Berezin UB vs 0.50 AN-M2

[Elwood55]

Hello,

I'm just a player with passion in aviation so sorry if I'm reporting something obviously or already discussed.

This is just a straight reports after some hours of Mig and Jug. The planes that I really enjoy in Great Battles.

 

Am I the only one that found Mig3 2xUB much more effective then 8xM2?

 

Is not about accuracy or harmonization things... I did several tests , mostly in MP and looks more about weapons and damage is now model.

 

I can see that Mig3 customers will burn with few rounds (109,190,ju88, doesn't matter).

P-47 lucky customers instead will receive many rounds, basically loosing parts, punching oil/fuel tanks and radiators, much is ok but they need crazy number hits.

109 is going down but with with stronger is just much much easier with the Mig armament, unless a pilot kill.

 

I'm sure the Mig3 (2xUB nose modification) is simulating incendiary rounds and P-47 mixed?

 

http://www.368thfightergroup.com/P-47-armament.html

http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_25mm.html

 

 

 

[216th_Jordan]

UB has explosive rounds, .50s only ball. (Right now)

[Elwood55]

Really?

I did test the Mig3 12.7 UB and not the 20mm  Ssvak which are very effective but not talking about them.

 

[[DBS]Browning]

55 minutes ago, Elwood55 said:

Really?

I did test the Mig3 12.7 UB and not the 20mm  Ssvak which are very effective but not talking about them.

 

 

He's right. The Russian 12.7 has explosive rounds in the mix.

[Elwood55]

Wow, basically cannons.
That's explain everything and probably why the p47 and mc202 12.7 are very different.

 

Thanks!

[Danziger]

2 hours ago, Elwood55 said:

Wow, basically cannons.
That's explain everything and probably why the p47 and mc202 12.7 are very different.

 

Thanks!

The 12.7s in the nose of the MiG are mounted in the nose so do not suffer so much from issues of convergence. Also, the American version is 12.7x99 and the Soviet version is 12.7x108(or 109 this is from memory) with a noticeably fatter case. That fatter case holds more propellant which drives those rounds faster and harder. This makes them have less of an arc and more accurate over longer distances as well as hitting the target harder. The Soviet gun also has a higher rate of fire and as mentioned the high explosive rounds as well as AP. The first time I saw the Soviet 12.7 round was in Iraq in 2003. I was cleaning up UXO from destroyed ordinance storage bunkers at FOB Lion (later Orion) just outside LSA Anaconda. There were tons of these all over the ground and I was wondering what the hell they were because they looked like .50BMG bullets stuck onto a "magnum" sized cartridge. It was like comparing a .30-06 to a .300 Win Mag. 

[Jaws2002]

35 minutes ago, Danziger said:

The 12.7s in the nose of the MiG are mounted in the nose so do not suffer so much from issues of convergence. Also, the American version is 12.7x99 and the Soviet version is 12.7x108(or 109 this is from memory) with a noticeably fatter case. That fatter case holds more propellant which drives those rounds faster and harder. This makes them have less of an arc and more accurate over longer distances as well as hitting the target harder. The Soviet gun also has a higher rate of fire and as mentioned the high explosive rounds as well as AP. The first time I saw the Soviet 12.7 round was in Iraq in 2003. I was cleaning up UXO from destroyed ordinance storage bunkers at FOB Lion (later Orion) just outside LSA Anaconda. There were tons of these all over the ground and I was wondering what the hell they were because they looked like .50BMG bullets stuck onto a "magnum" sized cartridge. It was like comparing a .30-06 to a .300 Win Mag. 

 

 

The 12.7x108mm does have bigger case, but the powder generates lower pressure, to improve reliability and barrel life

 It shoots a heavier bullet, at slightly lower velocity than the US .50BMG. It is a bit flatter shooting at long range, because of the heavier bullets, with better ballistic coefficient. In WW2 the Russian 12.7mm UB, was probably the best aircraft heavy MG. The Belgian 13.3x99mm FN Browning (installed in the IAR-80B and swedish J-22) was a bit more efficient, because it had a very effective high explosive round with 3.5 grams of high explosive, but was not used insuch large numbers, like the Russian, or US versions.

