Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
klebor

Weapon harmonisation instead of weapon convergence range.

Recommended Posts

I have noticed many warbirds with wing-mounted armament didn't have all the guns shoting (converging) in one point but in slightly different points to increase probalility hitting the target on different range in cost of firepower on one specific range.

Before i put that in suggestions i would like to hear somebody else's opinion about this topic.

It was not an issue in case of most Soviet and German planes, but now, with P-47, P-51, Tempest, (P-40 also).

Post additional documents if you have some.

 

I.e. P-47 Thunderbolt

image.thumb.png.0e116042526cd74b85d4f21c0399e796.png

 

Tempest V:

Armament and Harmonization

39.            The four Mark V Hispano guns are equipped with No. 4, Mk. II, Front Mounting Units. The Mark V Cannon has no cocking cylinder, but a detachable hand operated cocking unit is provided in its stead, the stowage for this being in the port wheel well. The installation is accessible for maintenance and removal and replacement of guns is simple.

40.            The front mountings are inaccessible, but to overcome this difficulty, special adaptors are provided for hamonisation purposes. Harmonisation was carried out in accordance with Headquarters, A.D.G.B. Diagram No. Arm/TE.101 dated February, 1944.

Gun Firing and Bullet Pattern

41.            The bullet pattern has been published in the Headquarters Fighter Command Armament Staff Instruction, Part I, Section ‘Q’, Leaflet 1A, dated February, 1944.

 

 

Edited by sereme1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For general use, this "spary pattern" was used, because shooting skills on average were abysmal compared to what kills you on WoL. And headquarters was aware of that. The good pilots however could have their guns harmonzied such that the trajectories indeed intersected in a single point. (and were very happy with that.)This is specifically mentioned in pilot accounts.

 

If you can't shoot, go for a larger pattern. Maybe you'll hit a bit then, instead of nothing. If you can shoot, you'd be daft to have your gun not shoot where you are aiming. If you can hit, you require a fraction of ammo to destroy the target. The larger the spray area, the more ammo you are required to bring along to destroy the target. Also you increase shooting time which directly hurts your chances to destroy the target.

 

If you want the devs provide you the spray instead of the beam, fine. Nobody will use that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

For general use, this "spary pattern" was used, because shooting skills on average were abysmal compared to what kills you on WoL. And headquarters was aware of that. The good pilots however could have their guns harmonzied such that the trajectories indeed intersected in a single point. (and were very happy with that.)This is specifically mentioned in pilot accounts.

 

If you can't shoot, go for a larger pattern. Maybe you'll hit a bit then, instead of nothing. If you can shoot, you'd be daft to have your gun not shoot where you are aiming. If you can hit, you require a fraction of ammo to destroy the target. The larger the spray area, the more ammo you are required to bring along to destroy the target. Also you increase shooting time which directly hurts your chances to destroy the target.

 

If you want the devs provide you the spray instead of the beam, fine. Nobody will use that.

 

Currently it seems like the game is designed with the view that the pilots flying it are "common" rather than "ace" quality.

 

If such specific settings were made available, I'd also expect one to be able to choose their gun belting and such.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JaffaCake said:

If such specific settings were made available, I'd also expect one to be able to choose their gun belting and such.

I'm not aware that (allied) pilots could choose their belting. Pilots much rather relied on the boffins that gave them the best mix. I do not know of one single pilot who would have been asking for AP only bullets or tracerless, things that we ComfyArmChiarPilots always do to maximise effectivity in the context of the game.

 

Pilots back then could choose the gun setup of their aircraft if they were issued a personal one, like Johnson with JE-J, or LO-D in case of Clostermann. Although the aircraft were shared if required, they were individually assigned aircraft that also had special markings like the score. Common personel were just assigned to available aircraft to fill the ranks.

 

Chosing the belting is slightly problematic as it has implications on the supply chain, so I doubt that would have been a common practise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

If you want the devs provide you the spray instead of the beam, fine. Nobody will use that.

 

I'd use split vertical and horizontal convergences, at least. If the gun switches would get implemented (like in the P-40 for outer/inner gun pairs) then per gun convergence settings could be even more useful.

 

The spray it is possible now and quite effective, too - just open fire slightly beyond the convergence point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ehret said:

If the gun switches would get implemented (like in the P-40 for outer/inner gun pairs) then per gun convergence settings could be even more useful.

