Guns too powerful?

Congratulations on this surprising release! This is a beautifully done module and I have been enjoying learning to fly it much more than I had expected to. Superb attention to detail and a welcome challenge to fly well. Well done, and thank you!

I do feel that the 4x7.62mm (.30 cal) machine guns seem to hit as hard as 12mm (.50 cal) guns or even 20mm cannon! I have been practicing on helpless targets, and find that I have no problem tearing up the famously tough FW-190D airframes with my little I-16.

As a control, I also attacked the same test targets in the same tactical situation with a Spitfire IX, using only it's 4x.303 cal Enfield machine guns, and it hardly puts a dent into the FW190D at convergence ranges.

When I test with the P51D with it's 6x.12mm (.50 cal) guns I do better, but not as well as the I-16!!

Perhaps the ammunition used in the I-16 is explosive or has special qualities that I am not yet aware of, but the 7.62x39mm rounds I've fired and observed at the rifle range are no more powerful than a .303, or .308. I am no expert, but I believe that, as much fun as they are now, the I-16's guns been given too much destructive power for rifle caliber machine guns.

It fires 7.62x54R, the Mosin-Nagant round, in this case 148 Grain Armor-piercing Incendiary 2710 Ft/Sec Muzzle.

WHat they really don't seem to model is the gun's Quality of fire as quoted by Soviet machine-gun technician Viktor M. Sinaisky:

"The ShKAS machine gun had a high rate of fire but it also had 48 ways of jamming. Some of them could be fixed immediately, some could not. And 1,800 rounds a minute was an insanely high rate of fire. If you pulled the trigger too long, the ShKAS would fire all its ammo in one go and that would be it!!"

The Spit IX was only shooting 1,150 Rounds a minute of a roughly similar muzzle energy round but only AP or Incendiary not both in one. So i may be the I-16 just throws more lead downrange.

Congratulations on this surprising release! This is a beautifully done module and I have been enjoying learning to fly it much more than I had expected to. Superb attention to detail and a welcome challenge to fly well. Well done, and thank you!

 

I do feel that the 4x7.62mm (.30 cal) machine guns seem to hit as hard as 12mm (.50 cal) guns or even 20mm cannon! I have been practicing on helpless targets, and find that I have no problem tearing up the famously tough FW-190D airframes with my little I-16.

 

As a control, I also attacked the same test targets in the same tactical situation with a Spitfire IX, using only it's 4x.303 cal Enfield machine guns, and it hardly puts a dent into the FW190D at convergence ranges.

 

When I test with the P51D with it's 6x.12mm (.50 cal) guns I do better, but not as well as the I-16!!

 

Perhaps the ammunition used in the I-16 is explosive or has special qualities that I am not yet aware of, but the 7.62x39mm rounds I've fired and observed at the rifle range are no more powerful than a .303, or .308. I am no expert, but I believe that, as much fun as they are now, the I-16's guns been given too much destructive power for rifle caliber machine guns.

7.62x39 is much weaker ammo than 0.303(7.7x56) or any rifle size ammunition.

For soft targets mgs from i-16 would be better becouse it's crazy ROF, 50call will win, against light armor vehicles.

i was wondering that myself, it feels like a minigun

7.62x39 is much weaker ammo than 0.303(7.7x56) or any rifle size ammunition.

For soft targets mgs from i-16 would be better becouse it's crazy ROF, 50call will wing against light armor vehicles.

This isn't the intermediate 7.62x39 round developed in 1943, it's the full-power 7.62x54mmR rifle cartridge, originally designed for the Mosin bolt-action rifle. The former usually has about 2100 joules of muzzle energy, while the latter sits at around 3600. That's a massive difference in hitting power.

i was wondering that myself, it feels like a minigun

S!

This isn't the intermediate 7.62x39 round developed in 1943, it's the full-power 7.62x54mmR rifle cartridge, originally designed for the Mosin bolt-action rifle. The former usually has about 2100 joules of muzzle energy, while the latter sits at around 3600. That's a massive difference in hitting power.

what do you mean that 7.62x39 isnt 7.62x39 i dont know what you ment

i referd to statment that 7.62x39 isnt much more powerfull than 0.303

what do you mean that 7.62x39 isnt 7.62x39 i dont know what you ment

i referd to statment that 7.62x39 isnt much more powerfull than 0.303

It doesn't USE 7.62x39. That's what he's saying. It uses 7.62x54r a MUCH LARGER round, and it fires 1800rpm. One is a small round used by Ak-47s the other is a full size rifle round used by the SVD and Mosin. Two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT rounds.

The ShKas uses the rifle round, NOT 39, the OP is mistaken ;)

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.

Thanks for all the replies. So the Mosin-Nagent round is more along the lines of a .30-06 Springfield round, and with a high rate of fire. The guns are concentrated into a close grouping, as well, giving good concentration. Thanks for the information - I will enjoy my little I-16 with a clearer conscience, then.

