Quote:
Originally Posted by hegykc
Thanks for the file.
Cone of death is an expression I've read. It's not mine, nor describing this pattern as being more deadly.
And I don't won't to re-invent the wheel here. I would gladly calculate the convergences according to official harmonization charts, but I haven't found any for WWII RAF.
Also, US standard is 1000 feet convergence. But when you look at the charts, you see that it's not just one setting.
So I thought it might be a similar setup with the RAF. The .50 caliber being more destructive is a solid point and I agree, you can afford to spread them out.
Wish I had official harmonization charts for RAF.
If you can point me to a quote saying the best shots proffered single point harmonization I would be very interested. And, of course they would, I mean the best shots could do with a single bullet.
This is for the guys that are having trouble hitting their targets.
Also your numbers are a little off. Browning .303 has a 4.2 mill dispersion cone, so at 150 yards you get a 1.9 feet scatter, and at 250 yards a 3.2 feet scatter.
Anyway, it's out. If it fails, there's always tweaking, if that fails, back to default.
|
Well we shouldn't fall out over this but here are a couple of quotes. I've abbreviated some of the following to save space but the message is faithful to the original.
Johnnie Johnson. Top scoring Allied Fighter pilot in western theatre (34 individual victories over enemy aircraft, as well as seven shared victories, three shared probables, 10 damaged, three shared damaged and one destroyed on the ground. All confirmed.)
"The story of air fighting" Chapter 12.
"The average standard of shooting in fighter command was not high, for too little attention had been devoted to gunnery instruction and the kills in many squadrons always fell to the same three or four pilots while the remainder....hosepiped their machine guns from skidding aroplanes..." and so "it was usual for the machine guns to be harmonised to give a fairly large 'shot gun' pattern at the best firing range and this 'area of lethal density'....gave the poor marksman the best chance of destroying his adversary. But although [this] catered for the rank and file it handicapped the better shots .... who sometimes closed to excellent killing range to find the area of lethal density was not particularly lethal because [it] did not give sufficiently heavy concentration of fire... Accordingly the expert shots harmonised their guns to give 'spot' concentration of fire...."
In his own biography WIng Leader" he says "....I veered away when at excellent killing range of 200yds...."
The fact is there was little chance of "destroying his adversary" with the original area of fire at 450 yards and bear in mind that at closer ranges the dispersion was even weaker which is the point JJ makes.
Al Deere (22 destroyed, 10 probables, 18 damaged).
"Nine Lives". Chapter 6.
He quotes
Colin Gray (27 aerial kills, two shared destroyed, six probable kills, with a further four shared probables) who was flying in Al Deere's Squadron at the time and after a sortie over Dunkirk where they felt they had not done as much damage to the enemy as they could have done:-
"It all goes to prove my point. Its absolutely useless having our guns harmonised to produce a rectangular cone of fire at 450 yards as at present. All this guarantees is a few hits by the indifferent shot, the good shot on the other hand is penalised.... We must get point harmonisation at 250 yards or less..." And they did. During the lull between Dunkirk and the opening of the Battle of Britain:- "Sailor Malan... the best shot in fighter command... was adamant [on point harmonisation at 250 yds] and ...Command issued instructions that point harmonisation was to be the standard for all day fighter aircraft..." By the way this change co-incided with the introduction of the De Wilde ammunition.
There are other examples but I have too many books to trawl through
Again, its a matter of personal choice and I suspect you would harmonise at less than 450 yds although your area would appear to be larger than 4 x 4 feet (1.2m x 1.2m).
My spread at roughly +/- 50 yads was considering only the pure boresight angles. As you say, on top of that is the natural dispersion of the rounds caused by ammunition load/quality differences (very minor), mostly vibration of the Brownings and some wing flexing especially in the Spitfire.
It could all be a bit moot though. I don't think the aircraft and damage modelling is sophisticated enough to place each round at a specific component, I imagine there are hit boxes or bubbles, however small, for damage modelling.