I-153: cheap or not?

[Panzergranate]

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

Yep, 2 x 20mm ShVAKs.

According to German range tests, they can penetrate 27mm. of armour plate @ 100 metres, (about 50mm. of steel) with APHE shells and 63mm. at 100 metres with later HVAP solid shot.

The ShVak cannon fire too fast in the game. In real life, all cannon fire somewhat slower than machine guns, the larger the calibre the slower the rate of fire.

The ShVak was also the sole armament of the T-60 light tank, which has a 1 round per second fire rate, if one watches WW2 newsreal footage.

Some mono-planes could turn inside 1930's bi-planes..... the Brewster B-139 Buffalo could turn inside the US Navy's Boeing F1 and F2 bi-plane fighters it replaced. The RAF found that the B-339 version could out turn the Gloster Gladiator and pilots commented that it handled more like a bi-plane than a mono-plane.

The Finnish B-239 could out turn the I-16 and match the I-153 in turns.

It seems that radial engined fighters have better maneuevrability than inline engine arrangements. Also that fighters with a short fuselage with wide wing ratio handle extremely well, but have too much drag to attain high speeds, hence as fighter speeds rose, aircraft became longer with shorter wings and maneuverability decreased in relation to earlier and slower predecessors.

Note how the Spitfire IX handles better than the XVI version.

Short and stubby with wide wings (I-16, Buffalo, Wildcat, Ki-27, A5M, Raiden) = highly maneuverable but slow.

Long and sleek with long wings (Hurricane, Spitfire, Zero, Oscar, Hellcat, P-51-D, Fw-190) = good maneuverablity, good speed.

Long with average wings (Bf-109, Yak, La) = aceptable maneuverability, good speed.

Long with average wings (P-39, P-40, P-66, G-50, LaGG, P-51-B) = mediocre maneuverabilty, good speed.

Long and sleek with short wings (Mig-3, P-43, ) = not so maneuverable, good speed.

.... And then their are the way too heavy types.

(P-47, Fulmar, etc.) = flies like a piano, brick, etc.