Hannover CL.IIIa (Series 8) card/base error

[Prodromoi]

What's wrong with this picture...?



Has anyone else noticed on the cards for the newly released Hannover CL.IIIa that the cards and the bases don't match? Where's the rear firing arc on the card? Or conversely, is the base marked with the arc incorrectly?

The observer's position and gun are both high, potentially giving a wider field of fire over the wings. The box tail allows for firing to the rear above the tail (as the same level, though not below).

From the Ares website (a direct quote from the wiki page for the CL.IIIa it seems!)
"Like the other Hannover "light-C-class", or "CL" designated aircraft, it included an unusual biplanar tail, allowing for a greater firing arc for the tail gunner."

So... what's gone wrong here?
1. If the CL.IIIa is being considered to have a 'normal' two-seater firing arc, then the card is wrong and is missing the arc.

2. Alternatively, if the CL.IIIa is considered to have a wider firing arc than 'normal' two seaters, is it suggesting the rear arc is 360°? And if so, why the rear arc on the base? The normal blind-spot rule (using the back of the base) could be applied to lower targets and doesn't correspond to the firing arc.

Hopefully Andrea will spot this and give an official bit of input!


PS. I'm inclined to think that option 2 is Ares' intention. However, the base and card ought to match otherwise it will just cause confusion, and with something to more clearly denote the observer's arc. Using the 'normal' two-seater base seems a bad decision.

[Grey]

See here for another talk about the problem:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...vealed!/page14

[Oberst Hajj]

Ares should be chiming in on this soon.

[Prodromoi]

Ares should be chiming in on this soon.

Hope so... looking forward to it!

['Warspite']

I would favour using the tail arc printed on the base for same level and lower and have a 360 deg for the rear gun firing above level.

I think the card is a misprint.

Barry

[flash]

Would think it would be - 360 for higher, 360 bar a blind-spot to the front (for the prop) and tail at the same level, blind spot for the tail and the given arc for lower targets. Similar to the the Haberstadt CL.II & Brisfit in real life, again, something ignored by Ares... and most forumers !
Card is probably a 'no-print' (misprint) but as the guns are noted as B/B & as most will use the model base rather than the card to resolve firing then not an insurmountable issue. Certainly worth pointing out but won't stop us using them will it ?!
Looking forward to the clarification !

[Grey]

I don't know what ARES was up to, regarding this release, but I suspect a "rush it to the market now!" situation.
It just wasn't carefully thought through. That seems pretty obvious.

My club has a set of house rules, formulated in steps since 2007 (Now in v 2.0) regardless of what ARES eventually releases as "official", we will eventually hammer out our own, and that will be that.

There are already "optional rules" all over the place.

However, having the "Official" branding, does carry a lot of weight.

[Oberst Hajj]

I don't know what ARES was up to, regarding this release, but I suspect a "rush it to the market now!" situation.
It just wasn't carefully thought through. That seems pretty obvious.

And what makes you think that? These seemed to have followed the same timeline that we have seen with other releases.

['Warspite']

blind spot for the tail and the given arc for lower targets

No, sorry, no blind spot under the tail, that was the advantage of the biplane tail assembly. While not eliminating the blind spot entirely it reduced it so much that, in game terms, it was negligible.

Barry

[Grey]

No, sorry, no blind spot under the tail, that was the advantage of the biplane tail assembly. While not eliminating the blind spot entirely it reduced it so much that, in game terms, it was negligible.

Barry

As I said on another thread, I think the "tailing" optional rule would handle a 'blind spot' definition easily. i.e., if you can tail the Hannover, you are in it's blind spot for lower altitudes only. It would be much reduced from the normal definition of 'blind spot'. There is still that rear fuselage to worry about.

[Grey]

And what makes you think that? These seemed to have followed the same timeline that we have seen with other releases.

Even with advanced stated timelines, there can be a rush to finish, before that date. You know that, 'submit whatever you have...complete or not' stuff.

The Hannover is a rather unusual bird, which could have that effect to "slap it together and ship as is".

We'll see what they come up with, by the time they issue an "official" response.

I suspect there is no rear firing arc on the card, because there is a 360 aspect to it. A Roland type arc would have been more 'realistic', IMHO, but who knows what they were thinking? Perhaps there was an internal disagreement, so they decided to simply not put one on it? As for the base showing a 'standard' arc...that was an easy way out for "instant play"? I dunno.

