DCS World's WWII Accessibility

[Crumpp]

The only DCS USAAf fighter that should get a selectable harmonization should be the P-47 series. You should be able to choose between 250 yards and 350 yards.

 

Both patterns are listed in the FM, TO, and Operating Manual.

[Friedrich-4B]

The only DCS USAAf fighter that should get a selectable harmonization should be the P-47 series. You should be able to choose between 250 yards and 350 yards.

 

Both patterns are listed in the FM, TO, and Operating Manual.

 

Except that nowhere, in any of the manuals quoted or linked, is there a categorical statement that other harmonization patterns/ranges must not be used; eg:

 

AF Manual 200-1

 

Section A Para 8:

"It is recommended that for most cases..."

 

There was nothing mandatory about this, except these were the harmonization procedures that yielded the best results for the majority of fighter pilots

 

Section B is titled A Boresighting Procedure not The Boresighting...

 

Sections C & D provided all the calculations and ballistics data required to enable armourers to set the weapons for ranges from 200 to 3000 feet for the .50 cal, not just the 250-350 yards cited in the P-47 and P-51 manuals. No doubt the majority of pilots were perfectly happy to use the standard set-up, but it did not preclude them from consulting with the armourers to use a custom set up, as long as it was done thoroughly and carefully (that said, few pilots in 1944 always used the same "personal" aircraft, so chances are few aircraft used custom settings).

 

However, this is a flight sim, where individual players have their own personal aircraft; as such, it should not incorporate a "follow these harmonization patterns alone, or else" scenario. If individual players feel that they are good enough to use harmonization patterns or ranges other than those shown in flight manuals, more power to them.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B

[sobek]

However, this is a flight sim, where individual players have their own personal aircraft; as such, it should not incorporate a "follow these harmonization patterns alone, or else" scenario. If individaul players feel that they are good enough to use harmonization patterns or ranges other than those shown in flight manuals, more power to them.

 

It's perfectly possible to achieve this with the edit of a lua file. I don't see why or even how ED should provide such highly individual presets.

 

If people want different presets, this could be achieved by sharing a lua diff file much as with controller profiles.

[HeadHunter52]

It's perfectly possible to achieve this with the edit of a lua file. I don't see why or even how ED should provide such highly individual presets.

 

If people want different presets, this could be achieved by sharing a lua diff file much as with controller profiles.

 

It has been done. The P-51 lua is alterable for convergence and ammo type. Problem is, it only works in SP. MP craps out with the file integrity check.

[sobek]

It has been done. The P-51 lua is alterable for convergence and ammo type. Problem is, it only works in SP. MP craps out with the file integrity check.

 

You should lobby server owners to take the respective file out of the integrity check then.

[Crumpp]

Except that nowhere, in any of the manuals quoted or linked, is there a categorical statement that other harmonization patterns/ranges must not be used; eg:

 

Well, If you read it, the instructions and intention are quite clear.

 

The information found in the TM is what the squadrons are supposed to be using. In the TM, there is no way to "do your own thing" and it very clearly directs you to use the published ballistic and boresight data.

 

 

FM 200-1 is also quite clear in its instructions:

 

 

It seems quite clear the USAAF does not want pilots jumping out of their aircraft and telling the armorer to harmonize their guns based on that pilots feeling instead of ballistic data determined by Aberdeen Proving Ground.

[MiloMorai]

RESTRICTED

AAF MANUAL 200-1

 

FOREWORD

 

This Manual contains harmonization data supplemental to that issued in technical orders and consolidated simplified aircraft ballistic data extracted from aircraft firing tables. The harmonization patterns were compiled at the proving ground command to facilitate the conduct of service tests on aircraft weapons. The ballistic data was supplied by the Chief of Ordnance, Ballistics Branch. These types of data are combined in a single publication for general use by Army Air Forces officers. Further work by the Proving Ground Command and other field installations will be disseminated in revisions to this Manual. The patterns for harmonization contained herein are indorsed by Army Air Forces but may be amended by each individual station in accordance with local conditions to obtain effective fire power.

 

RESTRICTED

AAFMANUAL200-1

INTRODUCTION

 

1.The Maximum range for harmonization used in this Manual is 2000 feet.

 

Or 666.66 yds.

In other words, other harmonization ranges can be used.