  

Edited May 6, 2020 by Jaws2002

[Danziger]

Just now, Jaws2002 said:

 

 

The 12.7x108mm does have bigger case, but the powder generates lower pressure. It shoots a heavier bullet, at slightly lower velocity than the US .50BMG. It is a bit flatter shooting at long range, because of the heavier bullets, with better ballistic coefficient. In WW2 the Russian 12.7mm UB, was probably the best aircraft heavy MG. The Belgian 13.3x99mm FN Browning (installed in the IAR-80B and swedish J-22) was a bit more efficient, because it had a very effective high explosive round with 3.5 grams of high explosive, but was not used insuch large numbers, like the Russian, or US versions.

  

Really wish we would've got the IAR instead of the 202. Would have been so much more fitting for the East Front modules.

[Beazil]

Someday....

Who wouldn't want both in the end?

[Danziger]

24 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

Someday....

Who wouldn't want both in the end?

True. It is probably a good thing. The quality of 3d modeling and texturing has gone up a lot with BoBp so an IAR released sometime in the future would wind up looking a lot better I think. 

 

Maybe it will be a premium plane for the first Med expansion lol.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Danziger

[Jaws2002]

It is what it is. 

 

Maybe one day. But there are always more flashy planes to model.

 

A Russian modeler, NovA29R, did a great IAR-81C model for Warthunder. It got included in the Italian tech Tree as premium. 

 

The 3d model is pretty much 100% spot on.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Jaws2002

[jojy47jojyrocks]

15 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

It is what it is. 

 

Maybe one day. But there are always more flashy planes to model.

 

A Russian modeler, NovA29R, did a great IAR-81C model for Warthunder. It got included in the Italian tech Tree as premium. 

 

The 3d model is pretty much 100% spot on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If added it could perfectly fit into the Eastern front timeline ( Battle of Moscow - Battle of Stalingrad). Wonderful plane indeed...

[Jaws2002]

1 hour ago, jojy47jojyrocks said:

If added it could perfectly fit into the Eastern front timeline ( Battle of Moscow - Battle of Stalingrad)

 

 It didn't get to Moscow. It just fought in the south. 

 

Anyway. Back to  the heavy mgs.

 

Here are the cartridges used by the Russians in their 12.7x108mm machine guns, during the war. you can see they used multiple explosive and explosive incendiary bullets, on top of their very effective API rounds. 

 

I'd expect the Russian heavy MGs to be more effective than the US .50 cal.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Jaws2002

[jojy47jojyrocks]

3 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

 

 It didn't get to Moscow. It just fought in the south. 

 

Anyway. Back to  the heavy mgs.

 

Here are the cartridges used by the Russians in their 12.7x108mm machine guns, during the war. you can see they used multiple explosive and explosive incendiary bullets, on top of their very effective API rounds. 

 

I'd expect the Russian heavy MGs to be more effective than the US .50 cal.

 

 

I don't think these is that much of difference. Between the .50 cal and the Russian 12.7x108. The one with allies modeled here seems to be pure AP or Ball rounds...I'd guess AP. The Russian always made sure to add in Incendiary to the AP or HE rounds...at least that is how its modeled here.

 

If you get the convergence right with the allied planes using the .50cal. It downs planes pretty quick. I mostly set around 180m for planes equipped with wing guns, coz I start shooting when they enter from 250m.

 

Wish there was ammo selection similar to CLoD. But that would be asking too much....?

[Avimimus]

As mentioned - the UBK has several advantages over the M2:
- 15% higher energy

- 20% heavier bullet (if AP)

- 2.4 grams of PETN explosive (if HEI).

- 30% higher rate of fire

 

In addition the gun convergence problems don't exist for the centrally mounted UB machine guns (although the need for propeller synchronization might impact the rate of fire under some conditions). Despite this, the U.S. fighters have a much heavier weight of fire - but only if they are hitting at convergence. If you shoot at the wrong range the firepower won't be as effective.

