357th_KW Posted April 8, 2021 Posted April 8, 2021 @Jason_Williams This thread is to provide some historical documentation of different convergence setups used by the USAAF in WW2, as well as documentation of the use of tracers (or lack thereof). On 4/6/2021 at 11:38 AM, Jason_Williams said: Customizable ammo belts is unlikely to happen. And such a feature should be designed in the beginning not retrofitted. Hard to do otherwise. We already give options for different load outs for planes that we were aware of. Not sure how common no tracers actually were. I've only seen anectodical information. We have the most common convergence used by the USAAF. Please show me what other convergences were adopted officially by the USAAF. Our info only shows basically two types. Jason Convergence The USAAF Fighter Gunnery Manual from May 1945 lays out their stance pretty clearly on page 63 (bold and caps from the original text) : "For a superior fixed gunner, Point Harmonization is probably the best type. For an average pilot a PATTERN TYPE HARMONIZATION is more desirable as it makes up for his deficiency in shooting." They go on to state: "The best arrangement of guns is one which produces the largest pattern of a uniform lethal density over the entire effective range." The manual provides a series of different harmonization charts (mostly pattern types, but including one example of a point type). Earlier on that same page the manual states (again, original text emphasis): "Your gun harmonization MUST be checked frequently in practice or in combat. And it is the PILOT'S responsibility to do this. The job is YOURS. The armorers and line crew will help you correct any errors you may find." There is also a Manual For Fighter Gun Harmonization AAF Manual 200-1 from January 1945 (it's available on Avialogs at the link provided, a free subscription will allow you to view the whole thing). It mirrors the statements (preference for pattern convergence over point convergence) from the USAAF Fighter Gunnery Manual, and includes some additional harmonization charts (including one for the P-39 which isn't present in the Fighter Gunnery Manual). Col. Lee Coats of AAFPGC, Eglin Field (Army Air Force Proving Ground Command) made a statement at the Joint Fighter Conference (USAAF, USN, USMC, RAF) in October 1944 saying that the USAAF was focused on providing the best solutions for the average pilot (rather than the aces) and recommended that their pilots use a pattern convergence. Cover. Page 169. Page 170. Supporting this idea that convergence settings were up to the pilot, Bud Anderson (357th FG, 8th AF) specifically describes choosing to use a point convergence instead of a box setup in his book "To Fly and Fight", and Richard Tuner (354th FG, 9th AF) describes having his crew setup his aircraft to boresight the guns at 100 yards in his book "Big Friend, Little Friend". It appears that the official policy of the USAAF later in the war was to use pattern type convergence, but final say was in the hands of the pilots and ground crew and some did continue to use point convergence. It would make a nice addition to have the published pattern convergences from the manuals above available as an option for the appropriate USAAF aircraft, along with the usual point convergence options already in the game. Tracers Much like gun harmonization, ammunition belting seems to have been largely a unit preference. In his book "Operations Analysis in the U.S. Army Eighth Air Force in World War II" Charles McArthur describes trying to convince individual fighter units to switch from their mixed belt of choice to a belt of pure API in 1943. This same stance seems to have applied to tracer use as well, and there are examples of units that apparently used no tracers at all, units that used tracers, and units that used tracers as a "low ammo warning" just in the last rounds of a belt. This is especially noticeable in gun camera film. The most common setup in late war Western Europe appears to have been the last mentioned - using tracers at the end of a belt to warn pilots that they were almost empty. Bud Anderson (357th FG, 8th AF) describes using tracers in his book and they can be seen in his gun camera footage. Richard Turner (354th FG, 9th AF) similarly mentions using tracers in his book. Another member of the same fighter group, Jack Bradley has some well publicized gun camera footage showing tracer use as well. Here's some additional 354th FG footage showing tracers in use. Robert Goebel (308th FS, 31st FG, 15th AF) describes not using tracers, except as a low ammo warning in his book "Mustang Ace": "I had the pipper low in the