Chapter XII : BATTLES IN THE AIR

Ever since the days of Jules Verne no theme has proved so popularin fiction as fighting in the air. It was a subject which lentitself to vivid imagination and spirited picturesque portrayal. Discussion might be provoked, but it inevitably proved abortive,inasmuch as there was a complete absence of data based uponactual experience. The novelist was without any theory: heavowedly depended upon the brilliance of his imagination. Thecritic could only theorise, and no matter how dogmatic hisreasonings, they were certainly as unconvincing as those of theobject of his attack.

But truth has proved stranger than fiction. The imaginativepictures of the novelist have not only been fulfilled butsurpassed, while the theorising critic has been utterlyconfounded. Fighting in the air has become so inseparable fromthe military operations of to-day that it occurs with startlingfrequency. A contest between hostile aeroplanes, hundreds offeet above the earth, is no longer regarded as a dramatic,thrilling spectacle: it has become as matter-of-fact as a bayonetmelee between opposed forces of infantry.

A duel in the clouds differs from any other form of encounter. It is fought mercilessly: there can be no question of quarter orsurrender. The white flag is no protection, for the simplereason that science and mechanical ingenuity have failed, so far,to devise a means of taking an aeroplane in tow. The victor hasno possible method of forcing the vanquished to the ground in hisown territory except driving. If such a move be made there isthe risk that the latter will take the advantage of a criticalopportunity to effect his escape, or to turn the tables. Forthese reasons the fight is fought to a conclusive finish.

To aspire to success in these combats waged in the tracklessblue, speed, initiative, and daring are essential. Success fallsto the swift in every instance. An aeroplane travelling at ahigh speed, and pursuing an undulating or irregular trajectory isalmostimpossible to hit from the ground, as sighting is soextremely difficult. Sighting from another machine, whichlikewise is travelling rapidly, and pursuing an irregular path,is far more so. Unless the attacker can approach relativelyclosely to his enemy the possibility of hitting him is extremelyremote. Rifle or gun-fire must be absolutely point blank.

When a marauding aeroplane is espied the attacking corsairimmediately struggles for the strategical position, which isabove his adversary. To fire upwards from one aeroplane atanother is virtually impossible, at least with any degree ofaccuracy. The marksman is at a hopeless disadvantage. If thepilot be unaccompanied and entirely dependent upon his ownresources he cannot hope to fire vertically above him, for thesimple reason that in so doing he must relinquish control of hismachine. A rifle cannot possibly be sighted under suchconditions, inasmuch as it demands that the rifleman shall leanback so as to obtain control of his weapon and to bring it tobear upon his objective. Even if a long range Mauser or otherautomatic pistol of the latest type be employed, two hands arenecessary for firing purposes, more particularly as, under suchconditions, the machine, if not kept under control, is apt tolurch and pitch disconcertingly.

Even a colleague carried for the express purpose of aggression ishandicapped. If he has a machinegun, such as a Maxim or amitrailleuse, it is almost out of the question to train itvertically. Its useful vertical training arc is probably limitedto about 80 degrees, and at this elevation the gunner has toassume an extremely uncomfortable position, especiauy upon anaeroplane, where, under the best of circumstances, he is somewhatcramped.

On the other hand the man in the aeroplane above holds thedominating position. He is immediately above his adversary andfiring may be carried out with facility. The conditions arewholly in his favour. Sighting and firing downwards, even ifabsolutely vertically, imposes the minimum physical effort, withthe result that the marksman is able to bring a steadier aim uponhis adversary. Even if the machine be carrying only the pilot,the latter is able to fire upon his enemy without necessarilyreleasing control of his motor, even for a moment.

If he is a skilled sharpshooter, and the exigencies demand, hecan level, sight, and fire his weapon with one hand, while undersuch circumstances an automatic self-loading pistol can betrained upon the objective with the greatest ease. If thewarplane be carrying a second person, acting as a gunner, thelatter can maintain an effective rifle fusillade, and, at thesame time, manipulate his machine-gun with no great effort,maintaining rifle fire until the pilot, by manoeuvring, canenable the mitrailleuse or Maxim to be used to the greatestadvantage.