There are a host of "errors" in the game, anyway...and what is accepted by a group of gamers, is what flies.

An example would be the characteristics between one or two gun versions of the Hanriot HD-1 or the Sopwith Triplane.

[Marechallannes]

I don't know what ARES was up to, regarding this release, but I suspect a "rush it to the market now!" situation.
It just wasn't carefully thought through. That seems pretty obvious...

I don't think so.

...

I suspect there is no rear firing arc on the card, because there is a 360 aspect to it...

Nice way to handle it with a smile.



So all Hannovers have NO REAR GUN FIRING ARC on the plane's card?

Scheisse! ...if I may say this in German.

Sound like insufficient quality control.



I can understand that sometimes the colour isn't matching 100% or a stripe(s) is/are missing, but missprinted planes cards?

I'm really not shure if we'll see a replacement card.



Some examples.:

Belle's B17 cheek gun does not fit to the model's position. (miniature/card)

"Grog's the Shot" has the B damage for the top turret instead of the rear turret. (base & card)

Hannovers have no rear firing arc on the card.


Of coures the miniature is still playable, but I hope this does not get a bad habit.


Ok... Let's wait for my Hannover. Then grab a pen and add the missing lines.

Thank you for this hint, Alex.

[Prodromoi]

Ares should be chiming in on this soon.

From that, should one infer that you've been in contact already and wheels have been set in motion? Or do more of us need to drop Ares a line saying "Sir, I am nonplussed!" (a much more polite version of "WTF!")?

['Warspite']

"Sir, I am nonplussed!" (a much more polite version of "WTF!")?

Do you mind, my plus has never been 'noned'.

[Prodromoi]

We have some news... this is Andrea's response on Facebook:

Sorry for the typo. The base is ok, the card is wrong (it should have the same rear arc). I am 100% agreeing with Brian. This is the rule I wrote in the next, still unpublished official supplement:

Roland C.II/C.IIa, Bristol F2B Fighter, Halberstadt Cl.II, Hannover Cl.IIIa - altitude and arc of fireThis rule can be used if the altitude rules are also in use. These planes have higher rear machine guns that can be turned 360°: use the arc of fire on the card with the blind spot for targets at the same or lower altitude, but their rear machine guns can ignore both the blind spot and the firing arc when firing at targets at higher altitude.Hannover Cl.IIIa has also a reducer rear blind spot, due to its special tail design: the blind spot is effective only against targets at lower altitude, while the sight to target at the same altitude is not blocked.This rule does not affect points cost.

[Grey]

Good enough, I guess.

[Prodromoi]

With Andrea's official (but as yet unpublished) special rules for these planes, as detail above... problem solved (well, not the Hannover misprint card issue, but the special rules!)

[LOOP]

Now I love the Bristol even more

[Flying Officer Kyte]

So do I.
Rob.

[Naharaht]

Let us hope that an official rules supplement will be released on the Ares website soon.

[Prodromoi]

It's been a while but I've finally had the time to print out the custom cards to fix the Hannover missing rear arc problem, thus...



(Apologies for the poor photo - just a quick snap.)

[Flying Helmut]

Good job!

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Another coincidence Alex. I was getting a two seater out for this evenings game with Cpt. Kiwi, and noticed that I still had to fix those. Was just going to start on some cards.
Rob.

[Teaticket]

Nice job Alex! Have you put your fixed cards in one of your albums so we can stea.... borrow it?

[Prodromoi]

Nice job Alex! Have you put your fixed cards in one of your albums so we can stea.... borrow it?

Not yet. I was going to drop Herr Oberst a line tomorrow to ask if he'd prefer them in the files section or a personal album. (Or if you happen to see this before then, Keith, which would you prefer?)

[LOOP]

Nice job Alex! Have you put your fixed cards in one of your albums so we can stea.... borrow it?

[Horse4261]

My understanding is that the Hanover has no rear 'blind spot' for higher and same altitude levels, but still has the lower altitude level hindrances. This design was a nasty surprise when first introduced for the Allied scouts that were use to attacking from directly behind their target. The elevated position of the observer and lowering of the upper wing provided a firing arc closer to the Roland's at same altitude targets. Of course Ares official line will be the final decider in all this.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Just don't tell Chris (Hedeby) there will be no stopping him!

