PDA

View Full Version : .50's and convergance



BrotherVoodoo
07-04-2007, 08:48 AM
Top of the morning to you all and happy 4th of July! I have a quick question. I am curious at what convergance the American .50's are most effective. Does anyone have any thoughts? I have been using anywhere from 150 to 250 convergance as I like to be close and I know of folks that pump it up to 350 or more. Thanks guys.

na85
07-04-2007, 10:24 AM
AFAIK it doesn't really matter what your convergence is (within reason) as long as you fire when the enemy plane is at that range.

TgD Thunderbolt56
07-04-2007, 10:31 AM
Yep, depends on your flying/fighting style more than what is 'best'. For me, I'm one of those guys that likes my convergence out there a little farther than most. In a P-47 with 2 banks of four guns, I use 350 and 400 respectively.


TB

BrotherVoodoo
07-04-2007, 10:33 AM
Thanks for the input guys. I was hoping there was a sweet spot for this type of gun but it sounds more like a personal preferance at this point.

DKoor
07-04-2007, 10:49 AM
If you make sure that you hit, you'll turn EA into PoS with one short burst only.
That goes for the most durable FW-190 too.

BrotherVoodoo
07-04-2007, 01:21 PM
If you make sure that you hit, you'll turn EA into PoS with one short burst only.
Are saying the same burst of bullets would be just as effective at any given convergance so long as they hit? It would seem to me like more ammo would be needed on a 400 convergance than on a 150 convergance because of the loss of energy of the bullet traveling a farther distance. Am I thinking wrong on that?

Hawgdog
07-04-2007, 01:45 PM
For me, any AND all MG planes whether they be 50's, 30's or 8mm's or whatever, I tighten the convergance up to 100, or 110.
And wait, wait well beyond what you want. Wait until you can get the whole plane in your sights and let 'er rip.
I blew up several planes finally with the .50's, ask around LOL

DKoor
07-04-2007, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by BrotherVoodoo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you make sure that you hit, you'll turn EA into PoS with one short burst only.
Are saying the same burst of bullets would be just as effective at any given convergance so long as they hit? It would seem to me like more ammo would be needed on a 400 convergance than on a 150 convergance because of the loss of energy of the bullet traveling a farther distance. Am I thinking wrong on that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No.... that's right.
Even if you aim perfectly you'll lose more bullets when shooting from 400m, you wont be as precise as with 180m for example.

Reason being that the bullets have a little vertical dispersion too, although Oleg 'fixed' that, so called "shotgun effect" l0ng time ago.
The most precise would of course be 100m, by the rule "the less is the better".

If you take into consideration that kinetic energy counts, it is quite clear that you need to lower your convergence because shooting from 500m (for example) should be performed rarely.

Generally speaking conv in ranges 175-275 makes wonders because .50cal is really powerful at those ranges.

I'm not kidding about .50cal power if you like give me a PM I'll send you a track with several 190 vs 51 online clashes. 190 is perhaps the most durable (tough DM) fighter you'll ever encounter with 51.
Still reduced to junk with a short .50cal burst.

BrotherVoodoo
07-04-2007, 02:05 PM
Thanks for the further clarification guys. I think I will hone my guns into the 185 range and practice getting in close.
DKoor, PM sent Sir, thanks for the tracks in advance.

zardozid
07-04-2007, 02:06 PM
in "real life" the browning 50 cal had a maximum effective range of 1800 meters. I doubt that the difference of 300 meters made that big a difference at a close range.
maybe this helps?

BrotherVoodoo
07-04-2007, 02:18 PM
in "real life" the browning 50 cal had a maximum effective range of 1800 meters.

rgrt, it does help. I will install the Hardball AC view and see what the game models the 50 cal at.

VW-IceFire
07-04-2007, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by zardozid:
in "real life" the browning 50 cal had a maximum effective range of 1800 meters. I doubt that the difference of 300 meters made that big a difference at a close range.
maybe this helps?
1800 meters I think is the value given for personnel targets. If I remember correctly a P-38 scored the longest range kill at something like 1200 yards which is something like 1000 meters. I'd say thats damn lucky at that range. Maybe even thats exaggerated.

