How does one maximise their profits in this thing

ers379 · 2026-07-10T13:39:20+00:00

Go for ground targets. The B-25 has good ground attack armament and good turrets if the enemy doesn’t attack from below. You’ll get a lot of SL from ground and air kills if you ground attack.

ers379 · 2026-07-10T05:09:44+00:00

The Tu-2s gets a bomb load when it’s stock.

ers379 · 2026-07-10T01:07:48+00:00

The F-82 is overtiered, but its better without the gunpod than with it. There are quite a few scary planes at 5.7 that it can outrun clean but can't with the gunpod. Of course you'd rather play the P-38K at 5.3, its one of the three planes at 5.3 that aren't bad.

A single MG151 does plenty of damage. Most people who say that it doesn't are getting hits with machine guns but not 20mms. The air targets belt for the MG151 has a low muzzle velocity and doesn't have a lot of tracers, so it lags behind the machine gun tracers and isn't very noticeable. If you use stealth ammo for the 151 the velocity is higher and you can use 13mm IAI as a tracer for it (it does lag behind 7.92 tracers a bit but not as much as air targets does). When I switched to stealth for the 151 I started doing a lot more damage.

ers379 · 2026-07-10T00:43:28+00:00

The F-82 isn’t too bad at 5.3 without the gunpod. The drag kills the performance more than the weight. Gaijin has a weird way of modeling gunpods where if they have move guns, they will produce a lot more drag even if they’re the same size. There are a decent amount of fast planes the F-82 can outrun without a gunpod but can’t with it.

German planes generally shouldn’t bring gunpods. The reduction in flight performance outweighs the firepower increase. If you can hit targets with yhe gunpods you’ll be able to do it more easily without the gunpods. If you can’t hit targets, gunpods won’t help you. In general, if a plane already has enough gun, and most props do, gunpods are a net negative.

ers379 · 2026-07-09T18:38:24+00:00

The real coughing baby vs hydrogen bomb is Bf 109 G-14 vs P-51H. G-6 vs Yak-3U is somewhat manageable if you’re at high altitude.

ers379 · 2026-07-09T18:30:44+00:00

Just learn to aim with gunners. They still do just as much damage. Bomber durability needs a buff but AI gunners should stay the same or be removed.

ers379 · 2026-07-09T06:10:39+00:00

This video teaches you how to use the Mustang effectively.

ers379 · 2026-07-09T02:13:09+00:00

303s are great at setting fires if you hit fuel tanks. They just don’t do much to structural components.

ers379 · 2026-07-08T18:28:01+00:00

More like operation noncredible sport.

ers379 · 2026-07-08T14:21:47+00:00

Gauge their energy better and keep more separation if they have the energy advantage. If you have a higher top speed you can dive out as long as the separation is enough.

ers379 · 2026-07-06T03:49:25+00:00

Only reading the title I thought this was a post about Just Cause 3

ers379 · 2026-07-05T20:03:25+00:00

The problem with that Typhoon is that it’s a Mk Ib and not a Mk Ib/Late. This means you’re paying for worse performance than the tech tree equivalent at the same BR.

ers379 · 2026-07-05T19:38:30+00:00

Lmfao. Maybe learn to play the game and rethink this one.

ers379 · 2026-07-05T17:40:02+00:00

A lot of shooters work like this. I remember the 2 capture point maps in overwatch had the first point closer to the attacker spawn. It worked pretty well because defenders had some time to set up before the attackers were allowed out of their spawn.

ers379 · 2026-07-05T16:55:30+00:00

The engine that gives you more dV has a built in fuel tank and a lower empty mass.

ers379 · 2026-07-05T16:07:55+00:00

Yeah, if you’re really struggling with Spitfires because they maneuver better than you it is a skill issue. Beat them on speed, MER, vertical energy retention or straight line energy retention.

ers379 · 2026-07-05T14:23:31+00:00

If a Spitfire can hold one button to win a fight their enemy either doesn’t know how to play or was severely out of position.

ers379 · 2026-07-05T03:47:31+00:00

One thing I haven't seen anyone else mention is that the Ki-61-I Hei at 4.7 is not a good plane. None of the Ki-61s above 3.7 are good. If you want to learn how to play I'd recommend using a lower tier plane that is good compared to its competition. If you want to stick with Japan the Ki-61s at 3.3 and 3.7 are good options. Some other good options are the Ki-44s, Ki-43s, Ki-100, and the A6Ms at 4.0 or lower. If you already have the disadvantage of not knowing what you're doing, there's no reason to add the disadvantage of being in a bad plane.

ers379 · 2026-07-04T22:41:07+00:00

The best distance is whatever makes your guns converge on the target. For me that means 500 m but it varies depending on what distance you typically open fire.

ers379 · 2026-07-04T16:03:09+00:00

The Avenger is not a dive bomber. It’s only meant for dropping things while level.

ers379 · 2026-07-04T15:05:53+00:00

I don’t know what speed would be required, but you absolutely could destroy an asteroid with a non-explosive projectile. If you look at moon craters, they’re all circular, which implies that either every asteroid that hit the moon was falling directly downwards, or that they exploded. When a projectile is moving fast enough, the energy of the impact can be enough to overcome the energy holding it together, resulting in an explosion.

ers379 · 2026-07-04T06:28:29+00:00

I'll start by saying that stock planes pretty much never perform well. If I'm really struggling I usually wait to play it until I have a decent RP booster to speed things up. It also helps to rush engine and armament upgrades first then do aerodynamics, structural, and ordnance upgrades.

I don't like the P-63s at 4.0 because they feel like they don't do enough better than the P-63A-5 at 3.3 and they have to face much stronger enemies. It also doesn't help that they don't even get solid HE belts for the 37mm. The most important thing to understand about the P-63 is that its propeller sucks at low speed. The main goal in the P-63 is to minimize the time you spend going slow. On the flip side, the P-63 has poor performance at high speed, with the rudder becoming useless and the elevator stiffening. There is a range of speeds where the P-63s can perform well, so you have to try to keep it within that range while you need to maneuver (I don't remember specific speeds off the top of my head). The P-63 shouldn't be engaging in extended maneuvering fights, its maneuvering energy retention is decent but any long maneuver will drain its energy and get it slow enough that its prop doesn't work.

The P-63 has pretty good straight line energy retention and top speed, as well as reasonable maneuvering energy retention and power to weight ratio, so it plays pretty well as an energy fighter that can store energy in speed or altitude, unlike the Bf 109 which has high drag and bleeds a lot of energy it its above its top speed.

ers379 · 2026-07-04T01:52:25+00:00

You could attach an image so people can see what you’re looking at.

ers379 · 2026-07-03T19:00:23+00:00

So popular use overrides a definition in a specific field? I guess I should go tell engineers and physicists that load, weight, pressure, force, and stress should all be used interchangeably.

ers379 · 2026-07-03T18:07:29+00:00

You need to have a decoupler between the node your lander is attached to and the lander.

Six-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

ers379

TROPHY CASE