[Friedrich-4B]

FM 200-1 is also quite clear in its instructions:

 

 

It seems quite clear the USAAF does not want pilots jumping out of their aircraft and telling the armorer to harmonize their guns based on that pilots feeling instead of ballistic data determined by Aberdeen Proving Ground.

 

Para 4. ...any questions or discrepancies concerning this data...

 

In other words: If problems arise when using the published data, or the operational unit finds that the published data does not match their own experience, such issues should be referred back to the Ballistics Laboratory at Aberdeen.

 

Why? Machine guns and/or ammunition, like any other mass produced item produced by different manufacturers, might produce different ballistics to the data gathered by the testing agencies. Should such variances cause problems in the field, such problems should be referred back to Aberdeen.

 

As I have already noted, by 1944 pilots on operational units often didn't fly their own aircraft, even if the aircraft was "personalized": this meant that it was better for all the aircraft on that unit to have consistent harmonization patterns. Also, aircraft could be swapped from unit to unit. The USAAF devised a basic set of harmonization patterns that were effective in most combat scenarios, but, as Milo has pointed out from the manual (below), this did not preclude operational units devising "custom" settings to suit local conditions.

 

 

The USAAF was not stupid and inflexible enough to enforce absolute conformity, when long experience showed that such inflexibility didn't work in wartime conditions.

 

On a flight sim, where each player flies their own aircraft, denying individual players the choice of customizing their own harmonization patterns is just too restrictive and unfair.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B
Add foreword from manual

[Crumpp]

The USAAF was not stupid and inflexible enough to enforce absolute conformity, when long experience showed that such inflexibility didn't work in wartime conditions.

 

And they were not stupid enough to let such an important task get botched thru well meaning ignorance either.

 

Each individual station does not mean each pilot or even each squadron.

 

It means it is an organizational level task.

 

In otherwords, it is not the gamey slider you are asking for! :thumbup:

[Friedrich-4B]

And they were not stupid enough to let such an important task get botched thru well meaning ignorance either.

 

Which is why the manual incorporated all the mathematical formula and ballistics data to preclude "well meaning ignorance."

 

Each individual station does not mean each pilot or even each squadron.

 

It means it is an organizational level task.

 

An "individual station" could mean anything from a large, fully equipped airbase to a small jungle dirt strip. "...an organizational level task" is meaningless jargon.

 

In otherwords, it is not the gamey slider you are asking for! :thumbup:

 

Nor does it mean the almost complete lack of options being advocated by Crumpp. No doubt the DCS developers have all the data needed to ensure that they will provide the right ballistics & harmonization, no matter what the setting.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B

[Crumpp]

Frederick says:

Which is why the manual incorporated all the mathematical formula and ballistics data to preclude "well meaning ignorance."

 

Which the math is NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE FIELD.......

 

In otherwords, it is not intended for each pilot to have his own harmonization pattern on a whim.

 

 

Frederick says: An "individual station" could mean anything from a large, fully equipped airbase to a small jungle dirt strip. "...an organizational level task" is meaningless jargon.

 

Negative Ghost-rider....

 

Military jargon is specific. Station refers to an installation. In this case, Armorer is an Ordinance Corp function which falls under Logistics and there were two Quartermaster stations in England for the 8th USAAF:

 

Quartermaster Depots.

 

Q-101 Kettering Q-I02 Wellingborough

 

http://www.gitrace.org/stationnumbers.html

[Crumpp]

Frederick says:

Nor does it mean the complete lack of options being advocated by Crumpp. No doubt the DCS developers have all the data needed to ensure that their sliders will provide the right ballistics & harmonization, no matter what the setting.

 

There is not a complete lack of options in the game:

 

It has been done. The P-51 lua is alterable for convergence and ammo type. Problem is, it only works in SP. MP craps out with the file integrity check.

 

You can do it right now on your server. Come up with all the harmonization patterns your heart desires!! I am all for it.

 

Let's not waste limited development time on such a gamey addition as a slider. Save that stuff for the warthunder crowd.

[NineLine]

 

On a flight sim, where each player flies their own aircraft, denying individual players the choice of customizing their own harmonization patterns is just too restrictive and bloody-minded.

 

Language barrier, so I dont know if bloody-minded is insulting or not, doesnt sound good. Anyways, chances are ED wont put a lot of development time into a feature that wasnt something common for the pilot to do. From what I have seen here is, its possible to do in the field, its possible it was done in the field, its doubtful each individual pilot had a custom setting for their plane (many cases pilots could share planes depending on situation), more likely pilots got what ever was set for them, changes were probably made to all planes more so than individual probably based on squadron leaders, etc.

