|
Volume 14, Number 10
Visible or Hidden Damage? A Historical Study Of Dawn Patrol's Oldest Debate By Stephen Skinner Dawn Patrol players have argued for years
over which is better and more realistic... visible or hidden damage. Advocates of visible damage are quick to point out that
tracer bullets were used in WWI, and that perhaps torn fabric could actually be seen in combat. Proponents of each side are
quick to state their case, though in reality none of us are qualified to do so. A very few men are still alive who can
intelligently comment on the issue - they are the pilots and observers of World War I, and it is they that we should be consulting on
such questions. After all, its tough to argue with a man who has peered at Fokkers through an Aldis sight. Of course, selecting
the opinion of a single pilot and accepting it wholly would not be prudent, so the object of this article is to present several
viewpoints from different pilots, add some historical facts for perspective, and formulate a hypothesis.
We will examine the issue from 4 separate angles: What Pilots Saw Hundreds, perhaps thousands of accounts
of World War I aerial combat exist for us to study. For the most part, those accounts come from two sources: memoirs, which
were written well after the event, or combat reports which were written hours, often minutes after the flight. Memoirs are
usually longer, but accuracy fades with the passing of time. In the words of fighter pilot Ira Milton Jones, "age dims ones
memory and embellishes what one remembers." Combat reports, on the other hand, were written while the event was still fresh
in the mind of the participant. Unfortunately, they were looked upon as red tape by many pilots and therefore were very brief
in nature. There is another good source, however, that beckons. There are some good collections
of war letters and diaries that get the best of both worlds. They were usually written within a reasonable period of time
- that is, within a few days - so the pilots memory was still relatively fresh. They were much more detailed than combat reports,
since they were specifically written to remind the author or recipient of a particular incident. Before we quote a few typical
entries from war letters and memoirs, please remember that these sources describe only what the pilot remembers, not
all that he actually saw. The human mind absorbs an incredible amount of information, but only a tiny fraction of that
information is processed, retained, or acted upon. Read these excerpts carefully and let your imagination visualize what these
pilots saw: Lt. Gordon T. Collinson, RAF
41: "The action was fast and furious. We could only stay on an enemy's tail long enough to give him one short burst
before somebody was on our tail... in the confusion it was difficult to know how many planes had been shot down. All I could
do was assess my own damage." In this particular incident, Lt. Collinson
was experiencing "sensory overload." In other words, far more information was passing in front of his eyes than his mind was
capable of processing. And by the time Collinson wrote these words, he was an experienced and battle-hardened veteran. Lt. Phil B. Townsend, of RAF 12 flew RE 8 recon planes: "We
were again attacked, possibly by the same three Fokkers, and in the running fight both my observer and myself were able to
fire groups of shots at the enemy as each dived past us... I immediately dived for home. The running fight became more serious,
though only two Fokkers came against us... what happened to the third Fokker?" The only glimpse Lt. Townsend had of
his attackers came as they dove past him. He fired a quick burst and continued his own dive. Whether or not he shot one of
them down will never be known. He had no grasp of what had taken place in the overall combat; his only observation was that
one of the Fokkers was missing when it was over.
2Lt. John Pugh was a Bristol
observer with RAF 48. It was his job to be observant, collect information and retain it. He had done his job for
nearly six months when he had his last dogfight: "We were not able to claim any success,
but two Fokkers attacked us, and there was only one at the end. At that point, I was using my last Lewis gun magazine." This was his entire description of a
major dogfight that ended his career. Pugh also seemed to experience a sort
of "personal orientation;" the inability to absorb any information that did not affect him personally. He had no idea nor
gave any thought about the two Fokkers; his only concern was the fact that he was nearly out of ammunition. These entries are typical of World War
I dogfight descriptions. Highly detailed accounts are extremely rare, and usually filled with inaccurate or conflicting information.
Five pilots could return from patrol and give five different testimonies as to what happened; yet only one of them could be
correct. If you doubt this, try researching the death of Voss, Mannock, Ball, Guynemer, or even the death of the Red Baron.
After 75 years, dozens of pilots and scores of ground observers have been interrogated beyond comprehension on Richtofens
death, yet to this day no one really knows what happened. All we have is a series of brief glances; small remembrances
of a tiny fraction in time. Each participant recalls a specific fragment of the action as if it was yesterday, but the rest
of the picture is lost. So
what did World War I pilots truly see and comprehend during the heat of combat? Precious little. The Logistics of Combat The very nature of World War I air combat
prevented pilots from seeing anything of the battle itself. To get a mental picture of it, we must first think in three dimensions.
