Mig-3 quick survey

[Sybreed]

So, a quick question to pilots using the Mig-3:

 

Do you go with the dual 12.7mm, or with the 2 machine guns and the single 12.7mm??

[CrazyDuck]

Dual UBS is the best configuration for my taste on MiG. UBS is hard hitting and accurate, besides that you get 350 bullets for each. For most tasks I prefer twin UBS even over twin ShVAKs (150 shells per gun), and in particular over single UBS (300 bullets) plus two ShKAS peashooters.

 

The only situation where I might consider the two ShKAS option is attacking large targets (bombers, transports), which I'd know are low on fuel. This makes them prone to fuel tank explosions, probability for which increases with every bullet that hits.

[istari6]

Yup, dual UBS is the way to go.  Punishing against the fragile 109, relatively straight path, and sufficient ammunition to get 2-3 kills per sortie if you can get behind the enemy.  

[Cpt_Siddy]

3 hours ago, Sybreed said:

So, a quick question to pilots using the Mig-3:

 

Do you go with the dual 12.7mm, or with the 2 machine guns and the single 12.7mm??

 

 

We are reaching the levels of "it depends" that should not even be possible 

[Finkeren]

Twin UBS is the most effective configuration for most situations, since the UBS arguably is the best HMG of WW2 in terms of firepower. 

 

In SP I tend to use the standard 1xUBS + 2xShKAS, as it was by far the most common configuration until very late in the MiGs service life. 

[RedKestrel]

I go for the twin UBS. lots of trigger time and hard-hitting for an MG. Also very easy to aim, I feel like the MiG-3 with the UBS options is the plane I have the best gunnery with.

But as Finkeren noted, not the most historical configuration for most of its life span. I think perhaps more common than the 20mm but not by much.

[-SF-Disarray]

Twin UBS for me. Sometimes, when I'm feeling extra, I'll throw in for dual 20's. I don't get many kills with the 20's, I think it is because of the lack of tracers, but when they do land home it is satisfying.

[Guest deleted@134347]

2xShKAS only for me.  The 50 cals are nice but they need a precise engine hit in a single pass, which is hard to do, especially when all you have is a 1/10th of a second shooting window.. The ShKas fill that role quite nicely even if you don't hit the engine, they manage to do plenty of other structural damage. Plus it just looks cool, similar to the old gun cam footage where you don't see any tracers but the enemy in front of you is being ripped to pieces.

[Requiem]

14 hours ago, Sybreed said:

So, a quick question to pilots using the Mig-3:

 

Do you go with the dual 12.7mm, or with the 2 machine guns and the single 12.7mm??

I'll always take the dual 12.7mm if it's available. I always like the first burst to count and I feel the standard loadout is a little weaker in comparison.

[Leon_Portier]

I take the standart guns so I have more ammo.

[HansBlitz]

The two 12.7mm

[VTMarvin]

Twin UB for me as well. BTW it is the default option in SP career, which suits me nicely.

[Sketch]

I'm an outlier it seems, as I prefer the 20mm cannons. Very limited ammo, but you get the stealthiness of no tracers and the hard hitting-ness of the cannons.

 

Maybe the non-tracers are a problem for some, but once you know where to aim based on the pipper and not the tracers, it becomes irrelevant. You may even think the tracer rounds are a handicap and annoyingly 'in the way' of your aiming!

 

My vote is the 20mm.

[Finkeren]

38 minutes ago, VTMarvin said:

Twin UB for me as well. BTW it is the default option in SP career, which suits me nicely.

 

Which actually annoys me a bit, because I always have to remember to change it back to the standard configuration for every mission. 

[Sybreed]

do you guys get many kills with the historical loadout (2 machine guns + single 12.7mm) ?  Best I could get is 3 light fighters...

[Sybreed]

well I just took out 5 HS-111 with the Mig-3 and its historical loadout.... the goal is just to cripple them enough!

[Guest deleted@50488]

I'm not sure I understood the options above...

 

- When you guys say: "two 12.7 mm" do you mean the gondola version, the 700 or the 300 ammunition versions ?

[Danziger]

I've had no problems with the standard 3 gun loadout. Those 7.62 ap rounds are high velocity, flat trajectory, and very fast firing rate. Great for hosing bombers. You aren't going to see big explosions and huge parts falling off like with the cannons but as long as you get black smoke or an engine fire they are done. I don't take the extra wing guns unless I know I will not see any fighters. There is just too much speed lost with the wing guns to be able to perform against fighters.

[=RS=Stix_09]

Depends on target, twin nose mounted 12.7mm for fighters is  plenty, cannons are better  on bombers but not much but its does means you can get in out quick (time on target vs damage potential). Having nose mounted guns makes the difference too.

 

A 12.7mm has about 4x the hitting power of the 7.62mm. so u are better off over a single 12.7 and 2x7.62mm IMHO.

I think the 2x12.7 is a better general load out, and I almost always take it for the decent amount of ammo and in the MIG im not out to kill bombers , but they still work if required. They make short work of an engine., often causing fires and they are slightly easier to aim than the cannons.

 

If u want to try out the various MIG3 guns against a he111 that does not shoot back , here is a simple mission I use to test planes/guns/damage models etc.

You can see just how effective the 12.7 mm guns are. (try dif guns and compare)

 

Damage Test.zip

Edited August 8, 2019 by =RS=Stix_09

[Pict]

8 hours ago, Sybreed said:

do you guys get many kills with the historical loadout (2 machine guns + single 12.7mm) ?  Best I could get is 3 light fighters...

 

This almost question answers itself if you look at how many kills a pilot got historically in one flight in a MiG-3. I'd say you are doing well with 3 kills in a flight if you compare to historical statistics for the average fighter pilot in WW2

 

While the sensible & practical reasons for using all other options have been well explained, I like to use the standard guns with the underwing gunpods for extra hitting power and the fun of slowly shredding a bomber out of the sky  Good chance I'm absolutely alone in this 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

[=RS=Stix_09]

2 hours ago, Pict said:

 

This almost question answers itself if you look at how many kills a pilot got historically in one flight in a MiG-3. I'd say you are doing well with 3 kills in a flight if you compare to historical statistics for the average fighter pilot in WW2

 

While the sensible & practical reasons for using all other options have been well explained, I like to use the standard guns with the underwing gunpods for extra hitting power and the fun of slowly shredding a bomber out of the sky  Good chance I'm absolutely alone in this 

 

I don't think its really comparable to what actually occurred in ww2 vs the game as the conditions of combat are not the same.

A lot of comparisons are made on this forum to real life vs the game, and I don't think it's realistic unless you can simulate the same combat conditions, which you really can't in a game.

The game does a great job (not perfect) to simulate flight models and damage models, but all the other things in play during the Russian/axis war you just can do easily in this game. (and to be honest I don't know all the other factors in play, in not an expert on the conflict and only know some of it).

 

RE: Gun Pods:
Personally  I'm not a fan myself of adding stuff to fighters that impends performance like pods, they are quite situational (certainly in mplayer combat is bad idea) offline dif story.

Pods def make bomber killing easier, although the MIG has some of the best weapons of all the fighters on Russian side (for its period) and its quite good at taking out vitals, with 12.7mmx2 (API ammo has lot of penetration power on this gun and incendiary works great) and or the 20mmx2 cannons in the nose (very concentrated firepower).

Have a look at this link (great comparison of guns and ammo), very interesting read.

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by =RS=Stix_09