PDA

View Full Version : Difference between the LaGG 3 and Bf 109 MGs



XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 10:46 PM
Sorry if this has come up before but the search function on this forum isn't doing its job properly (as usual)

I flew the LaGG 3 tonight for this first time as I usually fly LW planes. I was amazed how accurate and smooth the firing of the two 7.62 x 54R Machineguns were.

Question: Why are they so accurate?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be.

However, why the big difference between the ShKas and the 7.92 x 57mm MG 17 on the earlier Bf 109 models? Their calibres and cartridge sizes are roughly the same.

The ShKas 7.62 has a muzzle velocity of 825m/s and weighs 9.6 grams

The MG 17 7.92 has a muzzle velocity of 790m/s and weighs 10 grams

Ok so the ShKas has a higher muzzle velocity but the projectile also weighs slightly less so both projectiles almost exert the same amount of force when flying through the air, with the ShKas only slightly ahead.

So does it only seem more accurate because the rate of fire is at 1800 rpm compared to the MG 17 1100 rpm? Shouldn't the high rate of fire destabilise the trajectory slightly for the following rounds due to recoil and vibration?

I'm not whining here I'm only asking a question

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 10:46 PM
Sorry if this has come up before but the search function on this forum isn't doing its job properly (as usual)

I flew the LaGG 3 tonight for this first time as I usually fly LW planes. I was amazed how accurate and smooth the firing of the two 7.62 x 54R Machineguns were.

Question: Why are they so accurate?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be.

However, why the big difference between the ShKas and the 7.92 x 57mm MG 17 on the earlier Bf 109 models? Their calibres and cartridge sizes are roughly the same.

The ShKas 7.62 has a muzzle velocity of 825m/s and weighs 9.6 grams

The MG 17 7.92 has a muzzle velocity of 790m/s and weighs 10 grams

Ok so the ShKas has a higher muzzle velocity but the projectile also weighs slightly less so both projectiles almost exert the same amount of force when flying through the air, with the ShKas only slightly ahead.

So does it only seem more accurate because the rate of fire is at 1800 rpm compared to the MG 17 1100 rpm? Shouldn't the high rate of fire destabilise the trajectory slightly for the following rounds due to recoil and vibration?

I'm not whining here I'm only asking a question

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 11:01 PM
You are right, some russian weapons are overdone in this section.. such as UBS and SHKAS.. MG17 bullet trajectory is a joke compared to SHKAS.. UBS is a killer weapon up to 1km away..

Unlikely this will ever get fixxed.. you just have to get lived with it.. Shooting With Lagg3 or Yak is child play, no recoil of anykind.. and bullets fly exactly where you aim.. WIth german guns your deflection shooting must be in good shape to get success online.

This is the reason why German AI planes are much worse in the game, then the VVS-counterparts..



____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:25 AM
I have not seen any official test of ShKas synchronized ROF. I can't believe it is anywhere near 1800rpm. Soviet guns where never known for their accuracy and the light airframes of the Yaks should be affected by recoil. It is definately strange.

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:42 AM
- I have not seen any official test of ShKas synchronized ROF.

Have you looked?

- I can't believe it is anywhere
- near 1800rpm.

It is. I don't know why you don't believe it.

- Soviet guns where never known for
- their accuracy

Never known by who? What guns? Are you suggesting no soviet gun ever made could be accurate?

- and the light airframes of the Yaks
- should be affected by recoil.

No aircraft in the game when firing nose mounted light or heavy MGs gets more than a minor shake. And the topic was about the LaGG 3 anyway, which is a heavy aircraft. The ShVAK cannon shakes the Yak plenty.

The LaGG-3 has 2xShKAS, 2xUBS and 1xShVAK and lots of ammo, all concentrated in the nose. That's 5 guns hitting in a tight bunch at any range within 500m. If you want something to compare to the Bf109 weapon set, compare the 1943 version of the LaGG or the earlier Yaks with only 1 UBS.