Hence the wonderful display of tactical operations when twohostile aeroplanes sight one another. The hunted at firstendeavours to learn the turn of speed which his antagonistcommands. If the latter is inferior, the pursued can eitherprofit from his advantage and race away to safety, or at oncebegin to manoeuvre for position. If he is made of stern stuff,he attempts the latter feat without delay. The pursuer, if herealises that he is out classed in pace, divines that his quarrywill start climbing if he intends to show fight, so he begins toclimb also.

Now success in this tactical move will accrue to the machinewhich possesses the finest climbing powers, and here again, ofcourse, speed is certain to count. But, on the other hand, theprowess of the aviator--the human element once more--must not beignored. The war has demonstrated very convincingly that thepersonal quality of the aviator often becomes the decisivefactor.

A spirited contest in the air is one of the grimmest and mostthrilling spectacles possible to conceive, and it displays theskill of the aviator in a striking manner. Daring sweeps,startling wheels, breathless vol-planes, and remarkable climbsare carried out. One wonders how the machine can possiblywithstand the racking strains to which it is subjected. Theaverage aeroplane demands space in which to describe a turn, andthe wheel has to be manipulated carefully and dexterously, anoperation requiring considerable judgment on the part of thehelmsman.

But in an aerial duel discretion is flung to the winds. Thepilot jambs his helm over in his keen struggle to gain thesuperior position, causing the machine to groan and almost toheel over. The stem stresses of war have served to reveal theperfection of the modern aeroplane together with the remarkablestrength of its construction. In one or two instances, when avictor has come to earth, subsequent examination has revealed theenormous strains to which the aeroplane has been subjected. Themachine has been distorted; wires have been broken--wires whichhave succumbed to the enormous stresses which have been imposedand have not been snapped by rifle fire. One well-known Britishairman, who was formerly a daring automobilist, confided to methat a fight in the air "is the finest reliability trial for anaeroplane that was ever devised!"

In these desperate struggles for aerial supremacy the one partyendeavours to bring his opponent well within the point-blankrange of his armament: the other on his part strives just asvaliantly to keep well out of reach. The latter knows fully wellthat his opponent is at a serious disadvantage when beyondpoint-blank range, for the simple reason that in sighting therifle or automatic pistol, it is difficult, if not impossiblewhile aloft, to judge distances accurately, and to make thecorrect allowances for windage.

If, however, the dominating aviator is armed with a machine gunhe occupies the superior position, because he can pour a steadyhail of lead upon his enemy. The employment of such a weaponwhen the contest is being waged over friendly territory has manydrawbacks. Damage is likely to be infficted among innocentobservers on the earth below; the airman is likely to bombard hisfriends. For this very reason promiscuous firing, in the hopeof a lucky shot finding a billet in the hostile machine, is notpractised. Both parties appear to reserve their fire until theyhave drawn within what may be described as fighting distance,otherwise point blank range, which may be anything up to 300yards.

Some of the battles between the German and the French or Britishaeroplanes have been waged with a total disregard of theconsequences. Both realise that one or the other must perish,and each is equally determined to triumph. It is doubtfulwhether the animosity between the opposing forces is manifestedanywhere so acutely as in the air. In some instances the combathas commenced at 300 feet or so above the earth, and has beenfought so desperately, the machines climbing and endeavouring tooutmanoeuvre each other, that an altitude of over 5,000 feet hasbeen attained before they have come to close grips.

The French aviator is nimble, and impetuous: the German aviatoris daring, but slow in thought: the British airman is a master ofstrategy, quick in thought, and prepared to risk anything toachieve his end. The German airman is sent aloft to reconnoitrethe enemy and to communicate his information to his headquarters. That is his assigned duty and he performs it mechanically,declining to fight, as the welfare of his colleagues below isconsidered to be of more vital importance than his personalsuperiority in an aerial contest. But if he is cornered hefights with a terrible and fatalistic desperation.

The bravery of the German airmen is appreciated by the Allies. The French flying-man, with his traditional love for individualcombat, seeks and keenly enjoys a duel. The British airmanregards such a contest as a mere incident in the round ofduty, but willingly accepts the challenge when it is offered. Itis this manifestation of what may be described as acquiescence inany development that enabled the British flying corps, althoughnumerically inferior, to gain its mastery of the air sounostentatiously and yet so completely.

