Jump to content

Convergence (to continue discussion in a better place)


JG13Wulf

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

First, yes I know there are other post about this with long discussion.

I prefer to start a new post as in the other we have lot of pages with only discussing for people who think they are both right.

 

All the fact following are linked to a source or are think I understand by reading.

I ask everyone who want to answer to read all sources of people before commenting and to come with documentation to prove what they tell.

 

I think it's the best way to sort out this question as it's not as simple as yes we should have this feature or no we should not have it !

 

--------------------------------------

 

To begin here is my point and what I think we should ask to have one day in DCS WW2.

 

I think we should have the possibility to change the settings of each of our guns. Selecting the calibration speed and then the horizontal and vertical convergence. This should be an option in the special setting page of the module (the same page where we choose the settings of trims for Bf 109).

 

But I think mission makers should have the possibility to choose to lock or to unlock the convergence. This mean they should get the possibility to set a convergence for each plane and force player to use it or to let the player use the personnal convergence they choose in plane settings.

A good way to have an easy set for mission maker should be to make convergence profile (like we can have armement profil now for quick plane set up in FMB)

 

The idea to lock could be used for mission when pilot had to take "another plane than his plane" (mission context) or for setting squadron special gun convergence setting.

 

Ok so that my point.

 

Now I will give you everything I found that make me think I'm right to ask for this feature.

I hope to have constructive discussion and not just people coming to say "No that's not what I want in DCS".

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

First of all, as you can imagine, a warplane who make several missions need some repair and inspection. Guns could be removed, repaired or replaced on home base (or on target range base). So It's easy to understand that warplane with some hours of flight will be different from brand new factory plane.

In reality, planes don't get out of factory to then go to fight one hour later.

 

Ok so imagine we have a plane at an airbase. How was the gun set ?

 

Here is some doc about the gun convergence setting procedure :

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/1/

 

This doc talk about all the gunnery settings. It was written in 1944 and had to replace a 1941 doc (written on this page : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/3/ ).

It is official doc from US war departement. I think we can trust it.

 

So it's a good little book to read but I will only talk about some part of it.

In the following page you will find the procedure (step by step) to set gun convergence on a plane (at firing range). You can read too that this procedure could be done with target at different distances (750 - 1000 feet). You can see that there was possibility to use shorter target range (improvised on home base) if there was no firing rang near the airbase.

Please note too that on the second page, the document talk about gun converging on multiple point.

 

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/20/

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/21/

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/22/

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/23/

 

So now I hope we can agree that convergence could be set at firing range or on airbase if needed. And don't forget that the doc talk about the multiple convergence point => That why I'm asking about the setting of each gun seperately.

 

Let's now talk about the convergence setting for a particular speed.

In the same doc, you can find this page : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/17/

 

If you read it, it talk about the P38E. This plane seems to fly with a 0.11° nose up when at 300 mph. This means that the gun will shoot above the line of sight. So when making the convergence settings, it was needed to choose an airspeed to calibrate the plane.

 

Finally, last thing I took from this doc is the inspection interval of the gunsight :

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28664/m1/28/

 

I didn't understand it well at first (thinking it was a all weapon system inspection every 40 hours of flight). But it seems it talk about the gunsight only. But this mean that there was a regular inspection of it and I imagine a regular inspection of the gun too. (maybe other people would have more information about the guns inspection).

 

That's all about this doc.

So after reading this, I can sum up with the following.

Plane could had a armament convergence setting on airbase or on firing range.

If you read between lines, it seems that plane could be set for non-factory convergence setting and even to have gun shooting at different convergence point.

 

As it come from a discussion without source, I can only tell but not proove anything :

I read that P47 had the possibility to use 4 gun at a desired convergence and the 4 other at another convergence (the people seems to talk about 250 yards - 350 yards). I got nothing to proove it's right but maybe this could help :

47gecd-gif.238521

 

----------------------------------------

 

To complete the previous doc, here are some screenshot of firing range. Some as you can imagine are "real" firing range and some are improvised one.