If you think the guns are wrong, back it up with some evidence rather than just "it feels wrong". I can accept that the people who made this game know more about it than me, so how about you?

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 01:01 AM
Bnej: He is talking about SYNCHRONISED ShKAS RoF, which is NOT 1800 rpm
Soviet equipment, at least aerialwise, had very poor manufacturing. It was stated by the LW and by all history experts in WWII. They made badly manufactured Aircraft frames and engines. I higly doubt they could make reliable weaponry with such crappy manufacturing on the other more important sectors.
A good example of my statement is the RLM report on a captured Sturmovik in the early war, and they stated that it was "unsuitable for RLM use" and possibly they also stated that it was unsuitable for combat situation, but i'm not sure about that part.
About the nose concentrated fire, he was stating about the LMG's only, the LaGG has 2xShKAS' and the 109's have 2XMG17's. Cannons and Heavy MGs are not in discussion, because they are all fired from the "Cannon" trigger, and the 2XShKAS are fired from the "Machine gun" trigger.
Are these arguments enough for you or you need another row?
Don't come in flaming with the old "how do you know" attacks the next time matey /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 01:03 AM
-- Soviet guns where never known for
-- their accuracy
-
- Never known by who? What guns? Are you suggesting no
- soviet gun ever made could be accurate?
Actually the Soviet 12.7 mm gun is (or was) PERFECTLY accurate at one point. That is, no deviation from centerline. I first noticed it while flying a MiG in 1/4 time, the shots did not display grouping, they hit the same spot repeatedly.

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-"
-Major General John Sedgwich, Battle of Spotsylvania

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 02:09 AM
I quote literally from Erik Pilawskii (Mr. Pilawskii, I hope I am not breaking any copyright, please see it as free advertising for your books /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ):

"In the matter of aircraft armament and weaponry, the Soviets led the world. First appearing in 1932, the 7,62 mm ShKAS (Shiptal'niy-Komaritsky Aviatsionniy Skorostrelniy - Shiptal'niy/Komaritsky Aviation high-speed gun) KM-35 was still the finest rifle-calibre aircraft machine gun in the world during the Second World War. It fired a powerful cartridge,giving the gun excellent ballistic and destructive characteristics, possessed a cyclic rate of fire of almost 1,800 rounds per minute, and was basically reliable"

So there you go.

I would think it pretty obvious that if the ShKAS fires 12 rounds per second MORE than the MG.17 and if those rounds are 50 metres per second FASTER, the Russian machine gun will be more lethal.

In any case the LaGG3 is one of my favourite planes to dogfight in...


http://www.uploadit.org/files/151003-leone.gif

"Serenissima"

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 02:46 AM
I saw somewhere that the LW had trouble with their weapons in the Soviet campaign due to freezing of the lubricating oil, so they had to operate their weapons without oil, which caused excesseive wear. Soviet weapon were designed to operate under those conditions, so even though their manufacture was not to the tight tolerences of western standards they worked as well or better in those conditions.

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 06:21 AM
The difference in velocity of those two guns is 35 m/s which is ballistically insignifigant at combat ranges. Also, the slightly large bullet weight of th eGerman projecctile would balancec out the "hitting power" of the two even more..

The rate of fire is a large difference however. I'd be interested to see what the actual ROF was through the spinner for each gun..as opposed to the theoretical ROF max for the weapon system.. I don't have those figures handy.. anyone have them on hand?

In game there is a dramatic difference in the ability to fire and land damaging hits targets with the weapons.. a DRAMATIC difference.. At 200M the difference whould be next to nothing, unless the ROF is actually so far off even synched.

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 06:52 AM
I fly the lagg3 alot and 109s f2 f4 g2 g10 g14 and k4 in manual as well, flying he lagg3 is so much easier you take so much more damage oil spash dont ruin your gunsite view and one little fart on a 109 with the tiefighter green laserbeams any 109 is in pieces or exploded and your lagg can be competivie with 8 rockets and full fuel against a 109 with 25% fuel, only the g2 can turn equally.

I think the dm of the lag is screwy but something is wrong or maybe the 20mm gun strenghts

http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 07:21 AM
From the "Fighter Ace" plane descriptions:

"One noteworthy feature of the LaGG was that it used a unique fire-******ant system achieved by pumping inert gases from the port exhaust into the fuel tanks, thus depriving potential fires of oxygen. However, the LaGG was a difficult fighter to fly and thus saw much less success than either the Yak-1 or MiG-3. In fact pilots used to joke that "LaGG" stood for Lakirovanny Garantirovanny Grob, or the "Varnished Guaranteed Coffin".

On the plus side, the Delta Wood construction was extremely durable and was able to sustain a large amount of combat damage and still return home. But the additional weight of this dense material reduced performance and LaGG production always involved a fight to keep overall weight down."

(They provide two sources for this info, check the website if you want to see their references.)

----

I think energy bleed may be out on the LaGG, but I'm not sure. It seemed to lose a lot of speed in turns in Il-2, but I don't fly it that often at the moment (why would you when the MiG is available) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. It doesn't feel difficult to fly in game, although it does snap out of turns quite easily in the 1941 version.

The guns are wrong argument has been done before here plenty of times, and I think by now it will either change in the next patch if the devs agree or it won't if they don't. I personally wouldn't mind having an improved MG17, MG131 and MG151/20, but only if they really should be improved! I think the biggest change in effectiveness for the ShKAS and UBS was actually in the 1.1 patch of Il-2, when the ammo was changed from AP to API.

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 08:42 AM
I have been flying the LaGG 3 (version 41) offline for some time (in il2 sturmovik), it felt good to have this punch - a short burst of all the barrels and the wing of the Messerschmitt in front of you does not exist anymore.

The problem with LaGG 3 is retaining the energy - after turning 360 degrees you are down to 200km/h and then anything you try ends with a stall. So you have to fly level and straight for a couple of seconds (this bird just doesn't accelerate) and then you are dead. Therefore I am affraid to try it online (apart from the fact that this fighter gets obsolete after 1941). But I think a proper energy management would do.

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 09:32 AM
It never ceases to amaze me, that "The Soviets can't produce decent weaponry because they're Soviets", still seems like a logical and valid statement for some.

Ever heard about the T-34, Il-2, Katyusha, their 122mm and 152mm artillery guns, the AK-47 or the MiG-15?

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

Zayets
10-15-2003, 09:42 AM
Slush69 wrote:
- It never ceases to amaze me, that "The Soviets can't
- produce decent weaponry because they're Soviets",
- still seems like a logical and valid statement for
- some.
-
- Ever heard about the T-34, Il-2, Katyusha, their
- 122mm and 152mm artillery guns, the AK-47 or the
- MiG-15?


agree!And the list can continue : Mig29,Su27,Tu160,Dragunoff sniper rifle,they are great weapons.
But I'm more pi$$ed about the recoil on the Jug when firing those 50's. I think is tooo big.

Zayets out

http://www.arr.go.ro/iar81c.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 09:54 AM
Soviets made very good weapons when looked at the overall picture.

Just a few examples of WWII infantry weapons that were really good:

PPS-41 Spagin
PPS-43
SKS Simonov
SVD Dragunov
RPD-Degtarev

fluke39
10-15-2003, 09:59 AM
I always fly the laGG3 '41 online given the choice - and have alot of success in it - in my opinion its the engine DM that needs updating and thats about it - everything else seems to fit what i have read about it (apart from poor manufacturing - which is hard to model i suppose - although it's low break up speed in a dive probably reflects this a bit)

<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 10:10 AM
German MG's can't be right. They are almost useless in this sim. I wonder how Marseille managed to get multiple kills in a single sortie MG's only. Try it in the sim and show me a track, I just can't do it.



|TAO|


http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/omdx.txt

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 10:19 AM
Ever heard of mg 34 / 42, Stg 44 !?

