Without altitude the Fe2 definitely needs some sort of rear fire. With altitude I think any position higher, even one climb counter, should be enough for rear firing. My take on it for what its worth.Originally Posted by Linz
Without altitude the Fe2 definitely needs some sort of rear fire. With altitude I think any position higher, even one climb counter, should be enough for rear firing. My take on it for what its worth.
If you don't play altitude rules, a reduction in historical accuracy is inevitable. If you play altitude rule, your quote "historically [they] were not easy targets even from the rear unless you got below them" could apply equally to all two-seater planes. I agree the FE2 was a very powerful plane (and I like them) but is there not a danger you're going to make them too powerful? As far as I'm aware they were extremely good in defence but were not used as a fighter hunting down Albatros fighters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufbery_circle
Perhaps the earliest use of the tactic was by formations of F.E.2b aircraft in 1916/17 when in combat with superior German fighters
Now I'm not an expert (and there are different versions of FE2) but the use of the Lufbery circle IMHO indicates the plane was vulnerable from the rear.
Last edited by Nicola Zee; 07-24-2014 at 23:54. Reason: Added Lufbery Circle
I get it now; it won't change the cards just how the aircraft is played with/without altitude rules.
Another thought for both with/without alt rules is the change of firing angle when the aircraft turns. Whereas it may not have had a shot when flying level with an enemy on its tail, once it turns the change of attitude relative to the enemy could present the gunner with a target...something worthy of consideration.
Complex little blighter ain't it !
Dave you raise a very good point there. You could also allow add climbing as that allows a clear arc of fire too.
This has got me thinking. We accept the width of the front firing arc on an aircraft as the pilot yawing the plane, a wee touch of the rudder, what about a wee touch of the elevator to nose up or down the aircraft.
The pilot and observer worked together to defend their aircraft just because it was differcult to communicate does not make it impossible.
Imagine turning the firing arc through 90 degrees so the width becomes height.
Think circular cone of fire rather than flat vee.
This opens up a whole range of possibilities but does not have to take away the blind spot.
Linz
What he said!
Mike
Just for further confirmation - I got a response to this query from Sara Randle Project Manager, The Fighter Collection at TVAL :
"... As a gunner in FE2b's you would be unable to fire flat directly behind the aircraft - it was a real blind-spot and something enemy aircraft took advantage of.
There is a large area behind the fuselage and to either side of the fuse that was very prone to attack, The Luffberry circle (or possibly Luftberry - can't remember) was a famous defensive tactic developed with Fee's where if attacked, a formation would enter a circular tail-chase where each following aeroplane covered the rear of the aircraft in front. (Obviously this tactic has its own pitfalls!)
I have crewed the Fe2b's here many times as gunner and take it from me (being a girl) that you cannot shoot directly behind you and in fact your field of fire is very limited when using the gun to the rear. Over the top wing is fine and the higher up you can stand, the better angle you can get over that wing. I absolutely believe that gunners stood on the rims of the nacelles to get a greater range of fire, especially if they were shorter in stature and once they became familiar with this aeroplane. Many people dispute this but I don't believe any of those people have actually flown in an FE2b. ...."
Which was nice of her to take the time.
Nice to get input from someone who actually flies one of the beasties.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Nice one Dave.
Just for further confirmation - I got a response to this query from Sara Randle Project Manager, The Fighter Collection at TVAL :
"... As a gunner in FE2b's you would be unable to fire flat directly behind the aircraft - it was a real blind-spot and something enemy aircraft took advantage of.
There is a large area behind the fuselage and to either side of the fuse that was very prone to attack, The Luffberry circle (or possibly Luftberry - can't remember) was a famous defensive tactic developed with Fee's where if attacked, a formation would enter a circular tail-chase where each following aeroplane covered the rear of the aircraft in front. (Obviously this tactic has its own pitfalls!)
I have crewed the Fe2b's here many times as gunner and take it from me (being a girl) that you cannot shoot directly behind you and in fact your field of fire is very limited when using the gun to the rear. Over the top wing is fine and the higher up you can stand, the better angle you can get over that wing. I absolutely believe that gunners stood on the rims of the nacelles to get a greater range of fire, especially if they were shorter in stature and once they became familiar with this aeroplane. Many people dispute this but I don't believe any of those people have actually flown in an FE2b. ...."
Which was nice of her to take the time.
ahhhh the voice of authority!
Well, that does it for me gents.
I have now had my prejudices shored up by supporting evidence.
For me from now on it's above the top wing only and at a higher level.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
So is this going to be firing over the wing at a full level higher? Or at a target with more climb counters?Well, that does it for me gents.
I have now had my prejudices shored up by supporting evidence.
For me from now on it's above the top wing only and at a higher level.
Rob.
That is a moot point Peter, as officially climb counters are just counters, and as such do not confer any actual height differential until they are maxed out to gain another peg. Having said that I always take it that anything in the act of climbing is higher than its opponent unless that is also climbing.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Information from not an but the expert. Same goes for me Rob. Higher only, with or without counters. (Personal preference)
See you on the Dark Side......
