![]() |
yeah, what everyone else said.
Its not the equivalent of professional motor racing where you go for the technically best possible option regardless of cost. there was a war on and the 0.50 cal was readily avaialble and did the job good enough against fighters. Add to this the fact that American made 20mm were unreliable in high vibration and flex wing mount positions and too large for "in wing" mounting in existing US aircraft and its clear why they stayed with 0.50 cal. This link about pattern bore-sight gun harmonization might give you some insight into the some of the issues. http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Air...nBoresighting/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The Russians actually get quit a bit for their weaponry and there are a few other factors to consider that aren't strictly played out in the numbers. The ShVAK 20mm cannon if we compare with the Hispano II fires at a higher rate (800 rounds per minute versus 600 rpm) and has a smaller round (20x99 versus 20x110) which means having a bigger ammo supply on the relatively small Russian fighters. Also if memory serves the ShVAK 20mm was very reliable through most of the war, even in dusty or dirty conditions whereas the Hispano had problems for years and it wasn't until later that the Mark II was made reliable. Also the Russians have the best heavy machine gun with the Berezin UB 12.7mm. I look at the three main cannons like this: The MG151/20 is a refined weapon with a very sophisticated high explosive MINE round. The Hispano is like a sledgehammer which fires the heaviest round at very high velocities. The ShVAK is more of a scalpel with high refire rate and good ballistics. Both ShVAK and MG151 can be fired through a propeller hub whereas the Hispano I don't think was ever fired from a synchronized installation. |
Yes, the Shvak has higher rate, but it is also true that you need more hits to down a target.
|
So, it pretty much balances out in the long run as far as DPS (damage per second) goes, if we could assign a way to measure it.
I think that there's more to aerial gunnery than having the one round that does massive damage to a target with one hit. The mk108 does this, but i never use it unless i go against bombers. There are other things to consider, like for example ease of aiming, and i don't mean pure balistics (in which the 108 is still inferior to other lighter guns). A gun with a high ammo supply and high rate of fire is easier to aim every single time, simply because you can afford to keep the trigger pressed a few more seconds and correct your aim by looking at the tracers. In this way, Russian guns with their high rate of fire could be easier to aim and score hits, compared to slow firing German heavy cannons. On the other hand, having only fast firing light guns (like for example .303s) is very easy to take and correct aim, but commits you to a tracking shot, with all the dangers it brings due to target fixation. I think that the "sweet spot" lies somewhere in the middle: a gun that fires projectiles big and powerful enough to cripple or outright destroy a fighter in less than 10 hits, while still being of low enough caliber to maintain a high ammo supply and high rate of fire to assist in aiming/correcting your shot. If the ballistics are good, it gets even better and that's why i like the MG151s a lot...it's like they are the golden middle ground. |
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xj7Bd8BTMY |
Quote:
|
Just for the hell of it, I'll throw my $.02 in. Like the old saying goes: The most effective pistol round is the one in the pistol you actually have on you when the $hit hits the fan. The same goes for aircraft armament.
While I suppose there may be some merit in arguing this or that with power or effectiveness of various guns, the fact is that men go to war with the weapons at hand. In WWII they did so with devastating effect, just about every weapon arrangement used during the war killed people effectively when used advantageously by skilled pilots. Much like the pistol analogy, the main thing that pilots (or any kind of soldier, for that matter) demanded from their armament was reliability, as evidenced by the quick demise of the Hispano on Spitfires during the BOB. This is one big parameter that we don't have in IL2, yet one of the most important. All that said, I prefer whatever weapons the aircraft I'm flying has, so long as they work when I press the button. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Even a Gladiator with 4 .303s or a Bf109D with 4 7.62mm MGs can bring down a lightly armoured opponent in a well aimed 2-3 second burst. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.