center of his fuselage when I squeezed off the first short burst. No strikes. Thank God our group did not put tracers in the normal load or they would have given me away." And from later in the book: "As I began banging away, I saw tracers. That meant I was almost out of ammo - the armorers put in a tracer every so often in the last fifty rounds as a warning." Robert Elder (350th FS, 353rd FG, 8th AF) "By this time I was down to about 50 rounds of ammunition per gun, since my tracers had come out." The following all come from pilot accounts in Eric Hammel's "Aces Against Germany": Bill Chick (317th FS, 325th FG, 15th AF): "In the 317th we loaded all API except for five tracer rounds after the first 250 API rounds. This told the pilot he had 45 API rounds left in each belt to get him out of trouble ..." Jim Carter (61st FS, 56th FG, 8th AF): "The ammo loads were not dictated, but at the time most of us used three armor-piercing and two incendiary rounds in succession." "At that point, tracers began showing from my guns, which indicated I was down to less than fifty rounds per gun." Jerry Brown (38th FS, 55th FG, 8th AF): "We didn't use tracers, but we had API for the .50-caliber machine guns and high-explosive rounds for the 20mm cannon. You could always tell when you hit something." Dave Thwaites (361st FS, 356th FG, 8th AF): "There we no tracers in the burst; we only had tracers towards the end of our ammo to tell us when we were running out." George Loving (309th FS, 31st FG, 15th AF): "My ammo load was 1,260 rounds of .50-caliber, with tracers every fifth ammo link." (Note same Group but different squadron as Bob Goebel above, and a different ammo load) Bunny Comstock (63rd FS, 56th FG, 8th AF): "I could see twelve or fifteen API and a few tracer rounds go into him. The tracer meant I was almost out of ammunition." Here's a few gun camera compilations (all 8th AF, late 44/45 stuff, with dates and units identified): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBXIzY-GGk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPs6fxinTnA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HV1n0sOpVE A large number of different squadrons and groups are present in there and in almost all cases they appear to either be using no tracers, or using them as a low ammo warning. Because all three configurations (tracers, no tracers, a few tracers belted at the end as a low ammo warning) were used, it would be nice to have all 3 options in game. Ultimately, the "low ammo warning" style seems to have been most common, but I imagine it would require the most effort and simply having the option of tracers or no tracers would be a nice addition. Thanks for taking the time to read through my wall of text! 5 1 1 19
Mtnbiker1998 Posted April 21, 2021 Posted April 21, 2021 Really excellent post! After messing with the .50 cal dispersion mod, I think the proper convergence settings is something that would really improve the feel of .50s in this game. I'd also really like the tracers at end of belts, but as far as the tracers/no tracers loadouts, I could go either way. it'd be fun to try out for sure.
150_GIAP-Red_Dragon Posted April 28, 2021 Posted April 28, 2021 (edited) Dear Jason, it was with great pleasure that I pre-ordered a new project and bought a new Spitfire. While the D 28 Thunderbolt was a significant disappointment, this Spitfire is gorgeous and beautiful. But please don't ruin our dream. Please make the machine gun settings of the new future mustang (and possibly the thunderbolt) closer to the historical ones. Give these bullets a historical dispersion. Make Mustang great again PS And by the way, thank you so much for the Yaki 9, I bought them both.. And now I have nothing else to buy ? Edited April 28, 2021 by -332FG-Red_Pilot 1 2
354thFG_Drewm3i-VR Posted August 23, 2021 Posted August 23, 2021 This is a super interesting, well researched, and informative video on the US .50s which leads me to conclude that what we see in il-2 is so far from historical reality that it is unbelievable. 2
Voyager Posted September 16, 2021 Posted September 16, 2021 I known the Navy did not have standardized maintenance or operating procedures until 1954, and NATOPS was only founded in 1961. Prior to that, each unit worked out their own processes. What we'll need to do is figure out what the USAF equivalent to NATOPS is, and when it was implemented to know whether or not such procedures even existed during WWII. I think the USAF version are just SOPs, so may be best to start there and see if we can find when and why the SOP system was established. My guess is we'll find they also started in the 50's or 60's.