Convergence is a personal thing but convergence at 400 meters will definitely be less effective in a significant way than convergence at say 150 meters. The closer you can get the better for all sorts of different reasons.

DKoor
07-04-2007, 03:44 PM
I agree with IceFire.... thing is that ww2 ac, as slow as they may seem in todays aerial combat, are still very fast moving objects and as such, are VERY hard to hit at all let alone from range.

Only the good pilots in ww2 were able to perform demanding deflection shots...... perhaps partially because of the fact that they didn't have, for example, the much training as we do.

We can practice for hours shooting at 'real' targets unlike them.

When one think about it...... all that they knew is from the books and what experienced pilots told/teach them because, hm....... I suppose that they could not shoot at their comrades performing as living targets to practice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Sure thing you can tow a target for them, but we all know that is not the same thing as shooting at fast maneuverable fighter.

So.......... it is quite probable thing that you would miss when shooting at evading target from 400m even in this game let alone real life.

"All sorts of different reasons" like IceFire says - for instance it's very hard to determine where your target will be if he is at considerable distance so you can hit him.
When he is close bullet speed doesn't allow him to 'escape' eg. bullet will catch up with the target extremely fast so sometimes it is possible to shoot while aiming directly at target.

zardozid
07-04-2007, 04:08 PM
1800 meters I think is the value given for personnel targets. If I remember correctly a P-38 scored the longest range kill at something like 1200 yards which is something like 1000 meters. I'd say thats damn lucky at that range. Maybe even thats exaggerated.


i think its effective destructive velocity. (for how much range is the velocity of the projectile maintaining an effective destructive capability)

horseback
07-04-2007, 05:03 PM
PoS Piece of Swiss (cheese)?

The USN's suggested convergence range was 1000 feet, or bit under 300m, for its fighters. Most Naval aviators (including those in the USMC) used this as a rule of thumb, and enjoyed a reasonable degree of success.

The USAAF in the Med and ETO had pilots using convergences as short as 150 yards and as great as 400 yards. The main consideration you need to make is how long you expect to be able to stay at your approximate convergence range.

Wing mounted guns (and sights) were toed in to hit a predictable point ahead and level with the line of flight, which means that the flight of the bullet of the guns from the two wings would create a group of 'Xs' when viewed from overhead, all converginging at the point covered by the sight's "pipper".

The shorter your convergence setting, the squattier your 'X' is, and the shorter the area of lethality (that is, the range at which my P-40, Mustang or Jug's guns would at least be hitting both wing roots of a 109 or 190 if I have my pipper centered on it from a dead six) of your guns before your bullets diverge from each other. On the plus side, anything caught at the center of that 'X' is toast.

The longer your convergence, the narrower your 'X' is, and the longer your bullets are close to converging, and the longer your cone of lethality. On the other side of the coin, though, is the fact that the target is smaller and harder to hit the farther away it is, and your bullets' hitting power diminishes a bit as range increases.

I did a little math a couple of years ago, and determined that if I set my convergence at 200m, my zone of lethality reaches from 100m to 300m. If I wiggle my rudder a bit, I can center the target fuselage under the two to four heavy machine guns on one wing. Those wing guns were less than 12 inches apart, and their bullets' flights were roughly parallel.

Catching most aircraft with a closely bunched burst (especially at convergence) will do Bad Things to them.

cheers

horseback

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-04-2007, 05:54 PM
200 for both cannons and guns...be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Happy 4th!!

crazyivan1970
07-04-2007, 06:06 PM
i have 100 inner guns, 120 outer for all planes, except for ground attack....then it`s 300 inner and 400 outer.

BrotherVoodoo
07-04-2007, 06:31 PM
I did a little math a couple of years ago, and determined that if I set my convergence at 200m, my zone of lethality reaches from 100m to 300m.

I like your cone of leathality theory here horseback. I will do some testing with it in some quick missions.