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 11:11 AM
TAO-Squadron wrote:
- German MG's can't be right. They are almost useless
- in this sim. I wonder how Marseille managed to get
- multiple kills in a single sortie MG's only. Try it
- in the sim and show me a track, I just can't do it.
-

Well... you're not Marseille - the ace. Of course it can be done, but it's just not easy. Just as it shouldn't be.

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 11:14 AM
LiutenantDan86 wrote:
- Ever heard of mg 34 / 42, Stg 44 !?

Point being? Noone here is bashing German weapons - in fact I never ever seen that happen anywhere on any forum. It seems to be an established truths that the Germans just can't produce any weapons that suck.

What we are comparing here are two weapons with different muzzle velocity and vastly different ROF.

cheers/slush



http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 11:15 AM
Why don't you guys do some simple tests before posting about weapons performance? I just don't get it. There are rumours everywhere on this bord, regarding all kind weapons. But there hardly ever are some facts (regarding in game performance). I'm getting tired of this.

ROF for ShKAS and MG17
ShKAS: 1800 (as tested in wing of I-16 and IL-2 and, oddly, in the nose of I-16)
ShKAS (sync.): 1500 (as tested in nose of LaGG-3 (41))
MG17 (all): 900 (as tested in nose of FW 190A-5 and Bf 109E-4 and, oddly, wing of Ju-87 B-2)
The 1800rpm version of the ShKAS has a very fine trajectory. Bullets just drop like they should. Different with the guns in LaGG-3 and MiG-3 (tested): They just keep on flying straight like laser beams. Trajectory is also visible for MG 17.
And, repeatedly, on dispersion. Dots distance is 100 meters, convergence was set to 100 meters. I fired a lot of rounds.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/riflecaldisp.jpg


There is hardly any dispersion with the MG17, and a lot of dispersion with the 1800rpm ShKAS in the I-16. In LaGG-3 (41) and IL-2 series1 its reduced (for whatever reason) but still a lot bigger than MG17. The MG17 is among the best weapons of the game in this regard.

And then, for you guys born with a natural inability for math: I-16 type 18 has four guns with twice the rate of fire of a MG 17. This means, it has a firepower that is four times as high as the firepower of a BF 109 with empty cannons. ShKAS firepower in the LaGG is 66% higher than MG 17 firepower in BF-109. This is like upgrading from three to five guns.

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 11:21 AM
The ROF will be about the same if you count the fact that the Russian MG's fire through the prop too...

<center>
---------------------------------------
Fokker G.I
http://www.defensie.nl:30280/home/pictures/7370.jpg
http://www.uvika.dn.ua/av/PLANE/HOLLAND/FOKKER_G-1/Fokker_G-1b_03a-n.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 11:48 AM
Sorry, of course I meant 35 metres per second faster, not 50, it was a slip of the finger!

Silly question: how did you set up your test, JtD? Did you just use FMB or what else?

http://www.uploadit.org/files/151003-leone.gif

"Serenissima"

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 11:56 AM
Red_Storm wrote:
- The ROF will be about the same if you count the fact
- that the Russian MG's fire through the prop too...

1500 rpm for ShKAS firing through prop, 900 for MG17.
-----
I just used FMB.

Zayets
10-15-2003, 11:59 AM
Well,that means there is something wrong with M17 effectivenes. There's hardly a dispersion but still they are weaker than shvaks. I know that because it happens now to fly the Rata in campaign and it take less time to disable an Emil than it took me to bring down Ratas with the F4. Or is because that was nose mounted? Can anyone explain that? Oh! and dispersion with 8 firing fiftiesin the Jug is waaaaay bigger , impossible not to hit those cables.

