WAR IN THE AIR.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 70, 22 March 1916, Page 8

WAR IN THE AIR.

GERMANY'S NEW VULTURE.

THE DEADLY LITTXE FOKKER.

(From Our Special Correspondent.)]

LOXDOS, January 28,

The recent successes of the German "Fokker" monoplane on the -western front seem to have scared some people iherc into entertaining the notion that the Teutons have regained their old ascendancy in the air, and that we have as usual been content to muddle along with the '"same old type" whilst the Germans have been straining every nerve to evolve and build improved war machines. It seems to be true that the latest "Fokker" planes have certain advantages in speed and quick obedience to their controls, and it is certainly true that our losses in aircraft and airmen have of late materially increased. But whilst the "Fokker" machines have undoubtedly achieved gratifying results (from the German point of view, of course), the increasing losses in the Royal Flying Corps axe certainly not principally due to the general inferiority of our machines or lack of efficiency in our fliers. In the first place, there has ibeen an ■enormous increase during the past few months in the number of British airmen flying in and about the danger zone. The German anti-aircraft gunners have thus been provided with a vastly greater number of targets and opportunities for practice, and their skill has undoubtedly increased to a very appreciable extent. Thesj things must be taken into account when attempting to estimate the relative aerial efficiency of the British and >the enemy. Also, it has to he borne in mind that our airmen have -heen extremely active of late, and that many of our recent raids upon enemy supply depots, etc., have been extremely hazardous enterprises, in which they not only had to face attacks from enemy aircraft, but in order to stand any chance of achieving definite successes would have to. attack their objectives from altitudes at which they ■would he exposed to danger from rifle fire as well as the shells of* anti-aircraft oveapons.' "~^^~~ *P~~>%sg>™*<-&* " Making flue" allowance -for all these • "things there is no good reason for the scaremongering-our considerable losses of 3ate has given, rise -to; indeed, Sir Douglas ffiaig's -brief'reports concerning aerial warfare on our front suggests that the -British.ainnen>and-our anti-aircraft guns ■(have teal, on the "whole, a good deal the ibest of matters,' -and that the "Fokker" "5s by no means the paragon among - mechahicaT war vultures some of our arm-chair war scribes would have us Ibelieve. Te-43 • certainly "a -topping little ■machine" when skilfully handled, but a •good deal of. its success against, bigger and less "handy" aircraft appears to have .•been due to the fact that itsepeed handiaiess enabled its pilots to indulge in tricks which took onr .pilots iby surprise. Now, apparently, they iiave got the "hang" of the "Fokker" manoeuvre repertoire, and ; r*ean discount to aeonsiderable extent the -advantages which the extra speed and swift <Jimbing powers of the German, "tnonoplane gives to its pilot. i_j.__ y -A DUTCH INVBOTION. *^' : ". ' The "Fokker" is the invention of a Dutchman of that name who has lived in Germany for many years, and is to all in- ' ' tents and a German. He learned T. to fly several years ago, and constructed weird and wonderful uncapsizable aeroplanes, which flew uncommonly well, long •before this country had produced uncapsizable machines. There tras at one time some question of 'Fokker machines icing imported to this country by one of the services, but despite their flying qualities they were so "jerry-built" that the officers who examined them were unwilling to take the riss of recommending them. The latest Fokker machines are far from being uncapsizable. They arc, in fact, entirely under the control of the pilot, and it is thii controllability, coupled with the fact that taey are fitted with enormously powerful engines, which makes them as successful as they are. The power of the engines enables them i.o outclimb and outpace a'most anything else in the-air, while' their extreme con-trollability-makes it possible for them to out-manoeuvre uncapsizable machines, -which are, by reason of their stability, less quick in answering their controls. TheTokker' is almost a copy of the iMorane monoplane, and is very similar to the fast little racing Moranes flown by the late Gustav Hamel and by Brock, Carr, Noel, and other well known pilots at Hendon before the war. It is also fitted -with a German copy of the Gnome engine. A machine-gun is fitted along the top of the engine cowl, and it fires i •straight through the propeller. Occa-1 sionally the machine-gun is operated by a passenger, but as oJ»en as not the ipilot flies alone, and aims" the gun by steering the machine to suit. • ;The usual method of attack adopted iby the Fokker pilots is to let one of the [Allies' machines pass them, and then to attack from behind, flying straight at the'tail of the enemy machine, so as to get the pilot, passenger, engine, tanks, and everything else that matters in a aeroplane, in line. The attack is made either from above or below, according to •how -the 'height of the machines happen to be when the pursuer gets close to his quarry. The pilot on a machine which is quick in answering its controls can escape by doing a sharp turn and compelling the Fokker to shoot past him, and of course, if, as in some machines, the passenger sits behind the pilot, he may be able to bring his machine-gun to bear on the pursuer just as soon as the pursuer gets within.range, ■-'._.. •When the pursued machine is big and lieavyi on its . controls jthc;-pilot:ofr the "Fokker" always has thefadvantage-in being able to fly quite' close, up underneath the tail of his victim so that the gunner on the bigger machine cannot fire j at him without firing through his' own. tail, and.probably Wowing his own controls to pieces. *It is only very skilful pilots who can handle -these small highspeed monoplanes, and it seems thatthe supply of such pilots is at present only small in Germany, but the doings-of the iFokkers. have shown that a sufficient number of such pilots had been forth- - coming -to-jnake things very unpleasant for any of the-Allies' pilots who happen to be mounted, as a good many of them are to-day, on machines which, though considered something akin to "the last iword" in aeroplanes a few months ago, are to-day to be reckoned-as 'being of the aerial pre-Dreadnought era, just as it is said the "Fokker" will be when certain monoplanes now being put through their paces in the Old Country reach the front. There is no finality in aircraft construction, and the "It" of today is the "Has been" of to-morrow. _JR,DCEI. RESULTS. . 'Apart.from'the- question of the alleged ! superiority of the German "Fokker" machines (there are, it appears, monoplane and biplane varieties) there are many things to be taken into account ere ~..*„•>_ ° T i.„ «iv ,i„„l WWr lietweoTi