 

Btw. The major benefit to the all heavy machine gun armament of U.S. fighters is that it allows firing longer bursts... and having a higher cumulative rate of fire than cannons have... these features combine to make it possible for the pilot to conduct deflection shots that would be inadvisable in a cannon armed fighter. The U.S. fighters may have less firepower for their weight compared to cannon armed aircraft - but they may have a higher probability of scoring a hit.

 

P.S.

http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html

http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_145mm.html

Edited May 6, 2020 by Avimimus

[the_emperor]

3 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

Here are the cartridges used by the Russians in their 12.7x108mm machine guns, during the war. you can see they used multiple explosive and explosive incendiary bullets, on top of their very effective API rounds. 

That seems to be a highly potent round holding almost as much HE and incendiary filling as the 20x99R round (2.6g HE/2.8g incediary)., probably less fragmentation material though

[Elwood55]

Thanks for all the infos.

I changed my convergence settings and started aiming more to pilot and fuel tanks. Is much better.

Conv between 220m and 260m for dogfight using only 4 right or 4 left for long range helps alot.

Thanks again.

 

[Asgar]

On 5/6/2020 at 10:45 PM, Avimimus said:

Btw. The major benefit to the all heavy machine gun armament of U.S. fighters is that it allows firing longer bursts... and having a higher cumulative rate of fire than cannons have... these features combine to make it possible for the pilot to conduct deflection shots that would be inadvisable in a cannon armed fighter. The U.S. fighters may have less firepower for their weight compared to cannon armed aircraft - but they may have a higher probability of scoring a hit.

where did you get that info from? Every pilot account i heard or read is that any burst of more than 3ish seconds will give you a good chance of jamming one or more of you guns. Just curious to see stated otherwise

Edited May 13, 2020 by Asgar

[Jaws2002]

Maybe he meant longer trigger time, and that's true. 

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, Asgar said:

where did you get that info from? Every pilot account i heard or read is that any burst of more than 3ish seconds will give you a good chance of jamming one or more of you guns. Just curious to see stated otherwise

 

I should have been clearer to distinguish the hard data from conclusions I've drawn from experience in simulators (which is a kind of 'experimental archaeology' if one thinks about it - but certainly not an original historical source).

 

I've found that I tend to restrict bursts to less than a second, and even often less than half a second, when flying Yaks. The armament is powerful - but it is also highly concentrated, has a lower total rate of fire and has a relatively limited ammunition supply. In a P-51 I can afford to fire bursts of 2-3 seconds and this makes me much more willing to use the high-angle deflection shots that some American pilots were trained to do.

[Asgar]

1 minute ago, Avimimus said:

 

I should have been clearer to distinguish the hard data from conclusions I've drawn from experience in simulators (which is a kind of 'experimental archaeology' if one thinks about it - but certainly not an original historical source).

 

I've found that I tend to restrict bursts to less than a second, and even often less than half a second, when flying Yaks. The armament is powerful - but it is also highly concentrated, has a lower total rate of fire and has a relatively limited ammunition supply. In a P-51 I can afford to fire bursts of 2-3 seconds and this makes me much more willing to use the high-angle deflection shots that some American pilots were trained to do.

ah i see. thanks for clarifying 

[Avimimus]

13 minutes ago, Asgar said:

ah i see. thanks for clarifying 

 

Thanks for getting me to clarify! It would be interesting to analyse gun camera footage (if the speed of the film can be accurately assessed) and historical accounts to see if this pattern was actually the case.

 

I think the sims do provide us with insights that are not otherwise available: For instance, it becomes obvious that the Bf-110 slowness in starting a turn is a bigger issue than its absolute turn rate on paper... and one wouldn't necessarily guess how the outboard engines and larger wing area make it a much easier target to hit than a single engined fighter would be (especially in a turning fight with a slightly oblique angle where more of the wing is exposed). Simulations have gone a long way to provide some more context that engineering reports and pilot accounts couldn't on their own. But they remain 'just' simulations without historical data to further support such conclusions.