Zayets out

http://www.arr.go.ro/iar81c.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:21 PM
Zayets wrote:
- Well,that means there is something wrong with M17
- effectivenes. There's hardly a dispersion but still
- they are weaker than shvaks. I know that because
- it happens now to fly the Rata in campaign and it
- take less time to disable an Emil than it took me
- to bring down Ratas with the F4. Or is
- because that was nose mounted? Can anyone explain
- that? Oh! and dispersion with 8 firing
- fiftiesin the Jug is waaaaay bigger , impossible
- not to hit those cables.

Eh...?

If we're just talking mg's here, you got a Bf-109/F4 with 2 MG 17's against either an I-16/24 with 2 MG's or an I-16/18 with 4 MG's.

All other things being equal, the higher ROF of the I-16's weapons makes them more lethal. Especially for the block 18 version that has twice the number of MG's the F4 has.

So what exactly makes you think there's anything wrong here?

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:34 PM
Red_Storm wrote:
- The ROF will be about the same if you count the fact
- that the Russian MG's fire through the prop too...

I seriously doubt that.

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:43 PM
Zayets wrote:
- Well,that means there is something wrong with M17
- effectivenes. There's hardly a dispersion but still
- they are weaker than shvaks. I know that because
- it happens now to fly the Rata in campaign and it
- take less time to disable an Emil than it took me
- to bring down Ratas with the F4. Or is
- because that was nose mounted? Can anyone explain
- that? [...]

Just been testing this very thing.

Tried MG17, MG131 and ShKAS vs 109E4.

Direct hits to the engine or radiator with any of these three guns started it smoking. Hits elsewhere did little, but it was easier to get it burning with the ShKAS than the MG17.

The ShKAS fires API rounds, which gives the bright tracer with no smoke. The MG17 appears to fire AP with the odd tracer - based on firing at the ground and counting hits it's about 1 in 5 or so. I think this is why the ShKAS is more likely to set fire to a target, and combined with the higher rate of fire I guess it's much better odds of hitting somthing flammable and making it burn.

The MG131 is quite good, if you don't expect too much from it. It seems to have AP and tracers only, same as the MG17, and if you line up you can knock out the engine, rip holes in wings etc quite well, but it's harder to set fire to anything with it (I couldn't).

The Rata has a radial engine, which is not very vulnerable to MG damage, although I have had a lot of success using the Brewster's nose guns against it. This is the case with all radial powered planes in the game - it's very hard to get that instant engine knockout you can get against inline engined planes.

( I assume you meant ShKAS in that post above, not ShVAK - ShVAK is the 20mm, so of course that's better! If you're comparing the total weapon package of the two planes, the I16/24 has 2 cannons instead of 1, and those cannons are the ShVAK, which is better than the 151/20 in terms of muzzle velocity and rate of fire. The 2 ShKAS versus the 2 MG17 spray out about 600 more bullets per minute, with better incendiary effect too. )

Zayets
10-15-2003, 12:47 PM
Slush69 wrote:

- Eh...?
-
- If we're just talking mg's here, you got a Bf-109/F4
- with 2 MG 17's against either an I-16/24 with 2 MG's
- or an I-16/18 with 4 MG's.
-
- All other things being equal, the higher ROF of the
- I-16's weapons makes them more lethal. Especially
- for the block 18 version that has twice the number
- of MG's the F4 has.
-
- So what exactly makes you think there's anything
- wrong here?


OK, don't remember exacly what type Rata was that,but could be 18 model so that explains it why is more lethal than F4.Still, the dispersion is more than double,and that raises a question about accuracy. I'm more prolific in a Rata than in F4, that's what makes it weird for me. Ppl accountings says F4 was credited with multiple kills in one sortie which is not the same when it comes about the Rata. Anyhow, this Rata driving is just to kill my time offline , I still fly the Jug and Sturmo.