This I-16 module does highlight some issues with the P51D guns. Watching gun camera footage and listening to WWII American P51 pilots, the 4x and 6x .50 gunsets in the P51 B, C and D models used explosive bullets and were highly destructive. and I believe that this is simulted well in DCS. However, I'm finding that the harmonization setup in the DCS sim for the P51 scatters lead all over the place. I have played with modifying the gun harmonization for the P15 in the lua file, but this makes the module unuseable on servers. I realize this is off of the I-16 topic, but the I-16 has put the question to the P51D with it's apparently superior gunnery performance.

Yeah, the DCS P-51 gun harmonization is awful, makes it almost impossible to get any use out of the guns outside of the 1000-1100ft convergence point. To make it worse it's done in a box pattern, not to converge on a single point.

If the I-16 uses point harmonization, that alone would make it substantially more effective within the convergence range IMO. Especially given how DCS damage modelling tends to be.

I fired both (I am a firearm enthusiast). Believe me, they feel different LOLL

The one at the left is the AK round (7.62x39) ... the one at the right is the I-16 ammunition (7.62x54).

Pretty sure it clarifies everything!

Yes, lets keep things in perspective, see how much larger the CARTRIDGE is. That is the powder behind a barely larger bullet.

Now, here is how much larger the .50 cal is compared to the x54r:

So, 4 of those 7.62's are suppose to do the same damage as 6 of the 50's? Why would they even have put in larger guns in ANY aircraft if that gun combination was so powerful....hmmmm?

Yes, lets keep things in perspective, see how much larger the CARTRIDGE is. That is the powder behind a barely larger bullet.

S!

OK - muzzle velocity of ShKAS 7.62 was given above as ~ 2700 fps about the same as the .30-06 Springfield. Bullet weight somewhere around 170 to 200 grains, I'm guessing 170 because of muzzle velocity.

The Browning .50 caliber muzzle velocity is ~ 2900 fps. Bullet weight of .50, about 800 grains. The rate of fire is 800 rpm, a lot slower than the ShKAS gun. The .50 bullets used by USAF were explosive incendiary - cannon shells, really.

It doesn't USE 7.62x39. That's what he's saying. It uses 7.62x54r a MUCH LARGER round, and it fires 1800rpm. One is a small round used by Ak-47s the other is a full size rifle round used by the SVD and Mosin. Two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT rounds.

 

The ShKas uses the rifle round, NOT 39, the OP is mistaken ;)

i know that, i just write that x39 is much weaker then 0.303

OK - muzzle velocity of ShKAS 7.62 was given above as ~ 2700 fps about the same as the .30-06 Springfield. Bullet weight somewhere around 170 to 200 grains, I'm guessing 170 because of muzzle velocity.

 

The Browning .50 caliber muzzle velocity is ~ 2900 fps. Bullet weight of .50, about 800 grains. The rate of fire is 800 rpm, a lot slower than the ShKAS gun. The .50 bullets used by USAF were explosive incendiary - cannon shells, really.

i think 50cal ammo belts for p-51 used mixed ammo including AP rounds too + tracer rounds and HE

7.62x39 is much weaker ammo than 0.303(7.7x56) or any rifle size ammunition. <---------- here

For soft targets mgs from i-16 would be better becouse it's crazy ROF, 50call will win, against light armor vehicles.

here, nothing about i-16 using x39 written here

Kinetic energy calculations of the 2 rounds:

Will go with 200 grams for the x54r which has an energy of 3,238 foot-pounds for a 200 grain bullet at 2700 fps.

The rate of fire is only just barely twice the rate of fire of the .50 for a rough total of around 7-8000 foot pounds of energy impacting for every single round from the .50.

The .50 calculates to an energy of 14,943 foot-pounds for a 800 grain bullet at 2900 fps.

There are 6 guns vs 4, 3 of which are within inches of each other on each side. There is MUCH greater damage potential from the 50s, so that they have the damage generated by the I-16 to be anywhere near what the mustang can deliver needs a serious looking at.

How about using an apples to apples comparison instead of an apples to oranges. Compare the

I-16 7.62mm rounds, rate of fire, and gun spacing to the Spitfire Mk IX 0.303 caliber rounds, rate of fire, and gun spacing since they are both basically 0.30 inch instead of the P-51’s 0.5 inch rounds. You’ll have a much more accurate comparison for how effective the I-16 might be.

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.

Yes, lets keep things in perspective, see how much larger the CARTRIDGE is. That is the powder behind a barely larger bullet.

 

Now, here is how much larger the .50 cal is compared to the x54r:

 

So, 4 of those 7.62's are suppose to do the same damage as 6 of the 50's? Why would they even have put in larger guns in ANY aircraft if that gun combination was so powerful....hmmmm?

Most of the earlier WWII fighters were equipped with guns that were about 0.30 Caliber. Most were upgraded as the war progressed because of the increased armor on later model airplanes.

Most of the earlier WWII fighters were equipped with guns that were about 0.30 Caliber. Most were upgraded as the war progressed because of the increased armor on later model airplanes.

Also tanks and stuff. .50 or a big 20mm cannon was needed to crack the vastly improved armor on the ground.

Most of the earlier WWII fighters were equipped with guns that were about 0.30 Caliber. Most were upgraded as the war progressed because of the increased armor on later model airplanes.

I know that, but per the damage capability of the current I-16, the larger guns would not be needed. The damage from the 4 7.62's is sufficient.

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 ?