ARMING AIRCRAFT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 59, 16 April 1914, Page 5

ARMING AIRCRAFT.

BOMB-DROPPERS, QUICK-FIRERS, AND THEIR POSITION. Of all aeronautical problems none is more open than that of the arming of aircraft for attack and defence. There is none upon which it is more necessary to keep an open mind. Opinions can be based upon nothing more substantial than theory, for as yet no data have been provided by the practice of war and scarcely any by experiment. War Office.tests for aeroplanes have the somewhat surprising feature of specifying gun-carrying requirements, while they make no reference to bombdropping. It must not be assumed that any aeroplane can readily be adapted Tor bomb-dropping appliances —the omission of any reference to bombdropping in the plan of the War Office tests is, therefore, important. It also suggested that attacks upon airship by aeroplane being a highly probable element in aerial warfare, it is necessary to equip airships with guns on top, a practice that is adopted in Germany. Tcwffeal with the first point, the writer must not be understood to; attach sole importance to bomb-dropping as a means of taking the offensive. Indeed, he gave particular consideration to questions concerning the best position on the machine, and the best type of machine for an aeroplane gun. The War Office tests require that fighting aeroplanes shall have a clear field of fire in every direction up to 30 degrees from the line of flight, but for various reasons one would like to see a much bigger field demanded. For one very good reason, which will presently be explained, an aeroplane should avoid presenting the head-on aspect-to a fighting opponent. And there really appears to be no insuperable obstacle to liaving a field of fire of a semi-circle, ax least, so that the gunner could fire to left or right. - ~

AN AEROPLANE'S VULNERABLE SPOT,

If an aeroplane cannot-, avoid getting under fire it should, at any rate, seek to offer its least vulnerable aspect as a target. Now the one large vital part of an aeroplane that be protectively armoured is the propellor, and no matter what position it occupies in the machine it must revolve in a plane at right angles to the line of flight. In flight the disc made by •-'lts whirling blades would be a good mark at close range, arid it would only have to be touched to be smashed, compelling an immediate" landing. That : being the case, it were wise, whenever possible, to avoid offering so easy a mark, and to show the enemy only a side view of the propellor, which would then be much more difficult to hit. This is certainly an important point, and it has doubtless been considered by the military authorities. It has very little bearing really upon the choice between the tractor and "the propellor—behind divisions. With the latter the gunner, seated in front, should be able to fire to port or to starboard, and when opposed to a well-armed aeroplane or airship he would, as a matter of caution, avoid exposing, the revolving propellor fully to the line of fire. THE USE OF BOMBS. On one thing, all are agreed, and that is aeroplanes are to be armed, and are to be protected in most of their vital parts by steel armour. ; , As to the weapon, bombs are likely, to prove very effective. Lieutenant Varcin, who won the Michelin Aero Target competition last year with a score of 86 per cent, hits, says:— "Would not a few kilogrammes of melinite thrown on a railway line in front of a train blow up at least one or two sleepers? Would not the explosive displace one or two rails? When one

remembers that on the occasion of the recent catastrophe at Melun, in time of peace, with all the means at the disposal of the powerful Paris, Lyons, and Mediterranean Railway Company, it took four days to reestablish the working of the line, it is easy to foresee the extraordinary disorganisation which a series, of similar catastrophes would entail if they were produced on the main lines employed by the enemy for its mobilisation."

But there is no need to enumerate the many different kinds of serious damageto terrestrial things and to airships that could be effected by bombs dropped byaircraft. And since it is agreed that aircraft are to be armed, opinions differing only as to the nature of the' armament, the question of the defence of the dirigible balloon becomes acute for every Power that is making haste, at great expense and sacrifice, to acquire an airship fleet. Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia are all concerned; : and Germany, the leading . airshipi Power, is ensuring that all her newer airships of the rigid and semi-, rigid types shall carry guns on top. BRITAIN'S-NEW AIRSHIPS. There is very pressing reason for raising this question now, when this country is ordering a number of large dirigible balloons. airships must be of the best available. ]/And let there be no mistake, an airjfcip that cannot defend itself yaeroplane will .have very-limited uses, and may prove far more trouble thaa it is worth. Is provision, then, being for the arming of the two rigid airships and the thrGe Forlaninis on order, not only in their cars, but also on top of the gas-containers?- Could,' the Parsevals be so armed? Mr ChurehilJ, who was questioned the other night i& Parliament, replied: "A suitable armament will be provided with the new -'aitships." He could not, of course, enter. into technical details. It can be shown, theoretically, that an airship efficiently armed on top would have a. very fair chance against an aeroplane adversary, saye when attacked by overwhelming force, but that an airship without top armament wouM be liable to be.destroyed by one wellfound, well-served aeroplane. Evidently it would be extremely unwise to buv airships incapable of taking top armament, . and Mr Churchill's assurance that the Admiralty have this point in view is satisfactory. ' The technical problems connected with arming airships on top are.many and deep. It is all the more necessary to grapple with them at once.—Special correspondent London "Observer." "