Guns too powerful? - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-14-2019, 10:45 PM   #21
Shahdoh
Senior Member
 
Shahdoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,057
Default

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.
Shahdoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 11:04 PM   #22
Balzarog
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Democratic People's Republic of Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Posts: 274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahdoh View Post
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.
__________________
When all else fails, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS!

i-7 8700K Coffee Lake 3.7 Ghz CPU, 32GB Corsair 3200 RAM, GTX1080 Ti 11Gb VRAM. Controls - Thrustmaster Warthog H.O.T.A.S., Saitek Pro rudder pedals, TrackIR 5, Oculus Rift C2.
Balzarog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 11:29 PM   #23
RustBelt
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balzarog View Post
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.
RustBelt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 11:31 PM   #24
Shahdoh
Senior Member
 
Shahdoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balzarog View Post
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.
Shahdoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 01:23 PM   #25
fjacobsen
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 993
Default

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 ?
__________________
i7-3770K 3.4Ghz, 16GB RAM, GTX 960 4GB, Win7 Home 64bit
fjacobsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 01:33 PM   #26
Shahdoh
Senior Member
 
Shahdoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,057
Default

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.

Last edited by Shahdoh; 05-15-2019 at 01:36 PM.
Shahdoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 03:08 PM   #27
Ala13_ManOWar
Senior Member
 
Ala13_ManOWar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahdoh View Post
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
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20190515_161140~01.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	383.0 KB
ID:	210256  
__________________
"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice
Ala13_ManOWar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 03:42 PM   #28
fjacobsen
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahdoh View Post
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 ?
__________________
i7-3770K 3.4Ghz, 16GB RAM, GTX 960 4GB, Win7 Home 64bit
fjacobsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 03:54 PM   #29
Shahdoh
Senior Member
 
Shahdoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fjacobsen View Post
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.
Shahdoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 06:17 PM   #30
Ala13_ManOWar
Senior Member
 
Ala13_ManOWar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fjacobsen View Post
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 went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice
Ala13_ManOWar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.