Minimum convergence?

I am a natural close shooter - I cannot do differently. I would therefore like to reduce my convergence below 100m but it is not possible ingame. Is there proof that going below 100m was impossible? Otherwise I would like to add this to the bugtracker (I think Hartmann always shot from very close range and I guess he has set his convergence accordingly).

[TomcatViP]

the 109 had nose mounted armament beginning from the F series. A huge advantage when you are firing at close range.

We hve alrdy discussed this point. The two points limiting your min conv range are the wing's guns max permissible travel range (we are in the +-5° range) and the prop diameter in the most extreme case.

In more accurate sim than old IL2 regarding History, I took the habits to aim with only one wing flying my Spit IX really close to my enmy's rear. It worked great with 20 + 12.7mm.

So what would be the minimum convergence from historical pov?

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

There's no proof at all...Pete Brothers of 32 Squadroom fame,was using 50 yards convergence on his Hurricane,although much poo pooed by the British authorities he proved that the closer you could get,the better the chance you'd have of destroying the enemy.

Erich Hartman the German ace also proved this point,when he said,that when his enemy filled his windscreen he would shoot,and by using ths tactic they would go down every time.

This said we should be able to lessen the convergence to less than the game allows which I believe is 100 meters,come on devs get it sorted.

I'll add it then to the bug tracker ...

[Blackdog_kt]

In a plane with wing mounted guns there are limits to how close you can set your convergence.

We would have to know the dimensions of gun bays in each fighter and the dimensions of the guns to know if the gun is even able to be turned that far inwards to close the convergence. And that's assuming the rounds don't go through the prop disc.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done because i frankly don't know, i'm just making an educated guess that settings to the effect of 50 meters or below were impossible, due to the above reasons.
Whatever the case, it's a far cry from simply asking the devs for settings below 100 meters. It needs some research first and it's individual for every aircraft.

The reason Hartman could shoot from so close is that he flew a fighter with nose mounted guns. In that case, even if the gun convergence settings are limited by the size of gun vs size of gun bay, there are two significant advantages:

1) There is synchronizing gear, so shooting through the prop is not an issue.

2) You can set your guns for 400meters and still shoot at point blank range. Just aim lower than the target (use the upper part of your revi to line up the target, instead of the crosshairs).

[bongodriver]

Maybe it can be edited in an .ini file?

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

1) There is synchronizing gear, so shooting through the prop is not an issue.

On a 109 is shoots through the prop spinner not the prop...

I concur with your general point blackdog but it is sufficient to do some basic calculations to understand that passing from 100m to 50m is by no means a drastic change in terms of gun mount.

The following table shows the angle of the gun to point to a convergence to 100m or 50m for three positions on the wing:


ANGLE WRT LATERAL AXIS (90° pointing straight forward):

Distance of gun from sym. plane
Conv. | 2m | 5m | 10m
======================
100m | 89° | 87° | 84°
________________________
50 m | 87° | 83° | 78°

So if one would mount the gun on the wingtip of the 109 (about 5m distance from symmetrical plane) the difference would be a merely 4° while the gun is rather at 2m or even less where the difference is only 2° and below.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

On a 109 is shoots through the prop spinner not the prop...

Not for the 7.92mm.