SteveMartin wrote:
How many of ALL casualties were cause by such occurences is probably impossible to know, but given the flimsy and open nature of these aircraft I think we can assume that the odds are well reflected by the counter mix.
The original damage counter mix had 2 Pilot Killed chits out of 36 total chits. One was a "double Pilot Killed" chit, (i.e., a red and a blue Pilot Killed side), which everyone removed from play (the rules even indicated that this should be done).
On to point 2. Realism. Well the reality was, German aircraft have less enduance. All of our combats are assumed to be over the front lines, not on one side or the other. Now this very fact is of course a fallacy as battles were more often than not behind one side or the other. Specific scenario rules (and I am not opposed to these,) could be generated to reflect such a situation and fuel loads could be altered to reflect flight to the target area. It would never result in the Germans being given a larger fuel load, only in the Allies having less. The game as it stands, however, does NOT assume that the combats are going on anywhere other than over the front line.
German FIGHTER aircraft often did have less endurance - an accurate point (their observation aircraft, however, where known for long flight times). Unfortunately for this analysis, it is based on a false assumption -- that fuel was a limiting factor in tactual combat. Put quite simply, it was not. In all my reading on the subject I have encountered only one mention of a situation in which a single aircraft exited combat due to a fuel shortage, and it was a British Pup. If fuel had been an issue, it would surely have been mentioned more often. Rather, the typical causes for ending combat included;
Observer injury
Weapon damage
Expenditure of ammunition
Pilot injury (including death)
Fuel tank damage causing a leak leading to smoke or fire
Control surface damage rendering the aircraft less maneuverable
Wing damage which reduced lift (including a nasty tendency of some aircraft to shed their wings in dives)
Engine damage
And by far, far the most common - the simple loss of perspective, where the pilot flew out of combat without realizing it.
We can argue changes in fuel allocations and variances for different meeting situations, but ultimately all would be meaningless. The rules have a fatal flaw in their reliance on fuel to determine the length of a game. Given this, all the discussion really becomes academic. The site is not going to make significant changes which modify this situation. To fight over the issue is therefore effectively meaningless.
Point 5. Ask ANY pilot which he would rather have, a full tank of fuel or half a tank.
You are labouring under a misapprehension about aircraft loading. A full load of ordinance hanging from your wings certainly makes a big difference to your performance. A "CLEAN" configuration is the optimum for air to air combat. If you are as informed about flight mechanics as you say you are, then you should know that CLEAN configuration means full INTERNAL fuel.
Our little planes here do not carry the thousands of pounds of fuel and or weapons that modern aircraft carry, indeed the internal fuel load of the F18C alone is more than FIVE TIMES the weight of a fully loaded SE5a (4900 kg vs 900 kg.) The principles of Energy loss and retention are the same, but the effects are nowhere near as pronounced. An Albatross weighing in at just over 1000kg is simply not going to gain the same amount of energy as an F18 weighing 16600kg, when it dives.
Those considerations aside, Fuel State is still a primary determination when it comes to a decision to accept combat or not and the pilot who does not watch his fuel gauge will soon find himself walking home.
I think we must all be very careful in making both sweeping statements about aircraft capabilities and general comparisons between World War I, World War II, and modern aircraft. The technologies and operational techniques are simply too different across these periods of time. For example, while your general statement about full tanks verses partial tanks seems reasonable, and I would not argue against it as a rough principle for First World War aircraft, it is often not true for modern aircraft. Many modern aircraft regularly takeoff with partial fuel tanks. USMC Harriers in short takeoff situations and USN aircraft launching from carriers (as just two specific instances) do this to allow for a greater ordnance loads. They expect to refuel immediately after launch. Further, I would have to question whether this entire point is really germain to the issue of the use of fuel as a limiting factor in tactial combat for World War I aircraft.
I also wonder if you realize that your last sentence could be intrepreted as supporting the point that fuel is not an issue in tactical combat? That is, this is an argument contrary to what you have indicated elsewhere -- here indicating that fuel is an operational issue, not a tactical one. |
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
