Effectiveness of Flexible Gun Fire?

[Epee]

In the First World War defensive armament was MUCH closer in lethality to offensive armament than it was in WW2.

The flexguns often enjoyed a higher rate of fire thanks to needing no syncronizer and due to having a dedicated gunner (at least for the duration of the engagement) Lewis guns had quicker and more positive reloads.

Where the equation starts falling apart is when the gun fires across the axis of the line of flight. Wind buffeting of the gun will make true aiming impossible and the simple act of pointing the gun tiring while the airspeed will act as a hurricane force crosswind on the trajectory of the bullets. Small wonder then that two-seaters flying alongside one another, hammering away like two ships-of-the-line, was so ineffective. Under such conditions effective range would be limited to whites-of-the-eyes close.

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by Epee

In the First World War defensive armament was MUCH closer in lethality to offensive armament than it was in WW2.

The flexguns often enjoyed a higher rate of fire thanks to needing no syncronizer and due to having a dedicated gunner (at least for the duration of the engagement) Lewis guns had quicker and more positive reloads.

Where the equation starts falling apart is when the gun fires across the axis of the line of flight. Wind buffeting of the gun will make true aiming impossible and the simple act of pointing the gun tiring while the airspeed will act as a hurricane force crosswind on the trajectory of the bullets. Small wonder then that two-seaters flying alongside one another, hammering away like two ships-of-the-line, was so ineffective. Under such conditions effective range would be limited to whites-of-the-eyes close.

Hi Epee,

Whilst not disagreeing I think your anology to 'ship's of the line' is a bit out---effectiveness wise!

Those old sailing ship's were actually most lethal and the destructive effect of naval gunnery in those days was awesome in the extreme.

But i'm not trying to drift off topic ---honest

Dave.

[Terrencejones]

Originally Posted by Epee

In the First World War defensive armament was MUCH closer in lethality to offensive armament than it was in WW2.

The flexguns often enjoyed a higher rate of fire thanks to needing no syncronizer and due to having a dedicated gunner (at least for the duration of the engagement) Lewis guns had quicker and more positive reloads.

Where the equation starts falling apart is when the gun fires across the axis of the line of flight. Wind buffeting of the gun will make true aiming impossible and the simple act of pointing the gun tiring while the airspeed will act as a hurricane force crosswind on the trajectory of the bullets. Small wonder then that two-seaters flying alongside one another, hammering away like two ships-of-the-line, was so ineffective. Under such conditions effective range would be limited to whites-of-the-eyes close.

My guess is, it would be difficult if not impossible to account for all those factors in a game

Dave,
High sea your point

[Lufbery]

McCudden wasn't the only one. Most of the memoirs I've read indicate that fighter pilots had a very healthy respect for two-seaters. The Allied pilots were especially wary of German two-seaters with a "tunnel gun," or a gun that fired down through the floor of the rear fuselage.

Regards,

[Epee]

Originally Posted by bristol scout

Hi Epee,

Whilst not disagreeing I think your anology to 'ship's of the line' is a bit out---effectiveness wise!

Those old sailing ship's were actually most lethal and the destructive effect of naval gunnery in those days was awesome in the extreme.

But i'm not trying to drift off topic ---honest

Dave.

I didn't mean to imply that ships-of-the-line were ineffective. Rather I intended to point out that for two-seater aircraft to fight in that style were ineffective.

While I doubt that this scenario happened much in the last years of the war it was one school of thought on air combat in the 1914-1915 period.


Just a quick addition:
I ran some numbers using top-off-the-head figures and the wind deflection looks like this; 60 mph airspeed, 90 degees to co-altitude target equals 12" off at 100yrds (not too bad) 54" off at 200yrds (gets bad real quick). Increases in speed result in proportionately increasing amounts of deflection.

[Terrencejones]

Originally Posted by Epee

Just a quick addition:
I ran some numbers using top-off-the-head figures and the wind deflection looks like this; 60 mph airspeed, 90 degees to co-altitude target equals 12" off at 100yrds (not too bad) 54" off at 200yrds (gets bad real quick). Increases in speed result in proportionately increasing amounts of deflection.

You should send this to one of them game producers

Terry

[sightreader]

Originally Posted by Terrencejones

You should send this to one of them game producers

Maybe, for the purpose of a game, have the effectiveness of flexible fire decline (exponentially? linearly? quadratically?) as the gun is angled further and further from the direction of flight. Of course, it would be some sort of handicap that is counteracted by shorter ranges or increased experience...

I certainly would imagine that an experienced gunner would get the "feel" of these weird leading problems and would become (almost? more?) deadly than a fixed forward gun. I haven't seen a lot of WWI observer books out there, though, to get some personal idea of the learning curve or what it took to bring down a fighter, have you?

[dglewwe]

"... WWI observer books out there..."

This is the only one that comes to my mind:
World War I Aviation Book Reviews

[john-paul2]

Video games don't tell the whole story. If you dive out of the sun and fire at the enemy within a certain range, the equations mean next to nothing. Airplanes moving at 100 mph firing bullets at the speed of sound are going to hit the target before it can turn. They weren't shooting Red Rider bb guns.

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by john-paul2

Video games don't tell the whole story. If you dive out of the sun and fire at the enemy within a certain range, the equations mean next to nothing. Airplanes moving at 100 mph firing bullets at the speed of sound are going to hit the target before it can turn. They weren't shooting Red Rider bb guns.

You are dead right JP---although not on the speed of sound bit I feel--but certainly on the rest----and something else to take into account (understand I know nothing about computer Games) is the fact that the Lewis was prone to jamming--it's spring feed magazine was delicate and capricious! I wonder if games makers (or whatever they are called) factor in as much realism as they think?

I am open to be educated though....

Dave.