Excerpts from Text Book on Aerial Gunnery - 1917

[LukeFF]

I forgot that I had recently downloaded this manual on aerial gunnery until today. There are some great passages in here about the difficulty of aiming and when the pilot / gunner should open fire:

[=IRFC=Gascan]

That's from 1917? Interesting read. I think I saw Forgotten Weapons do an episode on the wind-vane sight recently. That would be a nifty mod for two-seaters. Good discussion on the use of gun sights, range, and tracers.

Edited May 11, 2021 by gascan
Add link

[LukeFF]

Yes, it looks to have been published in October 1917. 

[US41_Low]

Thanks for posting this. As I assumed, we’re shooting lasers, and it’s not due to oiled goggles or snap aims or zooms.

 

As stated in that training manual, an average gunner will spread his fire over a 50ft circle around his point of aim at a distance of 250 yds at altitudes above 1,000 ft. A skilled gunner brings it down to 30ft, or rather a 15ft radius from point of aim.

 

This is due to the instability of the firing platform since the firing platform is a rickety old wooden plane flying through air. It’s also due probably in part to sensitive control centers as opposed to our dead zone optimized modern joysticks. And it’s also in small part due to the old mounting system that wasn’t rigid enough.

 

Theres actual receipts right there. Please, devs, can we see expect some gunnery review?

[Guest deleted@83466]

I knew that was going to happen, lol.

[DD_Arthur]

I wish I could shoot lasers when I gun...

[unreasonable]

Most of this text refers to aiming a Lewis mounted on a Scarff ring or similar.  The majority of the dispersion is due to turbulence in the air, plus the difficulty of maintaining a fixed point of aim while traversing.  It explicitly says that a gun on a fixed mounting in clear air has a much smaller grouping than any of the numbers given. It also says that relatively still air is often found at over 1,000ft.

 

Scouts' forwards firing guns are on fixed mountings. So none of the figures quoted here have any relevance for forwards firing guns. We know what the dispersion should be there from gunnery tests - not demonstrations undertaken with an unlocked traverse, on  a tripod without sandbags, in an otherwise entertaining YT video on the Vickers.

 

So if you want to model in the game, for forwards firing guns, the effects of turbulence, add turbulence to your server mission settings.  If you want to model the difficulty of keeping your eye aligned along the sight line, stop using fixed gun snap views at a minimum. 

 

Turning to observer fire: 

 

Dispersion due to turbulence is only partly due to the error caused by the movement of the plane in the air itself: if the plane bumps up a foot, the bullet stream will bump up a foot, if the gunners body was in a constant position relative to the plane.  But if you have tried to aim a gun on a mounting from a moving vehicle of any kind, this is not what happens unless the gun is locked into position on the mounting, which it cannot be if you need to be able to adjust aim.  Bumps will turn into a slight rotational movement of the gun on the mounting - elevation or traverse or both - leading to a higher spread.  This has nothing to do with ballistics: just that changes in g, force the body to move relative to the platform.  

 

So if you want the game to model these effects (without bodging up the ballistics), you need an additional mechanism for human observers that makes their sight picture move in response to bumps (ie changes in g) and the consequent unintentional movements of the gunner's body. This could be done, perhaps with a little less work than went into the pilot G response model, but I expect that players would insist that it be an option and that MP would not use it. Having your sights jerk around on the screen even when you are not moving your mouse would be the result, and I expect players would hate it.

 

(Alternatively you could program your mouse with plenty of stutter and lag).

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by unreasonable

[Charlo-VR]

16 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

So if you want the game to model these effects (without bodging up the ballistics), you need an additional mechanism for human observers that makes their sight picture move in response to bumps (ie changes in g) and the consequent unintentional movements of the gunner's body. This could be done, perhaps with a little less work than went into the pilot G response model, but I expect that players would insist that it be an option and that MP would not use it. Having your sights jerk around on the screen even when you are not moving your mouse would be the result, and I expect players would hate it.

 

Excellent points, and oof, the above would be really nauseating in VR. VR facing backwards as a gunner is already really difficult to stomach for more than a few minutes

[US41_Low]

Lmfao. Or you could just add bullet dispersion to match the 30 ft diameter  pattern of a skilled pilot.

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

23 hours ago, US_Low said:

Lmfao. Or you could just add bullet dispersion to match the 30 ft diameter  pattern of a skilled pilot rear gunner.

 

This has nothnig to do with pilot shooting.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Perhaps it would help if turbulance could be set relative to altitude, as wind speed can be.

More wind and turbulance in maps is a 'quick fix' - and probably closer to realism into the bargain !

[unreasonable]

The situation of fixed forward guns vs rear guns on flexible mountings is worth considering. Put a Lewis  - or any other gun - on a rigidly fixed mounting and it will have the same ballistic dispersion whether that mounting is on the nose of a plane or a Scarff ring (or similar) provided that elevation and traverse are completely locked. A Vickers gun on a well secured tripod firing at a distant point target, for instance, can have a very tight dispersion pattern, as the gun will be locked.

 

When you fire a gun without locking elevation and traverse, you will find it hard to keep the gun pointed at the same spot, even if your aircraft is sitting on the ground. Recoil is not absorbed perfectly symmetrically, so the point of aim will wander and require correction. 

 

Gunners on aircraft need to be able to change elevation and traverse quickly and smoothly, so I expect that IRL they had their friction locks on very low settings. But that means that even with a short burst, their point of aim will wander from recoil, quite aside from the effects of turbulence. The longer the burst, the greater the wander. Again, this has nothing to do with ballistics. 

 

That does not happen in the game: when you press a mouse button to fire a rear gun the screen picture jiggles about a little, but then returns to exactly the same place, if you have not moved your mouse.

 

So in the case of rear gunners, one reason why gunnery in the game is easier than in real life is because the rear guns behave as though they had the ease of traverse of an unlocked gun, but the ability to maintain a point of aim of a locked gun. Nothing to do with ballistics. I think this could be simulated fairly easily in the game for players, not by bodging the ballistics, but by making the point of aim (for rear guns) wander. The longer the burst the more pronounced the wander.  Not sure how the AI is coded for gun accuracy, but this effect should apply to them too. 

 

It is parallel to the g modelling in a way: there we once had planes and control surfaces behaving in a manner that was mechanically realistic but led to unrealistic outcomes because the limitations of a real pilot were not modelled, leaving only the limitations of the player. To get realistic outcomes, you have to have the game explicitly model more of the pilot's limitations and reduce the player's freedom.     

Edited May 13, 2021 by unreasonable

[US41_Low]

4 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

This has nothnig to do with pilot shooting.

The result is the same, dispersion. Hey look if the devs can come up with the first realistic air flow physics or whatever to simulate constant rough air , bumpy flight, due to flying a rickety old plane, fine. But I highly highly doubt that they can or will ever attempt it for our little side project sim here.

 

The more straightforward and easier thing to code, I’m certain, is a standard bullet dispersion of 30ft diameter at 250yds at any altitude over 1,000ft. And then narrow it down to a 5-10ft circle below 1,000ft

 

Or just keep the laser toys. I don’t care because I really don’t think the devs will change much of anything at our request. 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

To get realistic outcomes, you have to have the game explicitly model more of the pilot's limitations and reduce the player's freedom.     

 

27 minutes ago, US_Low said:

I don’t care because I really don’t think the devs will change much of anything at our request.

 

This is the real problem, as technical performance becomes more realistic, the human limitations that are not always present become more obvious. Bullet dispersion is not realistic, but in this case it would lead to more realistic outcomes.

 

The question is: where you draw the line at realistic outcomes? Soon you'll be able to go up in a Breguet and fly it like a heavy turret fighter much like the Bristol F2B — but better. Or you can go up in a Handley-Page O/400 and fly it as a low altitude dogfighting gunship. None of this is realistic, but the machines could have done it if they had used them as such.

 

It's the same old problem with gunners we had in RoF for years: if you have a good gunner with no human limitations, he becomes virtually unstoppable. The devs could indeed impose stronger limits on gunners and gunnery in general, and add more features such as flare guns and a working radio as they have done with Tank Crew.

[US41_Low]

55 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

 

This is the real problem, as technical performance becomes more realistic, the human limitations that are not always present become more obvious. Bullet dispersion is not realistic, but in this case it would lead to more realistic outcomes.

 

The question is: where you draw the line at realistic outcomes? Soon you'll be able to go up in a Breguet and fly it like a heavy turret fighter much like the Bristol F2B — but better. Or you can go up in a Handley-Page O/400 and fly it as a low altitude dogfighting gunship. None of this is realistic, but the machines could have done it if they had used them as such.

 

It's the same old problem with gunners we had in RoF for years: if you have a good gunner with no human limitations, he becomes virtually unstoppable. The devs could indeed impose stronger limits on gunners and gunnery in general, and add more features such as flare guns and a working radio as they have done with Tank Crew.

I might be misunderstanding you here but why do you say bullet dispersion is not realistic?

[unreasonable]

More realistic outcomes for whom? You may get a more realistic number of hits/bullet fired in MP, in aggregate, if you mess with the global dispersion figures, but what if I manage to get very close, aim at the pilot and then fire a very short burst - which goes all over the place without hitting the pilot - how is that particular outcome "more realistic"?  I certainly found the old RoF high dispersion very unrealistic to observe, actually immersion breaking.  Just like watching the bullets fly out of the SE5a's guns at impossible angles.  (Main reason I never really bothered to learn that plane). 

 

Effective dispersion around the point of aim of the whole gun/mount/firer system is much greater for guns on flexible mountings than for fixed guns, but the game appears not to simulate that at all. Guns fire as though they were locked.  I am sure the developers could do this very quickly if they wanted to.  It also applies to GB planes as well - there is nothing specific to FC about this.  