I agree to keep it simple is best. Higher in level, stuff the counters.
If that's the case, then you'll also have to bin all your sharp-right-turns for your Camels and Dr.Is.... >;)
I am happy that whatever system you play for height, be it the official Ares rules, or your own house rules, the target must be higher than you.
I am also glad that so many people have had an opinion. the amount of debate on this thread is, I think, a great indicator of the passion that is out there for this game.
Now Chris, about the Camels ability to turn.....
While I agree with what is said here it does not take into account the mechanics of the game."... As a gunner in FE2b's you would be unable to fire flat directly behind the aircraft - it was a real blind-spot and something enemy aircraft took advantage of.
There is a large area behind the fuselage and to either side of the fuse that was very prone to attack, The Luffberry circle (or possibly Luftberry - can't remember) was a famous defensive tactic developed with Fee's where if attacked, a formation would enter a circular tail-chase where each following aeroplane covered the rear of the aircraft in front. (Obviously this tactic has its own pitfalls!)
I have crewed the Fe2b's here many times as gunner and take it from me (being a girl) that you cannot shoot directly behind you and in fact your field of fire is very limited when using the gun to the rear. Over the top wing is fine and the higher up you can stand, the better angle you can get over that wing. I absolutely believe that gunners stood on the rims of the nacelles to get a greater range of fire, especially if they were shorter in stature and once they became familiar with this aeroplane. Many people dispute this but I don't believe any of those people have actually flown in an FE2b. ...."
If you where to nose up the aircraft then the tail drops thus clearing the field of fire. Perhaps this could be represented by a stall or climb card being played before firing.
As I said before don't think in terms of flat arcs of fire think of them as cones of fire.
As it was a direct quote from TVAL it clearly wasn't meant to Linz ! Just thought that as I had made the effort to contact TVAL and they had taken the trouble to respond I should post their conclusions about the arc of fire on the real thing.
As it happens I agree with you, (as I raised the point in #103 and mentioned it in the other thread !) I think that turning, lifting the nose, climbing may give the gunner a shot (using turn/stall/climb card). Of course this may well depend on the action of the attacking aircraft so can't be a given but those with gimbal mounts and a range ruler should quickly be able to work it out. As I said before - Complex little blighter ain't it !
Really must write up some rules and buy one after all this !!!
Really must write up some rules and buy one after all this !!!
Just do it Dave! You will not regret.
Here are two photographs copied from FE2b/d vs Albatros Scouts by James F. Miller published by Osprey page 28.
The first gives an idea of how low the observer could shoot over the top wing. I believe that he was standing on a seat or footrests but the book does mention an observer stepping out of his nacelle and standing with a foot on each side and the danger of being thrown out. I do not know how tall he was.
On page 22 the author writes "The booms, propellor, wings, empennage and late-model upper wing gravity tank greatly hampered the rearward gun's cone of fire, and this mount only enabled effective defence against high-side rear attacks."
erm....
the thing about Fee's and their Observer/Gunners....they had no safety belts, and were very precariously positioned when standing to fire rearwards.
There are accounts of pilots returning sans Observer because they had made evasive manouvers when the Observer was standing.
Flicking the nose up could easily flick the Observer out.
And yet, the RAF didn't issue parachutes for fixed-wing aircrew until after the war.
Didn't want them to bail out of perfectly good aircraft, after all. The flames are just temporary
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Yes, well, as it turns out, so is life...
Flicking the nose up could easily flick the Observer out.
Latest take on all the above, using the new Ares Equipment Cards:
The plane card:
And now, a choice of Equipment Card (choose, depending on the rules used):
Mike
"Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
"Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59
Are these equipment cards a suggestion or are they actually available from somewhere, please? I have not heard about them before.
I believe that the observers were later equipped with a long safety strap, which tethered them to the machine.
I apologize for any confusion.
Ares has not produced a model of this plane, therefore, unlikely that they produced Equipment Cards for them.
Also, note the Aerodrome logo on the bottom of the text. That means the cards are not from Ares. Use them as you see fit, or not.
PS: This is my attempt to make the airplane cards as simple as possible, but allow for the extra gun, and how it was used. My interpretation, anyway.
Mike
"Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
"Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59
Thank you for clarifying this, Mike. You may also like to consider allowing the pilot to use the rear gun against enemy aircraft at a higher altitude in a forward arc, if the observer is wounded.
David,
Feel free to house rule this as you see fit.
Personally, the above cards are what I feel works. Was the gun used by the pilot? Any documented evidence? It is possible that the pilot could reach the gun, but not, IMHO, probable. First rule of flying is: "fly the plane." Depending on what the observer was doing last, would the gun even be reachable? I have no idea. Would he be floundering around trying to reach the gun, and trying to aim it, while flying? Again, I don't think it is practical.
Anyway, the cards are my offering, for those that want to use them. They are, after all, not official.
