As opposed to this view, the opinion of experts at the Hythe School of Musketry is that it would be more or less a waste of ammunition to attempt to "wing," with rifle-fire, an aeroplane 3000 feet high. In the practical work of the aeroplane in Tripoli, machines flying less than 2000 feet high were not damaged by rifle-fire.
The point to bear in mind, in this connection, is that an aeroplane flying 3000 feet high, and at a speed greater than that of an express train, would, inevitably, prove a very difficult target. The airman would appear suddenly, and quickly go out of view again; and he would alter his height, and course, so that a perplexed gunner—needing to fire quickly, or not at all—would find the range constantly varying.
[Illustration: MILITARY AIRMAN’S REPORT. Photo, M. Branger. After descending from a reconnoitring flight on a Blériot monoplane, in the French manœuvres, the pilot seen above is imparting details of what he has observed to another officer.]
Quite recently, a famous military expert has pronounced the opinion that high-angle gun-fire would have no great potentiality against fast-flying aeroplanes.
Amplifying some tests first carried out in France, have come a series of more recent experiments, in which the conditions imposed have been more disadvantageous to the gunners. The result has been a striking testimony to the invulnerability of the aeroplane. For example, kites have been towed by motor-cars at a speed actually representing the flight of fast monoplanes. Gunners, when firing under such fairly realistic conditions, have failed to secure anything like a satisfactory percentage of hits.
Tests on a somewhat similar scale have, also, been carried out in Germany; and, here again, the artillery has not distinguished itself. In Germany, also, small balloons have been used as targets. These have been set free, and have been permitted to ascend to a certain height, before being fired at. In connection with these experiments, a fairly-large percentage of hits was recorded. This was due, no doubt, to the fact that there was no erratic movement to be allowed for—the balloons moving on an easily determined line.
These target tests, as can be seen, represent conditions which are quite artificial. It is possible to take, for the sake of comparison, the practice indulged in by gunners at coast defences. Targets are towed at specified distances out to sea, and then the gunners pound away at them. Such practice is good, of course. It accustoms the men to the handling of their guns; and it certainly improves their marksmanship.
But now contrast this target practice with a sudden attack, in war-time, by hostile torpedo craft.
Here will be no mechanically-moving target, at which to take a leisurely aim. Instead, there will be the rush and tear of war. Marksmanship, under such conditions, is a very different thing to quietly-conducted practice firing. And a similar argument—only with greater force—applies to shooting at aeroplanes in war-time.
Among distinguished students of this problem of gun-fire and the aeroplane is Colonel J. E. Capper, who was, for seven years, in charge of the aeronautical work of the British Government. His view is that artillery, however well-trained, would have very great difficulty in firing accurately at a fast-flying machine.