Rifles

[David Manley]

Some time ago there was some discssion as to how to deal with very early war aircraft and such oddities as rifle fire. of course now that I need it I can't find it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[Flying Officer Kyte]

This bit by Bilbo is all I have been able to find Dave. Maybe some of the other chaps will have more luck.
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/images/icons/icon5.png Voisin III


Hi again!

the second plane for which I'll need the stats is

Specifications (Voisin III or LA)

Data from The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps (Military Wing) [3]

General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 9.50 m (31 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 14.74 m (48 ft 4 in)
Height: 2.95 m (9 ft 8 in)
Wing area: 49.7 m² (534 ft²)
Empty weight: 950 kg (2,094 lb)
Loaded weight: 1,350 kg (2,976 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Salmson M.9 water-cooled radial engine, 97 kW (130 hp)

Performance

Maximum speed: 105 km/h (57 knots, 65 mph) at sea level
Endurance: 4½ hours
Climb to 1,000 m (3,300 ft): 12 min
Climb to 2,000 m (6,600 ft): 30 min

Armament

Guns: 1× .303 in Lewis gun
Bombs: up to 91 kg (200 lb) of bombs

On October 5, 1914 , over Jonchery, Reims, Sergeant Joseph Frantz and Corporal Louis Quénault of Escadrille VB24 scored the first air-to-air kill (not involving ramming - see Pyotr Nesterov) of the war, shooting down a German Aviatik B.II with machine gun fire. Quénault fired two 48-round magazines at the Germans. The Germans returned fire with rifles. When the Frenchman's 8mm Hotchkiss M1909 machine gun jammed, he successfully returned fire with his rifle. Oberleutnant Fritz von Zangen and Sergeant Wilhelm Schlichting of FFA 18 fell to their deaths. This is believed to be the first air-to-air kill in any war.




Rob.

[petitbilbo]

I found tales of actual bricks being thrown (in propellers), pistols being fired and even of an English sharpshooter who flew with his own hunting rifle (re-enacted in the series "Wings") in the early days of the war, but I'll have to search for the links I have.

I'll be back!

:salute:

[IRM]

There was all sorts of weird and wonderful early weapons tried; small arms, thrown objects, even lengths of rope !

I suppose you could always resolve rifle fire by using the trench fire rules (A-damage, only causes special damage results but no damage points). Maybe either count damage points on taking a special damage result or just a single point ?

[Zakopious]

Some time ago there was some discssion as to how to deal with very early war aircraft and such oddities as rifle fire. of course now that I need it I can't find it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

The rules for Blue Max/Canvas Eagles deals with carbine/rifle fire on pages 16 -17.

See: http://www.eaglesmax.com/eagles_downloads.html

[Linz]

I was thinking about this on my walk to work today.
This is what I came up with.
Rifles same range as mg's 1 card at long range 2 cards at close range
Pistols only close range 1 card only
Use the B damage deck
Only 1 shot per turn (3 movement cards)
Enemy plane has to be at least in long range for two moves for rifles and at least one move short and one long move for pistols.
The idea being that over three movement cards a rifle could lay down accurate fire equating to a machine gun could do in one move.
I would include all damage cards as well including explosions.
These rules would allow a rifle to fire up or down a level but a pistol could not.
Arcs of fire for two seaters same as for rear machine-guns as for single seaters or pilots of two seaters 90 degrees from the cockpit forward to 12.5 degrees from the fuselage. Or in other words from the shoulder through to the outer edge of the propeller arc.
Keen to hear your thoughts.
Linz

[Doug]

That sounds good to me.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Would a single seater pilot be able to fly the plane and take aim with a rifle Linz?
Rob.

[Madboyo]

I was thinking about this on my walk to work today.
This is what I came up with.
Rifles same range as mg's 1 card at long range 2 cards at close range
Pistols only close range 1 card only
Use the B damage deck
Only 1 shot per turn (3 movement cards)

Linz
I like it. As an alternative maybe allowing shots to only be able to fire during a straight.

[Kaiser]

Would a single seater pilot be able to fly the plane and take aim with a rifle Linz?
Rob.

You could randomly re-draw the maneuver card following the rifle-shot to represent the lack of control of the pilot.
Very bad if the new maneuver is a forbidden move (Stall after Stall, etc). There my optional "Realism" rules for Spins and Powerdives could be used: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?6216-Kaisers-Mod-for-more-Realism

[David Manley]

How about this as an amalgam from the good ideas above?

1) Fire using the "B" deck, and only count "1" or special damage
2) Fire only possible if the aircraft has made a "straight" move
3) Draw a card at random from the remaining cards in the maoeivre deck. If the card is a climb, dive, steep or immelman card then use the next card as planned, otherwise use the randomly drawn card. Experienced pilots may ignore this rule.

[Linz]

Rob I do know that some pilots attached rifles to their aircraft. Something similar to Lanore Hawkers Lewis mounting on his Bristol Scout. Read of one aircraft having one mounted each side. Of course a mount like that would reduce the arc of fire to something similar to Hawkers Scout.
Thinking about when the damage card should be played I would suggest that it is played after the second in range movement card has been played and if either movement has brought the plane into close range then then the close range option is played. If both keep the aircraft at long range then long range option applies. If only one movement out of three brings the aircraft into range then no firing.
Having said all that I do like to try to keep things simple, if you start changing values of damage cards, ie 1point or -2 points, you then have to keep those cards aside so you don,t get them confused with cards that you are taking all the points on. Confused yet? The 1 point rule would also slow the game down it would take longer to shoot the opponent down.
Back to pilot being able to fire a rifle I think if it is fitted to the aircraft yes if not then it's pistols at 50 paces.
I think adding special rules re control of aircraft just makes things even more complicated.
Well that's enough rantings from me
Linz

[Zoe Brain]

Some time ago there was some discssion as to how to deal with very early war aircraft and such oddities as rifle fire. of course now that I need it I can't find it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?6771-Bristol-Scout&p=96002#post96002 ?

[David Manley]

Bingo! Well done Zoe.

[Linz]

Zoe
Thought I would bring your ideas over to this thread, hope nobody minds.

"So - how do we deal with the really early war, pre-fokker-scourge days?

One way of dealing with the use of pistols, carbines, shotguns etc from single-seaters is to have two firing arcs, of about 45 degrees each, one left, one right, from 90 to 135 degrees, one 225 to 270 degrees. Range is a half-ruler, B firing deck, and subtract two from damage, ignoring explosions.

Observers have normal firing arcs for two-seaters - rear 180 degrees with a "blind arc." They are deemed to be using single, aimed full-calibre bolt-action rifle shots. Use full range (but don't take two cards at short range), use B firing deck, subtracting two from damage but don't ignore explosions.

An exception is the BE2C, which has a much restricted firing arc, from 135 to 225 degrees.
No "tailing" .

This means of course that shooting anything down at all will occur rarely. You need multiple engine hits or pilot hits.

A much improved aircraft will have a single machine gun for the observer in a two-seater. These would be dangerous to each other, and to single-seat scouts silly enough to try to shoot them down with a pistol. A single-seat scout with a 45 degree angled lewis should have a small firing arc, as it's not really possible to yaw very much to bring the gun to bear, but still a massive improvement.

Play a few games like this to get players used to it.
Then introduce a Fokker, a Morane N, or a Nieuport with an overwing lewis... and see what happens."

[Linz]

Thinking of fire arcs for two seaters with gunner in the rear seat I think the Roland arc would be good.
I feel that it would be possible to fire between the wings with a rifle or pistol.
Linz

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Having looked at all these very interesting pieces of information about the use of hand held firearms, and the ramifications about the difficulty of getting enough hits to conclude a game in a reasonable time scale, I have decided that this ultra early period is not for me. I will, however, continue to follow this very informative debate with interest.
Rob.

[Linz]

I think we have to change our thoughts about the way we play WOW. At the moment it's mainly about getting kills regardless what aircraft you fly. History tells us that the main roles of aircraft was artillery spotting, recon, bombing, photos and protecting friendly or shooting down enemy aircraft on missions. As such arming of the first aircraft was purely defensive the mission was the priority. Perhaps we need a stack of mission cards that are picked at random.
From what I have read it's a bit like fishing. There were a lot of missions and patrols that were completed without contact with the enemy.
Interested in your thoughts
Linz

[petitbilbo]

I think we have to change our thoughts about the way we play WOW. At the moment it's mainly about getting kills regardless what aircraft you fly. History tells us that the main roles of aircraft was artillery spotting, recon, bombing, photos and protecting friendly or shooting down enemy aircraft on missions. As such arming of the first aircraft was purely defensive the mission was the priority. Perhaps we need a stack of mission cards that are picked at random.
From what I have read it's a bit like fishing. There were a lot of missions and patrols that were completed without contact with the enemy.
Interested in your thoughts
Linz

I really like that!

I'm encountering the same problem in our campaign, where the actual mission of the "aggressor" is just an excuse to get the fight started.

:salute:

[radzak]

there have also been acounts of pilots with flare guns, think they could be used as a weapon...

[Flying Officer Kyte]

there have also been acounts of pilots with flare guns, think they could be used as a weapon...

I would not expect them to be any better than a one shot hand gun and probably not as good due to drift and not being aerodynamic or coming out of a rifled barrel. So I would not even bother to try and calculate a stat for them.
Rob.

[radzak]

still they could be handy if ur doing a scenario where u have to save any downed pilots and get them of the warzone. and i mean with trucks not other planes saving them. it might be longer but it could be a fun scenario...

i'll think about this and possibly make a scenario like that.

[Baldrick62]

There were a lot of missions and patrols that were completed without contact with the enemy.
Interested in your thoughts
Linz

Linz,
You're quite right, but it makes for a pretty boring game given that there is no flying skill involved in laying cards on a mat! Unless you want to introduce belligerent weather effects!
BofB

[Watchdog]

I would not expect them to be any better than a one shot hand gun and probably not as good due to drift and not being aerodynamic or coming out of a rifled barrel. So I would not even bother to try and calculate a stat for them.
Rob.

How about when the flare gun is used against an observation balloon or a Zeppelin? Would that be worth coming up with some stats for those?;)

[Baldrick62]

One way of dealing with the use of pistols, carbines, shotguns etc from single-seaters is to have two firing arcs, of about 45 degrees each, one left, one right, from 90 to 135 degrees, one 225 to 270 degrees. Range is a half-ruler, B firing deck, and subtract two from damage, ignoring explosions.

Given that the effective range of a pistol fired from a stationary position against a stationary target is about 10m (30ft), about the only thing worthwhile doing with a pistol is what most pilots did; shoot themselves in the head when their aircraft was on fire!

[jbmacek]

In that recent British tv show that we here in the states are unable to watch there is a segment where they give the observers in each two-seater a five shot "laser rifle" and have them try to score a hit on the other guy. If memory serves, they fired something on the order of 30 shots during the test and neither scored a hit. Based on that, I'm tempted to say they aren't effective weapons at all. However, there's not much fun in that as a rule, so were I to house rule rifles, I think I'd go with "ignore all hits except special damage."

[Baldrick62]

And as you point out, they're using lasers which, apart from atmospheric distortion, operate in a straight 'line of sight', rather than the bullet coming from a rifle which would be subject to ballistic fall of shot, wind buffet, movement of the shooter between trigger squeeze and the projectile leaving the end of the barrel, etc, so even less likely to score an aimed (rather than lucky fluke) hit on another moving target.

[somaliavet]

there have also been acounts of pilots with flare guns, think they could be used as a weapon...

If you drawn an explosion, you succeeded in setting your own aircraft on fire! ;)

[petitbilbo]

In that recent British tv show that we here in the states are unable to watch there is a segment where they give the observers in each two-seater a five shot "laser rifle" and have them try to score a hit on the other guy. If memory serves, they fired something on the order of 30 shots during the test and neither scored a hit. Based on that, I'm tempted to say they aren't effective weapons at all. However, there's not much fun in that as a rule, so were I to house rule rifles, I think I'd go with "ignore all hits except special damage."

I saw that show and immediately remarked upon the flaw in their logic: only the crew were wearing the "laser-tag-receptors" whereas a bullet in the wrong part of the engine, tank, controls or even hitting a crew member trough the flimsy canvas could still do some serious damage. Plus, it's much easier to aim for the plane than for the gunner or pilot.
The test, IMHO, had no relation to any real-life situation what so ever.
(But the show was still quite interesting!)

;)

[jbmacek]

I saw that show and immediately remarked upon the flaw in their logic: only the crew were wearing the "laser-tag-receptors" whereas a bullet in the wrong part of the engine, tank, controls or even hitting a crew member trough the flimsy canvas could still do some serious damage.

That very thought had crossed my mind while typing. They need to try again, with sensors strapped to the wings and fuselage.

[Hunter]

I saw that show and immediately remarked upon the flaw in their logic: only the crew were wearing the "laser-tag-receptors" whereas a bullet in the wrong part of the engine, tank, controls or even hitting a crew member trough the flimsy canvas could still do some serious damage. Plus, it's much easier to aim for the plane than for the gunner or pilot.
The test, IMHO, had no relation to any real-life situation what so ever.
(But the show was still quite interesting!)

;)

I think you are right and have a good idea for what might have been reality in early WWI.

[Rabbit 3]

And as you point out, they're using lasers which, apart from atmospheric distortion, operate in a straight 'line of sight', rather than the bullet coming from a rifle which would be subject to ballistic fall of shot, wind buffet, movement of the shooter between trigger squeeze and the projectile leaving the end of the barrel, etc, so even less likely to score an aimed (rather than lucky fluke) hit on another moving target.
On the other side of the argument though, the person firing the rifie would most likely have been a crack shot with whatever rifle was being used.
In the British Army it would have been the Lee-Enfield rifle.