 

So to save all the fighting, and for sure the warning points and temp bans to follow... its probably not going to happen, and if they decide they want it, it wont happen anytime soon.

[cichlidfan]

Out of curiosity, how long would it take someone to have reconfigured an aircraft's guns? I am curious about the downtime involved while a pilot got a plane set up the way he wanted.

[Crumpp]

Out of curiosity, how long would it take someone to have reconfigured an aircraft's guns? I am curious about the downtime involved while a pilot got a plane set up the way he wanted.

 

The manuals are posted. It is an involved process. Probably at least 7-8 hours to boresight and zero.

[MiloMorai]

Out of curiosity, how long would it take someone to have reconfigured an aircraft's guns? I am curious about the downtime involved while a pilot got a plane set up the way he wanted.

 

Every time a gun is changed it would have to be done. The armament techs would have done 100s and 100s of them. One gets pretty good at something if done enough times.

 

Time? Depends on how many techs are involved.

 

In 1944 the 8th FC introduced the concept of A and B Group deployments as the number of aircraft approached 28-30 fighters per squadron. That is almost double the number of operational flying aircraft of 16. In 1945, the typical 8th AF FG had 90+ aircraft and 100 pilots.

 

So lots of spare aircraft.

[Crumpp]

Every time a gun is changed it would have to be done.

 

Which is an excellent reason why they did not allow individual harmonization patterns.

 

:thumbup:

 

With standard data, only the gun that is being changed would have to be aligned with the 1000inch boresight target. It could be done in the hanger and would take a lot less time.

 

The aircraft has to be jacked, placed on stands, plumbed and leveled each time you boresight.

 

Ideally, you would confirm it by shooting the guns on a zero range. That means taking the aircraft out to the range, jacking it back up, implacing the stands, plumbing and leveling again.

 

You also have to sight the gun camera system in as well.

 

It is not a quick process.

[RNeves]

I love the flight models of all aircrafts from WW II era in this game.

 

But some shortcomings prevent the players from having a better experience.

 

The first is, as mentioned already, the lack of air and ground units from that era. But this will sooner or later be solved with the release of the normandy map.

 

Other one is the damage model. For example, when a wing breaks off, it doesn't feel natural. In IL2, sometimes you get shot on a wing and it only breaks when you pull a high G maneouver.

 

About the gun convergence, I heard the argument that not every pilot wanted to set it up... Ok, if the setup was possible ingame, I believe that some pilots wouldn't bother setting it up too.

 

And to the ones saying to leave it to the warthunder crowd, I'd say that these arguments presented by the thread opener are exactly the arguments that make me have a better overall experience in IL2 BOS... Leaving this game only for fast movers

Edited September 27, 2015 by RNeves

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Neves, olá!

 

Actually today I experienced something I didn't recall having happened before.

 

At one of the online servers, I engaged an AI p51d with my K4. Shot several times, and there were hits in his fuselage and wings, but it kept running away from me.

 

Some 45 '' after my last shot, as "he" tried to get me out of his 6, he must have pulled a bit more aggressively and, the fuselage and one of the wings broke, and the aircraft turned into a fireball. This must have resulted from structural fatigue failure aggravated by the shots it had taken.

 

But I still agree with you that having more variety and visibility in the damage models would be great.

 

Bibó Belenenses e a Académica !

Edited September 27, 2015 by jcomm

[Crumpp]

From what I have seen here is, its possible to do in the field, its possible it was done in the field, its doubtful each individual pilot had a custom setting for their plane (many cases pilots could share planes depending on situation), more likely pilots got what ever was set for them, changes were probably made to all planes more so than individual probably based on squadron leaders, etc.

 

Exactly. There is no where in any of the instructions that say adjust to the whims of an individual.

 

The stipulations are being "tasked from higher", in other-words, Aberdeen, the manufacturer, or the service could delegate a harmonization mission. In FM 200-1 Introduction, we see Aberdeen's instructions to use M2 Ball ballistic data for M8 API ammunition because they felt it was close enough as they had not done a specific bore sight chart for it. The instructions allow them to task one of the 8th USAAF Quartermaster stations to derive the data and produce a bore sight chart if they so choose.

 

The local "tactical situation" is not referencing a single airplane. It simply leaves it open for operational flexibility at the organizational level.