All things considered an aeroplane duel is regarded as a fairlyequal combat. But what of a duel between an aeroplane and adirigible? Which holds the advantage? This question has notbeen settled, at any rate conclusively, but it is generallyconceded that up to a certain point the dirigible is superior.It certainly offers a huge and attractive target, but rifle fireat its prominent gas-bag is not going to cause much havoc. Thepunctures of the envelope may represent so many vents throughwhich the gas within may effect a gradual escape, butconsiderable time must elapse before the effect of such abombardment becomes pronounced in its result, unless the gas-bagis absolutely riddled with machine gun-fire, when descent must beaccelerated.

On the other hand, it is to be presumed that the dirigible isarmed. In this event it has a distinct advantage. It has asteady gun-platform enabling the weapons of offence to be trainedmore easily and an enhanced accuracy of,fire to be obtained. Inorder to achieve success it is practically imperative that anaeroplane should obtain a position above the dirigible, but thelatter can ascend in a much shorter space of time, because itsascent is vertical, whereas the aeroplane must describe a spiralin climbing. Under these circumstances it is relatively easy forthe airship to outmanoeuvre the aeroplane in the vertical plane,and to hold the dominating position.

But even should the aeroplane obtain the upper position it is notregarded with fear. Some of the latest Zeppelins have a machinegun mounted upon the upper surface of the envelope, which canbe trained through 360 degrees and elevated to about 80 degreesvertical. Owing to the steady gun platform offered it holdscommand in gun-fire, so that the aeroplane, unless the aviator isexceptionally daring, will not venture within the range ofthe dirigible. It is stated, however, that this upper gun hasproved unsatisfactory, owing to the stresses and strains imposedupon the framework of the envelope of the Zeppelin during firing,and it has apparently been abandoned. The position, however, isstill available for a sniper or sharpshooter.

The position in the sky between two such combatants is closelyanalogous to that of a torpedo boat and a Dreadnought. Thelatter, so long as it can keep the former at arm's, or rathergun's, distance is perfectly safe. The torpedo boat can onlyaspire to harass its enemy by buzzing around, hoping that a luckyopportunity will develop to enable it to rush in and to launchits torpedo. It is the same with the aeroplane when arrayedagainst a Zeppelin. It is the mosquito craft of the air.

How then can a heavier-than-air machine triumph over the unwieldylighter-than-air antagonist? Two solutions are available. If itcan get above the dirigible the adroplane may bring about thedirigible's destruction by the successful launch of a bomb. Thedetonation of the latter would fire the hydrogen within thegas-bag or bags, in which event the airship would fall to earth atangled wreck. Even if the airship were inflated with anon-inflammable gas--the Germans claim that their Zeppelins noware so inflated--the damage wrought by the bomb would be sosevere as to destroy the airship's buoyancy, and it would beforced to the ground.

The alternative is very much more desperate. It involves rammingthe dirigible. This is undoubtedly possible owing to the speedand facile control of the aeroplane, but whether the operationwould be successful remains to be proved. The aeroplane would befaced with such a concentrated hostile fire as to menace its ownexistence--its forward rush would be frustrated by the dirigiblejust as a naval vessel parries the ramming tactics of an enemy bysinking the latter before she reaches her target, while if it didcrash into the hull of the dirigible, tearing it to shreds,firing its gas, or destroying its equilibrium, both protagonistswould perish in the fatal dive to earth. For this reason rammingin mid-air is not likely to be essayed except when the situationis desperate.

What happens when two aeroplanes meet in dire combat in mid-airand one is vanquished? Does the unfortunate vessel drop to earthlike a stone, or does it descend steadily and reach the grounduninjured? So far as actual experience has proved, either one ofthe foregoing contingencies may happen. In one such duel theGerman aeroplane was observed to start suddenly upon a vol-planeto the ground. Its descending flight carried it beyond the linesof the Allies into the territory of its friends. Both came tothe conclusion that the aviator had effected his escape. Butsubsequent investigation revealed the fact that a lucky bulletfrom the Allies' aeroplane had lodged in the brain of the Germanpilot, killing him instantly. At the moment when Death over tookhim the aviator had set his plane for the descent to the ground,and the machine came to earth in the manner of a glider.

