:D This time an SE 5a by MH.
Attachment 264419
Printable View
:D This time an SE 5a by MH.
Attachment 264419
Great shot, great plane, can't say something nice about it's livery. :p
What do you mean? Who doesnt love Brown? It is the colour of chocolate :eat:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teaticket
I can see that for most pilots once the Lewis drum was empty it would be back to the single Vickers. No way would I be out of my seat and mucking about changing that magazine.
Barry you never fail to come up with beautiful images.
Have you forgotten that the gun comes down the slide to reload. You can probably stay seated while reloading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baxter
Nice pic Barry, despite the colour.
:cheezy: Yeah so Brown it will re-ignite the old, old argument about the "real" colour of PC 10. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel
Yes, it is a great photograph, Barry! Thank you for posting it.
This photograph shows a pilot changing the drum on a wing mounted Lewis gun, Gary. It will have been taken on the ground but it demonstrates the principle.
Attachment 264432
Thank you for posting that David. :drinks:
nice
Lovely pics of the SE 5a and changing a drum magazine on a wing mounted Lewis gun. Tks.
Most impressive, Baz!
That position can also be used for firing upwards into the belly of a sitter Gary !Quote:
Originally Posted by Baxter
A method utilised by Albert Ball and Ares with the "Higher Gun" optional rules.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ing_Q27564.jpg
Great photo, as you always seem to find, Baz!:sAprvd: The close-up of the Lewis on the wing is splendid, too.
The variation from green to brown with PC10 doesn't really bother me - I shift back and forth with paints and repaints to provide a little variety in my hangar.
All the best,
Matt
Great picture, Barry!
One of the SE5a repaints I bought on ebay is almost the exact same brown; I guess now I won't have to change it!
Nice photos of the pilot working the Lewis gun. Thanks for those David and Dave.
Another great one, Barry. And David, nice demonstration of the drum-changing procedure.
It always surprised me that they didn't fit the Se.5A with twin vickers; I wouldn't think the weight difference would be that great, less drag from the loss of the lewis, and less difference in bullet streams.
Karl
I believe it was due to the four-bladed prop - only half as much time to get the two guns to fire before the next blade arrived in the path of the gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jager
All two-bladed prop planes got synchronised twin Vickers from the Camel onwards.
The over-wing gun was a comparative failure; difficult to aim, requiring frequent reloading, causing much greater drag, and upsetting the centre of gravity.
It is notable that the SE5a was the last fighter to mount it - as soon as the cowling-mounted twin Vickers was sorted out, the over-wing Lewis disappeared; across the board, Gone, never to return! If it was as good as it is now in Wings of Glory, why on Earth did everybody get rid of it?
Other games, such as Richthofen's War, penalise the firing of the SE5a, making it less effective than the twin cowling gun arrangement.
Wings of Glory is alone in boosting the overall performance of the over-wing Lewis, especially now with the game-changing-and-utterly-overpowerful "Higher Machine Gun" card.
Just because one skilled Ace and proven marksman (Ball) could use it in that fashion, doesn't mean that EVERY Entente pilot with an over-wing gun should be able to do so.
Especially when many of the various over-wing mountings did NOT allow the gun to be tilted upwards at all..................
It should be an Ace Skill, not an aircraft upgrade card.
Sounds like a house rule that is a must.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Helmut
Didn't think about the 4 bladed prop. :hmm:
Karl
Quite agree Tim.
I only ever let Ball use the Higher Machine Gun as no other Ace I have ever read about mentions using it.
Rob.
:sAprvd: I totally agree Rob!Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte
I never use the SE's Lewis for anything except straight ahead shooting.:D
I managed to eradicate the card in my gaming group, when I pointed out that a plane could shoot horizontally at long range against an on-rushing opponent, then, on the next card (when the two planes overlap) the pilot could unlock the gun, pull it back into an upward-firing direction, lock it again, then aim and fire (gaining two damage cards, both at +1 for consecutive fire) all within a 2 second time duration!!!!!
And, of course, the enemy cannot shoot back.
Clearly, ridiculous.
I'm toying with the idea of re-introducing the card, with the following rules..........
1) Play a long straight, and announce re-positioning of the gun (plane may not fire pilot guns at all on this card). Place the 'Higher Machine Gun' card on the console.
2) Play any number of cards - plane may only fire the 'Higher Machine Gun' in an overlap situation (any other gun may fire normally instead, ie SE5a cowling Vickers may fire as a 'B' gun, but not both on the same card!)
3) On any long straight, the pilot may return the gun to horizontal firing (may not fire on this card, and must announce the cessation of the 'Higher Machine Gun' card). The card is removed from the console.
Needs more play-testing.
It appears that the intended armament for the SE5 was to be one Vickers & one Lewis - firing through the propeller shaft.
When at prototype phase the intended guns were fitted to the second machine for test purposes - a depression had to be let into the top surface of the fuel tank to accommodate the single synchronised Vickers, it was offset to port & mounted so the breech was inside the cockpit so that jams could be dealt with. The Lewis was shifted to the over wing position on a Foster mount. There is speculation that Albert Ball suggested this as he had flown another prototype previously. Both weapons were angled up 5 degrees & their aiming points converged at 150 yds.
This arrangement was kept on the third prototype that had the first of the 200hp geared HS engines with a four bladed prop, though it's said the Lewis could have been set up to fire through the prop shaft on this model it never was.
(Aeroplanes of the Royal Aircraft Factory by Paul R Hare)
The SE5 & 5a were produced with both two & four bladed props depending on the engine fitted and gear ratios used but don't seem to have had a bearing on the weaponry used. Some pilots distrusted the synchro gear fitted & preferred the Lewis so maybe having the two different weapons worked out for them in the end.
I said the same thing when the Higher Gun rules first came out Tim - use in a head on pass is not only clearly ridiculous but very gamey and open to abuse. :hmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Helmut
I would suggest it be only used when attacking through the blindspot below the tail - as that's how it was used. Getting into such a position in WoG would be nigh on impossible without serious forward planning- unless your opponent was asleep - and combined with your house rule suggestions unlikely to happen by chance.
I also think the amount of damage caused should be curtailed - you can fire between altitudes already but only deal 1 card at close range - maybe the same should apply to the Higher machine gun rule.
You'd get a shot at close range (within blindspot) dealing 1 card damage and a shot if overlapped dealing 2 card damage to make it worth the effort.
Might drop these ideas into the House Rules...
and so I did ! https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...se-Rule-Option
I have read that Albert Ball used the tactic of approaching an enemy plane from underneath and from the rear, pulling his over-wing gun into position, and running a line of bullets from tail to engine down the underside of the fuselage. The plane would usually nose over and spiral into the ground. Being that there was little, but canvas and wicker, between the bullets and the pilot, this attack would be deadly.
Within game terms, it is hard to emulate this attack using random damage draws. Having the option of a double card draw helps, but doesn't guarantee taking out the object of the attack, as I think would be likely in such an attack. Playability and fun in gaming comes to mind, which wasn't the point in WWI.
I concede the point of gaminess in the equipment cards as provided, if you look at the head-on profile. I don't know how the mount worked, nor how easy it would have been to unlock the gun, pull it down, and fire it. I wouldn't consider it necessary (again, having no idea how stable this mount was in relation to the MG kick-back) to lock it in place to shoot upward.
As to how many pilots used this tactic? If I were to cast back to the time of WWI, some pilots would consider such an attack 'completely unsportsmanlike'. So, was it used by other than Albert Ball? Very likely. Would they have even said so in public? In that time, perhaps not.