357th_KW Posted November 10, 2022 Author Posted November 10, 2022 @Han I’m just bumping this thread in response to the most recent dev diary and mention of improvements going forward. While I understand that complex convergence settings might still be a bridge too far, would be be possible to look into belts without tracers (or with tracers just at the end of the belt) where applicable? 1
--[---MAILMAN---- Posted November 12, 2022 Posted November 12, 2022 (edited) With the current UI it is impossible to set my .50 Caliber convergence to 1000 ft. because the convergence slider is set for meters only and worse yet it can only be changed in 10 meter (10.9 yds./32.8 ft.) increments so even if you perform the math to determine the metric (meter) equivalent to 1000 ft. you cannot select the corresponding metric value. The convergence slider set points in 10 meter (32.8 ft/10.9 yds.) increments. Why can't this be set in increments of one (1) just like how the fuel amount slider is in 1 liter increments? Why can't the convergence slider be in the units of measure based on the regional settings, either metric, imperial or plane dependent. Why can't it match the same units of measure like when setting the range for the K-14 gun sight or British Reflector Gun site, both of which are in yards. When selecting the regional setting for units of measure, what exactly does this setting do, how is it used and where does it show up in the game? I want to set my convergence to 1000 Ft./333.3 yds. (304.8 m), but the closest setting I can set on the convergence slider is either300m (984.2 ft./328.1 yds.) or 310m (1017.1 ft./339.0 yds.) AF Technical Order No. 00-35-35 Fighter Pilot Gunnery How to Make Your Bullets Hit Dec. 10, 1943 Everything in this Technical Order is based on 1000 Ft. which is the maximum effective range (for shooting an aircraft target) of the .50 caliber machine guns where the bullet drop is listed as 4" at that range. This is what the USAAF was teaching its pilots as of the date of this manual. I don't know if BOX bullet drop matches what was stated in this manual. Right from this manual: Actual combat results for some time have been proving and reproving that the best "Get your man' range for opening fire is 1,000 feet. The N-9 Gun Site Reticle has a 100 MIL Diameter/50 MIL Radius according to this manual 1 MIL = 1 Ft. at 1000 FT. The reticle is referred to as the 100 Mile Reticle where a radius of 50 MIL equals the lead angle of a target at 1000 ft. traveling at a speed of 100 MPH. Full Deflection. A Bullet traveling at 2900 ft. per second over the first 1000 ft. will travel that distance in 1/3 of a second. One MPH=1.47 ft. of target travel; 100 MPH=147 ft. of target travel; 300 MPH=441 feet of target travel. A target with a wingspan of 50 feet traveling at 100 MPH at 1000 ft. requires a lead angle of one radius or 50 MILS in the N9 gun sight. A target with a wing span of 50 feet traveling at 300 MPH at 1000 ft. requires a lead angle of three radii or 150 MILS in the N9 gun sight. Gun convergence settings for USAAF aircraft varied per unit, pilot preference and type of gun employed on the aircraft. Edited November 12, 2022 by --[---MAILMAN---- 1
357th_KW Posted December 19, 2022 Author Posted December 19, 2022 I found some additional information on this topic in Merle Olmstead's "The 357th Fighter Group Over Europe". He has a quote from a unit armorer talking about guns and ammunition. In it he describes the initial belting being 1 AP, 2 Incendiary, 1 Tracer. Later they removed the tracer, and then swapped to API. Page 63 Page 64
Sitaro Posted January 7, 2023 Posted January 7, 2023 yes but I am convinced this game will never have API. 1
354thFG_Leifr Posted June 4, 2023 Posted June 4, 2023 On 1/7/2023 at 6:32 AM, Sitaro said: yes but I am convinced this game will never have API. Pretty much... ?
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now