But in other instances the descent has been far more tragic. Theaeroplane, deprived of its motive power, has taken the deadlyheadlong dive to earth. It has struck the ground with terrificviolence, burying its nose in the soil, showing incidentally thata flying machine is an indifferent plough, and has shattereditself, the debris soaked with the escaping fuel becomingignited. In any event, after such a fall the machine is certainto be a wreck. The motor may escape damage, in which event itis salvaged, the machine subsequently being purposely sacrificedto the flames, thereby rendering it no longer available to theenemy even if captured. In many instances the hostile fire hassmashed some of the stays and wires, causing the aeroplane tolose its equilibrium, and sending it to earth in the manner ofthe proverbial stone, the aviators either being dashed to piecesor burned to death.

What are the vulnerable parts of the aeroplane? While thedeliberate intention of either combatant is to put his antagonisthors de combat, the disablement of the machine may be achievedwithout necessarily killing or even seriously wounding thehostile airman. The prevailing type of aeroplane is highlysusceptible to derangement: it is like a ship without armourplate protection. The objective of the antagonist is the motoror the fuel-tank, the vital parts of the machine, as much as theaviator seated within.

A well-planted shot, which upsets the mechanism of the engine, ora missile which perforates the fuel tank, thereby depriving themotor of its sustenance, will ensure victory as conclusively asthe death of the aviator himself. Rifle fire can achieve eitherof these ends with little difficulty. Apart from these twonerve-centres, bombardment is not likely to effect the desireddisablement, inasmuch as it cannot be rendered completelyeffective. The wings may be riddled like a sieve, but theequilibrium of the machine is not seriously imperilled thereby. Even many of the stays may be shot away, but bearing in mind theslender objective they offer, their destruction is likely to bedue more to luck than judgment. On the other hand, the motor andfuel tank of the conventional machine offer attractive targets:both may be put out of action readily, and the disablement of themotive power of an enemy's craft, be it torpedo-boat, battleship,or aeroplane, immediately places the same at the assailant'smercy.

Nevertheless, of course, the disablement of the airman bringsabout the desired end very effectively. It deprives the drivingforce of its controlling hand; The aeroplane becomes like a shipwithout a rudder: a vessel whose helmsman has been shot down. Itis unmanageable, and likely to become the sport of the element inwhich it moves. It is for this reason that aviators have beenurged to direct their fire upon the men and mechanism of adirigible in the effort to put it out of action. An uncontrolledairship is more likely to meet with its doom than an aeroplane. The latter will inevitably glide to earth, possibly damagingitself seriously in the process, as events in the war havedemonstrated, but a helpless airship at once becomes the sport ofthe wind, and anyone who has assisted, like myself, in thedescent of a vessel charged with gas and floating in the air, canappreciate the difficulties experienced in landing. Anuncontrolled Zeppelin, for instance, would inevitably pile up ina tangled twisted ruin if forced to descend in the manner of anordinary balloon. Consequently the pilot of a dirigible realisesto the full the imperative urgency of keeping beyond thepoint-blank fire of aerial mosquito craft.

The assiduity with which British aviators are prepared to swarmto the attack has been responsible for a display of commendableingenuity on the part of the German airman. Nature has providedsome of its creatures, such as the octopus, for instance, withthe ways and means of baffling its pursuers. It emits denseclouds of inky fluid when disturbed, and is able to effect itsescape under cover of this screen.

The German aviator has emulated the octopus. He carries not onlyexplosive bombs but smoke balls as well. When he is pursued andhe finds himself in danger of being overtaken, the Teuton aviatorignites these missiles and throws them overboard. The aeroplanebecomes enveloped in a cloud of thick impenetrable smoke. It isuseless to fire haphazard at the cloud, inasmuch as it does notnecessarily cover the aviator. He probably has dashed out of thecloud in such a way as to put the screen between himself and hispursuer.

In such tactics he has merely profited by a method which ispractised freely upon the water. The torpedo boat flotilla whenin danger of being overwhelmed by superior forces will throw offcopious clouds of smoke. Under this cover it is able to stealaway, trusting to the speed of the craft to carry them wellbeyond gunshot. The "smoke screen," as it is called, is anaccepted and extensively practised ruse in naval strategy, and isnow adopted by its mosquito colleagues of the air.

[ << Back to Aeroplanes and Dirigibles of War]

Chapter XII : BATTLES IN THE AIR

Categories