One factor making ground machine guns fairly effective at long range, while airborne guns are somewhat more hit-and-miss, is that the ammunition supply is much more limited for the airborne case, and the failure to achieve anything is much more measurable too...

A company of 12 machine guns may fire several 100,000s of rounds in a single shoot. There are recorded instances of the guns firing well over a million rounds in a single day (again IIRC a company, rather than a single gun...)

These shoots were intended to disrupt attacks, or suppress defenders/disrupt counter attacks - they could be for ranges of several thousand meters, but were predominantly a harassing rather than killing tool when employed in this form on the ground. The use for closer range direct fires is also common, but the risk to the gunners is much higher, and on-target effectiveness doesn't seem to be much higher (given the much lower ammunition counts involved).

By contrast a single aircraft only carries between 47! and 1000 rounds theoretically ready to fire.

Aircraft move in three dimensions, rather than the ideal ground targets (oblique grazing fire, indirect fire into known choke-points defiles etc. controlled by direct sighting or by observers or other 'artillery' techniques.) Failure to shoot down can involve the firer in protracted manoeuvring, whereas a quick kill allows immediate disengagement with fewer threat aircraft to deal with. Add in the risk of jamming after a relatively few rounds have been expended...

Failure to achieve the immediately desired results are far more obvious with an aircraft that escapes or turns to engage, forcing you to break off, than it is for an infantry group that goes to ground.

Don't forget that you are all alone in that drafty/cold/fragile machine (even if you have a wingman or gunner he isn't right there...) and it is an awfully long way to fall if you mess it up...

I agree with the "it's the training, not the gun" of conventional wisdom of getting in really close.

If ever there was a group of machineguns that saw really good maintenance, it was the ones at the aerodrome. Never carried through the mud, rarely fired, stored under cover, stripped and cleaned almost as soon as it was fired.

Forget tripods - it was bolted down in several places against an airframe. Yes, the rounds dispersed with the vibration of the airframe, but this wasn't really any worse than dispersion on the ground.

Now, let's consider our pilots. Almost no training in gunnery, no way to really perform anything but the most of immediate action on stoppages, and the tendency that all gunners have of firing too early. "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" was military advice well before the Great War.

Heck, I've found more times than not that playing the low percentages game of shooting at deflection often costs dearly later on when I'm at 50 feet with an almost guaranteed hit - but out of ammo.

Yeah but you fly a kite that only has room for a six shooter

Exactly

Mostly I fire at deflection when I have a good chance of hitting, sort of like telling the fellow that he should not let me get in more deflection shots, then he starts a turning fight, and we turn and twist, blasting away at each other until one kite fails or is otherwise incapable of continuing the fight.
If he continues his zoom & boom game, I continue my deflection game, and on it goes until either technique prevails, one kite fails or is otherwise incapable of continuing the fight.

My observation is that some people (Not all of course.) Get on the experienced players nerves as they keep zooming and running away (Different game from Zooming and booming.) and thats why they experience long range deflection shots. Mainly because they have seen HC Dogfights - The First Dogfighters and misjudged the content, and are running away from the fight and taking pot shots now and then, rather than actually Zooming & Booming, practically inviting for a excellent long range shot opportunity whilst giving the pissed bloke (And impatient spectators.) perfect excuses IMHO.

Spoon,

I wasn't attempting to laugh you down...




It just seemed silly to base your argument using those quotes as a "cant be done" argument instead of a shouldn't be done argument. Heck I get MvR kill tallys in a few days of playing, doesnt that make my opinion count for even more?



Point is. As a real pilot, they couldn't afford to take the chances we do in a video game. Of course we can learn from our mistakes with the next life....they didnt have that luxury.

Put another way....if you were to fly Rise of Flight, with a single life, I too would advocate all that is said by the Aces of old....

...but since we have multiple lives, I say screw Dicta Boelcke, and blast away on your guns!! How else are you going to get better at shooting unless you learn what a good sight picture looks like!?

Over-simplified example: If it takes shooting 1,000,000 rounds before becoming a sniper-shot in ROF. And all you do is shot off 200 or 300 - but only when you get within 100m...how long do you think it will take to get past that learning curve compared to flailing away on your guns at every opportunity and seeing your target getting ripped to shreads at 300, 400 and even 500+ meters.

Is it real? No, of course not, but neither is re-lifing.

Welcome to Rise of Flight!

The speedometer in my truck goes up to 140 MPH.

Even more impressively the speed calculator on my bicycle can register 999.9 mph

The 'engine' on that must be damned impressive...

Why try killing your enemy with a hammer by throwing it, when you can sneak up behind him and just thump him with it.

Most air combat kills involved an unseen opponent striking out of the blue, why chance it, however good your gunnery. Lets face it, if your quarry might turn around and try an get his own back if you miss you're not going to take any chances.

There were probably plenty of pilots who could have scored hits at long range, there were probably individuals who where in a completely different ball park, who could do it consistently and even with all the limitations, regularly and without much effort or thought.

But why bother, why chance it ?

Most kills were by assassination, not extended combat and fancy flying.

Simmers don't have to live with the consequences, so they take chances.

We shoot more down because we've had more practice, we don't have the fatigue, stress and fear of real life deadly encounters that affect our aim, but most importantly we engineer situations that specifically end in combat. Any airman worth his salt in WW I would have buggered off at the first opportunity if the situation looked unfavourable and he had an exit path. Most encounters were both sides had seen the other ended with the disadvantaged withdrawing unless the mission demanded continuation.

In the rarefied air of flight sims 300+ yrds is not overly extraordinary, just given different circumstances a more acceptable cost/benefit outcome.

Given the high scores in combat flight sims, therefore not realistic scenario. I wonder what total front line flying hours a pilot typically flew and what percentage of flights by real WW I pilots ended in actual combat with an advantage to the specific pilot/attacker, rather than no contact or, contact but at a disadvantage and resultant get out of Dodge exit.

I agree on your sentiments sir, flying online, many a time have I been fired upon from a long range, the enemy mostly misses, or misses all together, and I get the time to turn around and bring my guns to bear, or vice versa. Other times I get shot from behind at close range by a patient fellow, falling victim to a well planned ambush!