Effectiveness of Flexible Gun Fire?

[sightreader]

In most WWI accounts I've read, flexible gunfire definitely seems to be less intimidating than fixed fire. Flexible defenses just don't seem to generate the level of anxiety created by fixed forward fighters - even from those fighters equipped with the same caliber of guns used in flexible defense. I hear of pilots evading enemy fighters, but eagerly diving on flexible craft, even when facing superior numbers. I'm not saying that these fighters treat defensive fire with impunity, but generally the flexible gun guy is running for his life, at least for any encounter after 1916.

On the other hand, in just about every flight sim I've played, flexible gun fire is absolutely lethal, with the only respite being its generally reduced caliber and quantity. It seems that, no matter how I twist and turn my fighter, I can't evade that flexible fire, no matter where I am in the firing arc.

There seem to be very, very few ways to catch up to and attack a rear gun recon, all of which are easily countered by even mild maneuvers by the defender. I certainly take a lot more damage from flexible gun fire than I ever do from dogfights.

Does this mean I'm a hopelessly incompentent pilot? Am I totally missing out on some really obvious tactics? Are fighter pilot reports completely misleading, or are flight sims failing to model some critical reality of flexible gunnery?

[sightreader]

Hmm.. I guess this is a frequently asked question. Does anyone have a link to more information?

[bristol scout]

I believe it was always classed as very dangerous indeed to attack a competently handled two seater----cooly directed flexible mounted gunfire would have been very 'mind concentrating'

Though I doubt the benefit of twin mounted Lewis guns--which must have been very heavy to swing around. And yet they were used plenty, so perhaps it is wrong to doubt.........Indeed, in some ways the D.H.2 could be classed as armed flexibly--the notoriuos 'wobbly mount'!

Dave.

[dglewwe]

A bit of the physical difficulties were touched on in the "Clouds of Glory" thread you participated in.

A pretty good assessment of gaming priorities was given by Al (Chock) in the "effective range ..." thread (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/470525-post3.html) -- from which I took that drawing any conclusions concerning what it was really like from a video game carries with it a fair amount of risk.

As to Dave's comment: Since he had nothing else to do (except maybe not fall out of the airplane?) a gunner could give his full attention to the task at hand --such concentration would, I assume, pay dividends in accuracy.

An essential ingredient would be pilot/gunner coordination: having the pilot throw the airplane around just as you had a target lined up would not help. I understand that those aircraft that positioned the crewmen close together (allowing for more effective communication) were much more dangerous foes to tackle. A crew that had flown together for many missions would also, I would think, develop a symbiotic relationship in their respective jobs: the pilot knows when and how to position the aircraft for a good shot, and the gunner knows when evasive maneuvers are at hand (and that it's time to grab on!).

[Sagittarius]

@sightreader:

I can only speak for flightsims - Red Baron 3D in particular (modded with - if ic recall correct - western front patch. AI on max) and i didnt found 2-seater especially difficult to deal with.
Especially when flying an albatros against rather the clumsy british observers in late 1916 to mid 1917 i hadnt that much problems with them.
Of course youre taking hits but if you attack from an angle slightly below and and bit off the middle you have enough time to aim well while closing in and then place some good shots. It helps when attacking while flying in close formation with your wingmen - draws attention from you.

The later machines are of course a different thing: especially when fighting in formation a group of brisfits can really be a pain in the 'backside'.

In general its recommended to watch your enemy well and wait till one separates from the formation (due to evasive manouvers for example) and concentrate on him. Avoid too harsh flying manouvers while closing in and concentrate on the right angle and good aiming.

[sightreader]

Originally Posted by Sagittarius

I can only speak for flightsims - Red Baron 3D in particular (modded with - if ic recall correct - western front patch. AI on max) and i didnt found 2-seater especially difficult to deal with.

Perhaps it's a sign of my age, but I seem to recall howls of protest about RB2's rear gunners which caused them to dumb them down quite a bit to the level they are currently at. However, it seems that new sims consistently start with flexible gunners so fierce that they are more on the offensive than the fighter pilots which, of course, generates screams of outrage, after which they are dumbed down in later patches.

Does anyone have statistics that might shed some light on the relative effectiveness of flexible gun aircraft vs fixed gun fighters in destroying aircraft?

[Terrencejones]

Unlike a fixed forward firing gun there is no unison of movement with a flexible gun particularly a rear mounted one. On a fixed forward firing gun, the pilot, aircraft and gun can follow and hone in on the target as one. A gunner/observer has no control over his aircraft and has to continuously and swiftly manhandle his gun into position whilst more often than not being shot at himself. Silencing the gunner/observer was usually the first priority with an attack on a two seater.
Most of the two seaters were also slow in comparison to single seaters and had little maneuverability to aid in evading an attack. One fast diving attack was often all that was needed to silence the rear gunner. The Immelmann turn further increased success in this form of diving attack.

Although pointing your machine and thus your gun at a target was clearly the best option, the problem was always what was going on behind you. One solution was thought to be an aircraft that could fight and defend itself at the same time, a fighter with both front and rear mounted guns. In this the Bristol F2b fighter came into its own albeit with a disastrous beginning. The importance of the pilot and gunner relationship had chance to develop with this aircraft. It could compete on equal terms with even the best single seat fighters with that added security of a having what was once a very rare thing, a seasoned gunner in the rear!

Although as Bristol Scout says any well handled machine with a cool gunner had to be treated with respect most two seat machines were considered easier meat than a single seat fighter, (check Manfred Von Richthofen score sheet, you'l find a lot of two seaters there )

Also of interest is the DH2 which Bristol Scout mentions, the first ones did have a flexible gun mount. Pilots didn't like it and quickly found ways of fixing it in place.

[Chock]

With regard to flight sims, part of the problem is that it is tricky to program convincing rear gunner AI, and so they tend to be a bit 'Wyatt Earp' in sims. But that aside, some of the complaints from people flying WW1 sims stem from the fact that they fall into the trap of believing the often repeated tale of two-seaters being a pushover, which many were not, thus people underestimate them and don't adopt the correct tactic and a suitable level of caution. The proper technique involves a lot more than most people think...

It is true that a two seater could be defeated, but you have to use the fighter's superior maneuverability to do it. Even so, things were not as simple as many accounts would have you believe, and a determined two seater crew with good teamwork could cause real problems for a single seat fighter going it alone, this is in fact why the DH4 was not as good as it could have been and was redesigned, since the widely separated pilot and co-pilot marred cooperative crew communication and forced it to rely on crossfire from formations, though that too was effective. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that when WE Johns' rear gunner on the DH4 he was flying was killed, he was able to hold off numerous Fokker DVII fighters for some time by throwing his DH4 about in quite a display of aerobatics. Morevover, if there are a pair of two seaters with good combat spread separation at slightly different heights, it is difficult to get in a firing position without being exposed to fire from at least one of them. Check out some of the kills achieved by Independent Force DH4s against fighters, and you can see that it was not quite the turkey shoot for the Germans it is often portrayed to be.

Of course everyone knows the bit about firing at two seaters from underneath, so that the gunner cannot return fire because the attacking fighter is shielded by the horizontal stabiliser of the two seater, but the bit people forget is that you should use a different technique on the approach and especially if the target turns. The moment a two seater turns, the instinctive thing many fighter pilots did (and still do in flight sims) is to turn with it on the inside, as you would against a single seater trying for a tracking deflection shot. This is not the correct thing to do, as it allows the rear gunner a clear shot on an effectively stationary target, and with your engine and prop being what he will hit. The correct technique is to dive and turn in the opposite direction, and then turn back toward it coming in under the thing on a wider radius. What that does, is uses the two seater's fuselage to block the gunner laterally when the two seater is banked in a turn, effectively keeping you 'underneath' it when you are in fact off to one side. Here's a diagram of the correct flight path to do that:



Al

[bristol scout]

Hi Terry,
Although I was being a bit tongue in cheek when I mentioned the D.H.2--I was not that far adrift---the D.H.2 never got a proper mount for the Lewis--which always makes me chuckle when some here try to claim that the Albatros D11 (I'm thinking of MvR's fight with Hawker here) was NOT superior to the little pusher!!!!

You are spot on with the comparitive ease of aiming the whole aeroplane--and are on firm ground with the 'Biff' as an example of just what a two seater should be.

I still feel that tackling a two seater---(and the under the tail attack was --well, difficult to say the least and probably only the real top exponents of that particular mode were any good at it)----was a very dangerous thing to do for a single scout (one on one) of middling abilities (as most were)---and often two scouts ( or a whole flight )would go for a two seater.

Dangerous times mate.

Dave.

[Terrencejones]

Originally Posted by bristol scout

Hi Terry,
Although I was being a bit tongue in cheek when I mentioned the D.H.2--I was not that far adrift---the D.H.2 never got a proper mount for the Lewis--which always makes me chuckle when some here try to claim that the Albatros D11 (I'm thinking of MvR's fight with Hawker here) was NOT superior to the little pusher!!!!

You are spot on with the comparitive ease of aiming the whole aeroplane--and are on firm ground with the 'Biff' as an example of just what a two seater should be.

I still feel that tackling a two seater---(and the under the tail attack was --well, difficult to say the least and probably omly the real top exponents of that particular mode were any good at it)----was a very dangerous thing to do for a single scout (one on one) of middling abilities (as most were)---and often two scouts ( or a whole flight )would go for a two seater.

Dangerous times mate.

Dave.

Hi Dave,
Thanks for that info on the DH2. All the fixed mounting was done on the field! I never knew that Great little fighter, but as you say no match regardless of pilot ability for the fiercesome Albatross.
Although I agree with you as to the dangers of tackling a two seater it is oddly enough the F2b more than any other aircraft that draws attention to the vulnerability of the type. When it was first encountered on the Western Front my assumption is, it was treated with the same respect afforded any other two seater by the German air force as it was flown in the manner any other two seater was flown at that time. As you know the first F2b sqaudron was decimated. Von Rithchofen announced it to be rubbish and probably cost a few German pilots theirs lives in doing so.
Of course the tactics Leefe Robinson was told to use were two seat manual tactics and did not utilise the aircraft's fighting prowess. It does however possibly highlight a few things . Firstly from this, the German Air force appeared to have little respect for two seat designs and clearly knew how to deal with them. The F2b even if it was not flown correctly was still light years ahead of any other two seater in allied service. Also the manual tactics currently in use at that time were clearly flawed if such an aircraft as the F2b had little chance of survival, (that is of course without the distraction of any fighter cover)
However I am aware this may be a somewhat simplistic way of looking at things.
For example I don't know off hand how many German aircraft were involved or how seasoned they were in respect of the British squadron in that particular situation. It is also worth noting renowned pilots like Ball and McCudden were not slow in their appreciation of certain two seaters they had come up against and the fact is many an ace fell to the guns of the lowly two seater.
No doubt a number of factors have to be taken into account to get even the slightest idea of how hard or easy the typical two seater (if such existed) was to shoot down,
aircraft type, pilot ability, gunner ability, numbers involved, tactics, weather, fuel etc. etc. I wouldn't like to have been on either side of the fight to be honest

Your bud Terry