Zayets out

http://www.arr.go.ro/iar81c.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 02:19 PM
Slush69 wrote:
-
- TAO-Squadron wrote:
-- German MG's can't be right. They are almost useless
-- in this sim. I wonder how Marseille managed to get
-- multiple kills in a single sortie MG's only. Try it
-- in the sim and show me a track, I just can't do it.
--
-
- Well... you're not Marseille - the ace. Of course it
- can be done, but it's just not easy. Just as it
- shouldn't be.


This is pointless. You don't have to be a fighter ace to reproduce his achievements in a PC sim. I repeat, you would have to be able to kill easier with german MG's, I don't know if its a MG's problem or a damage problem, but sure there's a problem here.

|TAO|


http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/omdx.txt

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 02:47 PM
TAO-Squadron wrote:

- This is pointless. You don't have to be a fighter
- ace to reproduce his achievements in a PC sim. I
- repeat, you would have to be able to kill easier
- with german MG's, I don't know if its a MG's problem
- or a damage problem, but sure there's a problem
- here.

Nope. You don't have to be a fighter ace. But if you use Marseille as proof that German MG's are undermodeled, you should be able to fly and fight in the sim as Marseille would do, and you should use the same tactics. If that doesn't get you anywhere near the same results, there's a problem.

But for all I know you might be a lesser pilot than Marseille, spray'n'pray at planes in a 6 o'clock position from 300+ metres, and then come here and complain about ineffective weapons, while holding up the real life example of a pilot who surely used a vastly more effective tactic.

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 03:20 PM
- Nope. You don't have to be a fighter ace. But if you
- use Marseille as proof that German MG's are
- undermodeled, you should be able to fly and fight in
- the sim as Marseille would do, and you should use
- the same tactics. If that doesn't get you anywhere
- near the same results, there's a problem.


I used marselle as an extreme example, talk about any other pilot who got 2/3 kills with MG's in a single sortie. And I repeat, I don't have to be a figher ace to reproduce his skills in a PC, these are 2 complet different things.


- But for all I know you might be a lesser pilot than
- Marseille, spray'n'pray at planes in a 6 o'clock
- position from 300+ metres, and then come here and
- complain about ineffective weapons, while holding up
- the real life example of a pilot who surely used a
- vastly more effective tactic.
-


Dude, you have no clue about my tactics or my gunnery.

|TAO|


http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/omdx.txt

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 05:57 PM
Soooo, use a Marseille tactic and test the MG's like he did. And why does MG17 do not have API?

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 06:21 PM
Well I'm still confused but Leadspitter gave me the best reply as it made me laugh

LeadSpitter_ wrote:
........ and one little fart on a 109
- with the tiefighter green laserbeams any 109 is in
- pieces or exploded and your lagg can be competivie
- with 8 rockets and full fuel against a 109 with 25%
- fuel, only the g2 can turn equally.
-
- I think the dm of the lag is screwy but something is
- wrong or maybe the 20mm gun strenghts
-

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 06:58 PM
Slush69 wrote:
- It never ceases to amaze me, that "The Soviets can't
- produce decent weaponry because they're Soviets",
- still seems like a logical and valid statement for
- some.

Please excuse me, but that is a perfectly valid statement, ie. people working in a sovietic system produce crap because of the sovietic system. Contrary to most of you I know from the first hand how it discourages initiative and high quality work while promoting servitility and high numbers. Those high number were what allowed them to win the war, but please don't make me laugh by talking about the soviet quality.

Ever heard of purges? How many good engineers, technicians and scientists were sent to starve in Sibiria or just shot in the head in the late 30s? It was so simple for a lesser guy to promote himself just by denouncing that his more able collegue is an imperialistic spy... Or a son of a shopkeeper...

The T-34 is a good example. An exceptional design, derived by A. Firssov from an earlier stuff (mainly BT series) by removing wrong ideas (such as wheeled movement) and adding good ideas... But soon Firssov was sentenced to death. The next chief designer was Mikhail Koshkin, who wanted Stalin to like him more, so he drove personally the first tank from Kharkov all the way to Moscow in Winter 1940 and got pneumonia and died in the effect.

