Anti aircraft guns

[Popsical]

What was the minimum safe altitude pilots flew at to avoid AA? Could they even?
The game says two rulers for range but how would this be represented in games with full altitude rules?
Everything else runs on half a ruler being 1 altitude so altitude 4 would seem right for two rulers.

[Naharaht]

Anti-aircraft machine guns and infantry fire can reach up to level 2. So an aircraft flying at level 3 or above is immune.
At level 1 they can fire up to 1 range ruler from their red spot. At level 2 they can fire up to half a range ruler from their red spot and it counts as a long range shot.
Infantry fire causes a plane to draw a single A damage card regardless of distance but damage points are ignored, only special damage counts. An infantry unit may only fire at one plane in any firing phase. Infantry fire has a 360 degrees firing arc. Anti-aircraft machine guns work like aircraft machine guns, double damage at short range, single damage at long range and they have a firing arc. However, an anti-aircraft machine gun may also have an attached infantry unit and so may additionally perform infantry fire. Anti-aircraft machine guns may jam. Infantry fire does not jam.

Anti-aircraft artillery can shoot as high as level 6. The gunner must declare the altitude at which the shot is aimed when the artillery counter is placed on the table.
At levels 1 or 2 the counter may be placed up to 2 range rulers from their red spot. At level 3 it may be placed up to 1.5 range rulers. At level 4 up to 1 range ruler; at level 5 up to 0.5 range rulers and at level 6 the counter must overlap part of the gun card. So, an aircraft flying at level 7 or above is completely immune to anti-aircraft artillery, although, if the player is careful and avoids the gun cards, the aircraft is very safe at level 6. If a plane is hit, the player always draws a single C damage card. Anti-aircraft artillery has a 360 degrees firing arc and does not jam.

These regulations may be found on pages 31-34 of the rules booklet from the Rules and Accessories Pack, if you have one available.

[Popsical]

Cheers David! Funny how you can read rules books and miss stuff.

['Warspite']

In real life aircraft were probably safe from exploding AA shells at about 10,000 or 11,000 feet. It depends on the type of gun (75mm, 77mm, 13-pounder, 3.5 inch etc), the type of elevating gun mount and how good the individual gunnery officer was. Remember that flying lower may not increase the base chance of being hit by crude time-fused rounds but it will increase the time during which you will be under fire. If you treat the AA gun as the point of a half circle and the gun's sky arc as the radius of that circle then the aircraft's path becomes a chord. The lower you are, the longer the chord, and thus the longer you will be under fire.

See: https://www.mathplanet.com/education...-about-circles

There are three types of AA (known as 'Archie' or 'Ack-Ack' in WW1 British speak). The obvious one is the time-fused exploding shell discussed above. Many of these extemporised shells were probably shrapnel type rather than the purposed designed exploding 'fragmentation' shells used in WW2. Shrapnel funneled many balls forward like firing a shotgun. Some Royal Navy battleships were issued with five rounds per gun of 12-inch calibre shrapnel to allow them to engage Zeppelins in WW1. A few such huge (850 pound!) rounds were actually fired in WW1 but no hits are thought to have been scored. The Japanese copied this AA shrapnel shell in WW2 in calibres up to 18-inch. It was called San Shiki or the Beehive round.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Sh...ircraft_shell)

The second type of AA is infantry small arms including all machine guns. These are probably good up to about 2,000 feet with a massive drop-off in performance above that height. Slant angle might be 800 to 1,000 yards at a low aircraft but remember that the higher you shoot with light rifle-calibre projectiles the greater the drop-off caused by gravity. They were still highly dangerous to WW1 fliers. The Red Baron was killed by ground fire from an estimated range of 600 to 800 yards while Mick Mannock VC was also brought down by ground fire. Air-cooled rotary-engined aircraft were probably a little safer than an inline as there was no water cooling system to punch holes in and no radiators to pierce. The WW2 experience was that radial-engined aircraft such as the P-47 fared better to ground fire than the water-cooled P-51.

The third type of AA which we often overlook is the German 37mm 'Pom-Pom' guns. These were Maxim-type weapons firing belts of shells. The tracer rounds for these guns produced a noticeable flaming ball in the sky which RFC/RNAS pilots used to refer-to as 'Flaming Onions'. At one time they were believed to be rockets or Very flares as only the tracers were seen. The non-tracer rounds between them were not being noticed.

A single 37mm H.E. round might pass through canvas - with only a large hole - but any impact on wooden framing or an engine block would produce a detonation and massive local damage with some splintering further out. I actually own two such WW1 German 37mm H.E. rounds. They were fitted with simple impact fuses. The pom-pom's range might be a little longer than the rifle-calibre weapons but not a great deal more. More difficult to hit but worse effect. The French experimented with a very similar hand-loaded weapon in some of their SPADs but generally found the recoil was too fierce and the cockpit filled with fumes.

Barry

[RJG173]

The third type of AA which we often overlook is the German 37mm 'Pom-Pom' guns. These were Maxim-type weapons firing belts of shells. The tracer rounds for these guns produced a noticeable flaming ball in the sky which RFC/RNAS pilots used to refer-to as 'Flaming Onions'. At one time they were believed to be rockets or Very flares as only the tracers were seen. The non-tracer rounds between them were not being noticed.

A single 37mm H.E. round might pass through canvas - with only a large hole - but any impact on wooden framing or an engine block would produce a detonation and massive local damage with some splintering further out. I actually own two such WW1 German 37mm H.E. rounds. They were fitted with simple impact fuses. The pom-pom's range might be a little longer than the rifle-calibre weapons but not a great deal more. More difficult to hit but worse effect. The French experimented with a very similar hand-loaded weapon in some of their SPADs but generally found the recoil was too fierce and the cockpit filled with fumes.

Barry

Is this anything like the QF 2-pounder naval gun found on British V and W class destroyers? I'm trying to decide how a quick firing auto cannon would work in the game. Are the exploding shells or solid slugs. If the latter, I imagine "Pilot Wounded" is actually "Pilot Dead." I'm sure engine damage would also be quite severe.

['Warspite']

I have cartridges for the British 2-pounder and complete rounds for the German 37. They are so similar as to suggest that the ammunition was virtually identical.

The WW2 British naval 2-pounder existed in single, x2, x4 and x8 mounts. The one you refer to appears to be the Mark II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_2-pounder_naval_gun

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_1-pounder_pom-pom for the First World War version we are discussing.

Barry

['Warspite']

German WW1 Flak versions can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UPH04N22Zk

With the eye of faith it is possible, on the second (belt-fed) gun, to see tracers going off from the muzzle every three or four rounds. That is the usual mix for tracer. Also note that the background beach appears to be the German occupied Belgian coast so these weapons are probably deployed against the RNAS or Belgian aircraft operating off the coast.

Barry

[Naharaht]

Thank you for posting the video link, Barry. The weapon looks impressive but I notice that it had jamming problems and that traversing and changing elevation was not particularly fast.

[zenlizard]

Nice summary and references, Barry.

['Warspite']

There are two different weapons in the film. The first has an ammunition magazine and may not be a Maxim, a Madsen maybe? The second has belt-feed and is certainly a Maxim. The second certainly appeared more reliable due to the belt-feed. I think the 'swing around' problems are largely due to the heavy water jacket. It may explain why WW2 light AA were mostly air-cooled… think Oerlikon or Bofors.

Thank you for posting the video link, Barry. The weapon looks impressive but I notice that it had jamming problems and that traversing and changing elevation was not particularly fast.

['Warspite']

Thank you.

Nice summary and references, Barry.