"i have 100 inner guns, 120 outer for all planes, except for ground attack....then it`s 300 inner and 400 outer."

I have both guns set to my trigger. I can see the benifit of separating the guns types with different convergance, I'll play with that too. Are the inner guns the primary fire command or secondary?
Thanks for all of the great reponses gents!

tigertalon
07-04-2007, 07:48 PM
I use 120 or maybe 150 meters on all .50 cal equipped planes. On P47 I use 120/180 or even 100/150 for the two banks respectively.

If bombers are most probable target, then add 100 meters.

M_Gunz
07-04-2007, 09:37 PM
There's not a lot on your average WWII fighter that stops shots and leaves the target still
able to maintain a fight. Engines stop shots but tend to have problems rather soon.
Landing gear in IL2 also stop shots.
And then there's seat armor and armor glass.
And if you avoid the need to go through that seat or glass or engine then 100-200m longer range
is not going lessen the effect on the pilot much at all.

Divine-Wind
07-04-2007, 10:25 PM
Just for clarification... Can you adjust the convergence for the 2 gun banks on the Thunderbolt independently of each other? (I.e., on uses MG and the other uses Cannon)

M_Gunz
07-04-2007, 10:43 PM
yes

GH_Klingstroem
07-04-2007, 11:57 PM
Intresting how people want the "point convergence" instead of "box convergence" (shotgun effect) but then set inner and outer MGs to convergerge att different distances. In effect what that does is to give a wider spread!

I personally would like to see something in between what we have now and the shot gun spread we had before!
Remember that this was change long time ago when people were complaing about the .50s back in 2004.
Now a days the single 0.50 round is effective enough and should be changed back to a bigger spread as used in real life!!
Try the p39 (1942) model. That thing has got the perfect MG spread! I tad bigger than the p51 and it does wonders when it comes to hitting ut target! Those 4 MGs on the p39 hit the target ALOT more than the 4 MGS on the p51B/C for example.

R_Target
07-05-2007, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Now a days the single 0.50 round is effective enough and should be changed back to a bigger spread as used in real life!!


A larger spread was not always the case. Many USN planes with 6 x.50 were set to point convergence.

tigertalon
07-05-2007, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Try the p39 (1942) model. That thing has got the perfect MG spread! I tad bigger than the p51 and it does wonders when it comes to hitting ut target! Those 4 MGs on the p39 hit the target ALOT more than the 4 MGS on the p51B/C for example.

Isn't that again more due to the issue of stability of a plane as a gun platform in tight turns and the fact that two of the guns on P39 are nose mounted (and thus have "convergence" at all distances)? Maybe P38 .50cals are hitting even harder than the ones on P39 for same two reasons...

GH_Klingstroem
07-05-2007, 09:06 AM
A larger spread was not always the case. Many USN planes with 6 x.50 were set to point convergence.

Very true but most of them still had the box spread since hitting ur target otherwise became to difficult. Point convergence was considered too difficult for the average pilot and was used by a few aces. Considering that we in game have almost invisible tracers for the 0.50s I would personally go back to more of a box conrvergence. Even Oleg stated that changing to point convergence was unrealistic!

Tigertalon wrote :

Isn't that again more due to the issue of stability of a plane as a gun platform in tight turns and the fact that two of the guns on P39 are nose mounted (and thus have "convergence" at all distances)? Maybe P38 .50cals are hitting even harder than the ones on P39 for same two reasons...


I dont find the p39 to me more stable than a trimmed P51 however if you dont belive me about the p39, take the spit instead and use the 4 MGs only and STILL see a ENORMOUS difference in bullets hitting its targets at all distances, no matter what the convergence is set to. The reason is that the spit still has box convergence and not point convergence. The p51 and certainly the p47 should have more box convergence than it does now and people would stop saying that they cant kill with the 0.50s.

As said before most comitted p47 pilots set their inner and outer MGs to different convergence to get a wider spread after they realised that they hit more that way.
Jug pilots should try the 1938 hurricane and see what 8 MGs can do with a slighter wider spread. It would be devastating!!! Even more than now!