So do I.
Rob.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Whilst we are talking 2 seaters. I have seen pictures, can't remember the aircraft type, of a German rear gunner with 2 mg's. Anyone shed any light on this and why we don't have a B/A variant German 2 seater?

[Tonx]

Whilst we are talking 2 seaters. I have seen pictures, can't remember the aircraft type, of a German rear gunner with 2 mg's. Anyone shed any light on this and why we don't have a B/A variant German 2 seater?

The AEG G.IV is a strong contender for what you describe Neil. There are definitely two machine guns fitted to the rearmost cockpit. I'll keep looking (Source - Jane's) now you have me interested

[Teaticket]

Just don't tell Chris (Hedeby) there will be no stopping him!

Whenever anyone flies against him they'll have to use upgunned Halberstdt CL IIs or Hannovers. Fair is fair.

[Flying Helmut]

Someone posted the story on here a while ago, but I can;t remember who it was.

When a German two-seater flew with a twin Parabellum rear gun, the observer almost lost the guns over the side when the mounting ring broke! (apparently the ring was wooden, unlike the metal Entente Scarff rings).
He managed to hold on to them, and the plane landed safely.

Reviresco include a few twin Parabellum gunners in their Pilots/Observers set, but I can't find a reference of which place to place them in!


My take on why we don't have a German B/A two-seater is well known;
I believe there is an in-built bias in the back-room, which ensures we always have an up-gunned Entente variant of each plane if there is any record at all of the historical existence of one (even if there was only ONE, and it only flew ONCE, and it was a failure and was immediately de-gunned back down to a 'B'!), while conversely we always get a de-gunned Central Powers plane in each series if there was at least one historically.

[Jager]

Whilst we are talking 2 seaters. I have seen pictures, can't remember the aircraft type, of a German rear gunner with 2 mg's. Anyone shed any light on this and why we don't have a B/A variant German 2 seater?

They were a field improvision, usually using a captured Lewis MG. The side drum of the Parabellum MG made twinning them very awkward, and heavier than twin Lewis's, which were a burden themselves.
Karl

[Dom S]

Someone posted the story on here a while ago, but I can;t remember who it was.
:

Possibly me - it certainly sounds like Jasta 35's ill-starred experiment with a Halberstadt CL.II as tail-end charlie for their single-seaters. As for your conspiracy theory, I'm not sure I buy it - upgunned entente planes are definitely over-represented, but the only really egregious example is the Harvey and Waight F.2b. The others are all pretty reasonable picks - certainly upgunning wasn't commonplace, but neither was it exactly rare - the relative lightness of the Lewis gun made it a realistic option.

As for under-gunned CP planes, I'm struggling for examples - yes there's the single-gun Roland, but that's only one out of three, was absolutely a standard model, and is von Richthofen's plane, so of course they made that one. It's more than countered by the ridiculous B-firing American SE5a, imo.

[Dom S]

PS - If you really object to the "rear gun only" Roland C.II, at least one crew found a solution before they got the synchronised front gun....

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...uth/Roland.jpg

[Flying Helmut]

The 'B' firing Albatros DII
No 'A' firing Halberstadt DIIIs

As against the 'A' firing Sopwith Tripes
that bl00dy awful 'A'/'B' "Biff"
The 'A' firing Hanriots

The 'B' firing American SE5a is only a card, and a spare one at that - the model mounts the top-wing Lewis, and also comes with an 'A' firing card...............

[Dom S]

Fair enough on the D.II, although *all* Austro-Hungarian ones were single gunners, so if they wanted an A-H bird that was compulsory. For the Halberstadt, I didn't think any D.IIIs were twin gunned? I know a handful of D.Vs were, but I thought that was it.

For the entente, the Tripe's debatable - they were absolutely bound to do a Collishaw one, so it's a legitimate choice, but I would've gone with the first Black Maria, not the twin gunner. The Bristol is just daft. The Hanriot doesn't need defending though - upgunning was far more common on HD.Is than any other scout type, to the extent that not having any A firers would've been odd.

[Tonx]

Sorry but I got as far as P in Jane's World Aircraft and have given up for today. That G.IV looks like the best bet I have unearthed as the illustration was clear for starters unlike so many of the others.