The L-11 cannon of the initial T-34 was just bad. There was a better cannon ready, F-34, but Marshall Kulik didn't like it (he didn't like the tank) so it was not fitted until it was clear that the L-11 is a crap (after the Winter War).

Basic design of the tank was good, but the quality of manufacture was far from satisfactory... But of course tanks and soldiers were one-time items according to the soviet doctrine, so this was really enough that it goes for 200km and then stops because the gearbox falls apart - if it is not destroyed before due to the official rules of engagement calling for a massed frontal attack rather than anything else.

-
- Ever heard about the T-34, Il-2, Katyusha, their
- 122mm and 152mm artillery guns, the AK-47 or the
- MiG-15?

Isn't AK-47 a descendant of MG-42?

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:35 AM
No, the AK-47 if anything was related to the StG.44, but we should not confuse the effects of dictatorship with patriotism: the Russians really pulled together when they got invaded, as most people would.



http://www.uploadit.org/files/151003-leone.gif

"Serenissima"

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 07:07 AM
Hi JtD,

I feel it's my solemn duty to inform you that no matter how many test you do, you'll be seeing comments complaining just as bitterly about dispersion, hitting power, and the rest as soon as this thread has scrolled off the first page. If not sooner. Trust me, I know.

It's fantastic to see photographic evidence of just how utterly full of crap some of the whiners are, though. Great stuff, keep it up.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 08:55 AM
SUPERAEREO wrote:
- but we should not confuse the effects of
- dictatorship with patriotism: the Russians really
- pulled together when they got invaded, as most
- people would.

Now that is entirely true: while moving the factories to Ural, they were able to open the production two months after starting the construction of the hall. Before the war, it took 5 years.

Anyway, we were getting off topic in this valuable thread, but I am just quite enraged by so many people (also in RL) describing how beautiful the Soviet Union was and how nice guy Stalin was.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 09:32 AM
Not only does the rate of fire effect the german guns but so do those massive smoke tracers. With the smokeless green Russian tracers you keep a nice clear sight picture in the game. With the LW LMG's your sight picture is obscured by the smoke trail from the tracers in many shooting angles.This effects minute adjustments to firing trajectory if you could see the rounds were hitting or missing. Small adustments with the control surfaces can make the difference between hits and misses in this game. With the smokeless tracers you have a better chance of seeing those hits and adjusting accordingly.

The combination of ROF and sight picture make it easy to understand why these weapons are more effective than the LW LMG's in the game.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 10:29 AM
MGs effectiveness is a complicated thing. It depends on the overall modelling of MGs and on planes DMs. So I think the main problem is the DM of planes like Rata. It can survive 40-50 bullets from Mg17s and If u lucky enough, u cak make a PK and some control cable damage. People usually are not lucky enough for do this often/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

In DM, planes have lot of unbeatable part(simplified DM). These are reduced in 1.11, but some planes still have the old DM(FW190 with some tune, Rata, LaGG, Pe2s, and so on)

109s DM will tune in 1,2. Now it can down by a single bullet from very far with control or engine damage.

Ps:
I read lot of stories from veteran bomber pilots and gunners(Hungarian Ju86, Caproni, Stuka, He111 and Me189 gunners) that they managed tu burn Ratas, Jaks and LaGGs with fat black smoke. They all used 7,9 cal guns for that.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 10:56 AM
HWick wrote:
- So I think the main problem is the DM of planes like
- Rata. It can survive 40-50 bullets from Mg17s and If
- u lucky enough, u cak make a PK and some control
- cable damage. People usually are not lucky enough
- for do this often

I am flying Rata online quite often and get downed usually when there are enough holes in my wing - any manouvre ends with a spin then. Also I get a whole wing ripped off very often.

-
- 109s DM will tune in 1,2. Now it can down by a
- single bullet from very far with control or engine
- damage.

Wasn't that the case in RL? The water cooling system of Bf109 was very sensitive wasn't it?

