Two-seaters and P4

[Hasse Wind 46]

Lately I've been flying 2-seaters actively in OFF, and I really like it that the sim gives us this opportunity, which not every WW1 flight sim has. Historically, bombers and recon planes were the reason why fighter units were created during the war in the first place. Aerial bombings had a much more limited role in the Great War than during later conflicts, because most of the bombers couldn't carry very heavy bombloads and were unable to deliver them very accurately. Only later in the war did the ground attack bombers have an increasingly important role to play. But recon (and artillery fire control) planes were important already in 1914 and had a major role to play in analyzing the enemy strengths and positions and helping to prepare for offensives and estimate their results with the help of aerial photography.

 

Much has been talked about the need for having more 2-seaters in OFF. But I'd also like to see some improvements made to the bomber careers, which I'm sure would get more people playing and enjoying them and forgetting the fighters, at least for a while.

 

Currently the only way to get medals in OFF is to shoot down enemy aircraft. It goes without saying that most of the glory and awards went to the fighter pilots, but the 2-seater guys could also be rewarded for their efforts. There should be a separate reward system for 2-seater pilots in OFF, so that successful pilots would get at least something for their efforts. It's very motivating for players.

 

The only bomber in OFF that has a real bombsight is the DFW C.V. It's one of the reasons why I enjoy flying that plane so much (another is the ridiculously high accuracy of the sight, making precision bombing a true possibility in OFF ). But historically, it wasn't the only bomber with a bombsight. Maybe in P4 we could have more bombers with more realistic instruments? It would definitely make flying all the other bombers much more enjoyable.

 

Recon missions are currently quite simple in OFF. Maybe some kind of a photographying system could be added to P4? As far as I know, that would be something never before seen in any flight sim. If you had a target (or targets) you actually had to photograph, it would really improve the recon aspect of 2-seater careers. Imagine the excitement of flying through heavy flak, angry fighters behind you, looking for an opening in the clouds to take those important pics for the generals.

 

Get rid of the scramble missions for bombers. Why would any bomber pilot take off in, say, the Be2c when the field is under attack by Albatrosses?

 

***

 

Anybody else have any ideas for 2-seaters in P4 and the future? I know there must more people out there who like to fly bombers in addition to the couple of guys I already know do so.

[ConradB 0]

It would be nice to have a mix of variations for scrambles. Every scramble is the same with the E/A right overhead, and before you get airborne, it is like the Army pilots trying to take off at Hickam, Wheeler or Bellows during the Japanese attack. A good deal of airfield raids were done from low altitude to confound the observers that used very high powered optics to spot incoming planes at altitude. At tree top level that is more difficult to see incoming planes. But if they are at their ceiling, you should have lots of warning and be able to get airborne real quick, before they can pounce. This lets you tactically form up, and get out of the immediate area, to gain some height, and properly defend you base. As it sits, the entire flight(s) of defenders are knocked off in 5 to 10 minutes max. You'ld be better off staying on the ground and manning a machine gun or ack ack gun instead. Or just stay in the trenches. Plus there shouldn't be any stupid waypoints on a scramble. The majority of the squadron gets shot down circling the damn airfield, so for the time being I just hit Esc when I get one.

 

Besides, unless you've had advance warning, you're a fool to try and get airborne during an air raid. You're low and slow, and on the deck. Does the word "sittin' duck" mean anything?

[shredward 12]

Get rid of the scramble missions for bombers. Why would any bomber pilot take off in, say, the Be2c when the field is under attack by Albatrosses?

Anybody else have any ideas for 2-seaters in P4 and the future? I know there must more people out there who like to fly bombers in addition to the couple of guys I already know do so.

 

Stay tuned.

[carrick58 23]

More Recon 2 seaters a/c . Flying alone I dont thing they flew in sgn formations to take pics.

[Bullethead 12]

More Recon 2 seaters a/c . Flying alone I dont thing they flew in sgn formations to take pics.

 

Actually, at least by early 1917, they did. The escort missions we have in OFF were really very rare, due to the difficultly of coordinating between units on the ground, let alone in the air. Thus, the RFC fighters flew "offensive patrols" trying to keep some area of airspace free of Huns, without any tie to any particular 2-seaters, although this could be considered a type of escort mission. However, OPs having been shown not to work very effectively, the 2-seater squadrons provided their own escorts. For example, an RE8 squadron might send out 5 planes on a recon mission. 1 had the camera, which slowed it down and kept the observer from looking for planes or using his gun. The other 4 were there to defend the photo machine. This worked about as well as you'd expect, but I suppose in the long run it was better than just sending a lone RE8 out. This was for recon of the front and immediate rear areas like where arty and supply dumps might be. Deep recon was usually done solo at extreme altitude.

 

The French took this concept a step further. They had specialized "escort fighters" for their 2-seaters. Originally, these were "fighter" versions of the same 2-seaters (usually pushers) the squadron had. The "fighter versions" often had 37mm cannon instead of MGs, but this proved ineffective so they often used regular 2-seaters as the Brits did. Then they developed specialized twin-engined, 3-seat "escort fighters" of several types. To begin with, these were part of the 2-seater squadron, and were also used for sole, long-range recon. But later in the war, they had whole squadrons of these things paired with conventional 2-seater squadrons (often at the same base).

[Waldemar Kurtz 1]

1. replace scramble sorties for two-seaters with something else. ground forces attack. anything else would be better

 

2. more mission variety. based on my readings thus far two-seaters at various stages of the war did AT LEAST the following:

 

photo recon work

visual recon work

escort (for other two-seaters)

strategic bombing

tactical bombing

contact patrols

artillery spotting

barrage patrols

combat air patrols

balloon protection

balloon destruction

 

3. I agree that bomb sights for all of the bombers (which historically had them) would be awesome.

 

 

4. it would be nice if some of the wider varieties of historical ordnance could be represented in the game. the BE2c was used extensively for anti-zeppelin sorties early in the war-- so it might be nice to have some "comic" versions of aircraft where the guns face up at a 45 degree angle. the DFW C.V, for instance, actually had an internal bomb bay (which is depicted accurately on the existing OFF model) it would be kinda cool if we could use it. many French pusher types were equipped with cannons. stuff like that.

 

5. French two-seaters: like the Caudron G.IV, Farman 40, Voison L.III, Dorand AR.1, the Salmson 2a2, and Breguet XIV. France had the largest air force in the world for the entirety of the Great War. most of these would be two-seaters, so it would be nice to see them get some reperesentation.

 

6. American two-seaters. I put this one last for a reason-- because compared to all of the aforementioned this would be like icing on the cake.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Waldemar Kurtz

[Bullethead 12]

2. more mission variety. based on my readings thus far two-seaters at various stages of the war did AT LEAST the following:

 

I'd rather see LESS variety and more specialization. Most 2-seater squadrons were specialized for 1 specific job: recon, arty cooperation, bombing, close air support, etc. Quite a few squadrons never did anything else, and while most of them did have some variety, the majority of their missions were still within their specialty.

 

Now at present, with so few 2-seater planes in the game at all, the current mission variety makes sense. But once we fill out the 2-seater ranks, IMHO we should also change to having specialized squadrons.

[Waldemar Kurtz 1]

I'd rather see LESS variety and more specialization. Most 2-seater squadrons were specialized for 1 specific job: recon, arty cooperation, bombing, close air support, etc. Quite a few squadrons never did anything else, and while most of them did have some variety, the majority of their missions were still within their specialty.

 

Now at present, with so few 2-seater planes in the game at all, the current mission variety makes sense. But once we fill out the 2-seater ranks, IMHO we should also change to having specialized squadrons.

 

 

for early war two-seaters it was EVERYTHING and the kitchen sink thrown at a single squadron. yes, it is true that there is more specialization later in the war-- but in order for that to happen they have to create even more types of squadron IDs to build missions around. most people, to put it bluntly, aren't going to fly a photo-recon squadron because all they would ever do is fly over the trenches and pretend that they're taking pictures.

