DCS World's WWII Accessibility

[MiloMorai]

It wasn't only Johnson who changed the harmonization but Colin Gray and Sailor Malan changed the harmonization of their guns and recommended that other pilots do the same. This was done during the BoB, a very hectic time for the Brits, who were real sticklers for following the rules.

[Talisman_VR]

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.

 

Consider:

 

Firstly, I don't think this thread is limited to discussion about the USAF.

 

Secondly, the Spit Mk9 was using 20mm cannon as well as machine guns.

 

Finally, If all pilots were using the same set up then he would not have needed to study different pilots combat gun camera footage to draw a conclusion. It is worth noting that he followed the example of another one of his pilots who was of a lower rank. In a way, it would appear that it was not only Johnnie, but other pilots who were 'doing there own thing' at the cutting edge and making new up-to-date and relevant procedures for the front line fighting force. This sort of thing still happens in the military today, believe it or not.

 

Talisman

[Crumpp]

Post the RAF instructions for sighting in aircraft weapons and nobody will have to guess.

 

Until then the only facts regarding service policy are the USAAF instructions and the knowledge obtaining correct ballistic data / aircraft angle of attack / gun site alignment cannot be done by shooting point of aim point of impact on a range.

 

Do you know what I mean by that, statement? You understand the physics and you that you cannot just drag the aircraft out to the range and align the sight with the guns like you do a hunting rifle?

 

I know the weapons on the Spitfire Mk Ix.

 

I will restate my last point. Just because Johnson had a decision to make does mean he "did his own thing".

 

P-47 pilots in the USAAF could make the same decision. They had to make a choice between 250 yards and 350 yards. Look at the data and you will see there are significant differences.

 

You assume that because he had a decision to make he was doing his own thing.

 

He simply could have been choosing between authorized bore sight data for standard patterns. Given the physics involved, that seems likely to me.

[NeilWillis]

Brits, who were real sticklers for following the rules.

 

Utter rubbish! What do you base this assumption upon?

[Talisman_VR]

Post the RAF instructions for sighting in aircraft weapons and nobody will have to guess.

 

Until then the only facts regarding service policy are the USAAF instructions and the knowledge obtaining correct ballistic data / aircraft angle of attack / gun site alignment cannot be done by shooting point of aim point of impact on a range.

 

Do you know what I mean by that, statement? You understand the physics and you that you cannot just drag the aircraft out to the range and align the sight with the guns like you do a hunting rifle?

 

I know the weapons on the Spitfire Mk Ix.

 

I will restate my last point. Just because Johnson had a decision to make does mean he "did his own thing".

 

P-47 pilots in the USAAF could make the same decision. They had to make a choice between 250 yards and 350 yards. Look at the data and you will see there are significant differences.

 

You assume that because he had a decision to make he was doing his own thing.

 

He simply could have been choosing between authorized bore sight data for standard patterns. Given the physics involved, that seems likely to me.

 

 

Crumpp, there is no need to get rattled old boy. Also, please do not bark orders at me or tell me what I assume. From the tenor and content of my post, I believe a reasonable reader would not expect me to feel obliged to post RAF instructions (or perhaps notes for guidance) for sighting weapons. I would also appreciate it if you would not post to me in such a superior tone. If you don't like the information I have posted, then we can all understand that, but please lets keep things civil. I am not trying to claim this or that as a definite fact, as it appears you are trying to do, but simply contributing something to the discussion. I though it was worthwhile background information and shared my thoughts on it. That is all. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

 

Also, I am a rather confused as in one post you said:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And in another you said:

 

 

 

 

I will restate my last point. Just because Johnson had a decision to make does mean he "did his own thing".

 

But never mind. No need to explain as I think I can see your stance.

[MiloMorai]

Neat little film on British harmonization

 

 

As can be seen leveling, the a/c is no big deal.

[Talisman_VR]

Neat little film on British harmonization

 

 

As can be seen leveling, the a/c is no big deal.

 

Very interesting to note the full participation of the pilot in the process, along with the weapons technicians and the photographer.

 

Talisman

[MiloMorai]

Never say never:

 

In the Pacific War in mid-1943, American Marine Fighting Squadron 213 harmonised the six .50 inch wing guns of their Mk I Vought F4U Corsairs to converge to a point 300 ft (90 m) ahead. American ace Major Bill Chick of the 317th Fighter Squadron based in North Africa in January 1944 bore-sighted the guns of his Thunderbolt to converge at 300 ft (90 m) because he did not care for deflection shots and instead attacked his targets from the rear at that distance.

 

American Lieutenant Urban "Ben" Drew set the .50 in guns of his North American P-51 Mustang "Detroit Miss" to converge at three points: 600 ft (180 m), 750 ft (230 m) and 900 ft (270 m), with the inboard guns aimed closer and the outboard guns farther away.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp, there is no need to get rattled old boy. Also, please do not bark orders at me or tell me what I assume. From the tenor and content of my post, I believe a reasonable reader would not expect me to feel obliged to post RAF instructions (or perhaps notes for guidance) for sighting weapons. I would also appreciate it if you would not post to me in such a superior tone. If you don't like the information I have posted, then we can all understand that, but please lets keep things civil. I am not trying to claim this or that as a definite fact, as it appears you are trying to do, but simply contributing something to the discussion. I though it was worthwhile background information and shared my thoughts on it. That is all. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

 

The information you post is good information. You are simply passing on what you read. I welcome the discussion.

 

I am simply pointing out the anecdote is not proof and open to interpretation.

[Crumpp]

Very interesting to note the full participation of the pilot in the process, along with the weapons technicians and the photographer.

 

Talisman

 

The pilot has to be there.

 

The first thing I noticed was the standard target shown in the first frame.

[shadepiece]

Firstly, I would like to thank Fredrich for citing my original post. I had hoped that this sort of conversation would play out. There is a lot of cool information, and video evidence coming to this thread, and I have enjoyed it all immensely. However, I am still, and for every will be in the crowd wanting adjustable convergence. I think now more than ever we have a lot of evidence that it was not only a select few pilots who changed their settings, and that there was a good reason behind it.

 

Crumpp you specifically mentioned multiple times that we are all wanting a "gamey" slider, even though I have made it clear that I am looking for presets to choose from, and I think many other support that particular stance. You yourself even pointed out that there were two common presets in the P-47. Yet you've also made the argument that you don't think this is a big issue due to the fact that you can already alter the .lua files. I do not see the difference of being able to alter the .lua files in any way that I wish, and a "gamey" slider. If I can put in any convergence settings I want, what is the difference? Secondly, the issue with the .lua files is that I am not very good with alter code, or files, or what-have-you, and would like to be able to make those corrections in an easier fashion then have to spend three hours or better trying to get the file just the way I want it without breaking the game. Also, the .lua files do not work for multiplayer which is something I very much wish to spend a lot of time playing.

 

We have had some excellent examples of manuals, and actual documentation from the allied side, and I'd be curious if we could find anything from the German perspective on boresighting. Granted, the majority of the weapons on the German aircraft are very near the centerline, and can have a much further convergence range without much of a noticeable difference, however, the Bf-109 K-4 could have wing mounted cannons, and that is something I heard was coming eventually. I'd like to know if the is anything out there talking about that. Hopefully, someone can do some translating, finger crossed.

 

Finally, I'd like to say that I have purchased the P-51D in this steam sale, and plan on grabbing the other two props tomorrow. I have taken the Mustang through the training missions which were straight forward enough for me, being as experienced as I am, if not without the occasional wing stall haha! Then I quickly hoped into the instant action against another P-51D, and prevailed! It took about 10 minutes of careful maneuvering to get him to over-shoot, and then it was just trying to catch back up to him from there. After that I dabbled in the mission editor, and took on a Dora. I again was able to pull out the win, finding myself climbing towards a stall, and pressing the trigger at the last second before stalling, sending a hail of bullets into his engine block! I no doubt have been having a blast. I have tried my luck against the K-4 with pretty disastrous results if I'm honest. That one is going to be a bit more tricky. All said however, I find myself engaging at twice, if not more, the distance I would normally feel comfortable, and this is partly due to getting the feel for DCS, and partly due to the longer convergence. I can honestly say it feels like I'm doing everything wrong. What I would normally do just isn't as effective with the longer convergence settings. I'm having a blast, but that won't change my stance.

