Me looking at the TIS MA I got in the snowglobes and seeing this post laughing myself to death.
1 Like
Soviet .50s pack a much harder punch than US .50s, having both a much higher fire chance and also being mounted in the nose, meaning no need to worry about convergence.
Feel free to try and experiment. Which hits harder, a P-38 without the 20mm or an F8F-1?
Absolutely not true, energy retention is critical for ground strike. Doing the vertical loops required for repeated CAS runs (especially as needed for gun CAS) is intensely wasteful on energy. Better energy retention means you’re more easily able to continue to do runs, rather than having to reset. Having more speed also makes it harder for you to be intercepted by CAS or SPAA.
Don’t believe me? Try running an IL-2 for CAS. You have to take exceptionally long runs to preserve your energy, and if you don’t (or even think about making a vertical loop), you’re completely out of energy and forced to make slow, low angle runs that make you a sitting duck for CAP, SPAA, or even aware tank players. Same principle holds true for almost all other gun CAS, barring the 50mm 262. Meanwhile, the Yak-9K can just keep doing vertical loops over and over again with little energy lost.
10 Likes
If you use the Pzgr.40 HVAP on the Bk 5 instead of Pzgr.39, then i cant give your opinion any worth.
1 Like
I moved no goalposts. The 9K is the ONLY single engine fighter at its BR with a large, centerline cannon with powerful APHE rounds.
They don’t. The P-63s are the only american planes (that fit the above requirements) with a 37mm cannon, which is UNQUESTIONABLY worse than the 45mm. Britain’s uses solid shot, with much lower rate of fire, and it’s not even centerline mounted.
Believe it or not, twin engine heavy fighters are NOT comparable to one of the lightest and smallest single engine fighters. That’s the whole point of this comparison - a Hs 129 or Ki-109 are NOT counterparts, no matter how much certain repliers in this thread want to pretend so.
Okay, then name another single engine prop fighter with a centerline mounted cannon of 45+/-10mm in caliber that also fires APHE.
8 Likes
-a twin engine boat
-a twin engine boat that BARELY flies
-a 6.3
-the 9K, a 4.3 that can favorably out-dogfight enemy fighters at its BR unlike all 3 aircraft shown above, and can still go kill tanks afterwards
Japan does just fine with two .50cals in a lot of their fighters. Berezins ALSO have an extremely potent IAI belt:
Taking longer to kill a fighter is still much, MUCH better than the other “big gun attackers” that are easy free kills.
(lies)
Largely the same for the Hs 129s, except they’re even more underpowered. And unlike the IL-2s, they cannot boast an impressive turn time to surprise an unaware opponent.
3 Likes
I just wonder the Vickers P could have APHE in fact, because all of 47MM guns have APHE, except the that.
For gun CAS? HVAP is only used on gun CAS if it is the only thing that can penetrate. If APHE can penetrate, even if you have to work more at it, then that is always preferable.
I also do not see how you can claim that the Yak-9k, a fighter, has inferior anti-air abilities compared to a large, heavy, twin engine aircraft like a Me 410.
3 Likes
@WolfgangTheSecon
Ammo is more accurate from aircraft the faster it is for some reason.
Whether its on a per-ammo basis or velocity base, that makes HVAP inherently superior when you have 240 rounds on a rather maneuverable airframe like Me 410.
Me 410 also has superior anti-air guns to Yak, and you claim that Yak is inferior in airframe performance… lol Yeah, your post is null and void.
1v1 me in your Me 410, I’ll grab any Yak and whip you.
Just cause Me 410 is really good as a heavy fighter doesn’t mean it’s meta at anything other than CAS.
1 Like
I don’t know. The british were never very keen on APHE.
This was such a lie that you yourself walked it back in the same post.
And just for the record, the Me 410 is missing bulletproof glass in front of the pilot so you can pilot snipe it with rifle cal MGs.
Shall I remind you of your own post?
2 Likes
And the full backseat armor, as well as the bulletproof glass for the back gunner.
If anyone has more source material, pls send them to me.
2 Likes
As the two main advocates for claiming everything is fine and:
…took a well deserved break i finally i could remember my first thought when i read about the aircraft / shell combination: A sniper’s dream.
You might know this vid:
A sniper's dream
Always happy to see that you give everything to keep the entertainment level of the thread on such an exquisite level.
Happy new year!
4 Likes
I claim that the Yak has superior airframe performance. Naturally, if you and I were to fight with the Yak and Me 410 you’d whip me, because the Yak would win every time. The problem of this situation is that the Yak is too good for it’s BR, so I don’t know why you’re acting like we’re saying the Yak is bad, considering that line of reason directly damages your side of the argument.
I don’t think anyone has said the Me 410 is particularly good in air to air. Workable, but that’s not been part of the conversation. We’ve been saying it pays for its CAS ability by being poor in air to air, wheareas the Yak suffers no disadvantage for that.
As to the guns, the cannons are better than .50 cals, but not to the degree that you wouldn’t be better off with a better airframe instead.
3 Likes
Honestly, on something as big and heavy as the Me-410, I might actually prefer the .50s. I’d have to try it out and see, but the combination of a large and sluggish airframe plus the low velocity of the MG151s makes it rather tricky to aim, and limits your range quite heavily.
Since you typically get a smaller window of time to hit things, due to your target being able to instantly outpull you the second they notice you, I expect I’d prefer the weapon that can hit at longer ranges more consistently.
2 Likes
I agree. On most things I do prefer cannons to .50 cals, but the MG 151 more difficult to use than most other cannons, to the extent I’d say they aren’t an advantage over .50 cals on most aircraft. They’re worse for dogfights and better for BnZ.
2 Likes
I’d say that what makes the MG151s good is the aircraft they’re on more of less counter their weakness in range. Bf109s and Fw190s excel at energy fighting, meaning the aircraft they’re targetting are almost always slow and flying in predictable, easy to intercept paths. This makes the relative difficulty in aiming much less relevant, and allows it’s incredible damage to shine (Although the difference in damage isn’t nearly as great as it once was).
But put those guns on something that can’t energy trap opponents, and they become more of a detriment than an advantage. Sure, anything you hit with them will usually die, and with a lot fewer rounds than a .50 cal. But it’s a pretty sizable struggle to pull the deflection you need to lead them in a merge, they’re a liability in tail chases where your opponent is faster than you, and they’re not great in headons if you lack the ability to quickly pull out of the way.
Basically, they’re a solid option for aircraft that can cover for their primary disadvantage, but a serious detriment for those that can’t.
3 Likes
Airframe performance matters less when doing anti-ground runs.
See Tornado vs Typhoon. Both are GBU buses, it matters not that the Typhoon can out-dogfight everyone, it only matters if the Tornado doesn’t face plant.
1 Like
When doing cannon CAS, yes it does.
Airframe performance is quite literally what makes the Yak-9K so OP. It is able to always do vertical runs against tanks, compared to other CAS which cant.
6 Likes
Now add the inevitable enemy fighters or an incoming SAM you need to dodge. You know, as it would happen if your comparison was relevant to the topic.
1 Like
So Me-410 is OP by your own argument, not your words, your rationale.
Either acknowledge them all, or you’re clearly fanboying over a specific country’s equipment.
1 Like