[RRuger]

That was just a simple comparison "Moggy" not for any other propose but to show the differences of what I hunt elk with and what the Brits hunted Huns with. If by chance the 300WM was available during the war it certainly would have been a better choice of ammunition, for sure. I'm sure that you are no more of an expert on ballistics than myself and no one here can say for sure what would have been better to use at the time. This is not your thread anyway and it was originally posted not about what happened in real life but one person observances of the lacks of the .303 against the Betty bomber, move on...

[Trooper117]

The fact still remains that pilots soon changed convergence settings and tactics to overcome the firepower issue and old stale doctrine.
A glance at the official records to show that many Luftwaffe formations were being decimated by a combination of the changes above speaks volumes by any standard.
As to the Betty v the .303 calibre round?
A high 10 or 2 oclock approach with either cockpit or wingroot as your aiming point usualy does it for me! :mrgreen:

[P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole]

That was just a simple comparison Moggy not for any other propose but to show the differences of what I hunt elk with and what the Brits hunted Huns with. If by chance the 300WM was available during the war it certainly would have been a better choice of ammunition, for sure. I'm sure that you are no more of an expert on ballistics than myself and no one here can say for sure what would have been better to use at the time. This is not your thread anyway and it was originally posted not about what happened in real life but one person observances of the lacks of the .303 against the Betty bomber, move on...

rightyo then! So we were right to move back OT!

[AJD-NZ]

The fact still remains that pilots soon changed convergence settings and tactics to overcome the firepower issue and old stale doctrine.
A glance at the official records to show that many Luftwaffe formations were being decimated by a combination of the changes above speaks volumes by any standard.
As to the Betty v the .303 calibre round?
A high 10 or 2 oclock approach with either cockpit or wingroot as your aiming point usualy does it for me! :mrgreen:

I agree with trooper, zoom & boom works with bombers, because its hard for the gunners to get a bead on you. Chasing a bomber in level flight, is at best risky, but usually suicidal, because thats where most of the guns are facing. In the screenshots I posted on the first page, it might look like I'm following the bombers at first glance. But I'm actually pulling up after diving down, you can see the smoke trails above the Hurricane. :wink:

[caldrail]

What is forgotten here is that the .303 round was a standard ammunition inherited by the RAF from the edwardian era, during which the Lee-Enfiields became the standard infantry rifle and the MG's using that round did so for logistical reasons.

Weight of fire is the essential issue here. A burst of gunfire delivers a certain number of bullets of a given energy. The bullets do not fly straight. Wind, gravity, the motion of the firing aeroplane (have I forgotten anything else?) all affect the course the bullet takes.

Now there's a couple of posts above where it's suggested that you focus your weight of fire for 100-200m. Thats ok, it will work, provided you get close, otherwise your weight of fire is spread out just like everyone elses. Now ace pilots often said that a fighter pilot should get in close bwefore opening fire. One german WW2 pilot suggested you should 'smell' your enemy (He meant burnt oil!) before firing. Again, this is true, it is more effective to fire close up with guns focused at that range.

Not everyone can get that close. The range suggested by the RAF (400m) was chosen for a reason. They thought that was the average distance a fighter pilot opens fire at, or at least a compensation factor for the inevitable 'weakening' of fire at longer ranges as bullets diverge. In other words, they were attempting to make the effect of their guns equal over all the ranges the pilots were likely to shoot at.

Therefore the harmonisation at 100-200m is very effective but only effective at that range. It's a specialisation, a perfect setting, which isn't as adaptable for the simple reason a pilot must close to that range or suffer weak fire as a result. The RAF weren't concerned with individual preferences. As with any military organisation, it did tend to dictate what was best to its pilots. This is something that our virtual pilots don't realise - just hiow spoiled they are. All their aircraft are flying exactly the same as another of that type, they can set which armament and harmonisatiion they want, and fly missions as they please.