Mike
"Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
"Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59
Nice clear card Mike. Due to the multi-positional mount for the Lewis gun in the nacelle I would push the red line back to cover the front seat and have the arc from wingtip to wingtip.The plane card:
As the FE cannot fire on targets to the rear at the same level I would change the basic equipment card to read
'if the pilot executes a steep manoeuvre the observer can fire on a target to the rear, taking into consideration the rear blind spot...etc'.
This would represent the pilot's manoeuvring of the machine allowing the gunner to, briefly, get a bead on the target; it wouldn't be something that could be done every phase, would deny it the +1 Aim bonus and would make something useful of the steep side slips of the G deck as well as the stalls.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
FE2b one of the most used planes in WW1: from Wiki: The F.E.2a entered service in May 1915 with No. 6 Squadron RFC, which used the F.E.2 in conjunction with B.E.2s and a single Bristol Scout. The first squadron to be equipped entirely with the F.E.2 was 20 Squadron, deploying to France on 23 January 1916. At this stage it served as a fighter-reconnaissance aircraft eventually about ⅔ of the F.E.2s were built as fighters (816) and ⅓ as bombers (395). The F.E.2b and F.E.2d variants remained in day operations well into 1917, while the "b" continued as a standard night bomber until August 1918. At its peak, the F.E.2b equipped 16 RFC squadrons in France and six Home Defence squadrons in England.
On 18 June 1916, German flying ace Max Immelmann was killed in combat with F.E.2bs of No. 25 Squadron RFC. The squadron claimed the kill, but the German version of the encounter is either that Immelmann's Fokker Eindecker broke up after his synchroniser gear failed and he shot off his own propeller, or that he was hit by friendly fire from German anti-aircraft guns. In any case, by this time the F.E.2b was at least encountering the German monoplane fighters on more or less even terms and the so-called "Fokker scourge" had ended.
By autumn 1916, the arrival of more modern German fighters such as the Albatros D.I and Halberstadt D.II meant that even the F.E.2d was outperformed and by April 1917, it had been withdrawn from offensive patrols. Despite its obsolescence in 1917, the F.E.2 was still well liked by its crews for its strength and good flight characteristics and it still occasionally proved a difficult opponent for even the best German aces. Rittmeister Baron von Richthofen was badly wounded in the head during combat with F.E.2d aircraft in June 1917 the Red Baron, like most German pilots of the period, classed the F.E.2 as a "Vickers" type, confusing it with the earlier Vickers F.B.5.
In combat with single-seater fighters, the pilots of F.E.2b and F.E.2d fighters would form what was probably the first use of what later became known as a Lufbery circle (defensive circle). In the case of the F.E.2, the intention was that the gunner of each aircraft could cover the blind spot under the tail of his neighbour and several gunners could fire on any enemy attacking the group. On occasion formations of F.E.2s fought their way back from far over the lines, while under heavy attack from German fighters, using this tactic.
Although outclassed as a day fighter, the F.E.2 proved very suitable for use at night and was used as a night fighter in home defence squadrons on anti-Zeppelin patrols and as a light tactical night bomber. It was first used as a night bomber in November 1916, with the first specialist F.E.2b night bomber squadrons being formed in February 1917. F.E.2bs were used as night bombers in eight bomber squadrons until the end of the First World War, with up to 860 being converted to, or built as bombers. Service as a night fighter was less successful, owing to the type's poor climb and ceiling.
F.E.2bs were experimentally fitted with flotation bags for operation over water and were also used to conduct anti-submarine patrols, operating from the Isle of Grain at the mouth of the Thames River.
good information Mike
I’m currently reading “Somme Success” by Peter Hart about the RAF (or was it RFC then?) actions in the Battle of the Somme. Virtually every British pilot quoted in the book was flying an FE2b. I had no idea that this aircraft was probably the most numerous aircraft in use by Britain at the time. It would seem that Ares has been remiss in not producing one for the game, given that is was a primary aircraft in use for about a year.
I don't think 'Ares', or 'Nexus' before them, ever considered or intended production of models based on their historical importance (BE2c, anyone?).
They seem, to me, to have concentrated on "matched pairs" of planes with similar configuration and performance, and particularly where there is an alternative armament loadout (the Bristol F.2B with the top wing gun {hate, hate, hate}; the Austro-Hungarian Albatros D.II with just a single machine gun, etc).
Added to that, the FE2 is a big old bugger, and probably too big to fit in a standard two-seater box; it would require a whole new line in bigger boxes, plastic inserts etc, and would take up more shelf space in FLGS, as well as probably commanding a higher retail price tag because of this.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
Hey. Bob! Dale Robinson (aka Birdman) here. (We were the last two playing Bill Weber's Gotha scenario at DayCon on Saturday.) You may find American Frederick Libby's memoir Horses Don't Fly (which was published after his death in 1970) interesting because he was a gunner on an F.E.2b. (I'd advise a library copy!)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks