DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion - Page 200 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-17-2019, 01:34 AM   #1991
Weta43
Veteran
 
Weta43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Aro Valley Wellington New Zealand
Posts: 7,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msalama View Post
No, the point is you should fookin' earn the right for adjustment, just as IRL.
Either this, or nothing.

IRL only the 'Stars' got to personalise their convergence.
Maybe everybody thinks they should be a star, but if everyone's a star, no-one's a star.
No personalisation is more realistic than everyone gets personalisation.

If it's included, it should - like in real life - be for those that show they've earned it.
__________________
Cheers.
Weta43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 08:52 AM   #1992
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,089
Default

Quote:
No personalisation is more realistic than everyone gets personalisation.
This precisely. You either have to earn it, as IRL, or you just won't get it.
__________________
Huey probs & gripes? Do read the following please: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.p...1&d=1555258147
msalama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 10:33 AM   #1993
JG13~Wulf
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weta43 View Post
Either this, or nothing.

IRL only the 'Stars' got to personalise their convergence.
Maybe everybody thinks they should be a star, but if everyone's a star, no-one's a star.
No personalisation is more realistic than everyone gets personalisation.

If it's included, it should - like in real life - be for those that show they've earned it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msalama View Post
This precisely. You either have to earn it, as IRL, or you just won't get it.
Waiting for proof that only special pilots could have field modification.
It's hard to discuss with people like you as you. You just say no but can't proof anything about it.

I can't imagine that you think mechanincs that repair gun and replace them didn't have the possibility to follow pilots request to set their gun to shoot closer than usual (250m -> 200m)
If pilot survive long enough to have gun replacement or gun reset, it was simple to ask for the reset to be at another convergence point ...

It was just needed to place a plane on a shooting range to then move some little screw to slightly move gun up/down and left/right. The main difference for mechanics was to put the plane at different distance of the test target. Then move the screw as usual to have gun shooting at the target. When the gun was alligned as usual with the target, then the gun convergence was correctly set.

At least if we could have variable preset for each plane and not complete personalised it would be a big step !

Show 2 different convergence settings for P47.

Show how gun setting was made. Just remember that you only need to put the P51 forward or back ward to change the convergence settings. Then mechanics have the same work to do to set the gun. (and check the image, left and right are not the same => 2 differents settings for P51).

If you read "The Big Show" by P. Clostermann, he said that lot of pilots asked for the right one. As he said, they were all bad at shooting so with this kind of setting, they had better chance to hit ennemy (even if it was with few rounds). This was common for new pilots !
__________________

Last edited by JG13~Wulf; 11-17-2019 at 10:35 AM.
JG13~Wulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 01:34 PM   #1994
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,089
Default

Quote:
Waiting for proof
You don't seem to understand. It's YOU who needs to produce evidence for YOUR case, since it's YOU who wants things changed; whereas folks like myself and Weta are content with things the way they are, and thus under no obligation to prove anything. So where's YOUR evidence for this having been universally available for everyone on a mere request?
__________________
Huey probs & gripes? Do read the following please: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.p...1&d=1555258147
msalama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 02:58 PM   #1995
JG13~Wulf
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msalama View Post
You don't seem to understand. It's YOU who needs to produce evidence for YOUR case, since it's YOU who wants things changed; whereas folks like myself and Weta are content with things the way they are, and thus under no obligation to prove anything. So where's YOUR evidence for this having been universally available for everyone on a mere request?
I think I give you lot of evidence that it was common thing.
But ok here is a first one : https://youtu.be/c2zdA9TcIYo?t=889
In french, an interview of Pierre Clostermann clearly saying the following about the spit.
"If you loaded guns (7.7mm) with tracers to help aiming, you had one problem : tracers didn't had the same trajectory as 20mm shells. This was kind a problem and because we had other things to think about than making space geometry problems when shooting. So we could ask to mechanics to set 7.7 mm to shoot above 20 mm. But there would have still be problem because of the target distance it change the parameters of shoot. the result was we were all bad shooter."