Pilots spent virtually no time flying straight and level in combat, and those who did rarely came home. Rather, the craft
was constantly thrown about, banked, inverted, zoomed or dived. If your machine is inverted and in a steeply banked dive,
what will you see? Any aircraft within sight would appear to be in an upside-down climb from your vantage point... and that
assumes that it's flying a straight, level course. The view from the cockpit of a WWI fighter
was very restrictive. Those of you who have had the opportunity to sit in an authentic Great War aircraft know that the rim
of the cockpit comes nearly to eye level. Pilots had to bank their machines in order to see over the side, especially in the
deeper cockpits such as the SPAD and SE 5a. The biplane configuration blocked another large portion of the pilots scope of
vision. Assuming that the position of your craft,
the wings and cockpit sides and the angle of your enemy would allow you to make visual contact at all, speed then becomes
a factor. If two aircraft approaching each other
at 90 mph are 300 feet apart, simple math says that each pilot will have exactly 0.88 seconds in which to decide his course
of action, point his aircraft, sight the enemy, then fire. Zero
point eight-eight seconds. That's not much time. If you successfully shot him down, he
could be descending vertically and indistinguishable from the terrain below. Its likely that you would never see him again,
and never know what had happened. If you missed him, your momentum might carry you nearly a thousand feet apart before you
could turn sharply enough to see him again. To say that visual damage assessment of your opponent was difficult would be a
monumental understatement. The nature of WWI air combat was segmented
into split seconds. Pilots didn't think, they reacted. Those who took the time to think usually died. The frantic pace of
air combat, the constant pressure of g-forces and the flow of combat rarely allowed a combatant the chance to analyze, rationalize
or examine the predicament of an enemy plane. The logistics of combat made
it virtually impossible.
Was Damage
Visible? When Georges Guynemer's gun camera snapped
this shot of his kill over a German Albatros in July of 1917, he was at a point blank range of less than 50 yards.
Doomed and riddled by the Frenchmen's bullets, the Albatros is already diving toward the ground to become a confirmed
victory. Guynemer saw this plane for perhaps two seconds, but you have the advantage of a frozen picture and all the
time you want to analyze it. Can you find the damage on this doomed Albatros? If visible damage is historically viable,
then the damage should be obvious. It should be simple. Just count them. Two right wings, three in the left, one tail
and a center wing? Or maybe look for the fabric that should be flapping in the wind from such a riddled airplane? Or a
chunk of the fuselage coming off? There are very few authentic photographs of WWI air combat, but this shot gives us a perfect
opportunity to see if open damage in Dawn Patrol is even remotely viable. If any plane should have obvious damage, its this
doomed Albatros. The photograph is remarkable. Its of excellent quality and was taken from such close range that you
could throw a rock and hit it. You can see the colored band on the tail, the interplane struts, and even the white outline
on the black crosses. So finding the damage on it should be quite simple. Look carefully... what do you see? Taking into account sicknesses and death,
six responses were received. Here are all six answers, quoted as exactly and completely as the laws of good grammar and clarity
allow. Italicized emphasis is only used where the authors themselves used emphasis. GORDON T. COLLINSON, RAF 24:
"The answer would be a decided 'no' insofar as bullet holes are concerned. Any visual damage would have to be major structural
damage, or fire or explosion. Even then, in the heat of battle, the pilot often has to rely on witnesses to assess the damage
he incurred." FRANK A. DIXON, USAS 17th
AERO: "I flew Sopwith Camels and SPADs 13 in World War I. I have excellent vision today at 94... I believe if receiving
damage of any significance, I could see it... even a bullet hole if it tore through. It is my belief only, and I still
fly." SDS: "But what about
damage to someone else's aircraft?" FAD: "I think not." FRED K. TULLY, RAF 18:
Mr. Tully was unable to respond personally due to illness. His wife asked him the question verbally and responded for him,
stating that in his opinion it was unlikely that bullet holes would be visible on an enemy plane.
