Ares Games
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Better Balloon Busting?

  1. #1

    Question Better Balloon Busting?

    Some of the Balloon Busting scenarios I have tried leave something to be desired...

    I once played the "Lonely Sentinal" scenario from the Burning Drachens rulebook, which pits a Nieuport with rockets against a balloon defended by AA guns and an Albatros D.III. My opponent took the Nieuport, headed straight for the balloon and promptly launched its rockets. The balloon drew the explosion card, the Nieuport then performed an immelmann and headed off the table, pursued by me in the Albatros, which could never catch up. Realistic? Probably. Fun? Not really.

    The "Twin Targets" scenario from the Balloon Busters rulebook has 3 fighters attacking two balloons that are defended by another 3 fighters. There is usually a lot of action but it feels a bit forced - even once both balloons are on fire the attackers have to stick around to keep hitting them to avoid losing points for a balloon reaching the ground. Fun? Probably. Realistic? Not really.

    So, is it possible to create a balanced, fun, realistic balloon busting scenario?

    A few points about historical balloon busting:
    - balloons were often defended by AA guns, which could be pre-aimed to cover likely attack approaches.
    - balloons were winched down when an attacking aircraft was spotted. Observers usually jumped but not always. On one occasion Willy Coppens was shot at by an observer.
    - the attacker tried to ignite the balloon on the first pass. Once the balloon was alight, the job was done - there was no need to continue the attack. If the balloon did not catch fire, bullet holes were relatively easily patched. The attack lasted minutes or seconds.
    - the main challenge for the attacker was surviving the AA and any pursuing aircraft to make it back alive. For this reason they did not stick around to make multiple runs on the balloon or dogfight with defending aircraft.

    A few notes on offensive developments during the course of the war:
    - in October 1915 a French balloon was brought down by what the witnesses described as "rockets" fired from a German two seater, most likely a flare pistol
    - from April 1916 - le prieur rockets available, Entente only*
    - June 1916, Albert Ball used phosphorus bombs to destroy a balloon
    - from late 1916(?) - incendiary bullets available

    *Excepting very limited German trials

    A few notes on hauling down:
    - early in the war, balloons were hauled down by hand, at a rate of approximately 33 feet per minute.
    - horses were also used, which would have resulted in a slightly quicker descent rate
    - steam winches were introduced to improve descent rates
    - steam winches were replaced relatively quickly by petrol driven winches. The Scammel winch had a haul down rate of approximately 450 feet per minute. Later in the war this improved further, the French Sacconney-Delahaye winch operating at rates of up to 900 feet per minute.

    Research based on:
    Osprey balloon busting aces
    RFC/RNAS handbook 1914-1918
    www.ww1balloondiaries.org


    So what? Some ideas:

    The objective in a balloon busting scenario should be ignition not destruction.

    AA was effectively more accurate due to being pre-aimed to an extent. When playing automatic AA, we could draw two A cards for the hit/miss check and draw one C card for each A card with special damage.

    We could simply use more AA guns (4-6 per balloon).

    Make the attacker cross an area defended by AA guns en route to and from the balloon.

    Adjust the time to haul down the balloon. Scaling the standard 12 turn haul down time based on the haul down rates above, an early war scenario with manual hauling would be >100 turns, so effectively indefinite. However there would be no incendiary bullets or rockets available to the attackers. Perhaps the attacker could use phosphorus bombs? Or a flare gun from short range only?

    Give the observer the potential to fire from the balloon using trench fire rules.

    What do you think? Let's discuss balloon scenarios!

  2. #2

    Default

    More than happy with your research and ideas Dom. Thanks for sharing. If it is realism you are after, then the possibilities you describe might suit a brief solo mission, perhaps requiring more than one visit to different balloons by one or more attackers, but for a group game, especially with the chance of facing two "C" damage cards for each shot of multiple pre targeted AA guns, as well as enemy aircraft, it could still be a very brief and therefore not much fun mission. Perhaps the use of "Flaming Onions", which (correct me if I'm wrong as I really have little knowledge on this subject) I believe might be avoided, would help if you are an entente pilot.

    How about you come up with a mission that you think fits the bill and I'll play test it solo and give you feedback after? I do take your points on board, but finding that balance between what actually happened and having an enjoyable "game" is sometimes pretty hard.

    Lets hope others with far more expertise than myself can put us right on this question

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoonfrog

    So what? Some ideas:

    The objective in a balloon busting scenario should be ignition not destruction.


    Give the observer the potential to fire from the balloon using trench fire rules.
    I certainly agree with the first point; once afire, it's practically impossible to put out the amount of burning hydrogen involved in a burning balloon.
    I think the second point might apply, but if the observer does stick around to fire back, he's taking a huge risk that when his balloon goes, he's going to go up with it-even if he does jump, the fire from the balloon envelop is like to set his parachute on fires, as well: though the fire is burning upwards, the falling envelope is quite likely to fall faster than the observer using a parachute. The point of the parachute is to slow the observer's descent, after all.
    So, what to do in a scenario that allows an observer to take the risk of firing back? Maybe a point system, the attackers get such-and-such points for the balloon, the defenders can get some back if they recover the observers safely, or the attackers receive extra points for dispatching the observers as well, and both sides would get such and such points (I would suggest a much lesser amount for the attackers) for shooting down enemy aircraft.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeemagnus View Post
    it could still be a very brief and therefore not much fun mission
    Point taken, although if you already have it set up you could just play it again and switch sides!

