PDA

View Full Version : Silly gun related question...



Yimmy
02-13-2005, 02:11 PM
Just a thought I had, but what makes the Russian MG's and cannon so good?

I mean, when the war was in full swing, the British found 8 x .303's to be not enough, and so toyed with 12 x .303's before jumping to 2 x 20mm and 2-4 MG's or 4 x 20mm cannon.
The Americans on the other hand liked 6-8 x .50 cal MG's, while the Germans and Japanese experimented with large caliber cannons.

This is while about the heaviest armament I have seen the Russians use is 3 x 20mm, but with the vast majority using 3-4 MG's or a couple of cannon alone...
So what made them require half the armament of the rest? Simply that they didnt have many heavy bombers to counter? Or because their weapons had immense rae of fire?

Yimmy
02-13-2005, 02:11 PM
Just a thought I had, but what makes the Russian MG's and cannon so good?

I mean, when the war was in full swing, the British found 8 x .303's to be not enough, and so toyed with 12 x .303's before jumping to 2 x 20mm and 2-4 MG's or 4 x 20mm cannon.
The Americans on the other hand liked 6-8 x .50 cal MG's, while the Germans and Japanese experimented with large caliber cannons.

This is while about the heaviest armament I have seen the Russians use is 3 x 20mm, but with the vast majority using 3-4 MG's or a couple of cannon alone...
So what made them require half the armament of the rest? Simply that they didnt have many heavy bombers to counter? Or because their weapons had immense rae of fire?

PBNA-Boosher
02-13-2005, 02:26 PM
Well, quite Generally, UBS MG's and ShVaK 20mm guns work incredibly well with each other. I think even what I just said is an understatement, really. That combined with the power of the weapons, well, it was enough for the Russian pilots.

pourshot
02-13-2005, 02:29 PM
I think it comes down to the fact that hits from two 20mm cannon is better than a miss with heavier ones. Don€t forget that the ME 109€s standard load out for most of the war was only 1x20mm cannon and 2xMG€s and this was plenty for dog fighting.

WTE_Galway
02-13-2005, 08:11 PM
remember the axis where fighting heavy bombers on one front and heavily armored IL2's and other tough stuff on the other

the allies on the other hand were mainly up against fighters, lightly armored dive bombers and a few medium bombers

F19_Ob
02-14-2005, 02:57 AM
Hi yimmy.

There are several reasons why the russian guns are so good.
One of the main reasons is perhaps their high functionality in fieldconditions.
They generally still functioned when dirty where western guns didnt.
In a way this has been the russian trademark with all battle equipment to this day.

The advantages of russian weapons are in general the high rate of fire and the flat trajectory of the round (= bullet flies straight)on both mg's and cannon.

The mg's heavy mg's in general, especially the later ones found on yak3 or yak9 for example, were so effective that many yaks were fitted with only one mg (check the yak9's) and many yak3 pilots claimed the mg's so effective that they didnt need the cannon. So it was indeed a hardhitting weapon.
The high rate of fire enabled the pilot to put many rounds into the enemy at close range wich was the prefered method and u could saw a wing or fuselage off with a burst.
As usual only the experts fired on longer ranges but even here they were formidable since they require less deflection and thus the pilot doesnt need to bleed much energy to take snapshots at the enemy and therefore dont fall behind in speed.


The cannons also had the high functionality of the heavy mg's and flat trajectory.

ShVaK 20mm were very effective and fairly light and were used on most fighters from LaGG3, La5 and the yaks. The La5 had two with 200 rounds each and still was a highperformer.
The best aircraftcannon was the 23mm VYa cannon found on il-2's (early had ShVaK's) and also fitted in some LaGG3.
The thing that made the 23mm VYa cannon so special was its high rate of fire and flat trajectory
and the heavy weight of the round. It wasnt much bigger in diameter to the 20mm but the weight was.
It was formidable against groundtargets along with the mg's because of the dense bulletstream and it actually made it good for airtargets aswell although the il-2's wasnt designed for aircombat, although the early variants could have been made very effective. the il-2 pilots didnt learn air to air combat either more than very randomly but several il-2 pilots scored multiple kills against fighters like 109's and fw190.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FlatSpinMan
02-14-2005, 04:37 AM
Interesting thread. Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Yimmy
02-14-2005, 08:58 AM
That all makes reasonable sense.

The bit which confuses me, is what made their 7.62mm MG's so good.
You see, 7.62x54R is no better than the American 30-06, and is only little better than Brit .303.
Given that our guns could fire as high as 1200 rounds per-min, I dont see why the Russian guns get the nicer sound, and do more apparant damage lol....

Zmir88IAP
02-14-2005, 09:44 AM
The russian 7,62mm could fire at 1800rounds/min. And the bullet was more powerful(stronger than the normal one used on ground weapons).

In fact 1 good 20mm gun like the Schwak or MG151/20(or ~2 * .50s or ~8 * .30s) should be really enough to down nearly every fighter(for a P47 2 would be nice...).