[Baldrick62]

I'm not convinced that 'Christmas-treeing' the airframe with MILES sensors would have made much of a difference in terms of getting a rifle calibre bullet to do vital damage to anything, so trying to hit the crew was probably as indicative as anything else.

As someone who was there when the real shooting was going on opined 'How many riflemen can compute the exact point ahead of their gun muzzle where the bullet and the pilot's head must meet? Occasional hits are made at random, but the percentage is ridiculously low... (it is) a hundred to one that no hits will be received' - 'Fighting the Flying Circus' (E.V Rickenbacker, NYC: Stokes 1919). And that was talking about a shot fired from terra firma rather than a moving aircraft.

As to British 'crack shots', many early observers (and by extension, gunners) were enlisted squadron mechanics who were taken aloft to get an extra pittance to their pay, rather than the steely-eyed infantry sharpshooters who decimated the advancing Germans at Mons.

[Rabbit 3]

I'm not convinced that 'Christmas-treeing' the airframe with MILES sensors would have made much of a difference in terms of getting a rifle calibre bullet to do vital damage to anything, so trying to hit the crew was probably as indicative as anything else.

As someone who was there when the real shooting was going on opined 'How many riflemen can compute the exact point ahead of their gun muzzle where the bullet and the pilot's head must meet? Occasional hits are made at random, but the percentage is ridiculously low... (it is) a hundred to one that no hits will be received' - 'Fighting the Flying Circus' (E.V Rickenbacker, NYC: Stokes 1919). And that was talking about a shot fired from terra firma rather than a moving aircraft.

As to British 'crack shots', many early observers (and by extension, gunners) were enlisted squadron mechanics who were taken aloft to get an extra pittance to their pay, rather than the steely-eyed infantry sharpshooters who decimated the advancing Germans at Mons.
Hmmm... I think you may have a point here.
However I just discovered this article while doing a bit of research for this debate and, while its really about machine-gun use it might give us a clue as to what was actually going on with rifiles earlier.
I.E they got REALLY close and below before shooting.
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Nodeflect.htm
(Also gives me some nasty ideas for using the FE2b as well:guns:!)

[Baldrick62]

Rabbit,
An very interesting article, and illustrates nicely the point I made earlier about line-of-sight lasers v ballistic projectiles in the 'WWI Top Guns' programme. I'm currently reading a book by Leon Bennett which goes into the technicalities of rifle and machine-gun fire against an aircraft in attempting to confirm who shot down MvR: on the balance of probability he reckons a rifleman, but only because there were potentially thousands of them 'putting out rounds' toward MvR's triplane at the time.
Cheers,
BofB

[Rabbit 3]

In the light of the info from that article I`m now thinking on the lines of,

"In order to fire a rifle at an enemy plane the firing aircraft has to be in a tailing position at the end of the movement phase, able to trace a line of fire through the back edge of the target planes stand. Be at 1/2 a ruler or less from the target and one level below.
A rifle does one `B` damage and takes one full turn to reload after firing."

[petitbilbo]

:confused:
Doesn't that mean you fire through the propeller?
:confused:

[Rat of Vengence]

Rabbit,
An very interesting article, and illustrates nicely the point I made earlier about line-of-sight lasers v ballistic projectiles in the 'WWI Top Guns' programme. I'm currently reading a book by Leon Bennett which goes into the technicalities of rifle and machine-gun fire against an aircraft in attempting to confirm who shot down MvR: on the balance of probability he reckons a rifleman, but only because there were potentially thousands of them 'putting out rounds' toward MvR's triplane at the time.
Cheers,
BofB
What infantryman below wouldn't have been watching the dogfighting? (assuming noone was charging across no-mans land at the time :/ ) Then, add to the fact that one of the aircraft is a bright red triplane, what infantryman wouldn't have emptied his magazine in it's direction?

I think you make a good point Baldrick.

Dave

[petitbilbo]

:confused:
Doesn't that mean you fire through the propeller?
:confused:

Hum hum... sorryyyyyyy!
Had not yet read the article and didn't see the mention "one level below"... :sick:

[Linz]

The number of times aircraft where shot down by either ground or air to air small arms fire I quite low, I think we can all be agreed on this. However within the confines of our game we have to assume that every time we take to the air (in the game) we will meet up with an enemy aircraft and on of us will be shot down. This is not exactly real as there were a lot of flights where no contact was made or little or no damage was done when contact was made. Consider MVR assuming he flew 5 times a week in one year alone that's 260 flights with only 80kills. It is recorded that on some days 3 to 5 flights where made on that day. 2 flights per day where not uncommon.
What we have to assume is that every flight will be a contact and a kill will happen so for playability how do we equate the effectiveness of a rifle to a machine gun and still give the rifle the ability to shoot down the enermy aircraft.
Hence my suggestion for rifle etc.

[guthroth]

Major thread necromancy here, but can anyone tell me if there has been any further discussion or conclusion on this subject ?

Happy landings

Pete

[flash]

csadn posted this on the 1915 enthusiast thread if it helps Peter:

I have rules for this -- B deck draw; short range only, but only one card drawn per shot; ignore all damage numbers -- only apply critical-hit results.
but it's pretty similar to what's above, I expect those into it went with their own ideas or cherry picked from this thread.

[guthroth]

Interesting ideas and comments, thanks.

It is a problem, designing a system that is both a ‘Game’ and at least somewhat ‘Realistic’ when the players do not feel the fear of loss of life and limb that must have accompanied flying aircraft mostly made of canvas and wire.

The discussion we had centred at my club on somehow simulating the vastly reduced amount of lead flying about the when MG’s were not involved. Someone at the club has ordered a Taube so a tussle between that and my Avro 504 is a real temptation.

For our first game, when the rifle armed aircraft fires we will –
1. Use the B deck but reduce the damage number by 2
2. Ignore explosions.
3. For all other specials roll a D6 and only apply if a 1-3 is rolled.

Risk and entertainment but not too on-sided. I would be surprised if an MG armed aircraft was to lose such an encounter but there is still a risk.

Happy Landings

Pete

[Zoe Brain]

Other calculations have shown that a burst is about 24 rounds.
So you can say that 12 rounds at short range is equal to a single B deck draw.
Each card represents about 2 seconds.

From that... a single, aimed rifle shot at long range from a steady aircraft takes around 6 seconds. While aimed rifle fire can take 2 seconds with a bolt action rifle from a prone position on the ground, even 1 aimed round every 6 seconds would be pretty good shooting from a plane. Less dispersion with a rifle, so assume twice as accurate as an MG, but take time to aim, no spraying at fleeting targets.

In order to keep things simple..... introduce dice. A D12 and a D6.

Rifles get 1 shot at the end of the turn, rolling a D12 at long range, a D6 at short, requiring a 1 to hit. They then do a normal B damage.
Pistols, assumed to be semi-auto or revolvers, roll a D12 at short range only, but can fire on any turn.
Arc of fire is all round for observers, pilots can shoot anywhere in the forward 180 degree arc.

For all firing through the propellor with unsynchronised guns, any jam causes an A damage to the firer (if prop not fitted with deflectors), or a B damage if it is. The only official aircraft this applies to is the Morane N.

[Black Kniggit]

well one could toss hand grenades at each other from plane to plane,we can see how well it flies lol

[Flying Officer Kyte]

All I can say is I hope you enjoy very long games. and have plenty of ammo.
Rob.

[OldGuy59]

well one could toss hand grenades at each other from plane to plane,we can see how well it flies lol
Tossing "Mills Bombs", rated as a 30 meter throwing range, and a 100 meter danger zone. On the ground, a thrower would take cover in his trench. Where would the pilot/observer take cover? Behind the canvas sides of the airframe?

Just saying...

[flash]

Tossing "Mills Bombs", rated as a 30 meter throwing range, and a 100 meter danger zone. On the ground, a thrower would take cover in his trench. Where would the pilot/observer take cover? Behind the canvas sides of the airframe? Just saying...

Think the pilot would have trouble throwing it very far from a seated position - he could drop it on them of course - with the seven second fuse the separation vertically and horizontally should be sufficiently safe - an aircraft doing about 90mph will be travelling about 44yds per sec so he's hitting the 100 yard mark in 2.5 secs - even with the later 4 sec fuse he should be clear. After all, they dropped frags on trenches fairly successfully !
Whether they could time it right to hit a plane - well that's a different story !

[fast.git]

Whether they could time it right to hit a plane - well that's a different story !

I'd probably be more successful closing my eyes and chucking one blindly than I would by "aiming"... ;)

[Ned2]

Having spent time attempting to play some early war missions I would say that they are not conducive to entertaining games of WOG. Although they do have their own stately, sedate pace! :thumbsup:

I have tended to keep the shooting simple with a ruler's length for rifles and half a ruler for pistols and other such weapons. B deck for damage but only counting special damage.

If folks want to play the earlier period of the war I think it needs to be played on an operational scale in order to create WOG games with meaning. I have some thoughts on this but need to do some more reading around the early air war before I say anything further on the subject.