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeemagnus View Post
    Perhaps the use of "Flaming Onions", which (correct me if I'm wrong as I really have little knowledge on this subject) I believe might be avoided, would help if you are an entente pilot.
    What is a flaming onion? I have heard the term, but what suits it mean and how does it differ from the standard AA guns we have in the game? Can someone shed some light on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by zenlizard View Post
    if the observer does stick around to fire back, he's taking a huge risk
    I agree. I only suggest it because it actually happened to Willy Coppens. I don't know why that guy did it. Did he really not trust the parachute? Was he a crack shot, so he thought he had a good chance of shooting down the Hanriot?
    Last edited by Spoonfrog; 12-08-2022 at 09:20.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoonfrog View Post
    ...Give the observer the potential to fire from the balloon using trench fire rules..
    Problem with that is the trench fire rules represent a unit firing into the air from a whole trench system, not an individual popping one off from a balloon basket!
    Agree with a lot of what you say though but it is very difficult to get anything near realism from these scenarios - even though it can be fun trying !

    "He is wise who watches"

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoonfrog View Post
    ..What is a flaming onion? I have heard the term, but what suits it mean and how does it differ from the standard AA guns we have in the game? Can someone shed some light on this?
    The 'flaming onion' was a term given to 37mm auto cannons - originally designed to fire flares though they also developed to fire rounds.
    The AA we use is more the medium sized cannon that fired single shots.
    Your idea for drawing 2 A cards would fit the bill for 'flaming onions', perhaps ? They were apparently slow to reload so maybe double that time to take the sting out of it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_onion
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_SockelFlak_L/14.5
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_1-p...om-pom#Germany

    "He is wise who watches"

  7. #7

    Default

    Thanks for asking the questions, Dom. And for doing the research.
    I don't have anything helpful to add, but I appreciate being made to think about scenarios we create.

  8. #8

    Default

    I posted this AAR trying to put some of these principles into practice: Balloons on the Italian Front

    See also my earlier AARs for Ritter von Röth: part 1 and part 2

    On the whole I think it works well setting the objective to balloon ignition rather than destruction, but only when there are multiple balloons well defended by AA (enough AA to make it suicidal to stick around too long). An attack on a single balloon done in this way would suffer too much from the randomness of the damage cards.

    I have yet to try this with any opposing aircraft. That kind of scenario would involve carefully balancing the defending aircraft and AA.

  9. #9

    Default

    I tried the following with a friend today:

    Attacker: Nieuport 16 with Rockets, starts at the far side of the map
    Defender: Halberstadt D.III (starts next to the balloon) & 3xAA guns (placed in front of the balloon)

    The idea was to make it really tough for the attacker to get the balloon and escape. We did three runs, using altitude rules:
    1) the Nieuport got the balloon and made off with no damage
    2) the Halberstadt managed to get on the tail of the Nieuport and destroy it just before it launched its rockets (unlucky damage card draws for the Nieuport)
    3) the Nieuport got the balloon and was chased off the map by the Halberstadt

    The AA scored no hits at all... It was fun, the games were all quick and since the setup was already in place we could easily replay it. The more distance that the attacker has to travel, the more tricky it is.

  10. #10

    Default

    Probably a silly thought but I always wondered why the Germans did not paint their balloons in gaudy colours like their planes.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baxter View Post
    Probably a silly thought but I always wondered why the Germans did not paint their balloons in gaudy colours like their planes.
    But they did

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	balloon_colors.jpg 
Views:	83 
Size:	55.4 KB 
ID:	331629

  12. #12

    Default

    The basics of that tallies with what I got from the (other) Aerodrome, Chris.

    "He is wise who watches"

  13. #13

    Default

    One small matter was the practice of observers using their shutes as soon as an enemy aircraft seemed to be attacking them. Also the winching process was often begun as soon as an enemy hove into view.
    As the main reason for attacks of this nature being ordered was to prevent the observation of events on the ground, either of the above actions would put the observations to bed for several hours at the least. A few holes and the need to re-inflate could mean a day out of action. As far as fire was concerned on a balloon. IST KAPUT.

    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  14. #14

    Default

    Some more thoughts, based on reading the article linked in this thread (click here) recently:

    1) The article states quite clearly that there was a system to launch the rockets in two salvos (even showing a wiring diagram), which shows that that part of the game is realistic. Pilots could choose to launch only half the rocket payload at a time, although how often this happened is not clear...

    2) The article describes the standard attack pattern with rockets, which involved attacking into the wind along the length of the balloon (attacking facing the balloon's tail). This is important because most balloon games seem to have the balloons facing the attackers and the rules as written allow rocket attacks from any direction. Since the prevailing wind on the Western Front is normally from west to east, this means an attacker using rockets would have to work his way behind the balloon and then turn to make the attack. Working this into a scenario and only allowing rocket firing across the tail end of the balloon card/base could be a way to even up these rocket scenarios....

  15. #15

    Default

    Very interesting thaughts Dom.
    Will have to give this a try.

    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  16. #16

    Default

    Really enjoyed reading this thread (and those linked from it) with a view to doing some balloon-busting.

    Does anyone have a timeline for when the various attack methods came in? For the Entente there would be three periods - Pre-Rockets, Rockets and Incendiary Ammunition. For the Central Powers it would just be Pre-Incendiary and Post-Incendiary.

    And with regard to the incendiary ammunition, were there limits on which guns could use it? I picked up somewhere that the Buckingham ammunition was Vickers only, but I may have simply imagined that

    Thanks.

  17. #17

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    Thanks. Still not overly hot on information as to when in the year particular types of attack came in.

    I did some more googling though and derived the following for the RFC and France:

    1914 to Winter 1916 - Just regular bullets
    Spring 1916 to End - Incendiary bullets (their first use by the RFC pre-dates the first French use of rockets*. I'm guessing they only became widespread later in the date range.)
    Summer 1916 to Winter 1918 - Rockets were in use.

    I couldn't find anything about when the Germans started using incendiary ammunition.

    *The RNAS were apparently using them in Winter 1916.

  19. #19

    Default

    Hello, glad you have enjoyed this thread.

    The first use of Le Prieur rockets was by the French near Verdun in May 1916. I have not found any reference to their use after the end of 1916. At the Somme in the summer of 1916 the RFC were using phosphorus bombs, rockets and incendiary ammunition against balloons. They concluded that incendiaries were the way to go and the other weapons were shelved by autumn 1916. I don't have any data for the Germans but their balloon kills seem to increase in the summer of 1916 so that suggests they were starting to use incendiaries by then.

  20. #20

    Default

    This is from WW1 Aircraft Performance by Anders F. Jonsson, pp.113-115:

    The British were early adopters of these new alternative ammunition types, with the earliest round being developed already in 1902. This was an explosive nitro-glycerine filled bullet known as the Pomeroy, aptly named after the New Zealand born engineer James Pomeroy who invented it. Another British incendiary round (filled with phosphorus) that made an early appearance in the war was the Buckingham, developed by James Buckingham in 1914. Yet another British invention was an explosive bullet that was introduced in 1917, and which was designed to burst between the outer skin and the gas cells in airships, the design of which was attributed to Commander Frederick Brock...

    The Germans were not as quick as the British to adopt alternative ammunition types, but in 1917 there were two phosphorus rounds used: The first was the s.Pr.(H) which was a steel-jacketed round containing phosphorus with only minimal lead content. This bullet had small holes on the sides, sealed with low-temperature solder that opened on firing, meaning that the round was already on fire when it hit the target. This combination of higher incendiary content and early activation mean that it was ideal for attacking balloons. There was also a second, more all-round German incendiary round, which was also suitable for combating aircraft. This bullet contained a steel core for penetration and a phosphorus filling for fire effect, and it was simply designated the "F" as an abbreviation for Flugzeugbrand mit Stahlkern (literally translated to "aircraft fire with steel core")...

    The above information on the German efforts during WW1 to produce better bullets for aerial combat comes from a treatise by Achem Engels, which at the time of writing can be downloaded from the Museum für Flugzeugbau und technische Geschichte. "Die Standard-Bewaffnung der Kampfflugzeuge im Ersten Weltkrieg, Das gesteuerte L.M.G. 08/15". [It would be interesting if any of our German-speaking members could try to find this.]

    Of note is that the incendiary bullets used on both sides were fickle beasts and were known to spontaneously ignite with little to no provocation, especially after longer periods of storage and if subjected to elevated temperatures. This resulted in the introduction of special cooling arrangements like the removal of engine cowlings, which can sometimes be seen on late war German scouts like the Fokker D.VII, where the side cowlings have been removed to remedy the insufficient cooling provided by the standard louvers. [Of course, this was also sometimes done to improve engine cooling.] On the British side, there was a preference to use the incendiaries only in the Lewis MG, since the open bolt firing system ensured a cool environment for the fickle incendiaries even after prolonged firing. This ensured that the over-wing Lewis remained popular with some pilots throughout the war, even after the introduction of reliable synchronized MGs fring through the propeller arc.

    Also, I seem to remember there was some prohibition about firing incendiary ammo at enemy personnel, though I'm not sure that ever stopped anyone.



Similar Missions

  1. More Balloon Busting
    By CrashCraig in forum WGF: After Action Reports
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-24-2022, 09:17
  2. Balloon busting
    By Suffern in forum WGF: After Action Reports
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-15-2013, 17:47
  3. N. England & Scotland AAR 7: Balloon busting.
    By Lt. S.Kafloc in forum UK Wing
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-18-2013, 08:23
  4. Balloon Busting Art Plus.
    By gully_raker in forum WGF: Historical Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-16-2011, 05:45
  5. Multiplayer: Balloon Busting
    By Oberst Hajj in forum WGF: Mission Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-30-2010, 15:56

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •