. 90% of their designed damage is the fragmentation (Which gajin decided to not properly model so now we have equivalent damage but different) Again Watch the video above

This translates to “20mm cannons can not destroy a plane”

No. While a killed pilot or dead engine are among the most common reasons for a plane kill, destruction of wings and fuselage are right behind those and this is the reason why the death rate among pilots was not higher. Buring fuel? Dead. Cockpit hit? Dead. Engine hit=fire? Dead.

I don´t think so, because it is not happening. I don´t know if you and Loof are playing a different game, but noone here confirmed this claim of wings always flying off. They only do when The plane enters a spin, hard turn or a similar high G manouver. They do not break off in a chase or if the enemy does not execute high G manouvers.
The main problem in WT is the ability of our pilot to sustain these high G forces. In reality most planes hovered around the 3G mark for a sharp turn, higher G`s where only expected in a dive., In WT however 3Gs is not even a turnfight, those start at 4G even for Bi-Planes and in mid war battles even 8 or 9G can be achived With sth around 7G being the normal starting point.

Could Gajin reduce the damage? Yes. Should they? That depends. In my opinion we are at a decent point. Maybe 5 to 10% less damage. But not as Loof argued “Should be worse than Mg151/20, and that one worse as well” All this would once again do is making cannons useless.
As mentioned before we are right smack in the realistic 10-20% ammo range needed for a kill. While during the past 6 months we where closer to “100% needed for kill” territory and for many “???% these guns do damage? thats new”.

2 Likes
104

You’ve been playing this game long enough to understand how the DM works in WT and why you see wings and tails fly off. This specific question has been answered by Gaijin many years ago and comes due to a limitation on the game engine to actually properly simulate damage to those parts when instructor is involved … so instead of making your plane unflyable due to major damage to the fuselage/airfoils, they instead just cut the entire section off and have you crash like that.

3 Likes
105

No it translates to: 20mm rounds shouldn’t make planes lose a wing in one or two hits.
That’s it.

If an IL-2 could be downed by a few hits of 20mm HE, causing it to lose it’s wing, it wouldn’t be known as flying tank.

German manual specifically note that against heavily armored targets like IL-2s, up to 50% of API should be used.

That’s non-sense. If 90% of their damage came from fragments, a 130g HE round would be equal to 10-11 7.7mm AP rounds that weigh 10-11g and have a lot more kinetic energy.

You have the blast and you have the fragments.
The blast creates a large hole in the aircrafts skin and fuel tanks and destroys the structe while the fragments damage components in a wide near the impact point. They perforate oil and water tanks, radatiors and all kinds of pipes for transporting fuel/oil/water as well as control cables.
Of course they also wound aircraft crew.

Oh yeah. Please share it with us :)

106

You want from about 3 minutes.

Also, i have asked this previously, but never got a response, how do you know its only a few hits? Dozens could have been fired in 1 second, impacting the wing, tail, etc causing critical damage.

I would also like to see real world evidence of these canons NOT taking out an enemy fighter with a dozen rounds.

3 Likes
107

Funny thing is that the plane was very easy to kill for planes but very hard for ground crews as they usually only saw the slim front so most hits occured around the heavily armed sections and not on the wing. So no it is not known as the Flying tank because of how resistant to 20mm plane cannons it was it is known as such because of how resistant it was against ground gire.
The development of large calibre SPAA like the Ostwind was in part to help troops counter planes like the IL 2 due to its resitance to the usual smal calibre AAA fire.

Yes to ensure that you could kill the pilot and engine as well. Also the thing is that the Minengeschoss was a purpose bullet designed to semi pirce the usually less than 2mm thick skin of planes, wo it was much less effective against Planes with thicker armour. Hispano HEI and HEF are more effective against the IL 2 than the Minengeschoss. The need to use AP does not negate the damage caused by HE.

You clearly did not watch the video provided. In it you see a Spitfire with a large hole on one side and hundreds if not thousands of small holes on the opposide side. From a single 20mm Minengeschoss.

Yes they do that. Buit fun fact the skin of an aicraft is not even 10% as strong as any fuelline. So if you say they destroy all those instruments they also destroy the skin, and muc more. Again proving my point by trying to disprove it.

The poster already did.
Again you show that you did not even bother with reading up on the discussion we had and just butted in with halfassed information and self believes. 0 merit and a waste of time

3 Likes
108

Can confirm this, was fighting an IL-2 in a mk2 spit with only 8x mgs, took a lot to kill it

109

Imho all cannons are to strong now, lol. Doesn’t matter which one…even the up to now worst aphe shell totally desintegrates enemy planes with just one hits (while 30mm HE shells or Mineshells feel rather weak now).

1 Like
110

Which 30 mm, I asume you do not mean the german ones because they have been nuts for over a year now making the Ostwind as an SPAA absolutely broken

111

Ostwind has a 37mm cannon and these high calibre cannons should one shot planes.

112

Well gajin, apparently, makes no difference between 30 to 40mm models in guns so. Or rather in case of HE models.
For tank guns ofc there is a difference but not for HE,HEF and HEI models outside of TNT mass

113

And how many rounds “should” it take for a 20mm cannon to destroy a fighter?

114

It’s not one hit, maybe a solid burst sure.
30mms aren’t weaker either, but the 20mm Mineshell is definitely lacking and needs a buff/ realshatter treatment.
image
That’s a critical hit after around 10 rounds of Hispanos, I don’t see what’s so incredibly broken about it.
Note: In that test only 20mms were selected.

3 Likes
115

Agreed there. Finding it takes a solid 1 to 2 second burst from a spitfire. Which is about 20 to 30 rounds from the hispano at least (not including the 4x 303s firing as well)

116

I already commented on the video that he talks alot of bullshit about the performance of 20mm Mineshells.

That picture he provided is just a Spitfire that was hit by something.
Saying it was a Mineshell and that the effect was deveasting is complete bullshit.
There is no proof about.

Infact we can clearly see in that image that the hole made into the plane is smaller than the Pilots head and we know that a 20mm ShVAK with 6-8g of TNT equivalent will produce a somewhat larger hole than that. (He also shows a Japanese 20mm that created a larger than head-sized hole in a B-24)
So saying it was a Mineshell, that has around 30g of explosive, which would result in a much larger hole from the blast, is completele nonsense.

Everything we see in that picture describes the performance of the FI-T shell instead of a hit by a Mineshell.
We have “powder burns” which makes no sense. It’s explosive, it’s not gun powder. A Mineshell detonatates so violently that it would just rip off any material near the blast, so there wouldn’t be any burn marks near the explosion.
However a FI-T shell has both a tracer and incendiary compound in the back of the shell, which would leave some burn marks around the entrance hole.
Despite only having a small amount of explosive inside, the shell completely breaks appart from the detonation, spraying fragments in a cone shape due to the momentum of the shell traveling forward.
Thus we can see a large number of very small holes on the other side of the plane.

That kind of damage would practically have no effect on the airplane.
In the second example we see 3 hits from FI-T shells and the airplane made it back to base.
In WT it would have lost it’s tail.

I shoot of the tail of a Bf 109 with 6 hits from 13mm explosive rounds in test-flight, that should cause less damage than three 20mm FI-T rounds.

You were talking about a picture, not a video, which I’ve already seen when it was released 11 months ago. Therefore I knew that it didn’t contain any actuall images from 20mm hits on a Spitfire.
Just some guy claiming it is without providing any source.

1 Like
117

Prove otherwise then please. You have claimed these shells dont do that much damage, but have yet to provide any evidence otherwise. If that video is in-accurate, then prove it. until then, I’ll assume its accurate.

I personally think this is the most accurate we’ve had in a long time. Canons werent added to take out Fighters, they were added to take out bombers, which were a lot more resistant to damage. Therefore, they should do a lot of damage to a fighter

1 Like
118

Do I speak chinese?
I said that the blast from a dozen 20mm rounds wouldn’t be enough to destroy a planes wing structure enough to bring it down, which a few rounds in WT will do by just making the wing snap.

A dozen 20mm HEI rounds would most likely bring down a fighter due to damage inflicted to critical components. Afterall we’re talking more than one kg of steel fragments, blast damage and burning incendiary compount. Very unlikely not to cripple one critical system which would bring it down.

Before the bug fix to realShatter, I would win a lot of fights due to engine damage, either causing the enemy to crash or just suffer so much performance loss that I could easily line up my sights and finish them off.
Now everyone just explodes and falls from the sky again.

119

This is a game engine limitations

In my opinion this is exactly how much its currently doing, these cannons dont have a low fire rate. A 1 second burst easily enough time to put dozens of rounds down range. I have yet to see any evidence of these guns taking down an aircraft in WT, in a single round. My experience is that its at least 20-30 rounds from the cannons alone (at least for Hispanos)

2 Likes
120

There is no definitive answer. I can be 1 to 10, just depending where you hit, with what type of ammo.

It’s just clear that planes shouldn’t lose their wings, tails or other controls (rudder/elevator) from just 1-2 20mm rounds

If it’s a Zero with no protection for the Pilot and not even self-sealing fuel tanks, a single 20mm HEI can easily bring down the pilot just as a 7.7mm can.
Of course hitting with three 20mm compared to three 7.7mm makes it a whole lot more likely to bring down the plane just by wounding or killing the pilot, not to mention the damage to other components.

Same with a bi-plane that has very fragile wings compared to a mono-plane, which would be more easily shot down by the use of 20mm explosive rounds.

121

Not necessarily, depends on the ammo, Many Swordfish were able to take over 100 rounds from the Bismark as the HE rounds went straight through the cloth skin without detonating. But I get the point you were trying to make.

Pre-these changes, If I got onto the tail of something, like a Fw-190, then I was needing to put 4 or 5 seconds worth of ammo into them. That is like 1/3+ my ammo. Now its more like 1-2 seconds. It feels a lot better. But I think the more important change, is the damage to Bombers. I can actually kill bombers now in a spitfire.