I guess here you are conducting your sport at a level far beyond any living soul fighting for his life was doing it. But I agree, game-whise this would make sense. A pair of cal .50 is all you need to win a fight. You can have set them at different levels and still win. But for pilots back then, not sure if that was an appropriate procedure.

 

4 minutes ago, Ehret said:

The spray it is possible now and quite effective, too - just open fire slightly beyond the convergence point.

For sure. But it is no comparison to centerline mounted guns. The P-39 cal .50 is all you need. High firing rate, high velocity, great aim. You can hit easily up to 500 meters range, something that is not at all possible with wing mounted guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of convergence range do you guys normally run? I have been using 240m but find it to be a tad short and at other times it works well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use 230 meters. All kind of bullets go generally in an almost flat trajectory over this distance. If you go farther, individual gus will have progressively separated trajectories and shooting a tad closer (or farther) will make you miss by a lot. Same goes for centerline guns. Go close and you'll hit your target with everything you'll have. Farther distances mean higher separeation of your bullet tracectoies, negating the benefit of centerline guns. To shoot farther, I just use one kind of guns (as a different caliber will NOT hit as well due to ballistic separation, neither on wing or centerline installment).

 

You can determine added elevation by the target size in the mil rings. Then keep a chart in mind for your sepcific gun regarding the drop over given distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

For sure. But it is no comparison to centerline mounted guns. The P-39 cal .50 is all you need. High firing rate, high velocity, great aim. You can hit easily up to 500 meters range, something that is not at all possible with wing mounted guns.

 

Yes but the Kittyhawk offers +3x volume of .50 fire and this improves odds at range. One can try to aim using guns in the single wing, too. Paradoxically, the major advantage I had found using nose mounted guns is at close range. With wings' guns it's easy to miss when the target gets too close as bullets will go around because of farther convergence point. No such problem with the center line armament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In CloD, I usually converged my guns at ~300 meter (about 330 yards) with a variance of 20 meters on the british planes, 280, 300, 300 ,320 inner to outer. I did that to compensate for the boom&zoom tactics most blue pilots employed so I can try to snipe them (which was great in CloD because of water radiator damage modelling). So spread actually helped you a bit in that department for getting that one bullet into the rad and make the blue cry:) Biggest problem was shooting in close range where you had to decide for one of your wings to shoot with and aim with the outer ring of your crosshair, effectively cutting your firepower in half.

 

The harmonisation on the P51 with the K14 equipped was kinda a necessity to allow the K14 to do its job (being range adjustable and so forth), so you had a sort of range wherein your fire is more or less concentrated. Having everything converged into one point at a certain distance would have kinda defeated the purpose.

 

 

Edited by Mauf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, for most instances I would use desynced guns with shotgun pattern.

Even more so now since light machine and heavy machine guns are vastly more superior than they were in old Sturmovik.

Apart from armoured targets like tanks, you can pretty much inflict heavy damage on anything in short time using only two LMG's.

So for aircraft such is P-40 for instance, 4x.50 cal and shotgun pattern is more than enough to bring down anything in short order and to effectively strafe too.

 

Funny thing, people were actually haveing a heated conversations/topics about time desyncing LMG/HMG's in old IL-2 1946. From day one up to some point, machine guns were actually synchronized and fired in convergence dot pattern. Many (probably vast majority) requested machine gun desynchronization. Not sure about shotgun pattern request (slight vertical/horizontal desync too). It apparently made people more happy...

 

But if there is a chance to actually select what pattern do you want for your machine guns in game, I'm all for that choice. So people may decide what works best for them.

9 minutes ago, Mauf said:

In CloD, I usually converged my guns at ~300 meter

...

Biggest problem was shooting in close range where you had to decide for one of your wings to shoot with and aim with the outer ring of your crosshair, effectively cutting your firepower in half.

...

That is my biggest "beef" about wing mounted aircraft... you cannot have it both way, effective long and short range, whereas nose mounted cannons/MG's are almost equally effective.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I'm not aware that (allied) pilots could choose their belting. Pilots much rather relied on the boffins that gave them the best mix. I do not know of one single pilot who would have been asking for AP only bullets or tracerless, things that we ComfyArmChiarPilots always do to maximise effectivity in the context of the game.