 

A video showing the convergence setting procedure for a Spitfire :

 

P47 while setting the gun (just like previous doc explained it)

hIkmP.jpg

 

German too had similar procedure to set gun convergence.

air_me109_281.jpg

JT92Bf5.jpg

 

A german firing range :

CuoKOdw.jpg

aiGDQv1.jpg

(seems to be a target in front)

 

Spitfire shooting at (I imagine) an airbase improvised firing range.

j0MHF9t.jpg

B0DZGUx.jpg

FarWh5n.jpg

(I think for this last one they only alligned gun but don't try to shoot at the target because they are some structure behind it).

 

Mosquito at range :

lChI89R.jpg

 

P40 at range

nVJPVZI.jpg

 

Hurri at range :

zM6vIZS.jpg

 

P51 at range :

Rf7BPEM.jpg

 

And now some page with target for short range :

zyZSBW2.jpg

kj8bT5K.jpg

ZVrbrT9.jpg

51bsd.gif

 

So until now I would agree with anybody telling me that those plane could all have been set with "preset" convergence. So if I stop here I would agree if we had at least a list of preset gun setting for each plane. But let's see if we can go further.

 

A last example of range is this one in the desert :

me109_s.jpg

brett.jpg

 

You can clearly see that canon have 2 preset possibility for this target. But I can't proove that the target was created by the squadron. It could have been send by factory to help setting Bf 109 in Afrika to the factory convergence. But you can't tell me that the Bf 109E had 6 guns ! :)

 

So here we are with possibility to set convergence outside factoryu and the possibility to have different preset. But you can still tell me that those preset are factory preset given to the air force. Now let's talk about personnalisation.

 

----------------------

 

First of all let's see a post on a webpage. This is a report/summerize (don't now if this is good english term) that say squadron and aces could have personalised convergence for their planes.

 

Early mark British Spitfire and Hurricane fighters firing the .303 round had their eight wing guns focussed into a convergence zone 1,350 ft (410 m)[7] or 1,180 ft (360 m) forward during the early part of the war, as initially favoured by Air Chief Marshall Hugh Dowding,[8] but combat experience showed that shorter distances were more effective, and the convergence distance was reduced to 750 ft (230 m)[9][10] or even 360 ft (110 m).[11] Various distances that were employed in WWII by American fighters using .50 inch (12.7 mm) heavy machine gun rounds include 500 ft (150 m), 750 ft (230 m), 900 ft (270 m) and 1,000 ft (300 m), with the longer distances favoured later in the war.[1][5][12]

 

Some pilots preferred more than one point of convergence. In 1944 operating out of England, 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. Drew felt that this gave him a suitable concentration of fire over a deeper envelope of engagement distance.[13]

 

Night fighter wing guns of all belligerents were often set to converge at relatively close distances such as 450 ft (140 m) for the UK.[14] Night fighter tactics using wing guns called for a surreptitious approach on the tail of the enemy, surprising him with fire at a chosen distance.

 

A very close convergence point proved devastatingly effective for some pilots. The highest scoring fighter pilot in the world, German Major Erich Hartmann, set the wing guns (later cannon) of his Bf 109 to converge at 50 m (160 ft) because of his preference for waiting to attack until very near his opponent.[15] In the Pacific War in m

id-1943, American Marine Fighting Squadron 213 harmonised the six 0.5 in wing guns of their Mk I Vought F4U Corsairs to converge to a point 300 ft (90 m) ahead. The squadron's usual tactic was to dive upon an enemy from the front and slightly to one side (a high-side attack using full deflection) and fire when at the convergence distance.[16] American ace Major Bill Chick of the 317th Fighter Squadron based in North Africa in January 1944 bore-sighted the eight 0.5 in guns of his Republic P-47 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.[6]

 

Some American groups also converged their guns in a rectangle. USAAF Major James White described how the Mustangs of his 487th Fighter Squadron were harmonised to fire their six guns into a wide rectangle 10 by 6 ft (3.0 by 1.8 m) at 450 ft (140 m).[15] The outer guns of the Mustang were 15.846 ft (4.830 m) apart, so this ten-foot box narrowed in width as the firing distance increased.[18]

 

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Gun_harmonisation

(The quote come from the part about distance & size of the pattern)

 

Another source from https://www.kenleyrevival.org/ tell the following :

The harmonisation used on particular squadrons was often determined by the squadron’s Commanding Officer. Certainly on 64 Squadron the harmonisation was determined by Squadron Leader McDonnel in consultation with Sergeant Spencer, the Sergeant Armourer. Our guns were harmonised to give a six-foot diameter cone of fire at 200 yards.