PBNA-Boosher
07-05-2007, 09:11 AM
I just wrote this post, maybe it'll help some.

1. Despite convergence settings, distance, the penetration ability of the .50 cal and it's AP rounds, etc... an airplane is mostly hollow. Underneath the skin of the plane are a few struts, some components, but it's a lot of air and open space. It's the same on any plane; my best example probably being the B-36 Peacemaker, where aircrew could comfortably climb inside the wings in order to service the engines in flight.That being said, the skin on most aircraft is also pretty thin. Basically, most bullets will just go in and out and leave little or no damage but a small entry hole and a slightly larger exit hole. They may bend up the struts here or there, but a single bullet, let alone 15, might barely do any damage at all unless it hits a critical point. Personally I find this rather believable. A .50 cal to the engine block in a plane may not even stop a plane, especially not a radial engine. An inline engine like the Daimler Benz in the 109, however, is very susceptible to it, which brings us to my next point.

2. No matter what warplane you're flying, be it armed with cannon, MG's, or bayonet mounted to the prop spinner, the plane you're attacking won't go down unless you force it out of action. The best way to do this is to concentrate your fire. By attempting to put all your fire into the same area you will effectively cripple the plane by slowing it down immensely, hitting the pilot, destroying control cables, or impairing lift so severely that the pilot has trouble controlling the aircraft. Where to concentrate you're fire's pretty simple. If you're at a dead six or slightly off it, aim for the fuselage, if you're coming from above or below, aim for the wings. Don't aim during high G maneuvers. If this was real life I'd tell you that it increases the probability of jamming your guns. In game, however, it wastes ammo most of the time. Deflection is a different matter. If you can hit at extreme deflection, do it. In high G maneuvers just concentrate on staying with your target. Essentially, aim for the biggest target your enemy gives you. Don't go for the hotshot targets like the engine or the pilot. Aim where you can get the most hits with the least amount of fire, because my next point is a big one.

3. During WW2 most pilots who flew planes with wing gun armaments were really good if they could hit their target even 15% of the time. That means if they sprayed their target at their utmost accuracy, 15 out of 100 bullets would most likely hit. Compare this with the fact that airplanes are mostly hollow and we all get the idea that 15 bullets may not be enough. Even directly behind the Enemy at 100 meters, you'll still probably only get a 15% hit rate. This makes convergence even more important, as well as your volume of fire. Don't expect to kill an armored aircraft that quickly. Don't expect 15 bullets out of 100 to rip off wings. It may start a fire. It may stop the engine. It may kill the pilot. But unless all 15 of those bullets hit the wing root and weaken the airframe enough, the wing will only come off in a high stress maneuver. 15% is a number you're going to have to learn to deal with. Wing gunnery isn't as foolproof as nose gunnery. It spreads the bullets in a nice shotgun pattern. They don't have the accuracy of a man with a single MG who might be able to put a single bullet into a target at 600 yards. This is why convergence is important. It's to get the most bullets onto the biggest target your enemy gives you while at your desired firing range.

4. Online, of course, there is always the issue of lag. I mention this last because it is not an effective gunnery technique, but a warning. Bullets in this game travel via packets. If you have a high ping or a ping spike, some packets never reach their destination. It is entirely possible that your .50's could have been dead on target, but high ping made it impossible for your packets to reach the server. Therefore, according to the server, you did not hit the target. It's a source of frustration online, I know. Where a single 20mm cannon shell can wreak havoc, a single .50 cal bullet may just pass through without much damage. Therefore, if you're in a high pinged server or fighting against someone with a high ping, warping isn't the only issue. Be aware that the packets containing your bullets may never make it over the internet highway.

If anyone would like, I've also recorded a track of myself flying a P-51B in a setup with 2 friendly 190's and 109's. I approach dead six at 100 meters and get effective kills on all of them with very quick 1/4 second bursts. After I cripple all the aircraft or force them down, I expend all my ammunition to show you how many other kills it is possible to make if you save your ammo and use it at convergence range only. There is a lot of power behind that round in game. Only a few days ago while flying a P-40C I put a 1/4 second burst with only my .50's into a Cr.42 at 100 meters. It promptly blew up in my face and took me out with it. With my experience I can't believe the .50 is weak, and it's my main armament. If you would like to see the track, please e-mail me at boosh at kbuch dot com. I hope this helped you all a little, and good luck with those .50's!

Matz0r
07-05-2007, 09:18 AM
4. Online, of course, there is always the issue of lag. I mention this last because it is not an effective gunnery technique, but a warning. Bullets in this game travel via packets. If you have a high ping or a ping spike, some packets never reach their destination.

I have to disagree with you, since all hit calculations are done on the client computer, a bullet never leaves the firing planes computer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If hit calculations were server based we would have to lead our target with both lag and target speeds and because of the speeds planes can meet at you'd have to be a psychic to hit anything but from the dead six. It is also possible to hit a plane that's lagged out, I've done this many times online when an enemy plane has warped by me sideways and if I manage to fill the lagged out target with bullets they will be destroyed/damaged when they come back.

On .50 cal convergence, I'd like to have 100 meters set but since you don't always get a perfect solution 150 meters is a tradeoff for me, 125 on a map with slower planes like buffalo or wildcat.

GH_Klingstroem
07-05-2007, 10:35 AM
I see what u mean! I dont think the .50s are weak at all! Far from it!!

I just think that we need a tad better spread than we have now! Check warclouds stats on the p51D20. I am among the top 3 when it comes to hit% (f16_Kling) and I am at poor 6.18% now. With point convergence u will seldom hit ur target but when u do, u will cause lots of damage. I believe that a bigger spread would cripple alot more targets and then make them easy meat so you would win in the long run.

Nothing wrong with the .50 round at all! its just that it is very very hard to hit with it as it is now!

faustnik
07-05-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Nothing wrong with the .50 round at all! its just that it is very very hard to hit with it as it is now!

.50s were much easier to work with before dispersion was "fixed".

M_Gunz
07-05-2007, 11:08 AM
.50s were much easier to work with before dispersion was "fixed".

Only within about 200m for me which really killed BnZ. I shoot from deflection and high
speed, at 200m I am just about to turn to avoid collision and not able to just begin
shooting. There was also no way outside 50m to bring a large amount of shots to one place
and not scattered widely over many DM pieces.

faustnik
07-05-2007, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
.50s were much easier to work with before dispersion was "fixed".

Only within about 200m for me which really killed BnZ. I shoot from deflection and high
speed, at 200m I am just about to turn to avoid collision and not able to just begin
shooting. There was also no way outside 50m to bring a large amount of shots to one place
and not scattered widely over many DM pieces.

I hear what you are saying, and it makes sense. Before the "fix" we flew M2 armed a/c in team COOPs and did very well by knocking the LW out of the fight early with the old .50 shotguns. Both Bf109s and Fw190s can suffer severe performance degredation with only a few .50 hits. I'm should say that, given those conditions, it seems more difficult to achieve the same results now.

tigertalon
07-05-2007, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Nothing wrong with the .50 round at all!

... apart from the lack of incendiary rounds that is. (by which I do not imply .50s are weak)

BrotherVoodoo
07-05-2007, 11:36 AM
Nice write up Boosher, I enjoyed it. If you don't mind sending me those tracks I would appreciate watching them. I'll send you a PM Sir.
Great information everyone, I am gaining some great pearls of knowledge. Thanks!

GH_Klingstroem
07-05-2007, 11:41 AM
200m is pretty much when a 109 or a 190s wingtips will be exactly touching the circle in the gunsight so thats what I have set for convergence. However I find deflection shots MUCH easier with a wider spread.
However I personally cant remember the 0.50s ever having a shotgun effect since I used to fly only on blue side those days..
I only know that the way it is now is way too concentrated. Maybe the best would be half way between what it was and what it is now!

Bearcat99
07-05-2007, 12:50 PM
It is also better to set your convergence to a wider spread if you are ground pounding.

