Caudron G4 Firing Arcs

[flashard]

I'd really appreciate peoples thoughts on the firing arcs of the Caudron G4. Clearly the engines and props would limit the arc of the forward firing gun when shooting at targets at the same altitude:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/alb...chmentid=29745

but what about when firing at targets above? Should there be 2 forward arcs?

also what about the rear arc of fire? there's an awful lot of tail there.

Finally has anyone seen any reference to a twin forward firing MG mount other than on this excellent model:

http://www.largescaleplanes.com/Phot...s/mybuilds.php

The Caudron was in service for a while so I'm guessing that MG mounts were modified and increased in the light of experience. So I may require a few different cards dependant upon time frame role and Nation opperating.

[flashard]

Just seen The latest stats from Zoe mmm. A nice simple solution, but I think I'd prefer seperate front and rear arcs. Also not sure about 360 degree coverage.

I know that some aircraft had over-wing rear firing MG with the potential to fire out at 90 degrees:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...on-G4-armament

but the firer would not be able to sight along the weapon, making it pretty ineffective at such extreme arcs.

Now I look at the photos again; is that wierd MG mount on the front to prevent the gunner shooting off the props. It looks like it would allow some sort of eliptical arc.

[jbmacek]

I'd really appreciate peoples thoughts on the firing arcs of the Caudron G4. Clearly the engines and props would limit the arc of the forward firing gun when shooting at targets at the same altitude:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/alb...chmentid=29745

On the other hand, this card says that the Caudron, with a pivoting mg in the front, has the same arc as a fixed mg scout. I lean in the other direction, thinking it should have a full arc in front. WoW is a simple game, and I think this is one of the few areas that really stirs up some controversy.

[Linz]

The Caudron has been an exception to just about every rule you could find.
Technically it would have a greater than the standard arc when firing down as well as up.
I think the question is whether the gunner would be able to swing the gun around enough to take advantage of this. Unlike the Fe2b the cockpit on the G4 is quite tight.
How do you guys think the game designer would draw up th arcs for this aircraft?
Linz

[Zoe Brain]

A 90 degree frontal arc rather than the usual 60 degree one is probably right, though may be a little generous. As for the rear - depends on the mount. The Russians appear to have used over-wing mounts with about a 150 degree firing arc. The proposal we used isn't too inaccurate, and has the virtue of simplicity.

[jbmacek]

How do you guys think the game designer would draw up th arcs for this aircraft?
Linz

Were I playtesting this game, the first question I would ask is "what does the expanded firing arc on all these fixed mount scouts represent?" I'd then take it from there. Does it represent the pilot's ability to yaw the plane left or right a bit to take a bead on a target? Or is it a design feature of the game - something to make it easier to hit enemy planes so the game has more action? I suspect it is really the latter, with the former being a good rationalization. Notice this doesn't really translate to any other mounts on two-seaters. Do any of them have expaned rear arcs? Not that I recall. Of course, a way to rationalize this would be to say there's not much communication between pilot and observer, so the pilot doesn't know he needs to yaw the plane a little left or right to give the observer a chance at a clear shot.

And... I just spent way more time thinking about the logic to this game than I ever have before (well, expect for my comparison of bombers speed in mm to those of scouts a year or so ago). Most games I don't mind nitpicking, but this game is just too much fun to worry about the details.

[flashard]

All good stuff guys. Having given it more thought I think I'm going to go for a standard 60 degree arc to the front with a 140 degree arc to the rear whilst observing the "Blind Spots for Rear Guns (Optional Rule)" for targets at the same altitute or below. In the case of the underwing mount that should prevent the gunner shooting the wing struts out or beating the pilot around the head. I figure that's nearly there without over complicating matters. Now where is my red marker.....

[jbmacek]

More Caudron G.4 fun!

I'm fully convinced...



were one to look around long enough...




one could find an example...



of any firing arc or gun configuration...



one could imagine.

[Pooh]

the Caudron, like the FE2b has a crew of 2 right! So whatever firing arcs you allow, you can only fire 1 gun at a time. I plan to use standard firing arcs. I'm just finishing up my Caudron and its combat debut is tomorrow night. We'll see if the Fokker scourge is all its cracked up to be.