This is not a perfect translation (word by word). Hope someone could translate better than me. But he clearly tell that they could ask for gun setting modification. Remember that at this period he had few kills with Spifire (6 confirmed kills in spit if I believe this : http://www.cieldegloire.com/004_clostermann.php ). Most of his aerial kills were made with Tempest (table at the end of the page).

Another one from Clostermann : https://youtu.be/fpLNwp4KzAo?t=85
First time on Tempest. So at this moment he had 6 confirmed kills at least and we are in 1944 (after DDay) as he was on Spitfire until this year.
In this interview he said he received a new Tempest (completely new plane) and ground crew set his gun as he asked for. As you can understand, it seems that he knows the ground crew from the period he was on Spitfire (edit : correct half of the ground crew was from 602 squadron where he flew on Spit). So you could say that they do that for him ... But I still think it was common for all pilots.

He refer in the same interview about the "spray setting" (probably not well translated) but he explained this in his book and in several interview as guns were set to fire in a large area. The four guns of his Tempest and his Spitfire before were set to not converge all to one point. But several point.

I get another document about how the harmonisatiuon of gun was made. It not tells who could do that but it's explicit that you could set plane to a choosen convergence : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:...adc28664/m1/1/
__________________

Last edited by JG13~Wulf; 11-17-2019 at 04:40 PM.
JG13~Wulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 04:54 PM   #1996
Ala13_ManOWar
Senior Member
 
Ala13_ManOWar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG13~Wulf View Post
I can't imagine that you think mechanincs that repair gun and replace them didn't have the possibility to follow pilots request to set their gun to shoot closer than usual (250m -> 200m)
If pilot survive long enough to have gun replacement or gun reset, it was simple to ask for the reset to be at another convergence point ...

It was just needed to place a plane on a shooting range to then move some little screw to slightly move gun up/down and left/right. The main difference for mechanics was to put the plane at different distance of the test target. Then move the screw as usual to have gun shooting at the target. When the gun was alligned as usual with the target, then the gun convergence was correctly set.
I know from a distance looks like a minor thing, but it's not "just" that easy as you say. It takes time, lots of time, but mechanics had better things to do than just adjusting daily all of the aircraft in a whole squadron. The same they had better things to do than painting cool nose arts in every single aircraft. Have you ever noticed how squad leaders had their aircraft all fashioned with paintings? and have you noticed either how every other aircraft in the squadron had exactly nothing at all painted? all those were just factory plain and boring paint. That means something mate. Not to mention, you have to have a proper facility range where you can do it, probably not suitable in many front line aerodromes. We all know some picture, we all know some story about setting convergence, but that wasn't just for everybody and shouldn't be confused with the fact that every flight simmer thinks of himself he's an ace deserving every frivolity real aces (a bunch among thousands) could enjoy. That's just unreal and being used to it in many old sims doesn't make it real.


S!
__________________
"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice
Ala13_ManOWar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 05:39 PM   #1997
Sniper175
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 678
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKYChRd3wJo

Anyways more important things....
__________________
I7-8700 @5GHZ, 32GB 3000MHZ RAM, 1080TI, Rift S, ODYSSEY +. SSD DRIVES, WIN10
Sniper175 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 05:58 PM   #1998
JG13~Wulf
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ala13_ManOWar View Post
I know from a distance looks like a minor thing, but it's not "just" that easy as you say. It takes time, lots of time, but mechanics had better things to do than just adjusting daily all of the aircraft in a whole squadron. The same they had better things to do than painting cool nose arts in every single aircraft. Have you ever noticed how squad leaders had their aircraft all fashioned with paintings? and have you noticed either how every other aircraft in the squadron had exactly nothing at all painted? all those were just factory plain and boring paint. That means something mate. Not to mention, you have to have a proper facility range where you can do it, probably not suitable in many front line aerodromes. We all know some picture, we all know some story about setting convergence, but that wasn't just for everybody and shouldn't be confused with the fact that every flight simmer thinks of himself he's an ace deserving every frivolity real aces (a bunch among thousands) could enjoy. That's just unreal and being used to it in many old sims doesn't make it real.


