New gun convergence

[Andy1966]

Nice one Talisman, that's a much better shot of it :thumbup:

[Solty]

Very nice find. It shows 250yards and 300 yards convergence and how to set it up.

[NineLine]

This has to be considered conclusive proof (if not extemely strong evidence) that there were at least 2 convergence options.. if it's enscribed onto the aircraft itself!

 

 

ED have been resistent to convergence manipulation in both the spit and the P51 so far, despite a realtively concistent barrage of evidence suggesting that convergence changes were not only possible, but likely - and not just restricted to a select set of "aces" (a theory that's nothing more than hearsay).

 

No one disputed there are more than one way to set the convergence on an aircraft.

[NineLine]

That picture doesnt prove everyone was changing it as they felt.

 

It proves that there were procedures in place for changing it. Which we already knew. Most times I read about someone changing it, was a well established combat pilot. Not joe blow green pilot...

 

I'll also add that, many times I also read when an adjustment was made, an entire squadron might take on these settings, so it was generally special consideration that individual pilots chose their own settings. But by all means, post evidence to the contrary.

 

 

I know. And I never claimed that anyone disputed that. My claim is that

1. Not only was it possible, but it was likely, and

2. Changing convergence was carried out not just by a "select group of aces", which is an opinion I have seen repeated a number of times, without evidence.

I directly disagree with your own repeated statement as follows:

 

 

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

That was for maybe some Ace Pilots and such, but for the most part, they were set the same for all, based on what was determined to be the best setting for all. Pilots weren't tweaking it every flight...

 

 

I'm yet to see any documented evidence that the manipulation of weapons convergence was a practice restricted to "some aces". This is simply hearsay that has started to become fact, evidence in absentia.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by NineLine

[Cool-Hand]

I'm not suggesting that "green" (i.e. pilots without any flying experience) were adjusting convergence. But I'm also not convinced you had to be an "ace" already (as you earlier claimed, although I note you've now stepped down to "established combat pilot" - whatever that means....) in order to be able to have convergence adjusted.

 

My position is that it is likely that non-ace pilots had their convergences adjusted to suit personal tactical needs.

It will take some time to gather "evidence" of this, given that almost all the biographical records fromt he war come from "aces". The less successful pilots didn't get book deals.

However, I suspect "ben" drew had his convergence adjusted in his P51 before he became an Ace, and was still a Lieutenant. I need to dig out his book to find out when it was (if it was before October 1944). this will take some time.

 

The way I have understood it from my readings of the Army Air Corps was that there were maybe a couple of standardized convergence settings, mainly though I think they differentiated between what the squadron was tasked to do. I.E. the 8th AF mustangs typically doing escort runs (depending on the year of course) and the 9th AF doing much more Close Air Support. I believe there were different range settings for primarily ground attack vs escort, but I haven't really seen it mentioned in too many places. I'll have to check into my older books again for exact sources though and numbers to them.

 

The main problem though with going with exotic custom convergence settings is the fact that most of the time, even when you got your own personalized aircraft in the group, that didn't mean you were the only pilot to fly it. Reasons being for scheduling pilots with availability and maintenance you had to switch things up. In that regard it's better to keep standardized settings so one pilot will know what to expect when they pull the trigger. It's much more important to be able to use the plane between different flight crews and use it rather than have each plane a special case that can only be used by one pilot.

 

This is not even to mention the fact that when guys in the USAAC went through initial gunnery training in the states and "clobber college" in theater they used the standard convergence settings on all those aircraft. By reasoning if you get pretty comfortable shooting with those settings, why would you want to suddenly change that up while flying combat. It was WWII, pretty much anything and everything happened that you can imagine, just by the sheer scale of it all. I'm sure custom convergence was used by some guy at some point in the USAAC but I'm thinking it was a very rare thing overall. I'm not sure about the RAF and other airforces but for the USAAC I feel pretty confident that it was very rare overall.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Cool-Hand

[NineLine]

I think they differentiated between what the squadron was tasked to do.

 

See this is more what I am leaning towards, maybe ME settings for aircraft that could be tasked with different missions that might require different settings.

[horseback]

From my reading of various pilot memoirs, squadron histories and so on, it appears that guns' settings in the Army Air Forces were a bit haphazard prior to about early 1944; individual pilots may have gotten their preferences during that period when the USAAF were still trying to figure out what they were doing out there, and how best to do it. In some other units, it looks as though the convergence was standardized at the group or squadron level according to the commanding officer's preference or even at <gasp!> the manufacturer's suggested range. The timelines may be a bit tangled; what the grand poobahs in Washington decreed may have been ignored or taken some months to reach the units at the front lines once the edicts had been written up, signed off and mimeographed (copied) by the thousands.

 

This is very similar to the RAF's experience at the beginning of the war when everything was done according to prewar theory; real life experience soon taught the survivors what worked and what didn't. Official Doctrine was soon ignored and remained so until What Actually Bloody Works became doctrine.

 

Having said all that, the current (late war) "shotgun pattern" would be fine if the DMs were remotely realistic; until they are fixed (really fixed) there will continue to be much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

cheers

 

horseback

Edited July 24, 2017 by horseback

[NineLine]

Having said all that, the current (late war) "shotgun pattern" would be fine if the DMs were remotely realistic; until they are fixed (really fixed) there will continue to be much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

cheers

 

horseback

 

Yup, I am hoping the updated DMs will help a number of things...

[NineLine]

Seems a little unfair that you are apparently OK with not having "evidence" for one side of the discussion, but demand it for another. . .

 

Stop already, you act like I am incapable of reading and researching on my own. From what I have read, what he stated is what I have seen, and what leads me to believe that IF any settings where to be added, they would make the most sense as I stated. I dont decide what ED adds, and at this time, they have no plans to add anything for this... but by all means, I wont go to bat for anything if I am hurting "the other sides" feelings...

[Talisman_VR]

As a point of interest, this is a link to a discussion that quotes the RAF AP (Air Publication) covering setting convergence, including 50 yards!

 

 

http://www.rafcommands.com/archive/02487.php

 

 

Does anyone have the contacts to gain access to the source document so that it can be given wider access via the internet?

 

 

The source document quoted is:

 

 

Section 7 of A.P.1984 Standard Technical Training Notes for Fitters Armourer and Armourers

 

 

Happy landings,

[NineLine]

My understanding is that YoYos position is that coding various convergence settings is simply too much work, and is currently out of scope for the devs. That's an entirely different position to "it's historical" and has its own justifications. So the whole discussion might be pointless from the perspective of implementation, however that doesn't render the chat valueless from a pure "interest" perspective.

 

No, its not about the work involved, although its indirectly related as there is no evidence that its a needed change, as such no need to spend any time on it. Yo-Yo has researched this extensively, I have done all my homework, and Nick Grey of TFC is also of this mindset that is not needed, and not something that would be needed.

 

ED and myself don't really need to prove anything to you, if you think ED is wrong, you need to prove it to us, if you do, I will be more than happy to submit a feature request. And I will be more than happy to take this evidence and debate it with Yo-Yo, I talk to him almost daily...

 

/text copied for insurance.

 

And what?

[Cool-Hand]

Seems a little unfair that you are apparently OK with not having "evidence" for one side of the discussion, but demand it for another. . .

 

Here is a piece of evidence for you with just a cursory glance through my Kindle library that talks about the group using a common convergence and the one that we have currently in DCS if I'm not mistaken or very close to it. A pretty good read too!

 

MUSTANG ACE

Memoirs of a P-51 Fighter Pilot

by

Robert J. Goebel

[Perfesser]

While it may not have been common there's ample evidence it was done. Whether it's a historical point or not I think it is a highly desirable feature and ask that you reconsider it's importance to the user.