Was fascinated by the German reverse-engineered Nieuport which all began with one being captured during 1916 I think it said. So the Germans captured it in a good enough state to dismantle it and begin to reverse-engineer the aircraft under their own designation. Very similar as to the way the Russians got their hands on three Boeing B-29A Superfortresses during 1945 and out of this came ... the Tupolev Tu-4: Almost a direct copy just reverse engineered in the same fashion!

[Dom S]

Just found the twin Parabellum Halberstadt - it was Jasta 24, not 35 as I thought, but definitely not a successful experiment....

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/sh...ad.php?p=11871

[csadn]

I never thought I'd see the day when the German players were carping about not having enough firepower.... >;)

[milcoll73]

Sorry but I got as far as P in Jane's World Aircraft and have given up for today. That G.IV looks like the best bet I have unearthed as the illustration was clear for starters unlike so many of the others.

Was fascinated by the German reverse-engineered Nieuport which all began with one being captured during 1916 I think it said. So the Germans captured it in a good enough state to dismantle it and begin to reverse-engineer the aircraft under their own designation. Very similar as to the way the Russians got their hands on three Boeing B-29A Superfortresses during 1945 and out of this came ... the Tupolev Tu-4: Almost a direct copy just reverse engineered in the same fashion!

NYET!!!! tu-4 is wholly novel product of mother russia!!!! design date from 1920s and kept "under wraps" until post ww2 after kick gitlerite hienie. similarity purely coincidental and cosmetic (even flak patches). what can i say, form follow function. trust me i am engineer. i have epic fun, with epic gear.

[Angiolillo]

My take on why we don't have a German B/A two-seater is well known;
I believe there is an in-built bias in the back-room, which ensures we always have an up-gunned Entente variant of each plane if there is any record at all of the historical existence of one (even if there was only ONE, and it only flew ONCE, and it was a failure and was immediately de-gunned back down to a 'B'!), while conversely we always get a de-gunned Central Powers plane in each series if there was at least one historically.

Sorry, not really. There is an attempt to variate armament, to give more opportunities of scenarios. And to be faithful to documented armament of the specific plane for which the color schemes has been chosen - because of pilot's fame, plane fame, differentiation from others (quick recognition of your own plane in the mittle of the game) and other factors.
The problem is that weapon variants that were used in combat and documented are rarer with Central Powers, far more frequent with Entente.
When the game was cards only, we tended to put in everything we could find, no mater how rare, if operative in the war. Even the 3 MGs Fokker E.IV - Central Powers odd machines are as welcome as Entente ones. And even a single machinegun Sopwith Camel was planned, Olieslager's one - if you see the card in the very first print runs of Famous Aces, the drawing has a single machinegun. The card gives A firing anyway - during the production process I realized I was cheated by the Camel now on display in Belgium, that has only a single machinegun, but that was a modermn replicawhile the original plane had two machineguns as every other Camel. We corrected the statistic in time, even if the image on the card was corrected only later.

With miniatures, we tend to do that far less. Giving different armament is not just adding one more card to a 132 cards deck as it was in the past... Sape that happende with captured planes, another very good supply for variated scenarios IMHO: when they were just a maginal use of cards you could get a lot of German Nieuport 11, Ni.17, SPADs, even a famed Camel with victories on its tally - and on the opposite side, where captured planes were studied a lot but seldom operated in war, a Belgian G.III. Now we are limiting us a lot, a single Austrian Macchi being the only captured machine to get a miniature.

By the way, a Blue Max player would think that we downgrade Entente planes since most of our Bristol F2B have only a single machinegun to the rear - All F2Bs in Blue Bax have twin machineguns for the observer. If we were biased agains one side, we would have done the same.

As for under-gunned CP planes, I'm struggling for examples - yes there's the single-gun Roland, but that's only one out of three, was absolutely a standard model, and is von Richthofen's plane, so of course they made that one. It's more than countered by the ridiculous B-firing American SE5a, imo.

That Se5a represents a quite large number of US planes that flew in mission with a reduced armament, or even unarmed, because machineguns were supplied too slowly. True also for many US Nieuport 28.
The pilot himself of that specific Se5a testified that all the 25th Aero Squadron got a second machinegun for each of their planes only after the war ended, in November 1918.

