Effectiveness of Observer Fire vs Pilots FireI'm s

[BobE]

I'm sure this topic has been chewed on before but please indulge me. I am working on a WWI Air board game for my own amusement and am trying to acess the difference in likelyhood of a hit and also the damage inflicted by an observer vs the same for a pilot.
The observer had a greater field of fire and did not have to fly the plane at the same time he was shooting but it sems to me his gun would be less accurate by the very fact of it's flexibility and he would have more deflection problems to deal wth.
Does anyone know what the statistics show on this?
Thanks,
Bob E

[TonyWilliams]

I think that the discrepancy between fighter and bomber fire was not so great in WW1 as it was in WW2, because the firepower was more equal. In fact, a late-war defensive twin-gun mounting would have had more firepower than almost any fighter, as the guns weren't synchronised.

I don't have any data on the hit rates, but the following extract from a forthcoming book might be of interest:

"The RFC was concerned about the training of gunners and in 1917 the "Text Book on Aerial Gunnery" appeared. This contains some fascinating insights into the difficulties involved in air-to-air gunnery. Flexibly-mounted machine guns were much affected by the movement of the aircraft, especially in turbulent conditions (particularly prevalent at altitudes of under 300 m), as well as by the difficulty of traversing the gun smoothly to follow a moving target. These problems led to a minimum group size (i.e., the measurement of the greatest distance between shots in a burst) at low altitude of 15 m at a range of 230 m; "and this size of group has often been greatly exceeded, even by an experienced gunner". In smooth air, the group size could improve to 6 m at the same distance when firing at a target requiring no traversing, or 9 m with traversing."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

It is difficult to set figures to get an accurate measure of the accuracy of pilot vs. observer fire. As Tony has already explained, the observer´s main problem is that every jump and bump the plane makes is going to affect his aim. Plus, sometimes the free-moving mg did not move so freely, plus the observer has to balance two deflections. Why? Because the pilot is not going to fly straight and level, he is most likely to take evasive action, so added to the difficult task of firing at a moving target we encounter the problem of being in a fast-moving target as well, with lots of jolts and turns and climbs and the such, which can really mess with your markmanship. And on top of that you have to add that these movements are impredictable, it was almost impossible to get synchronized with the pilot (which was why, for example, in WWII a fairly good idea as bomber hunter as the Boulton Paul Defiant was dismissed after seeing little action).
I think one very good example can be found in MvR. An expert and reputed hunter with a fairly good aim, the Baron started flying as an observer, and although his experience in combat as such was not by far close to his later experience as a pilot, still he made some comments on the matter in letters he wrote to his peers. Can´t remember the quote, but in one such comment he says something like it was a real mess to fire upon an enemy flier while your pilot was maneuvering, you spent more time holding on for dear life and keeping your breakfast inside than even trying to aim.
One of the main reasons for the implementation of tracer bullets was precisely that it was so difficult to aim that basically the initial training for observers was to tell them to start shooting and then, as someone watering the plants with a hose would do, just move the stream of bullets until it went where it was supposed to go in the first place, the enemy plane.

[Romani]

I'm sure this topic has been chewed on before but please indulge me. I am working on a WWI Air board game for my own amusement and am trying to acess the difference in likelyhood of a hit and also the damage inflicted by an observer vs the same for a pilot.

I have undertaken the same endeavor. The most satisfying set of rules I've found is mixing the best aspects of Blue Max and Canvas Falcons.

Both of them can be downloaded from the web, the latter has very good fire templates for flexible months.

The designers are of the opinion that observes rarely managed to shoot down an enemy aircraft, on the other hand that varies wildly. Sometimes, those guns hit their mark, and they were a great disuassive factor. Even if they didn't shoot down the attacking aircraft, they might keep it at bay and make him break out of the attack. The Red Baron himself was shot down twice by observer guns (being wounded the second time). Richthofen is also quoted as saying that 2-seaters were more difficult to shoot down than fighters because of the rear gun.

It can also be argued that the conditions needed for a fighter pilot to be sure of shooting down its opponent: close range below 100 meters, having to fly steady for a few seconds to keep the target in the sights; also offered the observer and excellent opportunity for its return fire.


PS if you don't find those rules sets in the web, contact me and we will arrange something.

[Lufbery]

Great discussion so far!

Tony, that upcoming book wouldn't be yours, would it?

Flexible machinegun mounts got less effective over time because the speed of aircraft increased dramatically. An observer in an F2.b would have a lot longer to target and fire on an Alb. D.V than a B-17 crewman firing at a Me-109.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that scout pilots had a strong respect for observers' guns born out of hard won experience.

I hope this helps a bit.

Regards,

[TonyWilliams]

Tony, that upcoming book wouldn't be yours, would it?

Mine and Emmanuel Gustin's - we are working on a three-volume development history of aircraft guns, ammunition, installations and use. The first volume (1933-45) is now with the publishers and due out in March next year. We are just putting the finishing touches to the 1914-33 book, which should follow six months later. The third volume (1945+) will be after that.

I recall reading that the big Gotha and especially R-class Staaken bombers were a real headache for fighters. They were very difficult to shoot down with just a pair of rifle-calibre MGs, and their gunners would be responding with a lot more firepower. Attacking them was very hazardous.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[BobE]

Excellent "observations" (pun intended) all. Sorry for the delayed thank you. Had limited computer time over the holidays.
Consensus seems to be that observer fire was pretty inaccurate but occaisionaly quite deadly.
Romani, good luck with your game. Inventing your own can be a fascinating and educational experience.
I am starting another thread on "Loops and Aerobatics".
Luf, recieved my "Blue Max" and working up my own game. Posting comments on the existing BM thread.
Thanks again guys. Appreciate it.
Bob E

[BobE]

O.K. Just one more question. How about observers guns jamming? Seems to me all of the gun jams I have read about have something to do with odd size ammo or improper loading of the belt and apply to the pilots guns. Was this ever a problem for the observers? The guns used by both sides for the observer relied on canned ammo. Was this less likely to jam?
Bob E

[Lufbery]

O.K. Just one more question. How about observers guns jamming? Seems to me all of the gun jams I have read about have something to do with odd size ammo or improper loading of the belt and apply to the pilots guns. Was this ever a problem for the observers? The guns used by both sides for the observer relied on canned ammo. Was this less likely to jam?
Bob E

My understanding is that observers' guns were probably as likely to jam as pilots' guns. The difference is that the observer could devote a lot more of his attention to the task of unjamming the gun than a pilot could.

Observers also used a different type of gun than the pilots. It would be interesting to know if their guns were more or less prone to jams than the pilots' guns.

Regards,

[stephen]

Pleaes pardon any repetition of info you already know, Bob.

Allied observers mainly used the .303 Lewis gun, air cooled, with their ammo trays doubled to hold 97 rounds. Judging by the extremely unscientific barometer of observers that I knew personally and some reading, Allied observers' guns jammed slightly less frequently (and caused less difficulty when they did) than those of pilots.

The .303 Vickers machine gun primarily used by pilots were fed by a canvas belt. The belt itself could be responsible for jams, in addition to the size of the bullet cartridges which had to pass through the breach from side to side. Observers had the advantage of top-to-bottom drum fed Lewis guns, where the possibility of jamming due to belt problems was eliminated.

If a jam did occur, observers also had their hands free to work with the jam much more quickly and effectively. They also had the added advantage of the Scarff ring system, or some other method of physically manipulating the gun to see it and work on it far better than a pilot could. And sometimes observers were not buckled in their seats, either, which also gave them more mobility to work on clearing jams.

That analysis is about as lame and unscientific as you can get and I welcome corrections... but that's my humble opinion based on what little I can draw on for info.