PHIL B. TOWNSEND, RAF 12: PBT: "Yes! And proud
of it!" SDS:
"Would fabric cuts or tears have been visible?" PBT: "Yes! I was in
several scraps, both wars, but defensive only. Holes and rips (were visible)." ROBERT A. LOGAN, RFC 48:
"I can say that it might be possible that if fabric was cut by bullets more fabric might be torn away by the wind, until enough
of the loose fabric would show. But, I have never seen any evidence of my bullets damaging my opponent's plane in the few
dogfights I had in World War I. But, I do remember seeing damage to my plane in which I was shot down on April 8, 1917. I
did not see the damage to my plane while I was in the air, but I did see it after the plane landed. The fabric on the upper
part of one side of my tail plane was flapping in the air like a flag. So I can only say that it is very doubtful, but not
impossible, that one man might see the effects of his bullets hitting his opponents plane."
W.
STANLEY RYCROFT, RAF 48: "Then there is the question of speed. Take the time we shot down an EA on September 26,
1918. The German plane was coming in the opposite direction, which means the speed was doubled. The plane was below us. Maybe
it was 75 or 100 yards. Wood (Rycroft's observer) did the shooting. You know, in a dogfight things happen so fast that you
dont have time to look for bullet holes or torn fabric." So when asked if damage to an opponents
plane could be seen in a WWI dogfight, pilots who actually flew combat missions over France are nearly unanimous. Five out
of six respondents stated to varying degrees that it was, at the very least, unlikely that one could see battle damage to
an opponent during a WWI dogfight. What Fits Pilots See As Fits pilots, we have a tremendous
advantage over our WWI counterparts. We can see not only our own personal combat with a visible enemy, but we can see the
enemy aircraft which would actually be blocked from sight by part of our own airplane or someone else's aircraft. Additionally, we can see friendly and
hostile planes from any distance, from any angle, and know instantly if and when any of those combatants take damage. Mist,
rain and sun glare do not inhibit us. The action is slow - what would in reality be a two minute dogfight might take us two
hours to recreate on a Dawn Patrol board. We may have up to ten minutes or more to analyze each movement turn, anticipate
the maneuvers of others planes and recall what type of damage they may have taken. We have time to select the angle of shot,
type of burst, and range of fire every time we press the triggers. We are not forced into mistakes... WWI pilots made split
second decisions and paid for a wrong move with their lives. The Indy Squadron is the only group in Dawn Patrol that uses
any type of strict time limit on moving - some squadrons even have planes that fly in reverse and can be moved over and over! When using hidden damage, we still have
a remarkable knowledge of where the enemy has been hit and how me might have been affected. If you're firing on an enemy's
tail, you automatically know that your shots hit the left/right/center wing or tail. If you score seven hit factors and your
opponent informs you that you have two chances to hit his pilot, then its easy to conclude that the other five shots went
into the left/right wing or tail. Compare this knowledge with the actual dogfight descriptions quoted earlier from World War
I pilots! Likewise, if you fire from head-on, side,
top or bottom, you have a good idea of what parts of the enemy were most likely struck. It's been argued that tracer bullets
would permit the pilot to know where his bullets were hitting an enemy plane. While this is partially true, three important
points about tracers remain:
When visible damage is used, it becomes
a simple matter of counting hits scored in an area until its capacity is reduced to zero. Visible damage also results in other
aircraft converging onto a damaged enemy as soon as he takes several hits in a single area. Pilots who are otherwise engaged
will break away when they see three or four hits scored on a single area of someone else's plane in a game turn. This subjects
the target pilot to a barrage of fire from aircraft who are hundreds or even thousands of feet away, and who would realistically
have no remote idea of what was taking place in other areas of the dogfight. So what do Fits pilots see? With hidden
damage, nearly everything. With visible damage absolutely everything! Conclusion Players who enjoy using visible (or open)
damage do so for their own personal reasons... because of superstition, or perhaps because they don't like to "shoot themselves,"
or simply because they've always played that way in the past. And while everyone should play under the rules that they like
best, visible damage can hardly be called realistic. On the contrary, it destroys the concept
of limited intelligence and offers a ridiculous amount of information to a pilot that - from a historical standpoint - is
laughable. It has absolutely no basis in historical fact and flies in the face of what nearly every World War I pilot says
regarding his combat experience. So if you use visible damage, use it
because you like it. Use it because it makes you comfortable or satisfies your superstition. Or use it because it's just a
game and really doesn't matter. Have a good time and enjoy yourself. But please... do us all a favor.
Don't try to pretend that it's realistic. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
