Guns too powerful?

But it does not equal the same mass. The rate of fire of the 7.62 is only a bit over twice the rate, but with a bullet that is 1/4 the mass (and less muzzle velocity). So, using simple, rough math, that is about 60% of the kinetic energy of the 50.

 

Not saying the 7.62s could not down an aircraft, but using more than twice the ammo to do roughly 60% of the damage calcs out to needing just under 4 times the amount of ammo to do the same amount of damage as the 50's. And this is based on a 1 for 1 in guns, the Mustang has 2 more that is not even in the above calculations.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Shahdoh

That comparison was made because people are saying the guns are as or more effective than on the mustang. Im pointing out, they should not be.

They definitely should not be, you're right. We should not dismiss anyway the fact that P-51 guns in the module are way better than people usually say as apparently they don't fire within optimal range. Should I-16 feature a somewhat "better" harmonization pattern people might find them to be better than they actually are as pilots get more bullets in the target. Do we know yet what the convergence distance and pattern for I-16 is? Just thinking out loud reasons why they might be apparently better than they are, it might be a mix of reasons and not just one, who knows.

 

 

 

Left to right, top to bottom.

Rotten genuine Shkas cartridge, 4 machine gun cartridges similar to Shkas (not suited for Shkas guns) mounted on real I-16 MGs links, extreme right Mosin cartridge.

 

Bottom .50" browning (not aeronautical). Definitely bigger.

 

 

 

 

S!

 

P.S.: also tracers should be green BTW

But it does not equal the same mass. The rate of fire of the 7.62 is only a bit over twice the rate, but with a bullet that is 1/4 the mass (and less muzzle velocity). So, using simple, rough math, that is about 60% of the kinetic energy of the 50.

 

Not saying the 7.62s could not down an aircraft, but using more than twice the ammo to do roughly 60% of the damage calcs out to needing just under 4 times the amount of ammo to do the same amount of damage as the 50's. And this is based on a 1 for 1 in guns, the Mustang has 2 more that is not even in the above calculations.

 

 

The kinetic energy is not just mass and rate of fire, but also the velocity of the bullets.

 

Still... I´m no expert on these matters, but sometimes less is more.

 

Also the guns are quite close together, so gun convergence has little influence.

 

Next question is also - are they HE, AP or Incendiary i.e do they simply punch holes, do they explode on impact/after impact and/or also causing fire ?

The kinetic energy is not just mass and rate of fire, but also the velocity of the bullets.

 

Still... I´m no expert on these matters, but sometimes less is more.

 

Also the guns are quite close together, so gun convergence has little influence.

 

Next question is also - are they HE, AP or Incendiary i.e do they simply punch holes, do they explode on impact/after impact and/or also causing fire ?

 

You need to go back and read my posts again, 2 of them already identifying that the 50 has higher velocity and that has been factored into the kinetic energy impact.

 

As far as the variety of rounds used, the 50 had them too, and being 4 times larger, the effects from them would be greater as well.

Next question is also - are they HE, AP or Incendiary i.e do they simply punch holes, do they explode on impact/after impact and/or also causing fire ?

I-16 Shkas used the typical mix of ammo, regular, tracer, HE, etc. But I don't know if it's modelled.

 

 

As said, not sure it has such a big impact in performance, but we don't know what the guns harmonisation is yet, to name something that could eventually affect perceived performance.

 

 

 

S!

I-16 Shkas used the typical mix of ammo, regular, tracer, HE, etc. But I don't know if it's modelled.

 

 

As said, not sure it has such a big impact in performance, but we don't know what the guns harmonisation is yet, to name something that could eventually affect perceived performance.

 

 

 

S!

 

Everything I've read says the I-16 only fired the special Ш marked mostly API and Tracer.

The bullet of the 54r is the same diameter and only a few millimeters longer than the 39 round. I would not call that a "MUCH LARGER ROUND". What makes the difference is the amount of powder packed behind the round. This is where the greater power lies.

 

Still, find it hard to believe that it would match the damage capabilities of 6 or more 50 caliber guns or the cannons.

 

Yes... the bullet is the same diameter and only slightly longer... yes, the case is considerably larger, and what I was referreing to. It is b

obvious two 7mm bullets are going to be approximately the same physical size. Anyway, point stands it's a more powerful round (we're talking semantics, basically, you thought I was referring to bullet, while I was referring to the whole thing, ie the round).

 

No, not as much as a .50, by a factor of several times round for round anyway. The high fire rate will still mean it hits harder than similar .30 cal weapons though by virtue of volume. I'm sure there are discrepancies ingame damage values, but my original post was merely correcting the OP and several others, who kept referencing 7.62x39 which has zilch to do with any of this ;)

 

@Fencible

No, a 30-06 is quite a bit larger than 7.62x54r, .308 is what it's closest to (7.62x51 NATO)

Edited May 16, 2019 by zhukov032186

Just a thought, since I´m no expert on this...

 

How about rate of fire ?

 

A one second burst from both calibers could equal the same "mass" due to the higher rate of fire of the small caliber and the hits would equal a shotgun burst due to the spread.

 

The same could be said with guns vs cannons..

Why didn´t the US fighters favour 20mm guns over their .50, like the Germans and British did if the logic is that a larger caliber equals higher damage ?

 

Because it isn't about mass exclusively. A machine gun fires solid or incendiary rounds, which are good for taking out engines or setting fuel aflame. A cannon blows out large holes, sending shrapnel everywhere, and potentially shattering the frame with a direct hit. It's like quickly stabbing someone with a knife ten times vs smashing their head with a sledgehammer.

 

The Germans were biased more toward every increasing numbers of ever larger cannons because they were dealing with thousands of B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, etc. Machine guns, even 50s, are very ineffective against something that big. Filling it with holes or knocking out an engine isn't good enough, nor are repeated passes advisable. You need to kill it, NOW, on your first pass.

 

The Allies had no such issues, and what comparatively few medium bombers the Germans and Japanese had were not even REMOTELY as well defended, as a result the US stuck with manufacturing large numbers of machine guns, mostly for volume of fire.

 

It is worth noting the machine guns were ditched as soon as jets (which provide a narrow window for firing) and Soviet bomber swarms (which, again, would be hard to bring down with mgs alone) entered the scene, never to return.

Edited May 16, 2019 by zhukov032186

Everything I've read says the I-16 only fired the special Ш marked mostly API and Tracer.

Yeah, specially marked as I said before, because it's a special ammunition for the high ROF weapons. The rotten cartridge in my previous pic is a Ш marked one. It's rotten because that difference, steel body and thicker walls to hold the special gunpowder for high ROF guns. The brass Mosin cartridges are usually as new despite being almost 100 years old.

 

S!

Edited May 16, 2019 by Ala13_ManOWar