 

https://www.kenleyrevival.org/content/history/faces-of-kenley/ground-crew-raf-kenley#section1

 

So following waht have been explained here, we see that aces could ask for special convergence settings. And squadron leader could choose for squadron "default" convergence setting. At this point I hope you agree with me we should have the possibility to change our gun convergence between various preset at least.

 

Let's keep going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

------------------------------

 

Now I will discuss something I IMAGINE FROM SEEING PICTURE OF TARGET AT FIRING RANGE ! So I don't find anything to proove what will follow

 

FROM HERE

First let see a target :

K3LQI8f.jpg

HbOdBUS.jpg

 

Those target seems to have been send in kit from the WW2 IKEA shop. I mean, by looking at it, I don't think it would be difficult to modify it to move the target circle on the horizontal support. This made me think it's not that difficult to change the target to change the convergence point following pilot request.

 

The most complicated thing should have been to make the math to now where each circle should be placed. As I do lot of math for my job, this don't seems that terrible (for me). But I can imagine that Armorer and ground crew had a book or a chart with some "favorite" convergence setting. Maybe stupid, but if there was personnalised setting for each squadron, there must have been a chart at firing range to set the target correctly for each squadron. So maybe some pilot could have requested to have the x or y squadron setting.

TO THERE

(so this part was something I imagine after seeing target and reading what is before.

 

Now another doc to complete my thinking. This is from pilot memories

EQRjIpG.png

https://books.google.be/books?id=UWncIUNVZ2sC&pg=PT190&lpg=PT190&dq=gun+harmonisation+P51&source=bl&ots=rnqWkVJi0t&sig=ACfU3U3r_X77PmvVPjMEiF6kUTtxpjJsNg&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN6-COxrniAhWKKlAKHauTDCsQ6AEwEXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=gun%20harmonisation%20P51&f=false

 

As you can read, the pilot asked for 200 yards convergence and not the original 250 yards convergence. Following what I told just before, I imagine target range crew had a chart to set his P51 to 200 yards. But here we have a pilot who asked for gun convergence modification. But reading wikipedia page, it seems that he was a Battle of Britain ace. So when he asked for his Mustang to be modify he was already an ace.

 

Still We have here a pilot who ask for gun setting modification and it was done.

 

------------------------------

 

Finally, I will end up my very long post with 2 interview of Pierre Clostermann (in french). The first one talk about the Spitfire. If I refer to "Ciel de Gloire" website, he had only 6 confirmed kill on Spitfire. That mean he was an aces on Spitfire but only at the end. (He made majority of his kill on Tempest).

http://www.cieldegloire.com/004_clostermann.php

(See at the bottom of the page the table of kills)

 

So On the first interview he said (I tried to do my best for translation !)

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.

 

If the website Ciel de Gloire is correct, this mean that Clostermann (not an ace at this period) could ask for some modification of the vertical convergence of the gun.

 

And another interview of Clostermann :

 

This time (no quote) he said that he receive a new Tempest. He come at his new home base and find member of the ground crew of 602 (former squadron). And one of the first thing they do is to set the gun on a multiple convergence point parten (he name it "système de l'arrosage").

Image7.jpg

 

After setting the gun, he make a flight to test the guns in flight (shooting at german frontline) and he find a Bf 109 that he kill. So he set his gun and make a fill directly after.

 

---------------------

 

So to conclude. I think all of this could proove that convergence setting was a reality.

I can understand that really particular convergence setting could not be done.