German .and English aviators. Some interesting facts bearing on this matter were given by the Under-Secretary for War in the House of Commons the other day, when he replied to certain queries concerning the work of the Royal Flying. Corps during the past month. The number of machines lost by us, said Mr. Tcnnant, was 13; by therenemy certainly nine, possibly 11. The number of bombing raids carried'out by, us was six,' and by the enemy 13. This comparison was modified by the fact that we had used 138 machines, including escorts, while the enemy had used approximately 20. The number of oiir aeroplanes which had crossed the enemy lines was 1,227, and the number of German aeroplanes which had crossed our lines 310. All the aircraft fighting took place over or behind the German lines, and owing to the westerly winds that, prevailed, the German .machines, if hit, planed down home, -whilst ours could not do so. For this reason it is not possible to give an actual comparison of the actual losses, lv many cases the I German aeroplanes broke off the combat, iv which case no claim for casual- , ties was made. ' JEALOUSLY GUARDED SECRETS. According to Swiss reports the Germans are taking the most extraordinary precautions to preserve the secret of tho Fokker machine's construction, and so far the Allies have not captured one ;n sufficiently "whole" condition to permit of a satisfactory study. The- pilots have the strictest instructions not to venture beyond the German lines, but to confine themselves exclusively to •tV. pursuit of enemy aeroplanes which cross their lines. In the possible event of their falling in or behind the enemy lines, the pilots have imperative instructions to destroy the engines at ail costs. ' • *" -_»■ The secret of tho Fokkert effectiveness is believed to lie entirely in a new form of engine construction, which enables the machine to rise and travel appreciably faster than any aeroplane employed by the Allies. But the latest reports from the front seem to prove that the latest type of monoplane now being supplied to the Allied airmen is fully equal to the Fokker in speed, mounting capacity, and mobility, l and embodies improvements which will give our airmen some advantage over their rivals. A _ NEW GERMAN GUNS. ■Whilst writers in some of our papers have been girding at our aerial authorities for allowing themselves to be, as it was alleged, "caught napping"' over the "Fokker" machine, other scribes have been doing their level beat to scare us with visions of new German naval guns, compared with which "Big Lizzie's" 15-inch weapons will be mere "secondary armament." The Germans have a 17-! inch or thereabouts) howitzer, so much we know for a positive fact, anil now the Fleet 6treet quidnuncs arc gravely assuring iub that the new German battleships in course of construction . are to be armed'with 17-inch.guns which' will outrange and utterly outclass the best we possess in the shape of,naval | guns. There is, of course, no reasonHo doubt Germany's ability to make such mon- j sters, or to build ships equal to carrying them. It can be done, and the guns and the ships may be in process of construction. But ships take a long time to build, and the suggestion thrown out that the Germans are putting 17-inch guns into the battleships and battlecruisers which were on the stocks when war broke out is, according to naval constructors, merely "ridiculous. In so far as'the ships completed before the war are concerned, it wcsald be strange indeed if the British Admiralty were not informed of the size of the guns mounted therein. We may therefore presume that these vessels mount nothing larger than 12-inch guns. There remain the vessels which at the outbreak of war were not completed. There were due for completion in 1914 and early in 1915:— BATTLESHIPS. BATTCE-CRUISERS. (Ten 12in Guns.) (Eight 121n Guns.) Konig DerSlngcr. Grosser Kurfurst Lutzow Markgra* Kronprinz The details of these vessels were published before the war, and. as the naval correspondent of the "Post" points out, if they were originally designed for 12----inch guns, larger guns could not be mounted without taking the ship to pieces. The gun-mountings make an integral part of the construction. If uhese ships are now completed the num-| ber of battleships in the High Sea Fleet I is 29, and of battle-cruisers five excluding the Goebcn). In all. 34 heavy, ships, j of which 22 arc of the Dreadnought type. There remain the ships due for completion in 1915, 1916, and 1917. These are: — ■BATTLESHIPS. BATTLE-CRDI6BES. <.Eigln loin Guvs.) (Eight 12in -Guns.) En»itz Worth Ersatz iHcrtha "T" - Ersatz Y. Lulse Ersatz Kaiser . V Friedrlch 111. The two later battleships and the later battle-cruiser might be built to carry 17-incih guns. Even assuming the worst, namely, that all six new ships mount 17-inch guns. What then? In default of the knowledge of the details of these weapons it is impossible to tell whether or not they are more powerful than the existing British guns. The size of the calibre is only one item in the guv. Xone 6avc an authority upon modern gunnery, owning a practical acquaintance with the capacities and performances of both weapons, is competent to judge of their relative merits. Moreover, a. naval gun differs Extremely ..ijoni _a_ land gun. The 17, in ttaval gun, 'it there is such a'weapon, is •not comparable.'with the 17-inch land howitzer, which has wrought so great destruction. The howitzer is fired from an immovable platform, and its fire is not horizontal, but vertical line naval gun is fired from ft moving and an onstable platform at objects'which are also moving, and which at long range present a very small target. There are many other, factors in the problem of naval ■nunnery; the-etate of the sea, visibility, and, above all, the quality of the ekill of the. fire-control officer, the spotter, and the gun-layer. How is it possible to judge of these things in the case under consideration? '_'•'■ -i.a-i_ . Moreover, there remains'the possibility that the 15-inch .naval gun .isr-not:' England's "last word" in .these -.things. It wilT be remembered' that -in the [days when the 12-inch gun was supposed ito be the biggest thing in the Britiflh'Navy, .there were in fact 13.5 guns "in being.? and mounted on British ships, and-that whilst the general public still imagined that the "thirteen fives" of the "Lion" class were our 'biggest and best, the 'Admiralty was quietly expediting the completion, of vessels raonnting 15-inch fcims. Ife is. therefore, quite possible that our naval authorities have on band a few more eurpriße paickefe for lie and for our enemies, in the shape of ships