Reverse Roland rule???
We've been wanting to add a few FE2b's to our games, but the explanation for the "reverse Roland rule" has us scratching our heads. Can somebody please explain exactly how it works? When can a shot be made at lower planes? When at those at the same level? Can both the pilot and the observer fire at a higher target in the front arc?
Thanks!
-- Eris
Hi Eris,
The FE2b gunner had a pair of machine gun mounts (often having to shift one MG between them) this allows him a very wide field of fire to the front and sides at aircraft at all levels but when firing rear wards over the top wing he can only engage targets higher than he is. The Roland has a similarly wide field of fire for the observer with 360degrees at high targets due to the crew being above the top plane and only the arc of the prop to stop the gunner covering the frorward arc at same or lower levels.
The FE2d carried a fixed forward firing pilots gun which would allow a narrow arc to the fore where an enemy aircraft might receive a BB+BB/BB at short/long range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ro...E2d_gunner.jpg
Hope this helps
Thanks for the historical background! What I'm needing now is for someone to please explain exactly how the reverse Roland rules work in the game, to make sure I understand how to implement them correctly.
Ah, ok. So, the gunner can fire at targets astern in the narrow arc only when they are at a higher altitude than the FEE. In the broader forward arc he can stand and depress his muzzle or squat to elevate it to engage targets at all levels.Originally Posted by Eris Lobo
Thanks for the historical background! What I'm needing now is for someone to please explain exactly how the reverse Roland rules work in the game, to make sure I understand how to implement them correctly.
Taking it that your reference is from the unofficial stats:
"Uses "Roland Rule" in reverse. A single B gun has all-round fire, but can only fire in the rear arc at aircraft at the same height or above."
The Special Rule for Roland C.II is:
The German Roland C.II has higher rear machine gun that can be turned 360°: Use the arc of fire on the base with the blind spot for targets at the same or lower altitude, but the rear machine gun of the Roland C.II can ignore both the blind spot and the firing arc when firing at targets at higher altitude.
Sorry can't get the diagram but source from the old rules here in the files
The reverse Roland:
When enemy aircraft are at the same level instead of the 'blind spot' being to the front as it is on the Roland to clear its prop the 'blind spot' is to the rear to clear the FE's tail.
When enemy aircraft are above your aircraft's level then you have a 360 arc of fire with the Roland's rear gun - This 'rule' is suggesting the FE has the same arc of fire, though probably split between the two guns. As an 'unofficial' aircraft you will be able to sort rules for how this is used by the crew.
I would suggest the FE's rear gun would have a max 180 field of fire to the rear for those higher targets when used by the observer - implication being it has a 180 to the front in those circumstances if used by the pilot, though not sure how often that happened ! It could equally mean the 360 arc is split between the front & rear gun but the rear gun couldn't take on targets lower than itself whereas the front could.
A nice link to the FE2 cards in the file section may clear up your questions.
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...o=file&id=1646
See you on the Dark Side......
I know of no official rule, how many cards between firing the front and rear gun does it take the gunner to get set to shoot? I've seen 3 tossed about but don't know for sure.
Basically it is whatever you think is a reasonable time lapse Peter. As long as everyone at the game agrees fine. I personally use three cards with the proviso that if a steep card is played during this time it is not counted in.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Thanks Rob, that along the line I was thinking/hoping what was done. I like it, I'll use this from now on.
Thanks for the insights, everybody. After several hours of research regarding the FE2b's real-life characteristics, here's what I understand to be how it should be played:
First, keep in mind that the observer is seated in front and below the pilot. The FE2b had two guns mounted, both on flexible mounts. One gun was in front of the observer, and could shoot a very wide arc (approximately the front 180 degrees of the aircraft) at aircraft above, below and the same level. In front of the pilot was a similar gun mounted on a telescopic mount, which was intended to fire over the head of the observer, and could fire a similar arc (approximately the front 180 degrees of the aircraft) at targets above and the same level (the position of the observer prevented him from hitting targets above him, from what I understand ... although it seems logical that he could shoot at targets at a lower level if they were in the side angles, with the observer creating a blind spot only to the front for lower shots). Therefore, if an enemy was in front of the FE2b and was at the same level or above it, it could be hit by both the observer's gun and the pilot's gun. When the FE2b was attacked from the rear, however, the observer could stand up, turn around, adjust the pilot's mount so it could shoot back over the top wing, and fire at rear targets. In this situation, the observer could aim at rear targets coming from above and at the same level as his plane (the tail was a bit lower than the top wing, so it didn't block level shots). Planes to the rear that were below the FE2b, however, couldn't be shot by the rear gun because of the placement of the wing and propeller.