The 'B' firing Albatros DII

Every Austrian D.II had a single machinegun:

https://books.google.it/books?id=ibN...page&q&f=false

They will also be a good match for Italian Nieuports. Ni.11 are coming, with just a single machinegun. And Ni.17 too - even if two machinegun were far common, they were more often single-machinegun ones.

No 'A' firing Halberstadt DIIIs

I only saw a single picture of an experimental two machinenguns Halberstadt, and with no proof of it ever operating over the front.

As against the 'A' firing Sopwith Tripes

As opposed to, let's say, twin-machineguns SPAD VII, that were just modifications in the field (and that we did not represent among Wings of Glory miniatures - they were just in a Wings of War booster as cards), the twin machineguns Sopwith Camel was both a factory arrangement AND a field modification. There were 6 Clayton & Shuttleworth built twin gun triplanes, 3 Oakley built twin gun triplanes, and 1 Sopwith built twin gun triplane. Besides, there were other that were modified at the front - as this one flying in the Aegean on which Harold Thomas Mellings scored all the 5 victories that made him an ace.



In game terms, a single A-firing Sopwith Triplane was the horse of Troy to be able to put a 5th plane in the Famous Aces box, where only A damage cards could be provided. And it actually helps for variated scenarios. So our Black Maria - N533, Clayton & Shuttleworth built with twin weapons, was put in the game.

The 'A' firing Hanriots

The blue Hanriot of Willy Coppens could have been A-firing - it had two machineguns from the 23rd to the 25th of October, 1917. But we made it a B-firing one as far more representative of Belgian planes. Everybody told Coppens that a second machinegun would have made the plane far less efficient and he quicly gave up - even because on the 25th of October, if I remember well, he got a different machinegun for incendiary bullets that he installed for his famed balloon busting.

Silvio Scaroni, our second ace, was heavily determined to resolve the problem of jammings. The "bullet checker" skill is inpired by him. He also personally studied the fitting of the second MG on the Hanriot (with his weapon mechanic Botter, nicknamed "Bigio") and insisted with high officers to get one.

"I observed that the most frequent jammings were due to defective bullets: I took all care, then, in the composition of belts, that I prepared myself, sometimes even reaching a discard of 65%-70%.
For absolute safety I became convinced of the need of two machineguns.
With the patient Botter, I studied their set on a out-of-service airplane: after the first successes in experiments, I applied with no hesitation a second weapon on my plane and, after that day, I never had to complain for any jamming.
The Headquartiers that reproached my act as an abuse, after all got persuaded that, in the end, If I stole an additional machinegun from the warehouse, it was not so serious..."
(Silvio Scaroni, "Impressioni e ricordi di guerra aerea", Turin 1922)

As soon as he installed it, he scored 9 victories in 3 weeks: sorry for Belgians, their fears were probably out of place. Fucini and several other Italian aces quickly followed Scaroni's example. Again, in game terms their planes are also pretty a better match for German and Austrian ones in mid-late war scenarios.

In short - please give documentation of interesting weapon variants for Central Powers planes and they will be very seriously considered for future releases. Please, operative planes - as we discard fancy color schemes if from training units or post-war, we also avoid factory prototypes that were not sent to operative units.

Sorry, I know that there can be many aptitudes towards accuracy vs. game needs. As it was said in another thread about the Se5a:

Having flown Albert Ball's Nieuport down gunned for years now,(a bad error on my part) I would suggest that you use the full might of your American aircraft unless you are a total authenticity person. Why should our American friends be handicapped in a sortie just because they were in the actual war. Remember we are playing for FUN with plastic planes and cards.
Rob.