I hope to see at least convergence preset avaible in DCS.

 

But still, as I think it's impossible to find all the historical pattern, it would be better (and easier) for DCS to allow all convergence (between defined valor). And maybe not precise variation but the possibility to change from 10m to 10m.

 

I think there are lot of doc here. Lot of information that don't come from nowhere.

If I'm wrong (possible), but I hope to see some details to explain me how and why.

 

Thanks !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the current convergence (if any) in DCS WW2 planes?

 

It is one of the things I miss the most from Cliffs of Dover, being able to set it to something that actually works for me. I don't want it to be something done on the fly, but rather a setting that you do in the specials page for the plane. Maybe with a possibility for server or mission builder to override the setting with the standard setting, but if that's the case I hope it's not overused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that this is now possible by modifying the gun position code found in most aircraft lua's.

 

 

 

In a mod the angle and position of the gun barrel can be set in 3d space.

 

 

So it can be done with a mod, but as a in sim option.....

This would be,

 

"The Preferred method"!

"Yeah, and though I work in the valley of Death, I will fear no Evil. For where there is one, there is always three. I preparest my aircraft to receive the Iron that will be delivered in the presence of my enemies. Thy ALCM and JDAM they comfort me. Power was given unto the aircrew to make peace upon the world by way of the sword. And when the call went out, Behold the "Sword of Stealth". And his name was Death. And Hell followed him. For the day of wrath has come and no mercy shall be given."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

We do have this reported as a feature request, but I cant say if or when it will happen.

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have this reported as a feature request, but I cant say if or when it will happen.

 

thanks

 

Thanks that was the answer I looking for.

Edit : missunderstood (too fast reading on phone !)

 

Will wait for update about this !

 

Thanks


Edited by JG13~Wulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Hi all

 

please be aware of rule 1.15 we do not allow comparison of other games, it only leads to arguments.

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With those pictures your going to confuse more people than help. Speaking from being a sniper and instructor for 21 years whats going on with that post... im not going to start.

 

I agree setting your own convergence would be nice but go up in a d9 or K4 in sim and shoot the gun in the air and pay attention to the tracers. They do not have the extreme rise that you would miss the tgt at close range, and i think yoyo mentioned in the forums for the ez 42 that the rounds cross the Line of sight twice which is correct.

 

I think what we need currently from the devs is the exact numbers per airframe for the current convergeance settings.

 

The rounds are not called shell... the dangerous ends are called Rounds and or bullets for that matter. The casing, and or Cartridge is what contains the gun powder and the primer and is what falls from the aircraft after the round is expended.

 

 

Well looks like i was virtual sniped by bignewy any way what i said above should help get some terminology correct anyway and lessen the confusion.


Edited by Sniper175

I7-8700 @5GHZ, 32GB 3000MHZ RAM, 1080TI, Rift S, ODYSSEY +. SSD DRIVES, WIN10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

please be aware of rule 1.15 we do not allow comparison of other games, it only leads to arguments.

 

thanks

 

Seriously ??? Don't feel that you take moderation a bit too far this time ...

 

With those pictures your going to confuse more people than help. Speaking from being a sniper and instructor for 21 years whats going on with that post... im not going to start.

 

I agree setting your own convergence would be nice but go up in a d9 or K4 in sim and shoot the gun in the air and pay attention to the tracers. They do not have the extreme rise that you would miss the tgt at close range, and i think yoyo mentioned in the forums for the ez 42 that the rounds cross the Line of sight twice which is correct.

 

I think what we need currently from the devs is the exact numbers per airframe for the current convergeance settings.

 

The rounds are not called shell... the dangerous ends are called Rounds and or bullets for that matter. The casing, and or Cartridge is what contains the gun powder and the primer and is what falls from the aircraft after the round is expended.

 

 

Well looks like i was virtual sniped by bignewy any way what i said above should help get some terminology correct anyway and lessen the confusion.

 

As I'm not english it's I try to use the best terminology but yeah I know that it can confuse people.

 

Lot of guns shoot almost horizontal as the bullet are fast and light (.50 cal, Mg 131, 7.7 mm and even Mg 151/20). But gun like Mk 108 are heavy. Most of the people I know shoot at close range. But at those range, you can feel that the MK 108 or even the 20mm of the spit shoot completely over the target.

 

About the EZ 42, I think as it is a gyro gunsight, the plane should have a factory setting to match the sight. I don't really now well those gyro sight and the way it can be set for various gun set. And I was wrong as I tought there was a bug on it but I belive Yoyo when he answer on my bug report saying Ez 42 didn't pay attention to normal gravity (as the fighter could be upside down and for the sight gravity should normally be under it and not over).

 

So for Gyro I don't know and I couldn't find any information for plane using that kind of sight.

I'm more talking about the fixed sight like we have on Spit, Bf 109 and Fw 190A8.

 

With your answer, I don't know if you understand what I mean in my *deleted* post ... But some people think that I'm asking to reduce what I call the fire area (reducing the barrel dispersion) at desired range. But I'm asking to be able to set the angle of my barrel to have a concentrated fire area at the distance I actually shoot plane.

 

g2hvIFE.gif

 

Sorry if I use lot of picture but

- has I don't speak perfect english I try to illustrate with a maximum of picture (and sometimes yeah I like to make movie reference ... :lol: )

- I'm bored to get only the "No because I think the opposite and I have to be correct not you" usual kind of answer ^^

 

A picture showing the gun place in wings. The black fastener seems to be movable.

LutWxAM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries i actually enjoy your posts as it gets folks thinking. My comment was about that pic with the 109 and lines of ballistic departure on them was just one of the classic pics that can mislead people into thinking the round or bullet when it leaves the barrel magically rises when it does not.

 

:thumbup:

 

I fully understand what your saying and i agree, having a in loose terms a point of aim equal point of impact adjustment would be cool feature forsure.

 

pics above are great

 

Its been requested but as has been stated to me the team is very busy, but asked to get per airframe current Convergence settings


Edited by Sniper175

I7-8700 @5GHZ, 32GB 3000MHZ RAM, 1080TI, Rift S, ODYSSEY +. SSD DRIVES, WIN10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries i actually enjoy your posts as it gets folks thinking. My comment was about that pic with the 109 and lines of ballistic departure on them was just one of the classic pics that can mislead people into thinking the round or bullet when it leaves the barrel magically rises when it does not.

 

:thumbup:

 

I fully understand what your saying and i agree, having a in loose terms a point of aim equal point of impact adjustment would be cool feature forsure.

 

Oh ok ^^

 

Yes the draw was exagerated as all draw who want to attract people attention ^^

Thanks, happy peoples read my big medium english post :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe didn t read them all before but I had read most of them before (first link I made the last answer)

 

Then why do we need to have the same discussion again ?

 

For obvious reasons (most pilots couldn't guarantee that they would get the same aircraft, ground crew didn't have loads of time on their hands to spend hours doing harmonisation at the whim of pilots), custom harmonisation wasn't common practice.

 

Yes, it happened - no one said it didn't.

 

Was it common - all the evidence is NO

 

If it was uncommon, is it more realistic to give it to everyone or no-one ?

Obviously, to not give it to everyone.

 

End of discussion...

 

Masalama suggested having to earn it - most realistic suggestion yet.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why do we need to have the same discussion again ?

 

For obvious reasons (most pilots couldn't guarantee that they would get the same aircraft, ground crew didn't have loads of time on their hands to spend hours doing harmonisation at the whim of pilots), custom harmonisation wasn't common practice.

 

Yes, it happened - no one said it didn't.

 

Was it common - all the evidence is NO

 

If it was uncommon, is it more realistic to give it to everyone or no-one ?

Obviously, to not give it to everyone.

 

End of discussion...

 

Masalama suggested having to earn it - most realistic suggestion yet.

 

Too much post with too much discussion with people arguing both way with absolutly no sources.

 

Here is a post with lot of sources that tell it was done and it was common. I prefer to make a new one as I didn't want my research work to drown in those endless conversation.

 

I think you don't even read what I explain AND what is explained by credible sources. Proove me it wasn't common with documentation from official sources or WW2 pilots/mechanics testimony.

 

I found multiple sources that there was squadron personnalised convergence at least. This let think it was a common thing.

 

So thanks for coming but not thanks for doing the same as everybody. Giving what they think without anything to proove. Thinking that what they belive is the only truth. This way to give answer lead to endless conversation and that's not what I want.

 

Please get proof, send documentation then I will be open to discuss anything you want as I'm sure there are precision to add to this topic. I don't say I have all the answer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a post with lot of sources that tell it was done and it was common.

 

I haven't seen any convincing sourced post that says that is the case, but I have seen posts that say there would be more than one standardised harmonisation for an aircraft type depending on the role anticipated, but that personalisation beyond that for individuals was rare, as multiple pilots had to be able to get into most planes and find a convergence they expected.

 

This would argue for the convergence being a function of the role selected when choosing the load out (ground attack = pattern 1, intercept = pattern 2), not for a slider that people can set as they see fit.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not explicit, but by reading you can feeel it was common. But we could discuss about that long time without agree with each other. So let's not get stuck on this.

 

I got answer on P47 toppic (create this one to stop talking on the plane one but it didn't work well ^^)

 

As I said there, I agree with the idea to have a preset list. But who could say which preset we will add in game ? We will not have all as it is impossible to find them all. That's why I think the best way is to have for each pilot the possibility to set up personalised settings. But then, the mission maker would have the possibility to lock or not this feature. This mean to unlock it to let player use their setting or to lock it and choose in a list of preset for the plane he set on the map.

 

This would still not be 100% perfect but I really think this would be the better way to simulate this feature. As you could tell in a serie of missions:

"No aces in first mission, so no personnalised settings".

Then in the 4th mission :

"You two have become aces, you get some kills, you earn the possibility to fly with personnal convergence but not the other".

 

You will tell me it's the unlock system you talk about before. The difference there is that it's not the game that choose it but the mission maker. This is a big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't have the possibility to give you the exact source. But member of my virtual squadron who had the possibility to ask to a old ground crew in the French Air Force had the following answer.

 

"It was common and it upset us as it was boring to do. But we had to do it.

 

As the planes get more and more modernised it was less and less common. We do it usually when on F4U Corsair. but with jet plane, it became rare that pilot ask us for it."

 

(I translated it as best as possible).

 

The guy was working in the French Air Force Navy after the War. At this time there was still some warebird in use. The F4U was in use in French Marine. He is no more active in the Army as you can imagine but still come at airport as plane are his passion.

 

==> Could be interresting to ask to ground crew from war and the period after when warbirds were still in use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
What is the current convergence (if any) in DCS WW2 planes?

 

Direct question at ED:

 

Could we have any official word on this? Since we do have to wait to get options to change this, it would be a pleasure to know what ranges the guns are harmonized at actually. Couldn't find any hard data except for some IIRCs that I won't take into account thoroughly.

dcsdashie-hb-ed.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have enough time to read through all of this info right now, so sorry if I post something that was already said.

 

 

However I did some research a while ago on how gun harmonization was performed in the RAF during the Battle of Brittain and found this intresting article:

https://www.kenleyrevival.org/content/history/faces-of-kenley/ground-crew-raf-kenley#section1

 

 

In short, the harmonization was performed at the airfileld, but the guns weren't fired. Instead they inserted a small periscope-like device into the breach of the gun and adjusted the angle to aim the gun at the specific plate on a pre-calculated board placed 50 yards in front of the aircraft.

 

 

 

Here is a picture of the harmonizing unit:

 

 

4260096049_cfb6598025_b.jpg

 

 

 

 

Here's a picture of the board:

Royal_Air_Force_Fighter_Command%2C_1939-1945._CH18605.jpg

 

 

The disc in the middle is most likely to calibrate the gunsight and the one just below it on the left is for the camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...