S!
For RAF there was facilities for that (firing range) that were not on all airport. They almost do that all the day there. In previous post I made, a pilot refer about this range because he wanted to set his P51 gun differently. => https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...5&postcount=28

If you read the doc I linked previously : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:...adc28664/m1/1/

There was a 8 step procedure to set the convergence. Here is the pages : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:...dc28664/m1/20/
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:...dc28664/m1/21/
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:...dc28664/m1/22/
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:...dc28664/m1/23/

I think it take times, but not 1 day for a plane. And as they said, when bore sight was alligned with target, then it need only few adjustment. As they said in the text, this procedure is not so complex. And if you read in detail, they discuss the fact if pilot and ground crew don't have access to complete firing range. For this case, the target was put closer. Then it need a bit more calcul to set correctly the target to set the gun to the convergence point they want.
Remember the movie Pearl Harbor. Funny to use it as an example but they actually do that. At a moment they use a small firing range to set the guns of a P40. (was looking for picture and found this)






(don't tell me those picture were made at factory ...)

Even if it is a movie, this scene of Pearl Harbor seems historically correct (following previous doc). And I'm pretty sure people at this time had the hability to set the target as they needed to have the convergence they wanted on the plane they were working on.

Then, in the same doc you can find that armament need a complete inspection after 40 hours : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:...dc28664/m1/28/

I think that air force of each country during ww2 had enough ground crew to set the guns of their planes to shoot at enemy planes. Your point saying it takes time so it wasn't done is a bit silly. By following this, you can erase all the "secondary" task they had to do. Such as inspecting engine or controls cable.

I think at this time it was pretty important for ground crew and pilots to be sure that guns were going to shoot where it is supposed to shoot.

Need more ... ?
__________________

Last edited by JG13~Wulf; 11-17-2019 at 06:08 PM.
JG13~Wulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 07:19 PM   #1999
Cool-Hand
Junior Member
 
Cool-Hand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Great State of Texas
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG13~Wulf View Post
For RAF there was facilities for that (firing range) that were not on all airport.....



The way I have understood it from my readings of the US Army Air Corps being as we are talking in the P47 forum, 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 fighters 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 as well as ammo belting used.

The main problem though with going with exotic custom convergence settings for each pilot 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. Having available airframes for a mission would definitely trump having each one only able to 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, maybe they just had a surplus of aircraft the US didn't have (aka very doubtful) and could customize each airframe and only have one pilot for each one and still be able to operate at squadron strength, but for the USAAC I feel pretty confident that it was very rare overall.


Talking about the P-47 specifically from the book "Hell Hawks"


Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot (74).png
Views:	61
Size:	667.1 KB
ID:	221286


Here is a previous post I made on it for the P-51 Mustang that includes an excerpt mentioning group harmonization.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...8&postcount=37
__________________
Cool-Hand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 07:32 PM   #2000
JG13~Wulf
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool-Hand View Post
The way I have understood it from my readings of the US Army Air Corps being as we are talking in the P47 forum, 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 fighters 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 as well as ammo belting used.

The main problem though with going with exotic custom convergence settings for each pilot 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. Having available airframes for a mission would definitely trump having each one only able to 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, maybe they just had a surplus of aircraft the US didn't have (aka very doubtful) and could customize each airframe and only have one pilot for each one and still be able to operate at squadron strength, but for the USAAC I feel pretty confident that it was very rare overall.


Talking about the P-47 specifically from the book "Hell Hawks"


Attachment 221286


Here is a previous post I made on it for the P-51 Mustang that includes an excerpt mentioning group harmonization.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...8&postcount=37
If we could at least have the possibility to choose in a list of preset (fighter, ground attack, precise area, large area, ...), it would be awesome. A big step from what we have at the moment.
__________________
JG13~Wulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
p-47, ww2

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:45 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.