What we don't see is variety of aircraft performance and handling, something that comes across from period accounts as very important. We don't read of pilots setting their guns to whatever focus they thought was best. Of course they didn't. The mechanics set that if they had the time. usually, an RAF pilot was too busy to worry about technical details. He had a mission to fly, an aircraft assigned, and let's just hope the mechanics have done a good job.

[Trooper117]

I think if you were to say to the likes of Bader and Milan, Tuck and many others, don't worry about convergence sir, Flight will just follow doctrine and set it to the official convergence as required by regulations, well, you'd have the biggest rocket up your arse you could ever imagine!
These people ensured that new changes were implimented because their pilots lives were at stake, let alone the need to absolutely make sure because if they didn't, those people with black crosses on their aircraft would win the battle with the possible outcome of invasion!
You just have to read a few biographies and unit histories to realise that this was a time of major change in the RAF, that was being led by influential pilots that were doing the fighting.. just read Paul Ritchie's book for instance that clearly shows that pilots were making changes to their airframes and armaments that were clearly forbidden by higher formation, but they did them anyway, as they were the people fighting and dying, and not the desk wallahs in Whitehall flying bleedin desks.. and this was in France, early on in the war before the Battle of Britain!

[P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole]

I think if you were to say to the likes of Bader and Milan, Tuck and many others, don't worry about convergence sir, Flight will just follow doctrine and set it to the official convergence as required by regulations, well, you'd have the biggest rocket up your arse you could ever imagine!
These people ensured that new changes were implimented because their pilots lives were at stake, let alone the need to absolutely make sure because if they didn't, those people with black crosses on their aircraft would win the battle with the possible outcome of invasion!
You just have to read a few biographies and unit histories to realise that this was a time of major change in the RAF, that was being led by influential pilots that were doing the fighting.. just read Paul Ritchie's book for instance that clearly shows that pilots were making changes to their airframes and armaments that were clearly forbidden by higher formation, but they did them anyway, as they were the people fighting and dying, and not the desk wallahs in Whitehall flying bleedin desks.. and this was in France, early on in the war before the Battle of Britain!

not sure about the rest, but i'm fairly sure Bader was one of the 8x .303's strongest advocates, and who probably kept them in use a little after cannon should have been implemented. That i read in a really interesting debate on the RAF on the British Army Rumour Service.

[AJD-NZ]

What is forgotten here is that the .303 round was a standard ammunition inherited by the RAF from the edwardian era, during which the Lee-Enfiields became the standard infantry rifle and the MG's using that round did so for logistical reasons.

Weight of fire is the essential issue here. A burst of gunfire delivers a certain number of bullets of a given energy. The bullets do not fly straight. Wind, gravity, the motion of the firing aeroplane (have I forgotten anything else?) all affect the course the bullet takes.

Now there's a couple of posts above where it's suggested that you focus your weight of fire for 100-200m. Thats ok, it will work, provided you get close, otherwise your weight of fire is spread out just like everyone elses. Now ace pilots often said that a fighter pilot should get in close bwefore opening fire. One german WW2 pilot suggested you should 'smell' your enemy (He meant burnt oil!) before firing. Again, this is true, it is more effective to fire close up with guns focused at that range.

Not everyone can get that close. The range suggested by the RAF (400m) was chosen for a reason. They thought that was the average distance a fighter pilot opens fire at, or at least a compensation factor for the inevitable 'weakening' of fire at longer ranges as bullets diverge. In other words, they were attempting to make the effect of their guns equal over all the ranges the pilots were likely to shoot at.

Therefore the harmonisation at 100-200m is very effective but only effective at that range. It's a specialisation, a perfect setting, which isn't as adaptable for the simple reason a pilot must close to that range or suffer weak fire as a result. The RAF weren't concerned with individual preferences. As with any military organisation, it did tend to dictate what was best to its pilots. This is something that our virtual pilots don't realise - just hiow spoiled they are. All their aircraft are flying exactly the same as another of that type, they can set which armament and harmonisatiion they want, and fly missions as they please.