Interestinly enough I heard John Oliphant.. a P-47 pilot say that they used to set eacn bank of guns differently.. and they could not only set convergence in and out but also up and down. So the outer guns might be say @say 300 yds slightly up... the next inward bank at say @300yds and slightly down, the next bank @295 yds slightly in and thenext bank @295 slightly out......

Blutarski2004
07-05-2007, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Nothing wrong with the .50 round at all! its just that it is very very hard to hit with it as it is now!

.50s were much easier to work with before dispersion was "fixed". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You guys must not remember what the original IL2 50cal "dispersion" was like back in the old days. What we had back then was not pattern harmonization; it was a "lawn sprinkler" with a gigantic dispersion and a completely random distribution of bullet strikes within the entire disc. Everyone then was complaining that they could not shoot anything down.

Unfortunately, the IL2 game engine does not support vertical and horizontal adjustment of individual guns which would permit the player to develop his own pattern. If you want to approximate pattern harmonization set different convergence ranges for the two sets of P47 guns - say, the inner pairs for 150 yds and the outer pairs for 450 yds - and you should get a pretty good bullet pattern from 100 yds out to 300 yds. On other US fighters, whose gun batteries cannot be split, a 300 yd convergence will get you a decent pattern between 100 and 200 yds range; a 400 yd convergence will make a good pattern between 150 and 250 yds.

If you are shooting at 50 yds range, no convergence of any sort will produce a a good pattern in either real life or in IL2 life; that's the basic nature of wing mounted guns.

Blutarski2004
07-05-2007, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
It is also better to set your convergence to a wider spread if you are ground pounding.

Interestinly enough I heard John Oliphant.. a P-47 pilot say that they used to set eacn bank of guns differently.. and they could not only set convergence in and out but also up and down. So the outer guns might be say @say 300 yds slightly up... the next inward bank at say @300yds and slightly down, the next bank @295 yds slightly in and thenext bank @295 slightly out......


..... Hi BC. In the real world, each gun could normally be adjusted both horizontally and vertically to produce various convergences and patterns at various ranges. Vertical adjustment was necessary to ensure that the pattern was centered upon th pilot's line of sight/aim at the desired range.

Re 50cal patterns, my fighter gunnery manual shows an interesting for a six gun fighter; think of a hexagon with one 50cal hitting at each corner and the distance between corners such that all the individual gun dispersion circles touch or overlap at the center of the hexagon. That would give a pattern approx 12 ft wide by 8 ft high at the specified range.

BrotherVoodoo
07-05-2007, 06:08 PM
I can see by the varied responses that the topic of convergance really is a feel thing with some logic thrown in. I will play with various convergance settings and firing distances and see which combination fits my style the best. Thanks so much for everyones particapation in this discussion.
=SALUTE=

M_Gunz
07-05-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
It is also better to set your convergence to a wider spread if you are ground pounding.

Strafing ground you have sights set up for target at same speed and direction as you but
ground target is not. You fire at longer range depending on speed to hit at convergence.

At 360kph you move 100m/s. That is also speed of target in relation to you. If your
shots would take 2/10 second to reach convergence then ground target converge is 20m more.
Figure a half second or so to 500m depending on 36" or 45" barrel. I get about 1300ft in
.5 secs just averaging from the previously posted .50 cal armor penetration chart. That
would make 500m convergence allow you to shoot from 560+m at 360kph attack speed... but
still shoot a bit low because you are also firing downhill so your shots will go high
depending on how steep you aim.

LStarosta
07-05-2007, 09:45 PM
I have my convergence on a slider.

VW-IceFire
07-05-2007, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by BrotherVoodoo:
I can see by the varied responses that the topic of convergance really is a feel thing with some logic thrown in. I will play with various convergance settings and firing distances and see which combination fits my style the best. Thanks so much for everyones particapation in this discussion.
=SALUTE=
Yep I think you've got it. Glad we could help!

BrotherVoodoo
07-05-2007, 10:55 PM
LOL ...on a slider