[Crumpp]

 

The manual clearly states the weapon convergence is set to either 250 yards OR 350 yards. It is clearly not subject to the whims of the pilot.

 

The manual instructs the pilot to consult the armorer to find out which of the two single points the convergence is set.

 

Most likely this is due to a technical design change that necessitates the convergence. Again....nothing that shows convergence was set at the whim of the pilot.

 

Shadepiece,

 

Welcome to DCS! I can see your confusion at my reply. To clarify, there should not be a slider that goes between 250 yards and 350 yards but players should have a choice between 250 yards OR 350 yards in the P-47 series.

 

That is what the operating instructions say the bore sight data was available in the standard zero targets. If approved bore sight data is not available, it probably was not available to the armorers to correctly bore sight the weapons. As you can see from reading the FM, it is a complicated issue and the intent it was not to be altered in the field without a specific tasking from higher.

 

It is no different to me than unauthorized engine settings. Did that happen? Yes it did and I am equally positive pilots died as a result. Unfortunately we only hear from the few that got lucky.

 

DCS does not model over boosted because it is an outlier. They understand how airplanes are maintained and correctly model only approved engine ratings.

 

That same level of realism should apply to weapon systems.

[Talisman_VR]

Under para d. BORESIGHTING, the uses of the wording 'may be' and 'ordinarily' would seem to indicate some leeway for local command decision making. In the military, if something is mandatory or an order, then the language used tends to be more commanding in nature.

Also, by your post it would appear that if the pilot has to consult the armourer to find out the convergence set, then, unlike the RAF, the pilot is perhaps not involved in setting up the guns. This is interesting.

 

 

 

[shadepiece]

Shadepiece,

 

Welcome to DCS! I can see your confusion at my reply. To clarify, there should not be a slider that goes between 250 yards and 350 yards but players should have a choice between 250 yards OR 350 yards in the P-47 series.

 

 

There is no confusion. I knew you only meant one or the other referring to the distances, and that is exactly what I want. A few historical pre-sets to choose from. I.e. 250 yards OR 350 yards. I do NOT want a slider in between those two settings. However, that said you can still alter to any distance via the .lua files if a have understood correctly, and if that is true, then there is only one difference between that and a slider. The difference being that you have to do all sorts of finagling to get the guns where you want them instead of an easy to use option in the load out screen. To me that sounds about as ludicrous as having to alter the .lua files to change your bomb/missile/rocket load-outs. So again I'm not saying I want a slider, I'm just saying it doesn't seem to me like an outlandish ask to polish a feature that's already in the game. Hell, maybe even some could make a mod to do all those things for you, so guys like me don't have to try to alter the .lua files for hours on end to get the results we are looking for...

 

So I will make this as clear as I possibly can. What I WHAT is to have three or so preset convergence distance, and pattern choices to choose from in the load-out screen that is functional for both single, and multiplayer. Not a slider. If a mod came out that helped me get these things that would be welcomed on my machine.

 

Edit: Also, thank you for the warm welcome.

Edited September 29, 2015 by shadepiece

[MiloMorai]

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!

RAF Fighter Command got much of the equation wrong leading up to the Battle of Britain. With complex, choreographed maneuvers (“Fighting Area Attacks”) intended to disrupt enemy bomber formations, early Spitfire and Hurricane pilots found too little time to settle down and shoot accurately. Moreover, RAF doctrine called for 400 yard zeros, too far even for eight .303 Brownings. The dispersion was too great for a killing blow most of the time, and eventually many RAF aces threw out The Book and harmonized their guns at 250 yards or less.

 

http://www.flightjournal.com/blog/2015/07/27/iconic-firepower-guns-of-the-battle/

400yds is not exactly close.

 

Air To Air Gunnery Revisited – Guns, Gunsights, and Convergence

 

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_031a.html

 

Andy Bush is Lt. Col. Andy Bush USAF (Ret)

[gavagai]

It's pretty awesome that we end up with a technical discussion of gun harmonization in a thread about accessibility.:P

[Talisman_VR]

It's pretty awesome that we end up with a technical discussion of gun harmonization in a thread about accessibility.:P

 

Well, the OP did say it was a big issue to him right at the begining.

[Crumpp]

RAF Fighter Command got much of the equation wrong leading up to the Battle of Britain. With complex, choreographed maneuvers (“Fighting Area Attacks”) intended to disrupt enemy bomber formations, early Spitfire and Hurricane pilots found too little time to settle down and shoot accurately. Moreover, RAF doctrine called for 400 yard zeros, too far even for eight .303 Brownings. The dispersion was too great for a killing blow most of the time, and eventually many RAF aces threw out The Book and harmonized their guns at 250 yards or less.

 

http://www.flightjournal.com/blog/2015/07/27/iconic-firepower-guns-of-the-battle/

400yds is not exactly close.

 

Air To Air Gunnery Revisited – Guns, Gunsights, and Convergence

 

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_031a.html

 

Andy Bush is Lt. Col. Andy Bush USAF (Ret)

 

Which is why you cannot take what the RAF does as what the USAAF does......

 

Nor can one take the unusual circumstances of the early war as the norm, probably even for the RAF. Most likely, a stop gap measure was replaced with good engineering data as soon as it could be worked out and new bore sight targets produced for the squadrons.

[Crumpp]

Let's stay away from Aces High articles as "proof" for historical fact too, btw.

[Crumpp]

In Aces High, we can set our own convergence values…a typical setting is 300 yards.

 

Read more: http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_031a.html#ixzz3nqG6UYQt

Follow us: @SimHQ on Twitter | SimHQ on Facebook

 

:music_whistling:

[Crumpp]

So what? Apart from a mention of Aces High, the article has some interesting information that is well worth a look. If Crumpp doesn't like the source, he doesn't have to read it, but that doesn't give him an automatic right to bark out orders, telling everyone else what should or should not be included in this discussion. It's not only frustrating, because it's an attempt at enforcing a single POV on everyone else, it also disparages the intelligence of other forum members who have posted such information.

 

:shifty:

[MiloMorai]

Let's stay away from Aces High articles as "proof" for historical fact too, btw.

 

Only you are saying 'proof'.

 

It is an article on Air To Air Gunnery by a person who actually flew USAF combat missions, something you can't say you have done. I would say his experience in A2A gunnery is something people might learn from.

[shadepiece]

 

So here is testimony that at least in the RAF gun convergences were altered to preferance. I think it should be in DCS.

[Merlin-27]

The convergence/harmonization debate has a pretty good history. I've always been a big fan of sticking to historical fact but I think this one can go either way and should just be at the discretion of ED as far as implementation. At this point I don't have any issue with the idea of changing convergence points per pilot preference but I think when pattern harmonization is in effect such adjustments would only make things worse. So then you get in the discussion of which aircraft ~1944 had pattern vs point harmonization. Could be a tricky bit of work that may yield minimal payoff as far as development time. Anyone know which fighters besides the Mustang used pattern?

 

Just some thoughts since it is one of our favorite topics :)

[Zunzun]

I think that is also interesting regarding custom harmonization during ww2 in front line units.

From "Spitfire the canadians" From the memories fo the armorer of WC Johnnie Johnson:

"A Spitfire´s guns were all harmonized, because you wanted them to fire in a certain pattern. Before they were ready for combat, you had to set the aircraft in flying position. There was a sight for each of the guns on the aircraft, and you had to harmonize the guns according to where the pilot set his target. So, he´d set the bull´s eye on the outboard port gun, and you harmonized the barrel of that gun to that target.

The pilots all wanted a different cone of fire, because they all fly differently. Some of them wanted a smaller cone of fire, some of them wanted wider".