 

 

Come on mate...get it straight...it's 1G Comfy Chair Fighter Pilot. 1GCCFP if you prefer.😎

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree this needs attention. It's one of the few things cliff does better than box. The ability to set the guns individually and with different loadouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I'm not aware that (allied) pilots could choose their belting. Pilots much rather relied on the boffins that gave them the best mix. I do not know of one single pilot who would have been asking for AP only bullets or tracerless, things that we ComfyArmChiarPilots always do to maximise effectivity in the context of the game.

 

Pilots back then could choose the gun setup of their aircraft if they were issued a personal one, like Johnson with JE-J, or LO-D in case of Clostermann. Although the aircraft were shared if required, they were individually assigned aircraft that also had special markings like the score. Common personel were just assigned to available aircraft to fill the ranks.

 

Chosing the belting is slightly problematic as it has implications on the supply chain, so I doubt that would have been a common practise.

All pilots in the USAAF were assigned "personal" aircraft but they didn't always fly it. It's the same way today, pilots have a "personal" aircraft with their name and rank on it but they can't really choose to fly it on all missions it all depends on scheduling and if it's available.

 

Johnson lost his personal aircraft when another pilot was assigned it on a flight, the pilot ended up crashing it it somehow.

Pilots never chose their belt mix though, it wasn't up to them.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The January 1945 manual for the P-47 mentions that the guns were typically set to converge both horizontally and vertically at either 250 or 350 yards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

The January 1945 manual for the P-47 mentions that the guns were typically set to converge both horizontally and vertically at either 250 or 350 yards. 

We can already set our own gun convergence (horizontally) in-game but we can't set each gun individually. The above ranges were pretty much standard throughout the whole AAF at that time, I think even he P-51 had the same or very similar convergence.

 

It would be nice to have the ability to set the convergence for each pair of guns, also setting vertical convergence would be nice as well but less important imo.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that wing gun convergence [P40, six 50 cals]  has to be altered when having to carry out ground attack, if you widen the convergence point you can destroy ground targets much further out, but then you have to remember to readjust for air targets. again its all down to preference.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I'm not aware that (allied) pilots could choose their belting. Pilots much rather relied on the boffins that gave them the best mix. I do not know of one single pilot who would have been asking for AP only bullets or tracerless, things that we ComfyArmChiarPilots always do to maximise effectivity in the context of the game.

...

Chosing the belting is slightly problematic as it has implications on the supply chain, so I doubt that would have been a common practise.

 

It was common practise, at least by USAAF in ETO. It was rather on squadron level, it looks like belting wasn't usually chosen by individual pilots but by squadron CO. Some fighter squadrons did prefered belting without tracers, some did prefered a certain type of ammunition. For example during "Big Week" (February 1944), 56th Fighter Group squadrons did have different beltings  - 61st FS prefered API only belting, 62nd FS was using API + T and 63rd FS AP + I. And even than, some pilots were using different belting within this squadrons - some pilots of 63rd FS were at that time using API ammo only or I ammo only belting.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2018 at 6:14 PM, busdriver said:

 

Come on mate...get it straight...it's 1G Comfy Chair Fighter Pilot. 1GCCFP if you prefer.😎

You mean this comfy chair?

 

Personally I would appreciate possibility of my own belting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2018 at 7:45 AM, taffy2jeffmorgan said:

I find that wing gun convergence [P40, six 50 cals]  has to be altered when having to carry out ground attack, if you widen the convergence point you can destroy ground targets much further out, but then you have to remember to readjust for air targets. again its all down to preference.  

 

Well... the P-40' dashboards have on/off switches for inner/outer gun pairs. If they would get implemented in the game and convergence settings per every pair then it'd allow for some interesting possibilities.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I miss is the ability to have mgs and cannon at different ranges. I'm 1946 I would set ms for long range and cannon for short. This gives much better versatility when it comes to engaging targets. With the current system and especially the wing mounted guns it's is very hard to hit somthing at long range if you have a close convergence. 

 

For me it is not about getting a shotgun effect because I can't aim,it is a matter of giving me a bigger effective engagement range.

Edited by AeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AeroAce said:

What I miss is the ability to have mgs and cannon at different ranges. I'm 1946 I would set ms for long range and cannon for short. This gives much better versatility when it comes to engaging targets. With the current system and especially the wing mounted guns it's is very hard to hit somthing at long range if you have a close convergence. 