Fond wargamers could find some of our variations too rare or strange and I see their point. On the contrary a gamer could like even more variations, not caring of accuracy. See the last edition of Blue Max where they moved the game to a more comicbook look giving up painting schemes accuracy, and in game mechanics and statistics too they decided to close an eye on accuracy for game's sake. There you can find all Halberstadt C.II with twin front machineguns (yes there was a single, very short lived experiment in the factory...), probably to better match the three machineguns of the Bristol F2B, and a very stable Fokker Dr.I (to be a better firing platform and not to disappoint Richthofen's fans I guess). There you can find our same Sopwith N533 Black Maria, but with a single machinegun instead than the two that it historically had (and painted in a quite original three tone camouflage by the way). You can even find Rickenbacker's Nieuport 24... Same colors of our Nieuport 28, but on a Ni.24 (and he never flew one). Probably, many Blue Max players will not care of accuracy and be happy with all that: They would have regretted instead a Cl.II with just single machineguns, a Red Baron with a malus for plane stability, a range of Nieuports without the most famed US pilot and high ranking US ace. FFG aptitude, I'd say - the same that brings them to paint a TIE all red, even if in Star Wars movies they are all graysh and blackish, probably for nostalgia of when they used to distribute a best selling, all red triplane. And that brings them to sell a Millennium Falcon that's even quicker than Imperial fighters, no matter what officoal sources say about relative speeds and no matter what happens in the iconic chase scenes of the Star War movies when Han Solo has some TIE on his tail.
Maybe they are modern and I am just an old fashioned Grognard. But personally, I prefer the historical and technical accuracy of previous Blue Max editions, that are far closer to my tastes in wargaming. And I am struggling to get a playable and variated game without going against history. I hope to not disappoint you too often.
And I am also here to listen. Please, as soon as you find German armaments that you think that could be represented, let us know.

[Tonx]

NYET!!!! tu-4 is wholly novel product of mother russia!!!! design date from 1920s and kept "under wraps" until post ww2 after kick gitlerite hienie. similarity purely coincidental and cosmetic (even flak patches). what can i say, form follow function. trust me i am engineer. i have epic fun, with epic gear.

Would you suggest that I reached for my sarcasm detector or my two Corgi Aviation Archive models of 1/144 scale B-29As Tu-4 carrying SSSR markings / B-29A USAAF Ding-How which was one of the planes the Soviets captured ...

Those last two look pretty much the same to me and the sarcasm detector is buried deep in my only just got up out of bed bag

[flash]

Whilst we are talking 2 seaters. I have seen pictures, can't remember the aircraft type, of a German rear gunner with 2 mg's. Anyone shed any light on this and why we don't have a B/A variant German 2 seater?

Think the answers are all given above but to my thinking they really didn't need them - the output of the MG14 with its 200rd belt drum was more than enough on its own - In the game I've always thought they could be rated as A guns as they could match the output of synchro twin mounts at the front of scouts but accepted that the B rating represents the difficulties of using a 'flexible' mount.
Thanks Andrea for the insight & your thoughts on why & how the models are selected - some of that may soon end up in the rules FAQ !!

[Naharaht]

Whilst there were few or no Central Powers aircraft with twin rear guns, there were several two-seaters with twin forward guns. The easiest one to introduce would be an UFAG C1. One could be included in the reprint of Series 3. Several Hansa-Brandenberg seaplanes could have twin forward guns as could the Junkers CL.1 and some Junkers J.1's.

[Angiolillo]

Evidence of a twin machineguns Ufag C.I would be appreciated!

(again, I only remember only a single experimental machine, probably not even at the front)

[fast.git]

Whilst there were few or no Central Powers aircraft with twin rear guns, there were several two-seaters with twin forward guns. The easiest one to introduce would be an UFAG C1. One could be included in the reprint of Series 3. Several Hansa-Brandenberg seaplanes could have twin forward guns as could the Junkers CL.1 and some Junkers J.1's.

The day Ares releases H-B floatplanes (especially the W.12 & W.29), I will purchase a ton.

[fast.git]

With Andrea's official (but as yet unpublished) special rules for these planes, as detail above... problem solved (well, not the Hannover misprint card issue, but the special rules!)

These look really sharp, Alex. How did you affix the additional text? Clear printer labels?

[milcoll73]

Would you suggest that I reached for my sarcasm detector or my two Corgi Aviation Archive models of 1/144 scale B-29As Tu-4 carrying SSSR markings / B-29A USAAF Ding-How which was one of the planes the Soviets captured ...

Those last two look pretty much the same to me and the sarcasm detector is buried deep in my only just got up out of bed bag

might have taken a while for the tubes to warm up but it seems to be working now

[Flying Helmut]

Adding a B damage to another B is more powerful than a single A damage. So a pilot with a gunner aiming independently is better than a pilot with 2 guns. Hmmm.

But an observer firing at a target at higher level cannot be joined by the pilot, so it's one 'B' or the other 'B' - not both.