Shooting at, and from, airborne planes

[James Morris]

Just two quick queries before I run my first scenario involving a plane...

When shooting at the plane:
-1 to hit for shooting at an airborne plane
Do you also get the -1 to hit for shooting at a target that 'moved fast'?  Obviously it's not played a 'move fast' card but just curious...my fellow gamers will ask!

When shooting from the plane at ground targets:
Do I measure the range from the plane model, or do I measure from the stand and add 12" (as if it were being shot at)?

Thanks

James

[Westfalia Chris]

Just two quick queries before I run my first scenario involving a plane...

When shooting at the plane:
-1 to hit for shooting at an airborne plane
Do you also get the -1 to hit for shooting at a target that 'moved fast'?  Obviously it's not played a 'move fast' card but just curious...my fellow gamers will ask!

I'd consider this an umpire's decision based on the type of craft. Fighter craft, being more nimble, would possibly qualify for a -1, while larger, slower and more cumbersome bomber craft might not benefit from a negative modifier at all.

EDIT: Mixed up my modifiers and only notified it today. Thus: large, slow targets should be easier to hit, smaller, nimble planes harder.

When shooting from the plane at ground targets:
Do I measure the range from the plane model, or do I measure from the stand and add 12" (as if it were being shot at)?

It doesn't say so explicitly in the rules, but the extra 12" doesn't only represent the altitude, but also, to some extent, gravity. Since the bullets travel DOWNWARDS from the plane, I wouldn't necessarily add the 12", but if you feel like it, either add a -2 modifier (rather than the usual -1 for vehicles), or add a distance of your choice, up to 12".

[Smokeyrone]

Guys, as a hopefully funny aside, my owners manual for the  old AK, says that to "defeat enemy aircraft...lay on ground, point rifle in air, and fire repeatedly"


That always made me laugh.

 

I can't remember the exact mechanics for our Rapid Fire  2 games, but it is a good one.  Maybe check that rules set out?

[flooglestreet]

My dad told me that the Luftwaffe would send out a plane like a piper cub flying so close to the ground you could see thye pilots face in the instrument glow. The idea was to tempt ground fire, you couldn't actually hit the plane but the fighters that were watching the area just might hit you if you opened fire. The lesson I learned is that it is VERY unlikely to hit a WW2 tech and beyond aircraft. Helicopters might be another matter.

[Driscoles]

Hi,

I found out that it is hard to hit an aircraft and bring it down in T+T.

Enemy units must

-play a shoot or move and shoot order
-must be in range
-and must hit

Flogglestreet
In T+T we usually use slow ww1 planes that don t have the speed of ww2 planes.

James
I wouldnt add any distances for strafe attacks. Simply roll for to hit with the modifier. Measure from the plane ! Else do as Chris said. he is our plane expert 

Cheers
Björn

[Westfalia Chris]

My dad told me that the Luftwaffe would send out a plane like a piper cub flying so close to the ground you could see thye pilots face in the instrument glow. The idea was to tempt ground fire, you couldn't actually hit the plane but the fighters that were watching the area just might hit you if you opened fire. The lesson I learned is that it is VERY unlikely to hit a WW2 tech and beyond aircraft. Helicopters might be another matter.

As Björn said, since T&T is more of a "Hollywood" flair game, and the planes are notably slower than WW2 tech, I think it is fair to give a certain chance of hitting a plane, or driving it off. The most effective weapons for the level of game envisioned and the Interwar period (at least the "backwater" variant) would be HMGs on AA mounts, and those should be somehow effective.

[James Morris]

Gents, that is all really helpful, thank you.  Wasn't expecting any 'official ruling' or nonsense like that, just curious how you have played it.

The plane I'll be using is the Italian 1934 Ro37bis, so not exactly a speed demon...I feel that the Ethiopians should at least have a moral chance of putting a hole in it.

[Westfalia Chris]

Gents, that is all really helpful, thank you.  Wasn't expecting any 'official ruling' or nonsense like that, just curious how you have played it.

The plane I'll be using is the Italian 1934 Ro37bis, so not exactly a speed demon...I feel that the Ethiopians should at least have a moral chance of putting a hole in it.

I personally think it is okay to give rifle-armed units a chance to fire at aircraft, especially ground attack planes of the slower varieties. It may not be historically accurate, but then again, some of the results for aircraft damage are more about driving the plane off or shaking the pilot so he aborts his attack - maybe more Hollywood than history, but then again, I've read a number of WW1 accounts which describe such events.

[James Morris]

Wasn't the Red Baron brought down by ground fire, or was that just my imagination?

[Driscoles]

He was probably brought down by groundfire. History channel had a great documentary about it. Its really worth to watch.
He was following a plane while Brown was behind him. They actually did the simulation with real planes and laser flashes as guns. While Richthofen was following the British plane he passed by a few anti aircraft positions with machine guns. Those were also simulated by laser flash lights. Anyway... they did a couple of tests and they found out that the chance to hit him from the ground was much bigger than from a following plane. The wound he had, was also a typical ground fire wound.