Ares Games
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Observers and Immelmann Turn

  1. #1

    Question Observers and Immelmann Turn

    Page 14 of the RAP Rulebook states:

    "airplanes cannot fire at a target in the rear firing arc immediately after using [the Immelmann] maneuver card or after the maneuver card played just before or just after it." (emphasis added)

    My question: does this really mean "or" (as in the player has a choice regarding when not to fire - either during the Immelmann card phase, or the phases immediately preceding or following the Immelmann card), or does it instead mean "and" (as in the player may not fire during the phases immediately before, during, and after the playing of an Immelman card)?

    The next paragraph in that section suggests that the answer to my question is "and" - meaning that execution of an Immelmann prohibits the rear gunner from firing for three full phases. I'm just not completely sure and was wondering if there was a ruling or consensus on this.

    Thank you!

  2. #2

    Default

    I would say it sounds like the gun is restricted during all three maneuvres. I'm not sure if I agree with it though, as I would think it would be fine so long as you weren't upside down. However I've never been in that situation, it may be that the the whole maneuvre is just disorienting, though I'd argue that the first card leading up would be fine to fire. That's just my two cents though. I'm interested on other's thoughts.

  3. #3

    Default

    I play all three cards restricted - I assume that having been informed by the pilot that the Immelmann is coming, the observer needs to hunker down and strap in, otherwise he is gone!

  4. #4

    Default

    i personally dont see why a gunner, if he was strapped in and braced, couldnt fire his gun. having been upside down, sideways and otherwise (briefly) during a ride in an acrobatic airplane you dont feel upside down due to centrifugal force. the bottom of the a/c feels down no matter what its orientation, except during a hammerhead stall that is!. the ride was years ago at a little local airshow at neil armstrong airport in new knoxville ohio. me and a buddy jumped at the opportunity for the ride and it only get better when landing was delayed by the flyover of 2 air national guard c130s. we didnt mind the delay one bit!

  5. #5

    Default

    From my understanding of FE2C's and some other aircraft the gunner was not strapped in nor did he have any kind of seat belt or safety harness. So I think the rules are prity fair on this one.

  6. #6

    Default

    I meant all three maneuvres.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug View Post
    From my understanding of FE2C's and some other aircraft the gunner was not strapped in nor did he have any kind of seat belt or safety harness. So I think the rules are prity fair on this one.
    They were attached to the cockpit floor by a cable around their waist in the FE as the war went on Alastair but as you say many weren't so it's pretty fair if a little frustrating at times !

  8. #8

    Default

    I thought the only two-seaters which can Immelman are the Biff, the Halberstadt CLII and the upcoming Hanover CLIII.

  9. #9

    Default

    And the Strutter, as it appears the deck has been changed from K to V - and I'm sure there will be others in the unofficial stats lists.. The FE is a G deck so can Immel according to that doc

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    I meant all three maneuvres.
    ...and here comes my question.

    I plan my 3 maneuvers.

    1. Curve
    2. Straight
    3. Immelmann


    What happened if I let the gunner fire after the 2. maneuver (for what reason ever - forgot the Immelmann - want to finish off an enemy - want to test the nerves of the GM - etc.)?

    Will I get an A damage penalty for the illegal Immelmann maneuver and have to do a straight instead?

    ...or does the gunner drop out of the plane?











    (the question is half serious)
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  11. #11

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Suppose the manoeuver was downgraded to a 'chandelle' instead of performing an 'Immelmann' ... I prompted a similar discussion within WGS about the same subject.

    The effect is still the same: An abrupt about-turn manoeuver which brings your nose to bear on the enemy within the shortest time.

    But at no point is the aircraft completely inverted keeping that gunner of yours firmly in position as does the forces generated (positive G's) within the aircraft itself. I'll only elaborate on how to fly one of these if anybody is interested - taking care not to ruin this perfectly good discussion

  12. #12

    Default

    A chandelle is not in the rules.

    My question is, if the fire of the gunner after the straight makes the Immelmann an illegal maneuver, handled like stated in the rules.
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  13. #13

    Default

    I would think as you plotted for an Immelmann then the fire would have been illegal. I'd remove the result and say it didn't happen. Just a gunner's wishful thinking.

  14. #14

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marechallannes View Post
    A chandelle is not in the rules.

    My question is, if the fire of the gunner after the straight makes the Immelmann an illegal maneuver, handled like stated in the rules.
    ... As I appreciate. But would this entire situation become easier / clearer to understand if Chandelles were in the rules? The gunner would stay in the aircraft that is for sure because of the physics of the manoeuver upon them.