 

For example, the 75mm gun data provided in FM 200-1 without a doubt is the result of Pappy Gun's ideas for the B-25's in the Pacific. Operational Flexibility allowed the 7th USAAF to produce bore sight and ballistic data for that weapon installation as a result of the local tactical situation.

[Talisman_VR]

I am currently reading a book named Wing Leader by 'Johnnie' Johnson. Published by Penguin Books in 1959 and sold for the princely sum of 13 Shillings and sixpence.

 

 

On joining the Canadian Wing flying the Spitfire Mk9 aircraft and subsequently flying very much in the field with the 2nd TAF, he mentions specifically testing his guns to decide how to set them up.

 

 

He says that, although there was procedure for a shotgun pattern to be used at the best firing range, this was because the average pilot was not a good shot. Johnnie considered himself a good shot, so to help him decide how to set his guns, he studied combat gun camera film from his fellow pilots.

 

 

He noticed that a pilot named 'Ford' had gun cam film footage that was, in his words, “the best ever taken” and decided to follow his example. Johnnie says that “a far more lethal method of obtaining a kill, provided a pilot could aim and shoot, was to harmonize the guns to give a 'spot' concentration of fire. Ford's guns were 'spot' harmonized and Johnnie says he decided to follow his example. Johnnie was accredited with 38 air victories during WWII. He was an RAF officer, but later served with the USAF in Korea and later commanded a Sabre jet wing in Germany.

 

 

From reading this book, and others, I would say that it was common practise to deviate from standard procedures in wartime, including procedures for setting up aircraft guns and cannons. In fact, the more one reads about wartime exploits it can be seen that the people at the front line are often the ones at the cutting edge in setting new standards in a fast moving tactical and technological situation. Particularly when recommended procedures and practises, from well meaning 'experts' who are not at the business end of things, do not always produce the best results.

[RNeves]

I am currently reading a book named Wing Leader by 'Johnnie' Johnson. Published by Penguin Books in 1959 and sold for the princely sum of 13 Shillings and sixpence.

 

 

On joining the Canadian Wing flying the Spitfire Mk9 aircraft and subsequently flying very much in the field with the 2nd TAF, he mentions specifically testing his guns to decide how to set them up.

 

 

He says that, although there was procedure for a shotgun pattern to be used at the best firing range, this was because the average pilot was not a good shot. Johnnie considered himself a good shot, so to help him decide how to set his guns, he studied combat gun camera film from his fellow pilots.

 

 

He noticed that a pilot named 'Ford' had gun cam film footage that was, in his words, “the best ever taken” and decided to follow his example. Johnnie says that “a far more lethal method of obtaining a kill, provided a pilot could aim and shoot, was to harmonize the guns to give a 'spot' concentration of fire. Ford's guns were 'spot' harmonized and Johnnie says he decided to follow his example. Johnnie was accredited with 38 air victories during WWII. He was an RAF officer, but later served with the USAF in Korea and later commanded a Sabre jet wing in Germany.

 

 

From reading this book, and others, I would say that it was common practise to deviate from standard procedures in wartime, including procedures for setting up aircraft guns and cannons. In fact, the more one reads about wartime exploits it can be seen that the people at the front line are often the ones at the cutting edge in setting new standards in a fast moving tactical and technological situation. Particularly when recommended procedures and practises, from well meaning 'experts' who are not at the business end of things, do not always produce the best results.

 

I've seen a video somewhere on youtube, where a pilot mentioned exactly what you talked about!

 

He also set up the gun convergence to hit a single spot at a certain distance...

[Ala13_ManOWar]

He says that, although there was procedure for a shotgun pattern to be used at the best firing range, this was because the average pilot was not a good shot. Johnnie considered himself a good shot, so to help him decide how to set his guns, he studied combat gun camera film from his fellow pilots.

So, do you think every average virtual pilot is a good shot? :smilewink:

 

Anyway, I'm sorry to disagree with Mr Johnson, USAAF papers about harmonization clearly states how it is the best pattern by far. The "good shot" man are really a bunch among millions, and converging guns in a single spot also have great disadvantages off the spot range.

 

S!

[Crumpp]

I am currently reading a book named Wing Leader by 'Johnnie' Johnson. Published by Penguin Books in 1959 and sold for the princely sum of 13 Shillings and sixpence.