In game terms, aircraft in the front half of the FE2b can be shot by both the observer and the pilot (potentially resulting in four "B" cards of damage at close range) if the target is higher or at the same level. Aircraft in the front half of the FE2b can be shot by the observer (and optionally also shot by the pilot if the target is not in the forward blind spot caused by the observer). Aircraft in the rear half of the FE2b can be shot by the observer if they are at his level or the level above him, but he cannot shoot at aircraft at a lower level.
Am I correct? If not, how am I wrong, and why?
FYI, here's a quote from Frederick Libby, my favorite WWI ace, regarding FE2b's ... "When you stood up to shoot, all of you from the knees up was exposed to the elements. There was no belt to hold you. Only your grip on the gun and the sides of the nacelle stood between you and eternity. Toward the front of the nacelle was a hollow steel rod with a swivel mount to which the gun was anchored. This gun covered a huge field of fire forward. Between the observer and the pilot a second gun was mounted, for firing over the F.E.2d's upper wing to protect the aircraft from rear attack ... Adjusting and shooting this gun required that you stand right up out of the nacelle with your feet on the nacelle coaming. You had nothing to worry about except being blown out of the aircraft by the blast of air or tossed out bodily if the pilot made a wrong move. There were no parachutes and no belts. No wonder they needed observers."
And to further quote him about the FE2b's rear gun mount ... "The mounting consists of a hollow steel rod, into which a solid steel rod is fitted to work up and down with the machine gun on top. To operate this you simply pull the gun up as high as possible, where it locks into the fitting, then you step out of the nacelle and stand with a foot on each side. From this position, you have nothing to worry about except being blown out of the ship or being tossed out if the pilot makes a wrong move. This gun, I know, I am not going to like very much."
Edit: Looking back at the FE2b rules presented by the unofficial stats committee, I see now why I found them so confusing, even though they basically agree with my findings. The ruling said, "A single B gun has all-round fire, but can only fire in the rear arc at aircraft at the same height or above." This seems to me to be saying that "targets that are at the same level or higher than the FE2b can only be fired at if they're in the rear arc". I think the problem was caused by a misinterpretation of prepositional modifiers, and that the rules are in fact stating that "targets in the rear arc can only be fired at if they're at the same height or above." Don't you love our wonderful language?
Again, thanks for the help!!!
Last edited by Eris Lobo; 05-27-2014 at 23:44.
Actually, those card files you reference are a reason I got so confused. The files have a rear firing arc that seems to either only cover the tail or cover everything to the rear except the tail -- I can't tell which, and don't understand why that small rear arc is marked off at all.
The author of those cards, however, raises an interesting point -- could the FE2b's actually preform an Immelmann? If not, then they shouldn't get a V (J*) deck, but instead a "K" deck or something.
-- Eris
Prompted by your comments re the tail not being in the way I began looking at pics of FEs - now wonder if they could engage anything at the same level to the rear - in all the pics I find the gun is angled up to the rear rather than level to the rear. If they could the FE2d would definitely have a blind spot due to the construction on the top plane.
You may want to consider manoeuvre restrictions when the observer is standing on the nacelle coaming firing to the rear and/or if the pilot is operating the gun firing forward - would he have to stand too ? Anyway - interesting thread !
Can see how you got confused looking at those cards - on the Roland that little wedge is the blind spot but could be the arc of fire for targets on the same level in this case !
Last edited by flash; 05-28-2014 at 06:40.
I agree that many photos show the observer firing at an upward angle when they shot to the rear, but that wasn't necessarily the case during actual combat.
First of all, for some background, I'll happily requote my favorite WWI ace regarding the telescopic mount that allowed the observer in an FE2b to pull the rear gun up to fire over the wing: "The mounting consists of a hollow steel rod, into which a solid steel rod is fitted to work up and down with the machine gun on top. To operate this you simply pull the gun up as high as possible, where it locks into the fitting, then you step out of the nacelle and stand with a foot on each side."
Now, for a couple of photos illustrating the telescoping mount.
The first just shows an empty FE2b, but in it you can see the rear gun mount still at an extended setting for shooting back over the wing:
The second shows an FE2d, which used the same rear gun mount as an FE2b. In this photo, the observer is clearly demonstrating how he would have to stand up in a precarious position and pull the gun mount up in its telescoping structure to allow him to shoot back over the wing:
(FYI, you might also note how in the FE2d the increased engine power gave the craft enough strength to add an additional gun for the pilot. It would seem that he and the observer had to be pretty coordinated to make sure the pilot didn't start shooting his gun at the same time the observer decided to stand up and fire behind the plane!)