But most guns are so destructive up close you don't need a close convergance. For example a hit from one side of your P40's guns usually does for a 109 at close range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

But most guns are so destructive up close you don't need a close convergance. For example a hit from one side of your P40's guns usually does for a 109 at close range.

 

I get that a longer convergence will most likely benifit me and I should give it a go so I can hit the axis better in their bz attacks but I'm too stuck in my ways. 

 

I do get 90% of my kills sub 300 meters. Most of them properly under 100 but I do get fustrated when planes fly through my convergence range to quickly.

 

The reason I do take a lower convergence was after hearing the story that RAF initially setting theirs to 400 yards which quickly proved to be a mistake so they lowered it about half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 8:39 AM, busdriver said:

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition...

 

ironically, the Spanish Inquisition was always expected. They sent out their  visit memos well in advance. However, I do suspect they did it for the sole purpose of making their job easier to make sure you had your story straight when they showed up to quiz on how you ponder your mortality.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be perfectly fine if they completely left out any harmonization customisation, but rather enforced an "area" type harmonization per default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Inkoslav said:

I'd be perfectly fine if they completely left out any harmonization customisation, but rather enforced an "area" type harmonization per default.

Reducing features. Awesome.

 

You have "area" harmonization in RoF, for other reasons though. Try it and feel the difference. You can do so by selecting the "improved gunnery" button. You can come back and tell us if you still like scatter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Reducing features. Awesome.

 

You have "area" harmonization in RoF, for other reasons though. Try it and feel the difference. You can do so by selecting the "improved gunnery" button. You can come back and tell us if you still like scatter.

 

How is it reduction of features of the feature doesn't even exist? Keep in mind that IL-2 simplifies A LOOOOT of things. I mean... we have no emergency hydraulic hand pumps, we have no electrical, penumatic or hydraulic system failures, we don't really have weapon jams, we can't customize ammunition belts, we can't do any detailed fuse settings on bombs and rockets, we can't get tyre punctures or brake failures, we can't overheat the supercharger clutch, and so on...

 

Considering the detail of the game's scope it simply isn't feasible with customizeable harmonization.

 

And comparing the harmonization in ROF with that of a P-47 or -51 isn't fair. A couple of .30 cal machine guns compared to six or eight .50s isn't in the same universe of performance or saturation of fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Inkoslav said:

And comparing the harmonization in ROF with that of a P-47 or -51 isn't fair.

It is absolutely fair in terms of what scatter does to you. It does *that*, and nothing else. Regardless of the caliber. It is the difference of a one second burst to a four second burst.

 

2 minutes ago, Inkoslav said:

I mean... we have no emergency hydraulic hand pumps, we have no electrical, penumatic or hydraulic system failures, we don't really have weapon jams

These would hardly be acceptable by the clientele of this game. You can have failures in GA sims, where flying per se is the challenge. But having it in BoX is like playing chess and when you put your chess pieces on the board "whoopsie, no queen for me". In principle, I wouldn't mind failures though. especially in the context of the single player campaign. It would make the P-39 really attractive due to the relability question. The vaccuum installation in the Yak was far from perfect. But in MP, "it ruins the game me".

 

8 minutes ago, Inkoslav said:

Considering the detail of the game's scope it simply isn't feasible with customizeable harmonization. 

I don't understand, it is an implemented feature in terms of convergence, which is what you need to hit something. I don't think it would be too hard to make any gun point in a weird direction (within limits) to get a more defined scatter. But it is a losing strategy if you have the abilitiy to learn shooting and do errors more than once.

 

9 minutes ago, Inkoslav said:

we can't customize ammunition belts,

We can to some extent. Or at least wat was within the reasonable possibilities of sqadron commanders.

 

9 minutes ago, Inkoslav said:

we can't do any detailed fuse settings on bombs and rockets

There are different fuse settings (timing) for bombs. For current rockets, there was no such thing IRL. What are you missing?

 

11 minutes ago, Inkoslav said:

we can't overheat the supercharger clutch

Just take the Spit IX and you'll be fine. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, moosya said:

 

ironically, the Spanish Inquisition was always expected.

 

You're not a fan of Monty Python I gather. 🤔

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, busdriver said:

 

You're not a fan of Monty Python I gather. 🤔

And he will be very much surprised when they descend on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It is absolutely fair in terms of what scatter does to you. It does *that*, and nothing else. Regardless of the caliber. It is the difference of a one second burst to a four second burst.

