A declaration introduced at the second international peace conference at the Hague proposed to prohibit, for a limited period, the discharge of projectiles or explosives from flying machines of any sort. The United States was the only first-class power which endorsed the declaration. It does not appear likely, therefore, that international law will discountenance the employment of aerial craft in international disputes. The building of airships goes on with increasing eagerness. Last year the Italian chamber appropriated $5,000,000 for the construction and maintenance of flying machines.
A press report dated February 4 stated that a German aeronaut had been spending some weeks at Panama, studying the air currents of the Canal Zone. No flying machine may in Germany approach more closely than within six miles of a fort, unless specially licensed. At the Krupp works in Essen there are being tested two new guns for shooting at aeroplanes and dirigibles. One is mounted on an armored motor truck. The other is a swivel-mounted gun on a flat-topped four-wheeled carriage.
The United States battleship Connecticut cost $9,000,000. It displaces 18,000 tons, uses 17,000 horse-power and 1000 men, and makes twenty miles an hour. An aeroplane of unusual size with nearly three times this speed, employing from one to three men with an engine of 100 horse-power, would weigh one ton and might cost $5000. A Dreadnought costs $16,000,000, complete, and may last—it is difficult to say, but few claim more than ten years. It depreciates, perhaps, at the rate of $2,000,000 a year. Aeroplanes built to standard designs in large quantities would cost certainly not over $1000 each. The ratio of cost is 16,000 to 1. Would the largest Dreadnought, exposed unaided to the attack of 16,000 flying machines, be in an entirely enviable situation?
An aeroplane is a fragile and costly thing to hazard at one blow: but not more fragile or costly than a Whitehead torpedo. The aeroplane soldier takes tremendous risks; but perhaps not greater risks than those taken by the crew of a submarine. There is never any lack of daring men when daring is the thing needed.
All experience goes to show that an object in the air is hard to hit. The flying machine is safer from attack where it works than it is on the ground. The aim necessary to impart a crippling blow to an aeroplane must be one of unprecedented accuracy. The dirigible balloon gives a larger mark, but could not be immediately crippled by almost any projectile. It could take a good pounding and still get away. Interesting speculations might be made as to the outcome of an aerial battle between the two types of craft. The aeroplane might have a sharp cutting beak with which to ram its more cumbersome adversary, but this would involve some risk to its own stability: and the balloon could easily escape by a quick ascent. It has been suggested that each dirigible would need an aeroplane escort force for its defense against ramming. Any collision between two opposing heavier-than-air machines could not, it would seem, be other than disastrous: but perhaps the dirigible could rescue the wrecks. Possibly gas-inflated life buoys might be attached to the individual combatants. In the French manœuvers, a small aeroplane circled the dirigible with ease, flying not only around it, but in vertical circles over and under it.
7.5 Centimeter German Automatic Gun for Attacking Airships
(From Brewer’s Art of Aviation)
The French war office has exploited both types of machine. In Germany, the dirigible has until recently received nearly all the attention of strategists: but the results of a recent aerial war game have apparently suggested a change in policy, and the Germans are now, without neglecting the balloon, actively developing its heavier-than-air competitor. England seems to be muddled as to its aerial policy, while the United States has been waiting and for the most part doing nothing. Now, however, the mobilizations in Texas have been associated with a considerable amount of aeroplane enthusiasm. A half-dozen machines, it is expected, will soon be housed in the aerodrome at San Antonio. Experiments are anticipated in the carrying of light ammunition and emergency supplies, and one of the promised manœuvers is to be the locating of concealed bodies of troops by air scouts. Thirty army officers are to be detailed for aeroplane service this year; five training schools are to be established.
If flying machines are relatively unsusceptible to attack, there is also some question as to their effectiveness in attack. Rifles have been discharged from moving balloons with some degree of accuracy in aim; but long-range marksmanship with any but hand weapons involves the mastery of several difficult factors additional to those present in gunnery at sea. The recoil of guns might endanger stability; and it is difficult to estimate the possible effects of a powerful concussion, with its resulting surges of air, in the immediate vicinity of a delicately balanced aerial vessel.
But aside from purely combative functions, air craft may be superlatively useful as messengers. To send despatches rapidly and without interference, or to carry a general 100 miles in as many minutes—these accomplishments would render impossible the romance of a “Sheridan’s Ride,” but might have a romance of their own. With the new sense added to human equipment by wireless communication, the results of observations may be signaled to friends over miles of distance without intervening permanent connections of however fragile a nature.