I, too, have found this to indeed be an interesting topic. I hope that helps!
-- Eris
Whatever the truth of the matter is, I would not think it made for very accurate firing with one eye on what your pilot was about to do and the other on where you were standing to fire in a gale force wind. These chaps should all have got VCs.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Yes, these are amongst the pics I have looked at - you will see the cause of the potential blind spot I mentioned on the FE2d in the last one - and if the gun mount is locked out at its max height in this shot it doesn't look to me like the gunner could fire level over the wing top at a target the same level behind him even if he stood on the coaming of the nacelle.
Looking at some plans it would seem difficult to do so if the enemy is in line with the tail but it must be very close so I'm sure a little nose up from the pilot would provide the opportunity ! The beauty is it's still an unofficial kite so we can house rule it as we like.
The swan neck gun mount in these plans is at full extent - some good pics in the Windsock datafile 18 of the guns being demonstrated.
Hi guys,
there is this interesting clip by TVAL that could give us a visual concept of the whole matter.
http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/proje...ying-masterton
In this clip we can appreciate the rear blind spot and the impossibility, for the pilot, to fire the MG as this one seems quite a bit off his hands.
Mau
FYI, Frederick Libby shot down 10 planes as an observer in an FE2b, becoming a double ace in the process, so apparently some people could get the hang of the firing arrangement.
Oh, and yes, he and his pilot were both awarded the Military Cross by King George for their efforts.
Thanks Mau - I looked at the stills from this earlier but the moving image is much better and makes it fairly clear to me. They were certainly dangerous opponents as MvR found out to his cost !
Indeed they were dangerous opponents, especially if flown by pilots such as Maj. Lanoe Hawker.
Here are the words of his observer when flying with him for No. 6th Sq. FE 2bs:
Hawker "had a fool habit of carrying an ordinary rifle which he used to loose off if he didn't think I was doing too well. The noise just over my head was most alarming and annoying".
Or flown by men such observer Lt. William Cambray of No. 20 Sq.:
"On one occasion I was with a new - but good - pilot who had not previously been in a fight. A Hun dived down from our rear and I could see his tracer bullets going under us as I stood up to fire over the tail. I signalled to the pilot to throw the machine about to get rid of him, but to my surprise he only did a simple aerodrome-style turn. On returning to the aerodrome I asked my pilot in no uncertain terms why he had not thrown the machine all over the place. 'I was afraid I'd chuck you out' he answered. I replied that it was my job to stay in.".
Mau
Coming late to this discussion I would say that the FE2's rearward firing gun was useless or as near useless as makes no odds. The front gunner had no clear angle of view to the rear to be able to see an impending attack and anticipate when he was supposed to stand up and turn around to fire - and he would block the pilot's forward view while he was doing so.
In game terms... it could only work if the player (pilot) played one straight and level card (for the front gunner to stand up), another straight and level card for the front gunner to actually fire and a third straight and level card for the front gunner to sit down again. Firing is only permitted on the middle card. Further, the player cannot perform a steep manoeuvre on the card before he/she starts the three card run or on the card after. The front gunner would still be recovering from the G before the three cards and would still be strapping himself in after.
It's chances of hitting anything would be less than half a 'B' deck card. And that is being generous.
The FE2's rear gun can (or should!) be quietly ignored; it was a weapon that only ever appeared feasible on paper - aerodynamics, ballistics and Newtonian principles conspire to render it useless. By comparison, the ill-fated WW2 Bolton-Paul Defiant almost looks like a practical weapon.
FYI, Frederick Libby shot down 10 planes as an observer in an FE2b, becoming a double ace in the process, so apparently some people could get the hang of the firing arrangement.
Oh, and yes, he and his pilot were both awarded the Military Cross by King George for their efforts.
I would expect the 10 kills were achieved while firing forwards
And my recent analysis of many 'kills' awarded on both sides in WW1 suggests that they were often aircraft that were simply seem to leave combat or were seen to go off smoking or damaged. They were not seen to hit the ground.
I would - however - point out that it was a front gunner of an FE2 who hit and nearly killed the Red Baron. The bullet grazed his skull and left him wounded and with permanent migraines until he died the following year.
Which is quite contrary to the accounts of its usage by those that used it !
Last edited by flash; 06-14-2014 at 07:28.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks