- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Below are several different alternatives for possible wing gun defensive fire rules. Please use this forum topic to express your opinion on these potential alternatives. You can say which one you like and why you like it, what you don’t like about an alternative, you can suggest clarifications/enhancements, or you can even suggest another alternative. We’ll entertain (friendly) discussion of the topic on this thread before we vote at a later date. Please restrict your comments on this thread to this rule — other rules up for debate will get their own threads.
Item B – Wing Gun Defensive Fire
B.1 Pilot wing Lewis guns may only be used to defend against top attacks if the attacking aircraft enters the defending aircraft’s square from one of the defending aircraft’s front three squares.
OR
B.2 Pilot wing Lewis guns may not be used to defend against top attacks.
OR
B.3 Pilot wing Lewis guns may be used to defend against top attacks without regard to the square from which the attacker entered the defender’s square.
OR
B.4 Pilot wing Lewis guns may be used to defend against top attacks unless in two circumstances: (i) If the attacker entered the defender’s square from one of the defending aircraft’s front three squares, the defensive fire is head-on, or (ii) If the attacker entered the defender’s square from one of the defending aircraft’s rear three squares, the defensive fire is a bottom attack. If the attacker entered the defender’s square from the left or right side square, the defender may not return fire with the wing Lewis gun.
I don’t like B2. Lewis guns are sucky enough as it is. My favorite is B3 because I’d rather we not have too many more departures from Version 7 other than the Version 8 charts.
I like the idea of 4, it allows a little more return fire, and may make those planes that have the Lewis Gun a little more deadly
Given those choices, my vote would be for 2, but I would like to add another option:
B.5 Wing guns are only allowed to defend against top attacks or fire upwards if, during a previous turn, the pilot has flown straight and level while adjusting his Lewis guns to fire upwards on a Foster mount (see rules for Lewis drum changes). Until the pilot spends another full turn to adjust his Foster mount to fire forward, he may only fire upwards and may not fire forwards.
These Lewis defensive fire rules are one of my pet peeves. I would love to be proven wrong, but in all my reading, especially of SE5a aircraft and pilots, I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that supports the idea of somehow snapping these guns upward mid-dogfight. Maybe someone who has read more extensively than me can prove me wrong. I’d be happy to consider contrary evidence.
Edit: I’d maybe be willing to concede some sort of bonus to ace or better pilots, such as being able to adjust the mount on any turn they don’t fire.
From “Sagittarius Rising ” by 8 kill ace Cecil Lewis.
Set up…Se5a at 100 ft , fleeing for his own lines, with a “Hun” above ,diving from behind, then zoom climbing.
The next time the Hun zoomed, Bowman throttled right down and stalled. The result was that when the Hun fell out of his zoom, Beery was not ahead of him as before, but beneath him. As the Hun dropped into his dive Beery opened fire with his Lewis gun, raking the body above him with a long burst. The Hun rolled over…bursting into flames…” Bowman was awarded the DSO for this action.
The more I look at it , I think only aircraft with the Foster mount should be able to use the Lewis for D fire. I think Martin makes a good point about the “spade grip” types with the folding hinge. Haven’t found any evidence of D fire with these types. Still looking …D
Dan, in Cecil Lewis’ account, does he specifically state that he angled the gun upward in the Foster mount, or was he simply achieving the upward angle via the stall? And if it was via the Foster mount, did he “snap” it upwards, or did he adjust the mount in anticipation of the subsequent attack?
No, it was not a ‘snap’ shot. The Lewis gun was jammed. Bowman cleared the jam under fire and then made his shot. But I think the term ‘snap shot’ in DP is hard to quantify. The game turns are 20 seconds long. Bowman’s actions in game turn time took less than 20 seconds . Earlier in his book, Lewis mentions using the Lewis for defensive shots when they received the SE 5 when it 1st came out while they were still in England.
Dan
Brisfit Ace wrote:Item B – Wing Gun Defensive Fire
B.1 Pilot wing Lewis guns may only be used to defend against top attacks if the attacking aircraft enters the defending aircraft’s square from one of the defending aircraft’s front three squares.
OR
B.2 Pilot wing Lewis guns may not be used to defend against top attacks.
OR
B.3 Pilot wing Lewis guns may be used to defend against top attacks without regard to the square from which the attacker entered the defender’s square.
OR
B.4 Pilot wing Lewis guns may be used to defend against top attacks unless in two circumstances: (i) If the attacker entered the defender’s square from one of the defending aircraft’s front three squares, the defensive fire is head-on, or (ii) If the attacker entered the defender’s square from one of the defending aircraft’s rear three squares, the defensive fire is a bottom attack. If the attacker entered the defender’s square from the left or right side square, the defender may not return fire with the wing Lewis gun.For thirty-five years I’ve thought that B.3 is too generous to the defender. In fact, B.1 originated as the house rule for the University of Wisconsin Wargaming Club, where I played in those days. After many years of experience using B.1, I’ve come to sympathize with those who whine that it makes their wing guns useless. I’d vote for B.4.
But I believe that only the Foster mount should allow defensive fire or the bottom shot option. The other earlier mounts just look like they’re either up or down, not angled like the Foster mount could be to get a shot.I vote for B.4
For the wing mounted Lewis, the foster mount was invented ( more detailed info & pic here-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_mounting although I don’t think many Niep 11s had them) as a simple rail that the gun could be pulled up at an angle on to change drums while seated, and then pilots such as Ball & McCudden mastered using it to fly level under a target and “rake” the target.
Since the gun fired over the prop arc, no sync gear was required on the gun and it actually had a faster rate of fire, which pilots like McCudden and Lewis noted as an advantage for doing damage ( and is not reflected in FitS).
I think “the front 3” was developed by Mike as a game mechanic. In the heat of a dogfight the odds of you twisting & turning & also noticing a plane coming in behind / over you & reacting is slim. Instead of a complicated % reaction chance roll, he simplified it and if you see a plane coming in front of you, you have obvious better reaction chance & hence the rule.
I do think it was quite easy for a pilot to use the foster mount to wield the gun in an attack – well within the 20 second timeframe. I can try to find some specific references, but I know that greats like Ball, McCudden and Lewis all documented their squadrons using it in this fashion.Can anyone provide me with a single recorded example of a Lewis being used for this type of reactive defensive fire? Every example I’ve found of Lewis guns firing upwards on a Foster mount were situations where the pilot was using them in a planned offensive situation or, in one case, defensively in anticipation of a repeated attack from a diving Albatross that had already attacked in the same dive-and-overshoot pattern, and thus could be anticipated.
Graham, in your initial proposed house on this topic, you limited defensive fire to planes with the Foster mount. Is that still the case? You make no mention of it in this thread.
I thought I would write the proposal to be more general, but of course I’m open to input and direction of all types, including limiting the defensive fire to aircraft with a Foster mount, assuming we have a reliable source of info on which machines used which gun mounts.
Just for clarity John, who is “we” in your post? Many groups have been playing with B1 in their local play, but I don’t think that’s the case for all groups. And since we have so many people coming together from different groups online, I’m not sure there is a consistent “we”. If you mean “we” have been playing by B1 online, I’d like to give the new online players a chance to voice their opinions. Of course, most don’t seem to be doing so!!
Graham
The current 7th edition rules explicitly permit defensive fire against all overhead targets. That is the rule.
Eliminating all defensive overhead shots is the most realistic proposition and I could live with that, too.
I oppose the “front three squares” rule for reasons already mentioned in this article. Adoption of the “front three squares” rules won’t keep me from playing. I can get enjoy the game under just about any rules package. But it is a poor compromise that fails historically, fails logistically, and is a clear violation of the game’s rules.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.