Gunnery Fundamental, tips and advice

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Robo.

I fly the RAF fighters with default ammo (for they are historically accurate) and never encountered any of the problems you are describing. If you hit the 109 at convergence range, you will do lots of damage.

I wonder if those pilots had their ammo belts adjusted to their preference load very often back then. Statistically speaking, the Brit guns did very well, but was some tweaking done at times. Or was there a very ridged policy in place?

[Al Schlageter]

RAF pilots did not always fly the same a/c. Did the pilot have his guns adjusted to his convergence preference before every flight?

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

RAF pilots did not always fly the same a/c. Did the pilot have his guns adjusted to his convergence preference before every flight?

Good question, maybe someone will have an answer...I know for certain that the Brit default convergence/load in game is just fine. I think, judging by my own experiences, the problem people have. Is not having the cross hairs square with the target. The more level you can get the hairs to the wings, the greater the hits. In the British aircraft I stopped leaning to the gunsight, because I found the jumping, bouncing a distraction. There is only a few seconds to make the shot, best to use that time to square up the hairs.

[lonewulf]

Could someone please explain the distinction between horizontal and vertical convergence. I really struggle to make any sense of this. In real world terms, how is it possible to set two different values for convergence? What am I missing here?

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

Could someone please explain the distinction between horizontal and vertical convergence. I really struggle to make any sense of this. In real world terms, how is it possible to set two different values for convergence? What am I missing here?

VERTICAL:




HORIZONTAL^

[lonewulf]

I still struggle with this I'm afraid - despite the very interesting diagram. From what I can see from the above, we simply have two different points of convergence with this particular 109, one set for the MG 17s and one for the MG-FFs. The cannon are harmonized to converge at 200m and the MGs at 400m -or so. However, given the different trajectories of the two weapons the cannon convergence occurs well above the line of sight, so if you were aiming at something at 200m you would probably miss with your cannon and with your MGs. At 400m you would get quite a nice group with your MG 17s but your cannon would be way off. So, this brings me back to my original point about horizontal and vertical points of convergence. I don't really see why we would have the option to set both. If I was a WW2 fighter pilot I would expect my weapons to harmonized to climb through or fall through my line of sight at a particular known range, say 300m and in some cases I may set different points of convergence for my MGs and cannon (although I can't imagine why I would do that) - but why would I attempt to alter the vertical convergence? Each weapon can be set differently so presumably it would be possible to have each MG or cannon zeroed in on a different bit of sky, but what historical evidence is there that anyone did this, effectively the opposite approach to weapons harmonization?

[MadBlaster]

it looks to me from that diagram, the 200m horizontal setting for the cannons is too far? the vertical intersect and los per diagram is guesstimate at 150m. so if you want to use the pip, i think you would back down the horizontal setting of the cannon ammo to same (i.e., 150m). so its a matter of adjusting the convergences to the aero properties of the ammo if you want to use the pip, i guess.

[SlipBall]

Just think of the vertical setting as a necessity to achieve the down range distance. No different than your target rifle that you set the rear sight, so as to hit the bulls eye at a known distance. Heavy bullets needing more height setting than lighter ones, but I may be wrong in my understanding of this.

[lonewulf]

Well no, that doesn't work for me at all.

If I am sighting in a rifle I will adjust the sight so that the reticule in the scope or the foresight on the rifle aligns with the group I have fired on the target, which I will have set up at a known range, say 100m. If I want to hit my target at ranges between say 50 and 250m, I'll probably adjust my sights so the group I have fired sits an inch or so above my aiming point. This compensates for the trajectory of the rifle and ensures that my shots stay within the vitals of a deer sized target at extended range.

This could be done in the sim by having a horizontal convergence point and then incorporating about .5m of vertical convergence to increase the range at which the selected horizontal convergence point will be effective. In other words, although 300m has been selected as a convergence point, an aircraft engaged at 350m should also be hit with a dead-on 6 o'clock hold. However, as this vertical value is not going to be much more than a meter or so (if that), this doesn't appear to be what is envisaged. With the sim, all I should have to do is to elect a point along my line of sight (as seen through my reflector sight) as my convergence point. Lets say that's 300m. At that range the projectiles from my MGs and cannon will pass through my line of sight as they climb along their respective trajectories and then drop back down and pass through my line of sight at the designated convergence point. If I select 300m for both MGs and cannon the points where the projectiles first pass through my line of sight will differ but the convergence point will nevertheless remain the same.

So assuming all of the above is correct, what is the point of the separate vertical convergence value in the sim??