 

 

On joining the Canadian Wing flying the Spitfire Mk9 aircraft and subsequently flying very much in the field with the 2nd TAF, he mentions specifically testing his guns to decide how to set them up.

 

 

He says that, although there was procedure for a shotgun pattern to be used at the best firing range, this was because the average pilot was not a good shot. Johnnie considered himself a good shot, so to help him decide how to set his guns, he studied combat gun camera film from his fellow pilots.

 

 

He noticed that a pilot named 'Ford' had gun cam film footage that was, in his words, “the best ever taken” and decided to follow his example. Johnnie says that “a far more lethal method of obtaining a kill, provided a pilot could aim and shoot, was to harmonize the guns to give a 'spot' concentration of fire. Ford's guns were 'spot' harmonized and Johnnie says he decided to follow his example. Johnnie was accredited with 38 air victories during WWII. He was an RAF officer, but later served with the USAF in Korea and later commanded a Sabre jet wing in Germany.

 

 

From reading this book, and others, I would say that it was common practise to deviate from standard procedures in wartime, including procedures for setting up aircraft guns and cannons. In fact, the more one reads about wartime exploits it can be seen that the people at the front line are often the ones at the cutting edge in setting new standards in a fast moving tactical and technological situation. Particularly when recommended procedures and practises, from well meaning 'experts' who are not at the business end of things, do not always produce the best results.

 

Consider:

 

1. RAF/RCAF is not the USAAF. Different country, different service, different rules.

Especially with the early rifle caliber weapons of the RAF fighters, close range spot harmonization was pretty close to ideal!

 

2. Spot harmonization is exactly what the USAAF warns against, however. As both the TM and FM explain, the site line and AoA data will not be correctly aligned so the airspeed will be unknown and point of aim point of impact zero on the ground will only occur at 0 mph airspeed if the bore sight data is not worked out by the engineers.

 

3. Just because he had a decision to make does not mean he did his own thing.

 

4. Johnnie Johnson was a national hero in his own time. Far from the average pilot and the fact he did it does not prove it was available to everyone else.

[Friedrich-4B]

I am currently reading a book named Wing Leader by 'Johnnie' Johnson. Published by Penguin Books in 1959 and sold for the princely sum of 13 Shillings and sixpence.

 

An excellent biography of Johnson, "Spitfire Ace of Aces" by Dilip Sarkar, adds a great deal of detail to Johnson's autobiography

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-Ace-Aces-Wartime-Johnnie/dp/1445604752

 

Consider:

 

1. RAF/RCAF is not the USAAF. Different country, different service, different rules.

Especially with the early rifle caliber weapons of the RAF fighters, close range spot harmonization was pretty close to ideal!

 

2. Spot harmonization is exactly what the USAAF warns against, however. As both the TM and FM explain, the site line and AoA data will not be correctly aligned so the airspeed will be unknown and point of aim point of impact zero on the ground will only occur at 0 mph airspeed if the bore sight data is not worked out by the engineers.

 

3. Just because he had a decision to make does not mean he did his own thing.

 

4. Johnnie Johnson was a national hero in his own time. Far from the average pilot and the fact he did it does not prove it was available to everyone else.

 

Re: point 3: If Johnson wrote that he had the weapons set to a different convergence, he did so; there's no reason to second guess his word 70 odd years later.

 

Anyway, reading the thread starter, in context:

 

-Gun convergence is a big issue to me. I prefer to get in very, very close to fire, and therefore I like my convergence much shorter than some. I know this has been covered before, but I'd like to put my two cents in, and say that this is something that definitely turns me off of DCS, and I think the easiest, and most acceptable remedy would be to add multiple, historically correct, presents to choose in the mission Editor.

 

so this discussion is not solely about what the USAAF may or may not have practiced during the war; thus it is perfectly valid to point out that a famous RAF pilot had his weapons set to his specifications (no doubt after proper discussions and calculations with his armourers). The original point shadepiece is making is that it would be desirable "to add multiple, historically correct, presents to choose in the mission Editor".

 

I second that because, however historically inaccurate the practice might be, we are talking about individual players, flying their own aircraft on their own systems! Where's the harm to the community or to the sims if people want to experiment with their armament settings (albeit the chances of shooting anything down, or hitting ground targets might be sharply reduced, in which case it is useful to have default settings)?

 

As it is, Sith has pointed out that featuring variable convergences isn't likely to happen, so it seems that any further discussion on this particular point is moot anyway.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B