Improve your aiming/marksman skills

[hegykc]

So what does the game use for distance? meters?

[klem]

Originally Posted by hegykc

So what does the game use for distance? meters?

Metres.

I set my RAF sights to 200 yards (183m in the guns setting page). I set that as both horizontal and vertical convergence for point harmonisation of all guns at 200yds (183m).

If I miss, I miss. But you get a close scatter within a few feet up to about 50yds either side of harmonisation and it seems quite effective against bombers if not those pesky tungsten armoured 109s

I have a ballistics spreadsheet for all the guns in IL-2 '46 somewhere based on RL values but in the end it came down to KISS.

[hegykc]

Here's the "cone of death" for one point convergence vs. the harmonized one:

Preferably pilots who are flying online for a while now, and know their kill ratio and skill level.

[hegykc]

Originally Posted by klem

Metres.
I have a ballistics spreadsheet for all the guns in IL-2 '46 somewhere based on RL values but in the end it came down to KISS.

If you could share those that would be great.

The thing is,

with a "one point" convergence you have 3 possibilities : hit, miss, or hit armor. So you have like 33% chance of doing some damage.
With a harmonized 3-4 times larger pattern in all the 3 possibilities you'll hit something: you either hit and then some, miss but still hit something, or hit armor but also hit something else. So you have "100%" chance of doing some damage.
Even if you don't instantly blow them to pieces they still have a long way home. And even if they get back to base, they're still damaged and out of the war machine.

As you can see on the "death cone", with one point convergence you can waste a whole burst on the back plate armor. While with the harmonization you'll always hit something. And you only need one tank, one oil or gas line, one control cable etc...

How it will transfer into COD, we'll have to test and see.

[klem]

Hi hegykc,

I've found it. Its old but I think its still relevant.

I would call your "cone of death" the "cone of impact", there's no "death" in hitting an empty wingroot and it would be a very lucky hit on a control cable in a fuselage with scattered shots (assuming the DM is that sophisticated).

With point harmonisation you have 2 possibilities, not 3. Hit or Miss. Hitting armour may not be too helpful but it is a Hit. Also, most hits are not from the 6 o'clock position, they are at some angle of deflection varying both horizontally and vertically. I usually try for a deflection shot on the canopy especially as the CoD 109s seem to fly on whether burning or hammered hard. Best way is to kill the pilot and I'll probably rake through the engine as I try. True you only need one or two pilot hits so a scatter can do it but point harmonisation will make sure of it at harmonisation range and against bombers you need concentated fire on engines, wing tanks etc.

By the way, with pure 200yd point harmonisation you get a scatter of about 5 feet (about 1.5m) from 150yds through point harmonisation out to 5 feet at 250 yds so you have the benefits of 'harmonised' setup through that range as you close and get closer.

Its a matter of personal choice but I prefer point harmonisation.

Did you know that the best shots in the RAF (like Sailor Malan) preferred point harmonisation at anything from 150 to 250 yards? A 4 feet square pattern harmonisation at 400yards was the official setting at the beginning of the war until it was changed to point harmonisation at 250 yds during the BoB. The thinking at first was that 4 feet square at 400 yds would give the average pilot a chance of hitting 'something' but it was found to be ineffective at bringing enemy aircraft down. They found that concentrated fire was necessary or too many escaped with only minor damage.

EDIT: In CoD damaged a/c aren't out of the war machine. The pilot just gets a new one.

[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.

[GF_Mastiff]

Thank you just trying to unconfuse the new comers that are coming on line the last few weeks.

Just remember in the GUI ammo load outs the convergence is in meters,

I just rounded to the nearest denominator and made me a spreed shoot,

Heres mine

guns 1/8 is at 299meters which converted in the cockpit is 250yards,

then I just set wingspans for everything else.

1/8 299, 250 yards.. ammo is tracer incendiary(1), armor(2), incendiary(3), armor(2), ....up to five each staggered, tracer is once every 10 rounds. so it's like this 1,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3...

2/7 183, 200 yards, these guns are like this 1,222,333,222,333,222,333...

3/6 174, 190 yards, 1,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3

4/5 163, 180 yards.. 1,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3...

this is very effective against all target I find.

[pstyle]

Right, I have set up my guns to match your 300m convergence suggestion, that is:

Outboard (guns 1 and : 120m vert 300m hor
Guns 2 and 7: 268m and 300m
Guns 3 and 6: 265m and 370m
Inboard (Guns 4 and 5):275m and 342m

I have NOT yet corrected for yards, but I will test at m first, just to see if the difference is noticeable

[klem]

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.