 

 

Four second burst? It sounds like you are thinking the that the dispersion pattern is 5+5 meters at the convergence range rather than 5+5 feet. It's not like you need all guns to hit the exact same spot to rip wings off even 110s.

 

 

These would hardly be acceptable by the clientele of this game. You can have failures in GA sims, where flying per se is the challenge. But having it in BoX is like playing chess and when you put your chess pieces on the board "whoopsie, no queen for me". In principle, I wouldn't mind failures though. especially in the context of the single player campaign. It would make the P-39 really attractive due to the relability question. The vaccuum installation in the Yak was far from perfect. But in MP, "it ruins the game me".

 

I don't understand, it is an implemented feature in terms of convergence, which is what you need to hit something. I don't think it would be too hard to make any gun point in a weird direction (within limits) to get a more defined scatter. But it is a losing strategy if you have the abilitiy to learn shooting and do errors more than once.

 

 

That's exactly why we shouldn't make the game needlessly complicated. Setting only the convergence range is perfectly adequate.

 

 

We can to some extent. Or at least wat was within the reasonable possibilities of sqadron commanders.

 

 

IRL there were far more options for belting though. At least for some planes and guns. For example the Germans had something like five different belt compositions for the MG 151/20 depending on target, and Allied pilots (especially the aces) tended to be able to request custom belts.

 

 

There are different fuse settings (timing) for bombs. For current rockets, there was no such thing IRL. What are you missing?

 


I'm not really "missing" anything (I don't think more detail is necessary), but IRL there were individual options for arming and detonation delay. In-game we don't have a clue what the arming delay is for the different detonation delays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Inkoslav said:

It's not like you need all guns to hit the exact same spot to rip wings off even 110s.

If 2 rounds are enough, i want  to do it with two rounds. With 200 rounds,  you can shoot 100 AC like this. ;)

 

1 hour ago, Inkoslav said:

In-game we don't have a clue what the arming delay is for the different detonation delays.

It does what it says. It sets the delay in seconds after impact. What it also does, it sets a minimum drop time for the bomb to be armed to keep you from blowing up yourself. Fused for impact, it will not detonate if it falls just 5 seconds or so. You need to be higher for that.

 

1 hour ago, Inkoslav said:

. For example the Germans had something like five different belt compositions for the MG 151/20 depending on target, and Allied pilots (especially the aces) tended to be able to request custom belts.

I woudn't know if it was up to the pilot requesting that. I doubt it (for any regular pilot, that is), but might well be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

If 2 rounds are enough, i want  to do it with two rounds. With 200 rounds,  you can shoot 100 AC like this. ;)

 

What are you even talking about? If all you can hit with with a 10 ft (3m) dispersion it's not the dispersion that's the problem. It's your complete inability to aim.

 

It does what it says. It sets the delay in seconds after impact. What it also does, it sets a minimum drop time for the bomb to be armed to keep you from blowing up yourself. Fused for impact, it will not detonate if it falls just 5 seconds or so. You need to be higher for that.

 

And how long is that arming delay for every single detonation time option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Inkoslav said:

It's your complete inability to aim. 

If that is the skill level, then don't bring guns. You are faster without that dead weight and you might be able to run.

 

That said, indeed, the average shooting was abysmal. the scatter was an atempt to help out those who can't. With notable exceptions though. Nothing like we have here in MP. Everyone who could shoot and could help it had point convergence and was very happy about it.

 

44 minutes ago, Inkoslav said:

And how long is that arming delay for every single detonation time option?

Hopefully for you, long enough. I haven't seen it stated anywhere. But, in contrast to the fuze-delay, you indeed can't choose arming delay. Which is fine. Usually, either you have that and it will reqire a good height for the pin being drilled in, or you don't have it. It is a reason why the 5 second delay is so popular. The bomb is armed almost immediately after drop and it works for the regular treetop skip bombing runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please enlighten me what point there is to this discussion when you aren't even answering my questions/statements?

Edited by Inkoslav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Inkoslav said:

Could you please enlighten me what point there is to this discussion when you aren't even answering my questions/statements?

I haven't found any precise timetables for arming delay for the respective fuzing delay. (is there such a table?) But if you have a longer arming delay, you have a shorter fuzing delay. Is that what you meant?

 

And I understand that you like some scatter having in mind that you hit more with that. This is fine. I'm saying it is a bad choice and gave examples why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...