[US41_Low]

A fixed, unmoving dispersion of a reasonable diameter/distance is better than laser bullets.

 

Id prefer a cone of dispersion that some nerd smarter than I can code so that point blank 50m shots have a small circle of dispersion, expanding to 30ft diameter at 250m, and further expanding after that.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, US_Low said:

 

Or just keep the laser toys. I don’t care because I really don’t think the devs will change much of anything at our request

Current ROF dispersion is unrealistic,  lethality realism option changes it to realistic according to devs new research for BOS. FC should have that even more refined sice that was years before FC. This realistic option was impractical in use because DM model was not changed and you can saw off wings like mad so most have this realism enhanced option turn off. Wings  DM model was and is today  barrier for moving this sim forward. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[US41_Low]

59 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Current ROF dispersion is unrealistic,  lethality realism option changes it to realistic according to devs new research for BOS. FC should have that even more refined sice that was years before FC. This realistic option was impractical in use because DM model was not changed and you can saw off wings like mad so most have this realism enhanced option turn off. Wings  DM model was and is today  barrier for moving this sim forward. 

I’ve said repeatedly the DM should be fixed first, but that is basically accepted (it seems) community-wide. Not much to discuss about it.

 

edit: correction, I’ve also said that gunnery could be adjusted while waiting for dm fixes. I’ve also granted that a more realistic dispersion could be detrimental with the current dm 

Edited May 13, 2021 by US_Low

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Perhaps it would help if turbulance could be set relative to altitude, as wind speed can be.

 

It already can.

[unreasonable]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It already can.

 

How? The atmosphere options in the ME allow you to set wind speed and direction by altitude band, and I know this works, but there is only one box for turbulence, which is just a number (ie I do not know what the units are). 

[LukeFF]

43 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

How? The atmosphere options in the ME allow you to set wind speed and direction by altitude band, and I know this works, but there is only one box for turbulence, which is just a number (ie I do not know what the units are). 

 

I'm not sure how it works, but occasionally in career mode you'll see a message about turbulence existing only beneath the clouds. 

[=IRFC=Gascan]

9 hours ago, US_Low said:

I’ve said repeatedly the DM should be fixed first, but that is basically accepted (it seems) community-wide.

I wish I knew if the devs accepted it as a problem...

[unreasonable]

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

I'm not sure how it works, but occasionally in career mode you'll see a message about turbulence existing only beneath the clouds. 

 

I see - you can set the level and height of clouds, so that might work indirectly.  

[J2_Trupobaw]

16 hours ago, US_Low said:

The result is the same, dispersion.

 

Nowhere close. Dispersion happens when gunner is aiming a swivel gun, in standing position, with shaking hands, from bumping plane. All the shaking of gunners body adds up to shaking of plane itself. With fixed gun, we have only shaking of airframe.
 

[US41_Low]

6 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Nowhere close. Dispersion happens when gunner is aiming a swivel gun, in standing position, with shaking hands, from bumping plane. All the shaking of gunners body adds up to shaking of plane itself. With fixed gun, we have only shaking of airframe.
 

 All guns fired from held or fixed positions have grouping measurements. This is dispersion. Dispersion is just a way to describe grouping. Precision rifles fired from stable platforms still have grouping measurements, they don’t perfectly re-enter the same hole. Firearms held in visegrips for testing still have a dispersion. 
 

It’s not reasonable to model all of the variables of real world physics to apply them to some backwater WW1 gunnery. But you can in fact model the end result, which is a reasonably average dispersion cone based on historical data and descriptions.

 

Edit: and in case I misunderstood anything, since it almost seems like you’re agreeing with me in the substance of your post- the dispersion (grouping) of shots would probably be different from a swivel gun and a forward fixed gun, to some degree. But you still have a wooden plane bumping around in the air, control surfaces that are probably very touchy and not easy to keep steady, in some planes you’d have a tendency to nose up and so you have to apply forward stick or rudder to constantly correct, the fixed mounts themselves probably not as rigid as pilots would like. Wind. Yanking of trigger.

 

All of this adds up to be believable that there’d be a 30ft grouping at 250m with fixed guns.

Edited May 14, 2021 by US_Low

[J2_Trupobaw]

That's what we have, and not what the text book describes.

[US41_Low]

The guns currently shoot lasers. There’s no dispersion or it’s so insignificant it can’t be seen. I’m wasting my time. Keep your pew pew arcade guns

 

Edit: I’m entering into this after you all have probably been at this for like 10 years. I don’t think the current gunnery is believable but I’m probably not changing any minds. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by US_Low

[J2_Trupobaw]

Nope. We've had 9 years of absurd gunnery with artificial dispersion already in RoF (married to absurd DM). 

[Guest deleted@83466]

20 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Nope. We've had 9 years of absurd gunnery with artificial dispersion already in RoF (married to absurd DM). 

 
How many years did you age in that time? ?