What we don't see is variety of aircraft performance and handling, something that comes across from period accounts as very important. We don't read of pilots setting their guns to whatever focus they thought was best. Of course they didn't. The mechanics set that if they had the time. usually, an RAF pilot was too busy to worry about technical details. He had a mission to fly, an aircraft assigned, and let's just hope the mechanics have done a good job.

I think the gist of your rather lengthy reply, is that you lack one of, or a combination of the following, the courage, experience or tactical nous, to attack bombers. Please don't take these observations as a personal attack, for that is not my intention. They are based on comments such as "Not everyone can get that close" & "That's ok, it will work, provided you get close enough". I could prattle on about the advantages of speed & altitude etc, but the simple fact of the matter is, if you want to shoot down a bomber, you actually have to attack it. At close range it is the velocity, heat & sheer concentration of small calibre bullets that cause the damage. Might I suggest that you practice using QuickMissionBuilder, set your convergence at 150metres(HurricaneIIb), use a flight of Ju52's as targets(easy), start firing at about 200metres & aim for the wing roots or engines.

Now, because I think that talk is cheap & actions speak louder than words, I have uploaded the ntrk, for anyone to download, that I used for the screen shots on the first page. Just to prove that I didn't use photoshop or something similar.
Bear in mind, all I did was, go into QMB & record my attack on 4 Betty's, once, I didn't repeat the exercise & pick the best track. In fact, because I had plenty of ammo left over, I started shooting the crew which had bailed out(as ya do) & collided with one of them :oops: Of course this sort of despicable behaviour is only practiced by someone who is a complete & utter bastard. As I'm sure many of you will point out, especially Trooper117, who I have reason to believe is a paratrooper. :wink: :twisted:

Download the file here AJD-NZ_4Betty's.zip

[caldrail]

I think if you were to say to the likes of Bader and Milan, Tuck and many others, don't worry about convergence sir, Flight will just follow doctrine and set it to the official convergence as required by regulations, well, you'd have the biggest rocket up your arse you could ever imagine!

That's an assumption. More likely they'd have a quiet word with well intended advice if they thought I was wrong. But then... Bader, Milan, amnd Tuck never mentioned convergence at all. Nor did any other allied pilot in WW2. Nor did any of their enemies. I challenge you to find one pilot who discusses it in their memoirs. Good luck

These people ensured that new changes were implimented because their pilots lives were at stake, let alone the need to absolutely make sure because if they didn't, those people with black crosses on their aircraft would win the battle with the possible outcome of invasion!

You quoted Bader. I seem to remember he was very keen on retaining the wisdom gathered by WW1 pilots and lectured his canadian pilots on first meeting them.

You just have to read a few biographies and unit histories to realise that this was a time of major change in the RAF, that was being led by influential pilots that were doing the fighting.. just read Paul Ritchie's book for instance that clearly shows that pilots were making changes to their airframes and armaments that were clearly forbidden by higher formation, but they did them anyway, as they were the people fighting and dying, and not the desk wallahs in Whitehall flying bleedin desks.. and this was in France, early on in the war before the Battle of Britain!

No, that's an exaggeration. Most pilots were simply not sufficiently informed to make these decisions.

No WW2 pilot strode up to a mechanic and siad "I say old bean, adjust the left aileron tab 0.025" upward will you? Oh and by the way, if you make a new ammo chute for the wing cannoms that looks like this... see? I drew this diagram?... Our guns will fire much better. See to it, there's a good chap."

It simply didn't happen. The forward thinking in technical details was from the designers of the aircraft, not the users, although there were occaisions when the designers made alterations to production specs in the light of combat experience which amounted to something more like "Your b**** aeroplane can't fly fast enough!"

Some leaders of the time were bullish. So? The British often are, I'm no different. That doesn't mean I can walk up to a Cessna at an airfield and suggest to the flying club that it would fly better with half a degree more washout.

Can we show a bit more realism about what these aces achieved in the war? Bader got his way because he was a right pushy pain the backside, not because he was a gifted tactiician or engineer.

I think the gist of your rather lengthy reply, is that you lack one of, or a combination of the following, the courage, experience or tactical nous, to attack bombers.

No, that wasn't the gist of it. If I lacked the courage (despite this being a sim, and therefore non-harmful to me) I wouldn't fly such missions, though clearly I do if you some of my other posts.

Experience? Young man, I've been flying aviation sims quite possibly since before you were born. I 've flown a variety of real aircraft, some aerobatic, I've sat in mock dogfights flown over the Severn Channel, I've spoken to world war two veterans - and for that matter, my flying instructor had been a Mosquito pilot with the Pathfinders and flew throughout the length of the war. The Chief Flying Instructor of my flying club had been a display pilot, had flown replicas in feature films, and with experience hands-on of flying Sptfires.

Tactical nous? By whose standards are you making that inference? Your own? What goes on in a sim doesn't always reflect the reality of it. There's no seat of the pants feel, there's no smell, there's no real meaningful interaction apart from a bunch of yougsters who think they know everything. The difference is - I know I don't, but then I took the trouble to find that out.

[Trooper117]

lol.. 'Young man'!
Give the lad a break..

[AJD-NZ]

First of all caldrail, the subject of this thread is shooting down betty's with a Hurricane MkIIb, using this sim, it is not about you or your assumptions (young man indeed !). Personally I take my hat off to the clever young men who use this flight sim, for it is they who have provided us with this site & these mod's. I did ask you not to take my comments as a personal attack, as I was merely trying to help you to get close enough to shoot down bombers, using this flight sim. With which you expressed some difficulty, going by these comments "Not everyone can get that close" & "That's ok, it will work, provided you get close enough". As for reading your post's, past, present & in the future, if this is indeed what you mean by "I do if you some of my other posts", I would rather stick pins in my eyes. Hopefully these are my last words on the subject, for I have no intention of continuing to clutter up the forum with this line of dialogue, regardless of your response.

:wink:

[P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole]

take this to the PM's before the thread is locked for going OT...

[RRuger]

take this to the PM's before the thread is locked for going OT...

I don't see this topic as being strayed to the degree that it is going "OT" so far it's still a healthy discussion about convergence with all of our resident experts... :?:

[caldrail]

First of all caldrail, the subject of this thread is shooting down betty's with a Hurricane MkIIb, using this sim, it is not about you or your assumptions (young man indeed !).
:wink:

Thats the trouble with us Brits. We do rise to challenges

But essentially the issue with convergence in this thread is how best to exploit that feature, which is not entirely realistic in its application. Some might agree, others won't. IL2 is a game and the methods of conducting operations within are not exactly as complex or historical as it was in the 1940's. After all, you decide what aircraft you fly, what weapons it carries, what mission it flies on. There's no risk of official punishment for unfortunate disgressions or mistakes, and generally speaking, very little command structure impinging on the players activities. Thats not an assumption, it's the difference between strapping in to an aeroplane going to war and clicking on an icon on your desktop safe in your own home.

With reference to shooting down betty's with .303's, they are big tragets, albeit vulnerable ones. I tend to target engines - I don't know about other peoples preferences. An engine fire will often cause a bomber to drop its bombs prematurely or the crew to bail out.

Now... Strictly speaking this is a little cowardly and I don't usually do this, but since this is a game and we all want an advantage to play from... When attacking bombers, stand off and wait for someone else to close in. The bombers gunners will focus their fire on him. Then go in and target at will with lesser risk of enemy fire.

[P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole]

take this to the PM's before the thread is locked for going OT...

I don't see this topic as being strayed to the degree that it is going "OT" so far it's still a healthy discussion about convergence with all of our resident experts... :?:

it looked like could devolve into an argument rather than a historical debate. As it is, it didn't, but still.