 

a casual review of "The Wind in the Wires", "Flying Section 17", "Notes from a Lost Pilot" or "the Flying Fury: Five Years in the RFC" reveal that two-seater flights tackled a huge variety of missions for the first half of the war. most of which aren't getting represented in OFF at present.

 

highly specialized two-seater work didn't become wide-spread until late 1916. even with that said specialization, there was still some room for variety. bombing squadrons rarely just dropped bombs on one type of target. Schlastas would alternate between escort duties and ground attack missions with some frequency.

 

ideally, when we start getting more two-seaters they should have historically changing deployments. I believe that the historically changing mission assignments of two-seaters is quite possibly to attain in Phase 4.

[carrick58 23]

Actually, at least by early 1917, they did. The escort missions we have in OFF were really very rare, due to the difficultly of coordinating between units on the ground, let alone in the air. Thus, the RFC fighters flew "offensive patrols" trying to keep some area of airspace free of Huns, without any tie to any particular 2-seaters, although this could be considered a type of escort mission. However, OPs having been shown not to work very effectively, the 2-seater squadrons provided their own escorts. For example, an RE8 squadron might send out 5 planes on a recon mission. 1 had the camera, which slowed it down and kept the observer from looking for planes or using his gun. The other 4 were there to defend the photo machine. This worked about as well as you'd expect, but I suppose in the long run it was better than just sending a lone RE8 out. This was for recon of the front and immediate rear areas like where arty and supply dumps might be. Deep recon was usually done solo at extreme altitude.

 

The French took this concept a step further. They had specialized "escort fighters" for their 2-seaters. Originally, these were "fighter" versions of the same 2-seaters (usually pushers) the squadron had. The "fighter versions" often had 37mm cannon instead of MGs, but this proved ineffective so they often used regular 2-seaters as the Brits did. Then they developed specialized twin-engined, 3-seat "escort fighters" of several types. To begin with, these were part of the 2-seater squadron, and were also used for sole, long-range recon. But later in the war, they had whole squadrons of these things paired with conventional 2-seater squadrons (often at the same base).

 

 

U are a wealth of information, Thanks. Wonder what a 37mm felt like being fired in one of those old crates?

[catch 81]

My suggestion. Artillery ranging ... where the observer notes where shells are falling visually on a specified objective and directs the gunners until the desired object is ranged and consequently given a hell of a thrashing. The means of communication was either morse code, visual indicators near the friendly battery, scrawled messages dropped from the observer ... and I guess wireless in the latter stages of the war.

 

I don't know if this is possible in OFF but it would be cool to have a set enemy ground objective at the beginning of the mission, fly to and liaise with the friendly artillery battery and then watch where their shells hit in relation to the objective and if inaccurate, guide them with basic instructions such as left, right, forward, back until ranging was done and utter destruction was assured. It's all there in Sagittarius Rising. But again, I don't know if such commands are possible in OFF.

[Manuc 0]

Speaking about ground attack missions:

 

Wouldn't it be nice to have a Junkers J.1 for P4 ?

 

Edited February 2, 2010 by Manuc

[Bullethead 12]

for early war two-seaters it was EVERYTHING and the kitchen sink thrown at a single squadron.

 

I think that's too broad a generalization and based mostly on a Brit perspective. They (especially the RNAS) didn't have many planes to start with so had to use them multi-role in the early days (although the RNAS did have a dedicated bomber force for a while back then). The French, OTOH, had large groups of dedicated bombers from the beginning, and also dedicated arty spotters. And everybody had dedicated recon units from the get-go.

 

The thing is, the bulk of squadrons on both sides were attached to ground units: armies, corps, divisions, and even artillery regiments. This might sound strange from today's perspective, but it really isn't--the USMC still does things that way. After all, ground commanders have been handling the 3 classic arms of infantry, arty, and cavalry since the Bronze Age at least, and airplanes are just another arm in this regard. Anyway, the ground commanders told their airplanes what to do, focused on immediate tactical and operational concerns at the front: recon, arty spotting (offensive and defensive), bombing of enemy rear areas if possible, close air support during offensives, and prevention of the enemy from doing the same.