Pooh

BTW: on the FE2b the gunner has to stand up in the plane to fire to the rear. Do you think that would put some restrictions on manouvers the pilot can fly when he does. It wouldn't be pretty if the gunner departed the plane unexpectedly. I'm think of saying no difficult manouvers on moves when shooting to the rear.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Several memoirs by both pilots and observer/gunners mention the suprise that they had not lost or been lost over the side during evasive manouvers. I would therefore suspect that the gunner/pilot trust was a factor in how confident the gunner was and how much the pilot felt he could afford to throw the plane about whilst being the recipient of a sustained attack. Was it better to risk loosing your gunner over the side, or return to the Drome with a preserved but dead gunner?
Rob.

[Guntruck]

I bet he wouldn't be leaning out quite so far if the fans were on!

[csadn]

BTW: on the FE2b the gunner has to stand up in the plane to fire to the rear. Do you think that would put some restrictions on manouvers the pilot can fly when he does. It wouldn't be pretty if the gunner departed the plane unexpectedly. I'm think of saying no difficult manouvers on moves when shooting to the rear.

I would think the rear-gunner restrictions applied to the Bristol F2B would serve the purpose.

[kduke42]

I've given the Fee some thought too and think the owner would have to "declare" (like with a chit or something) whether the gunner is working the forward or aft gun for that specific card play. Or maybe for simplicity the position is chosen at the same time the maneuver cards are picked and he stays on that direction for all three cards. That would counteract the 360 degree ability by making him pick which 180 he covers. In a given turn.

[Linz]

The rule we play is that it takes one movement card to change from one gun to the other.
So in one turn if on card 1 the rear gun is fired then no firing on card two the front gun cannot fire until card three is played.
If firing same gun card 1 and 2 then change card 3 and firing on other gun starts 1st card next turn.
Linz

[gully_raker]

The rule we play is that it takes one movement card to change from one gun to the other.
So in one turn if on card 1 the rear gun is fired then no firing on card two the front gun cannot fire until card three is played.
If firing same gun card 1 and 2 then change card 3 and firing on other gun starts 1st card next turn.
Linz

That sounds spot on to me Linz!

[Flying Officer Kyte]

That sounds spot on to me Linz!

Yes I agree Barry. A nice easy rule that even an old git like I am can't forget.
Rob.

[johnbiggles]

I have my G4 on a Roland base, using the wider spread (rear gun)for the front shooting arc, and using the rear position, after declaring and moving like Linz says, to fire at aircraft above me, as I think the RNAS only had the pin on the leadin edge of the top wing. I give it a 180 arc for simplicity

[Rabbit 3]

Well this was my take on it.

As far as firing at a higher level goes I just went with the committee`s ruling.

[johnbiggles]

I've seen three different cards for this plane, showing movement decks XB, XC, and XD, and damage from 15 to 22. which is correct? or which is the most current and/or generally accepted?

[Rabbit 3]

I've seen three different cards for this plane, showing movement decks XB, XC, and XD, and damage from 15 to 22. which is correct? or which is the most current and/or generally accepted?

Well since its an unnofficial plane stats are pretty much down to the opinion of the person who did the card!
That one of mine though is based on the stats found in the current version of the official/unnofficial committee`s spreadsheet found in the files section, just some interpretation by me of the fire arc.
So its at least `semi-official` as far as most people round here are concerned.

[Zoe Brain]

That one of mine though is based on the stats found in the current version of the official/unnofficial committee`s spreadsheet found in the files section, just some interpretation by me of the fire arc.

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...o=file&id=1575 is where you'll find it.

[johnbiggles]

Hi Robert, I've been looking at cards for my "unofficial" planes, and I have downloaded several of yours.
You do really good work. Thank you.

See you in the mess sometime, but until then have these on me

[Albert Ross]

Well this was my take on it.

As far as firing at a higher level goes I just went with the committee`s ruling.

Well that is the option I went with for my two G4's, partly because the card is already done! Now looking at the photos of the real thing, I chose this one because it's pretty obvious that the second, over the wing gun, is fired by the pilot not the observer (like the single gun on a Nieuport Scout)
http://albindenis.free.fr/Site_escad...7_Fonck_G4.jpg
If it was good enough for Capitaine Fonck it's good enough for me!

Now both guns face forward (it was easier to model them that way too) so in the frontal arc only, my Caudrons have a B/B armament which is pretty unpleasant for any Boche unwary enough to make a head on pass!