    Put another way this is like asking 'are all such rapid about-turn manoeuvers Immelmanns?' Even with an aircraft which in real life would not strictly speaking be able to perform this manoeuver.'

    Or

    Is there an element of discretion involved between whether the 'About Turn' card represents either manoeuver? This is the situation which arose over in WGS where the same as in WGF applies. The card is called the 'Immelmann Card' in the rules and it represents this:

    Attachment 163916

  15. #15

    Default

    All interesting conjectures chaps, but as both Dave and Andrea have stated, the rules are quite firm for whatever reason. If you need to reconcile it, I like to use the idea that it is a combination of disorientation, difficulty of getting a snap shot off on a tight turn as an aircraft flashes into view, and trying to remain balanced in the aircraft whilst turning a machine gun in the correct direction. I know this begs off firing in the straight before the Immel but that's life.
    Some of the other matters raised such as chandelles, Sven quite rightly states are not in the rules, and should more appropriately be consigned to the Optional rules Forum so as not to confuse readers as to what is or is not in the official rules.
    I have frequently been guilty of letting ideas develop or raising them on the wrong forum myself, and know just how easy it is to get carried away when perusing an interesting line. May I just ask that we all try to keep discussions within the bounds of the Forum's stated objectives. I know I will fall short on this myself, but we can at least try chaps.
    Thanks.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  16. #16

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    Some of the other matters raised such as chandelles, Sven quite rightly states are not in the rules, and should more appropriately be consigned to the Optional rules Forum so as not to confuse readers as to what is or is not in the official rules.
    I have frequently been guilty of letting ideas develop or raising them on the wrong forum myself, and know just how easy it is to get carried away when perusing an interesting line. May I just ask that we all try to keep discussions within the bounds of the Forum's stated objectives. I know I will fall short on this myself, but we can at least try chaps.
    Thanks.
    Rob.
    Understood, Sir. Kicking myself now as I made that point about Chandelles without thinking at all about confusing newcomers and learners of the game. Have therefore learned today as to how to post more carefully and considerately ... Along with how not to respond using real / actual flying examples all the time. Post after thinking the situation into a WGF in this instance context THEN type has also been learned for today. My apologies over this one.

  17. #17

    Default

    No need to kick yourself Barney, as I said we all do it from time to time.
    It was easier at the start when we only had a very few posts and threads to worry about.
    With the growth of the site, I'm astounded that you new pilots can even find your way around. No harm done, and if the worst happens, I can always move a thread or post to the right place. So don't let this put any of you off posting. Your ideas and stories are the life blood of the Drome.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  18. #18

    Default

    So back on topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marechallannes View Post
    ...

    My question is, if the fire of the gunner after the straight makes the Immelmann an illegal maneuver, handled like stated in the rules.
    Had anyone this situation before with a Bristol fighter at a Con or a larger game?

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    I would think as you plotted for an Immelmann then the fire would have been illegal. I'd remove the result and say it didn't happen. Just a gunner's wishful thinking.
    Could be a solution, but not satisfying if the gunner shot at you before and you received only a zero or 2x zero with the B deck. On the other hand it would be glad to give back a fire damage, but changes the sequence of the used B deck, too.

    To skip the Immelmann, give an A damage to the two seater and do not allow him to fly the Immelmann would be the bigger punishment.
    Last edited by Marechallannes; 05-02-2015 at 01:34.
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  19. #19

    Default

    The simple answer is just don't count his shooting.
    To answer the other question, I have never witnessed this situation in a game at shows or otherwise.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marechallannes View Post
    ...To skip the Immelmann, give an A damage to the two seater and do not allow him to fly the Immelmann would be the bigger punishment.
    I would suggest giving him A damage is excessive - after all he's done nothing to damage his aircraft, unless you're going to say he's shot his own tail up ! I'd just replace the immel card with a straight and be done with it. Simples !

    Quote Originally Posted by Aussietonka View Post
    ... Put another way this is like asking 'are all such rapid about-turn manoeuvres Immelmanns?' Even with an aircraft which in real life would not strictly speaking be able to perform this manoeuvre.'...
    Have a look at this document in the files section Barney - you may find it entertaining !

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    No need to kick yourself Barney...
    Someone else will always do that for you !

  21. #21

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Dave, thanks for your pointer to the manoeuvers document which I have just been reading.

    Found it entertaining for sure but also found it useful as a comprehensive guide as to what manoeuvers are and what manoeuvers are not available when playing Glory.