 

This arrangement naturally leads to squadron specialization, first between fighters and 2-seaters, and then subdividing 2-seaters between the various jobs they did. It's a matter of not just the aircraft (which might be pretty generic or even all the same type), but also of specialized equipment and the training of the personnel.

 

Arty spotting, for example, required a radio and an observer who not only was a trained aerial arty observer (NOT a trivial skill) but also knew how to use the radio. Neither of these was in large supply, so you didn't expose them to unnecessary attrition on other jobs that less-specialized squadrons could perform. Besides, the radio's weight precluded carrying equipment or ordnance for other missions, and was time-consuming to remove or install. Thus, while the airframe might be generic, arty-spotting planes wear pretty much stuck with their mission, and their observers were, too. Hence, dedicated arty-spotting squadrons. The French (escadrilles with 200-series numbers) and Germans (all the FA(A) squadrons) had many of these, as did the Brits.

 

The rest of the 2-seater squadrons might be considered as specialized recon units, with some (but by no means all) doing the odd bombing or CAS mission occasionally as need or opportunity arose. Bombing for its own sake wasn't very high on the priority list of the ground commanders, whose primary concerns were recon and arty spotting. To them, bombing was langiappe. And ground commanders carried a lot of weight in political circles, so aircraft production and crew training were largely geared for their requirements. Specialized bombing squadrons therefore mostly arose under the impetus of air commanders who had friends in high places. This was easier for the French, because their air force was an independent service before the war started. Hence, they had a huge dedicated bomber force from the get-go. The others eventually followed suit, but only after their aircraft production had increased to the point that they had excess capacity beyond the frontline ground requirements. And with dedicated bombers came specialized, trained bombardiers, who again were mostly employed to use their training. Eventually, this process led to the formation of dedicated CAS squadrons, as well.

 

 

most people, to put it bluntly, aren't going to fly a photo-recon squadron because all they would ever do is fly over the trenches and pretend that they're taking pictures.

 

Exactly! This is why we need specialized 2-seater squadrons. Right now, with generic, jack-of-all-trades 2-seater squadrons, almost all missions are recon or arty spotting (which have exactly zero difference in gameplay as currently modeled), and are quite uninteresting. Only occasionally do you get to bomb or do CAS. This is why few folks fly 2-seaters very often. However, if squadrons were specialized, then you could join the type of squadron that does the type of mission you want to do and only occasionally, or pehaps never, have to do the other types.

 

Wonder what a 37mm felt like being fired in one of those old crates?

 

I imagine it was a real kick in the nuts. The gun had its own hydraulic recoil absorber, but the beefiness of the whole fuselage framework (truss of steel tubing) indicates that considerable recoil was transmitted to the aircraft. In the Breguet-Michelin pushers, the gun had only limited traverse left-right but could elevate and depress a fair amount. I imagine that firing it at much of an angle would have really pushed the nose up or down a lot. Needless to say, a manually loaded cannon like this wasn't much use in air-to-air combat. However, they did prove rather useful for night bombing in the anti-searchlight role.

 

My suggestion. Artillery ranging ... where the observer notes where shells are falling visually on a specified objective and directs the gunners until the desired object is ranged and consequently given a hell of a thrashing.

 

That would be fun. Or just spotting enemy arty positions to mark down on the map for barrage fire later

[Guest Sieben]

What is that propeller thingie mounted on the wing?

[Bullethead 12]

What is that propeller thingie mounted on the wing?

 

I'm pretty sure it's a wind-driven generator for onboard electrical systems. I can't tell you what it's for, but not all Voisins had them so it was probably for something mission-specific. I'd be surprised if it was for a radio because they didn't use these cannon-equipped planes for arty spotting, just bombing and escort in speciallized bomber units. Besides, pusher props don't go well with the trailing wire antennas of the day. I've seen pics of other French planes using such generators to power searchlights, but this plane doesn't have one (at least when the pic was taken).

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

That's for the on-board espresso machine! It gets cold up there, after all.