[NineLine]

While it may not have been common there's ample evidence it was done. Whether it's a historical point or not I think it is a highly desirable feature and ask that you reconsider it's importance to the user.

 

I think that is the point, ED is weighing its importance, and they are not seeing it the same as some.

[Buzzles]

Excellent, thanks for posting this CH. I will need to update my former text.

I do consider this to be strong evidence (if not proof - pilot recollections can't be taken as proof) that the 31st Fighter Group in Italy had some kind of group-wide preference or order (was it an order?) for a specific type of convergence setup in the P51. However, this evidence goes both ways, it also proves that at least one group was able to determine its own convergence pattern. So I will add this in to a revised "evidence" list, to be posted below.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

It doesn't prove it's any different from other nearby groups in the theatre at the time, nor does it say it was their choice.

It certainly doesn't say it was pilot choice, or something that was changed on a regular basis.

It also doesn't state a timescale it was used for. It could be that they used that pattern as a group for their entire deployment and that for them it never changed.

 

That document, along with others posted, can be interpreted in multiple ways. Unless it's explicit, I'd not claim it's "strong evidence" so please be careful not to let your bias twist things to try and support your world view.

 

FWIW, I've got nothing against a ME setting option between a couple of patterns. I don't think it should be in the rearming menu and I don't think it should be a infinitely customisable option. I also still don't see why it's really needed though at this point when the DM is the bigger issue.

[amazingme]

Stop with this nonsense, would ya? It is not FEASIBLE for ED to implement manual guns harmonization, because it would lead to other issues, e.g. gun sight calibration.

Yes, it IS a nice to have feature but it would take a lot of programming time that might be well suited for other work that it's much more important to DCS than this frivolous thing as gun harmonization.

[amazingme]

Do you think that the devs didn't have access to all the "evidence" you brought here?

 

From what you're saying I understand that this is just a discussion and you don't necessarily want this feature to be implemented. Fine by me...

 

Why would YOU wanted this feature to be implemented.. I'm just curious, not a tricky question.. Thanks.

[Talisman_VR]

Evidence list (updated with number 9)

|1| the P51 wing armorers panel plate (which clearly specifies a range as opposed to a single pattern for convergences)

|2| the pilot manual pg40 which specifies that the convergence can be set to "difference patterns for various tactical situations"

|3| A quote from Merle Olmstead, P51 Armourer USAAF, in A view from the Flightline, requests for convergence range came from "the pilot". No mention of squadron orders or regulations.

A good, conscientious armorer went to the photo lab to watch his guns being fired in anger. In the early days when tracers were used, one could see if the bullets were properly converging at the range requested by the pilot. The formal way to harmonize the guns and camera was using optical boresighting equipment aimed at targets positioned on a metal stand at a range of 1,000 inches (83.3 feet).

|4| "There, six machine guns were boresighted to meet the pilot's preference for conversion point." Page 357. from the book "I was a P-51 fighter pilot in WW2..."

|5| "He had the inboard .50s aimed to converge at 200 yards, the middle guns at 250 yards

and outboards to 300 yards" Page 102. Ben Drew: Katzenjammer [am still tying to source the date of this quote, to know if he was still a relatively new pilot at that point]

|6| "most of the time the guns were sighted to converge at about 300 feet in front of the wing, dispersing from that point into a shot-gun type patter" from I Was a P-51 Fighter Pilot in Wwii: A Collection of Hard-To-Find Stories; By James Neel White (but this "most of the time" used pattern is so vastly different from what we have in DCS that I wonder if the pilot meant 300 yards and not 300 ft and that the text is out of order here

|7| "with the spread harmonization the group used" quoted by Robert Goebel in P51 Mustang Ace. This shows that at least the 31st FG in Italy had specified a group-wide pattern (250yrd inboard, 300yrd outboard). The fact that at least one group could specify a pattern further supports the notion that that [A] using specific patterns was considered important and that there was technical scope to modify it.

|8| AFF Manual 200-1 "Manual for Fighter Gun Harmonization", 1945.

This manual "recommends" what is referred to as a BASIC Harmonization pattern for the P51D. This single "recommended" pattern is shown in the image at this link: https://i.imgur.com/fUiYLWa.jpg .

The forward to the manual states that "The patterns for harmonization ocntained herein are endorsed by army air forces but may be amended by each individual station in accordance with local conditions to obtain effective firepower" Image of forward: https://i.imgur.com/XNopZwR.png

This suggests that, at least by/during 1945, decisions about pattern were delegated to the station (often a Fighter Wing) level.

|9| TM 1-495 Harmonization of Aircraft Fixed Guns and Sights 1944

this is the harmonization manual from August 1944 - much closer to our Normandy time period than the AF-200 manual from 1945. This manual sets out the process for harmonizing fighter guns. It explicity states that (1) the "desitred range" for convergence is "usually" between 750 and 1000ft and that (2) "sometimes" converging all guns on a point will not be desired and the manual explicitly allows discretion for spread patterns, ergo assuming that the previously described point convergence is the norm.

Screenshot from manual: https://i.imgur.com/EaXNwkY.png

 

 

still more to come.

 

 

 

Thanks Phil. This is my take. This is very interesting, informative, historically relevant and important for the users of Digital Combat Simulation warbirds like me, particularly with wing mounted guns. One of the things we need to remember for WWII enthusiasts interested in this issue is that DCS is not a WWII bespoke product. Folks who are mainly interested in helicopters and fast jet aircraft have little or no interest in this issue and I suspect they make up more of the customer base for DCS. As a customer I would like DCS to take notice of this issue for us, but the feeling I get from reading the forums is that the mind set of DCS is against this. I think this is a shame, as convergence was part of the story of WWII aviation, particularly of those trying to make a difference on the front line and provide leadership in combat tactics. A bespoke WWII combat flying simulator company would have more interest in this issue, but that is not what DCS is; even though I wish it was. So, it is down to us to decide which flight sim product to give our loyalty to as a customer and for the flight sim companies to decide on their business model and product output as suits them. For me, it is clear that different convergences and patterns were used, whether by individual pilots, squadrons, wings and groups, etc. In truth, get a bit fed up when I read what appears to be a denial of this by some, particularly when it appears to be offered as a reason for not implementing it in a combat flight sim with Warbirds. However, I can understand why a company would not wish to implement convergence options from a business model perspective. I wish the DCS 'mind set' (as mentioned by SithSpawn), would change on this issue and that they would give us some formal means of choosing different convergence patterns, as happened and was allowed for during WWII, but I suspect it is a forlorn hope.

 

 

Happy landings,

[amazingme]

Now you're getting the picture.. Gun harmonization must also take into account the weight of the ammo used, as pilots adjusted the guns according to this, primarily. The logic would be that each mission would need a different type of ammunition that required changing the harmonization of the guns and also the sight so it can match the new convergence area. This was a complex task and it was done by an engineer and not by the pilot himself. So, the issue with implementing this is much more complex than just making a slider.

[NineLine]

Is that your position or is that ED's position?

I'm confused, beacuse SithSpawn claims that "No, its not about the work involved" Which one of you is presenting the Eagle Dynamics position here?

 

Read my post again (and dont just quote the part you want to convey), its not the reason, but its a byproduct for sure... its not worth the development time when there is so much more people want to see. Tell me how many pilots in WWII adapted to the convergence they were given. That is what ED is simulating for you.

[Talisman_VR]

I suggest that for every WWII pilot that writes a book and mentions custom convergence settings, there will be hundreds/thousands who used and tested personalised settings but did not write a book and mention it.

I suspect it was often a hot topic in the mess bar too.

 

 

Happy landings,

[NineLine]

I suggest that for every WWII pilot that writes a book and mentions custom convergence settings, there will be hundreds/thousands who used and tested personalised settings but did not write a book and mention it.

I suspect it was often a hot topic in the mess bar too.

 

 

Happy landings,

 

Nick Grey would beg to differ, I am gonna go with him on this. He seems to know a thing or two about WWII fighters and probably has more communication with pilots from some of those mess bars over his history.

 

I'll say once again, nothing given here has really show why it would be so important to have. The most important thing to have is to know how your aircraft is set up, then fly and fight based on the knowledge, probably like most pilots in WWII.

[NineLine]

I'd like to point out the poll results as well, if you look at the 'No' votes and the 'Don't Care' votes (which if they dont care, arent going to be upset if this doesnt happen...) I am going to say its not that big of a deal to people... even if you take the 'Yes' vote... we are talking 36 people... it just doesnt seem to be a big deal for people when there is so much more we want to see in the sim.

Edited July 25, 2017 by NineLine

[Talisman_VR]

Nick Grey would beg to differ, I am gonna go with him on this. He seems to know a thing or two about WWII fighters and probably has more communication with pilots from some of those mess bars over his history.

 

I'll say once again, nothing given here has really show why it would be so important to have. The most important thing to have is to know how your aircraft is set up, then fly and fight based on the knowledge, probably like most pilots in WWII.

 

 

 

I suggest that the reason it is important is that this is a combat sim and, for example, spot convergence is a far more lethal method of obtaining a kill.

 

You may have this book: See page 155 of Wing Leader by 'Johnnie' Johnson, Chapter 10. Canadian Wing. Penguin Books (price 3 shillings and sixpence).

'Johnnie' Johnson's point in his book is that the far more lethal method of obtaining a kill is spot convergence, rather than the standard procedure to give a fairly large 'shotgun' pattern at the best firing range.

From his book you can see that Johnny Johnson studied gun camera footage and convergence settings of the most successful shot on his Mk IX Spitfire unit and copied it. The pilot he copied was not high ranking, famous or well known at all. If a Wing Commander of a squadron, like Johnnie Johnson, studied gun cam footage of his subordinates in order to decide which convergence to best use himself, then I think that speaks volumes.

 

 

We have been given this knowledge on the record by pilots that actually successfully flew combat aircraft and used their guns in WWII. As practised PC pilots, I suggest that it would be great to use that knowledge in this simulator and put it to the test.

 

 

I suggest that this is a reasonable request and would allow us to test and use our simulated gunnery skills to the best possible advantage, just as we are able to test our skills with the flight modelling too. It would add value to the product for the customer and add to the WWII experience. This is something that is distinct from helicopter or fast jet flying in combat and would add value, not to mention historical education and technical/scientific education. It would also add to the DCS reputation in my view. However, if the hurdle to implementation is a technical one, or it is seen as not enough of a benefit to DCS customers (perhaps because WWII flyers are too small a part of the pie), then I can understand that.

 

 

I would go with 'Johnnie' Johnson when it comes to guidance on guns convergence and the most lethal method of obtaining a kill in combat. I suggest that the chance to use that knowledge in DCS WWII would be a little nugget of gold for your WWII competitive combat simulation customers.

 

 

Happy landings,

[Talisman_VR]

I'd like to point out the poll results as well, if you look at the 'No' votes and the 'Don't Care' votes (which if they dont care, arent going to be upset if this doesnt happen...) I am going to say its not that big of a deal to people... even if you take the 'Yes' vote... we are talking 36 people... it just doesnt seem to be a big deal for people when there is so much more we want to see in the sim.

 

 

 

Perhaps some of the 'no' votes have a vested interest in not seeing their usual combat simulation opponents being given the opportunity to be more lethal, LOL. Also, perhaps some 'don't care' voters don't understand the potential and historical accuracy in terms of practiced and experienced pilot combat.

 

 

Happy landings,