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 11:12 AM
Hans,

It is true that Soviet system was bad in many cases regarding industrial output. Purges did even bigger damage, not only to the industry, but also to Red Army. Many progressive young officers were murdered before WWII for no reason.

However, you must know that Soviet/Russian phylosophy in weapons building is not the same as the one used in the West. Just as an example, engines and weapons are made to withstand constant low temperatures and low technical culture of (mostly drunk) soldiers. Further, aircraft guns are totally different story because Russians have their own way of measuring their effectiveness, which you probably know already. You have many examples, even in modern history. For example, two-barreled gun of MiG21, GSH-23L has relativley small RPM, especially compared to M-61 Vulcan. However, the granade of GSh-23L is twice heavier and entire gun is MUCH lighter. GSh-301 mounted on Mig29 is even better example.

Regarding the individual weapons, such as assault rifles. It is true that the Germans have invented the concept which is remarkable accomplishment by itself. However, AK-47 was just a copy of the CONCEPT, not the plain copy of the MP-42. Kalashnikov has its own breech system which was partly taken from Austrian-built Mannlicher rifle from WWI (rotating bolt within forward moving carrier). It has nothing to with roller-breech of MP-42. All post-was German rifles built by H&K and Spanish CETME had the same system, taken from MP42 and STG 43. HOWEVER, the latest incarnation of Heckler & Koch assault rifles G36, DOES NOT have that classic German breech locking system. Actually, H&K G36 has forward moving, rotating bolt, VERY similar to AK-47. So... who won?

Again, back to the phylosophy. I once did an interview with old Mihail Kalashnikov. I asked him on his opinion about Colt M-16. He replied "It is a nice rifle, but not for us". This sentence has many meanings.

Best,
Kursula


HansKnappstick wrote:
- Slush69 wrote:
-- It never ceases to amaze me, that "The Soviets can't
-- produce decent weaponry because they're Soviets",
-- still seems like a logical and valid statement for
-- some.
-
- Please excuse me, but that is a perfectly valid
- statement, ie. people working in a sovietic system
- produce crap because of the sovietic system.
- Contrary to most of you I know from the first hand
- how it discourages initiative and high quality work
- while promoting servitility and high numbers. Those
- high number were what allowed them to win the war,
- but please don't make me laugh by talking about the
- soviet quality.
-
- Ever heard of purges? How many good engineers,
- technicians and scientists were sent to starve in
- Sibiria or just shot in the head in the late 30s? It
- was so simple for a lesser guy to promote himself
- just by denouncing that his more able collegue is an
- imperialistic spy... Or a son of a shopkeeper...
-
- The T-34 is a good example. An exceptional design,
- derived by A. Firssov from an earlier stuff (mainly
- BT series) by removing wrong ideas (such as wheeled
- movement) and adding good ideas... But soon Firssov
- was sentenced to death. The next chief designer was
- Mikhail Koshkin, who wanted Stalin to like him more,
- so he drove personally the first tank from Kharkov
- all the way to Moscow in Winter 1940 and got
- pneumonia and died in the effect.
-
- The L-11 cannon of the initial T-34 was just bad.
- There was a better cannon ready, F-34, but Marshall
- Kulik didn't like it (he didn't like the tank) so it
- was not fitted until it was clear that the L-11 is a
- crap (after the Winter War).
-
- Basic design of the tank was good, but the quality
- of manufacture was far from satisfactory... But of
- course tanks and soldiers were one-time items
- according to the soviet doctrine, so this was really
- enough that it goes for 200km and then stops because
- the gearbox falls apart - if it is not destroyed
- before due to the official rules of engagement
- calling for a massed frontal attack rather than
- anything else.
-
--
-- Ever heard about the T-34, Il-2, Katyusha, their
-- 122mm and 152mm artillery guns, the AK-47 or the
-- MiG-15?
-
- Isn't AK-47 a descendant of MG-42?
-
-
-
-
-