![]() | A fact from Gun harmonisation appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 June 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gun harmonisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR: Planes often have a vertical convergence point as well as a horizontal convergence point. For example, the P-38's vertical convergence point was about 375 yards. The wording of this article incorrectly implies that all convergence issues go away by moving the guns from the wings to the nose. Centering the guns only eliminates horizontal convergence issues. Alvint69 ( talk) 05:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Long Version: The article as it's written strongly implies that if guns are centered on the plane, convergence considerations are rendered moot. This is not the case if the plane employs more than one type of gun, and if the fired projectiles have different ballistic properties. For example, the P-38 employed both .50 cal machine gun and 20mm cannon ammunition. These bullets have different ballistic arcs, so you still needed to configure the guns with a vertical convergence point, and engaging a target away from the convergence point still renders the shot less effective. The effect is less severe than with horizontal convergence (wing-mounted guns) but still present. See picture.
Alvint69 ( talk) 03:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Alvint69, I introduced your requested concept into the article here. Feel free to improve it, keeping in mind that we shouldn't take this topic too far off on a tangent. Binksternet ( talk) 01:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
When discussing gun harmonisation ranges for RAF machines pre-war or early WW2, wouldn't the distances in feet which are divisible by three actually be ranges in yards rather than feet, for purposes of simple grasp? (For example, 1,200 feet is obviously meant to be 400 yds for a pilot). While I understand that yards are not commonly used now, back in the 1940s, the yard in multiples of tens or hundreds was an easy-to-grasp and commonly-employed standard for distances, which could be estimated visually.
Might it perhaps be worthwhile giving ranges which are listed in feet as yards in addition (to assist readers who do understand and work in them, as well as for general completion or context)? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:7C56:8FAE:B945:170D ( talk) 00:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Gun harmonisation appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 June 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gun harmonisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR: Planes often have a vertical convergence point as well as a horizontal convergence point. For example, the P-38's vertical convergence point was about 375 yards. The wording of this article incorrectly implies that all convergence issues go away by moving the guns from the wings to the nose. Centering the guns only eliminates horizontal convergence issues. Alvint69 ( talk) 05:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Long Version: The article as it's written strongly implies that if guns are centered on the plane, convergence considerations are rendered moot. This is not the case if the plane employs more than one type of gun, and if the fired projectiles have different ballistic properties. For example, the P-38 employed both .50 cal machine gun and 20mm cannon ammunition. These bullets have different ballistic arcs, so you still needed to configure the guns with a vertical convergence point, and engaging a target away from the convergence point still renders the shot less effective. The effect is less severe than with horizontal convergence (wing-mounted guns) but still present. See picture.
Alvint69 ( talk) 03:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Alvint69, I introduced your requested concept into the article here. Feel free to improve it, keeping in mind that we shouldn't take this topic too far off on a tangent. Binksternet ( talk) 01:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
When discussing gun harmonisation ranges for RAF machines pre-war or early WW2, wouldn't the distances in feet which are divisible by three actually be ranges in yards rather than feet, for purposes of simple grasp? (For example, 1,200 feet is obviously meant to be 400 yds for a pilot). While I understand that yards are not commonly used now, back in the 1940s, the yard in multiples of tens or hundreds was an easy-to-grasp and commonly-employed standard for distances, which could be estimated visually.
Might it perhaps be worthwhile giving ranges which are listed in feet as yards in addition (to assist readers who do understand and work in them, as well as for general completion or context)? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:7C56:8FAE:B945:170D ( talk) 00:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)