    Much appreciated

  22. #22

    Default

    Barnaby, your diagram does not show a WW1 Immelmann turn. The original Immelmann turn was what we call a Hammerhead nowadays. The aircraft is never inverted.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ae2104-flightmechanicsslides-3-58-638.jpg 
Views:	75 
Size:	40.6 KB 
ID:	171414

    This means that more planes can perform it.

  23. #23

    Default

    My take is that the rear gun (or guns) need to be "locked down" in a mid-line location, and then the gunner needs to hunker down, to present a minimal shift of weight during the manoeuvre.

    Remember, the weight of a twin Lewis, plus ammo drums, on the Scarf ring of a Biff weigh a great deal, and if these were to swing round the ring from one side of the plane to the other during the manoeuvre, they could throw the aircraft out of balance, and seriously affect the final recovery position of the plane.

    I play it that the observer must centre the gun(s) and lock them, them hunker down, in the initial straight; stay down during the reversal; stand back up, unlock the guns and train them on a target on the following straight, being ready to fire on the next card.

    I HAVE seen this situation occur at a Convention game: a two-seater firing its rear guns and damaging an enemy, and then playing the reversal card next phase - the plane took the 'A' damage for an illegal manoeuvre, and replaced the reversal card with a straight, so ended up out of position.
    In hindsight, I agree that the 'A' damage card was unneccessarily harsh (except as a good DON'T DO IT AGAIN! reminder!

  24. #24

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    Just for fun.....

    You have planed straight, straight, immelmann.
    1:st card. rear gunner fires.
    2:nd card. rear gunner can fire at the same target, pilot initiate the immelmann...
    How did pilot tell his gunner what he was aboute to do? The gunner must be very focused on hitting the target.
    In the game you are both pilot and gunner so no comunicationproblem but in real Life?
    Did the pilot listen to the sound of the gun and avoided steep manouvers as long as the gunner was shooting?

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    My take is that the rear gun (or guns) need to be "locked down" in a mid-line location, and then the gunner needs to hunker down, to present a minimal shift of weight during the manoeuvre.

    Remember, the weight of a twin Lewis, plus ammo drums, on the Scarf ring of a Biff weigh a great deal, and if these were to swing round the ring from one side of the plane to the other during the manoeuvre, they could throw the aircraft out of balance, and seriously affect the final recovery position of the plane.

    I play it that the observer must centre the gun(s) and lock them, them hunker down, in the initial straight; stay down during the reversal; stand back up, unlock the guns and train them on a target on the following straight, being ready to fire on the next card.

    I HAVE seen this situation occur at a Convention game: a two-seater firing its rear guns and damaging an enemy, and then playing the reversal card next phase - the plane took the 'A' damage for an illegal manoeuvre, and replaced the reversal card with a straight, so ended up out of position.
    In hindsight, I agree that the 'A' damage card was unneccessarily harsh (except as a good DON'T DO IT AGAIN! reminder!
    Yup - I think that was me -I have learned my lesson (mostly)

    Never Knowingly Undergunned !!

  26. #26

    Default

    Whilst I agree about the need to stabilize the guns. i am intrigued by Per's question.
    Just how did the pilot communicate to the Gunner in a split second or two what he was about to do?
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  27. #27

    Default

    Thinking about what everyone's saying ...

    I've twice had the fortune of riding in the backseat of an open-air biplane while the pilot performed various stunts and aerobatics -- including hammerheads, rolls and loops. (I might mention that the first time resulted in me getting extremely dizzy and sick as a dog, but I knew what to expect afterward, and the second time went beautifully in all regards. )

    Based on those two flights, I can definitely appreciate how difficult it would have been for observers to maintain a mental "target lock" even during normal non-aerobatic maneuvers. During something as strenuous as an Immelmann (even the WWI version), an observer would likely be doing their best to just hang on to their weapons (and seat!), and shooting the enemy would be delayed until the maneuver was complete.

    However, I can also imagine that experienced observers, especially those who had flown with the same pilot for awhile and were used to his non-verbal communication, may be able to potentially fire during aerobatic maneuvers. So how about a new "ace" skill card reflecting that for veteran observers (or for observer-pilot teams)?

    -Eris

  28. #28

    Default

    That sounds like a good idea, Eris.



Similar Missions

  1. Fire and Immelmann Turn
    By Marekski in forum WGF: Rules Help
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 11-26-2014, 08:57
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-25-2013, 13:51
  3. Immelmann Turn Question
    By Pope in forum WGF: Rules Help
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 17:58
  4. The REAL Immelmann turn
    By phililphall in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 10:23
  5. Immelmann Turn created by RFC?
    By Khargor in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-17-2010, 15:16

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •