Chapter VI: Part 6

It would certainly not be wise to buy a hundred machines all of one type, although, by so doing, the price for each machine could be more reduced than in the case of splitting up an order between several manufacturers. But such a policy of having "all one’s eggs in one basket" would not be judicious—or fair to the industry as a whole. Government policy, in this regard, should be to support as many manufacturers as is reasonably possible, and thus ensure the industry maintaining a healthy position.

Orders placed with a number of makers would be necessary, in fact. But, even with such a distribution as this, a considerable saving of expense could be made. Expert estimates have been given as to the cost, per machine, of a hundred war aeroplanes, all ordered at the same time; and a reasonably exact figure places the average price, for each machine, at £600.

This represents a very definite reduction upon the price of a single machine; and it also indicates that, in the future, when aeroplanes are bought in even larger numbers, for war purposes, the cost of each machine will become an almost insignificant item—insignificant, that is to say, when compared with the cost of other forms of armament. When a thousand machines can be ordered, and built at one time, for example, the cost per machine will be enormously reduced.

There should be no outcry, indeed, as to the cost of war aeroplanes. The Admiralty embarks, without question, upon the construction of a great battleship, although it knows that each huge craft will speedily become obsolete. This money is not grudged; it is for the defence of the country.

The same attitude should be taken up as regards the creation of a fleet of war aeroplanes. They, too, have become essential weapons.

War aeroplanes are, in their own sphere, quite as important as battleships. And the contrast between the two weapons, in the matter of price, is extraordinary. For the price of one Dreadnought it is, indeed, estimated that a fleet of a couple of thousand aeroplanes could be created.

An enthusiastic advocate of the war aeroplane puts this matter of cost very forcibly. "It is as nothing," he declares. "A vote of a few hundred thousand pounds would place the whole air service on a sound basis, so far as England is concerned. The net cost of each aeroplane, in a squadron, is an absolutely insignificant item of expense, when we reckon what we are spending, in other ways, on our Army and Navy. One aircraft represents only about twice the amount spent in making one of the great shells fired by our biggest naval guns. It is this astonishing cheapness of the aeroplane, having regard to its revolutionary work, which is the surprising factor of the situation. It will mean, of course, that flying machines will be used, eventually, in huge fleets."

Naturally, the purchase of a hundred machines does not represent the total outlay, in connection with the establishment of a well-equipped air-corps. An organisation must be built up round these machines, and there must be men not only to fly them, but to keep them in a state of efficiency; and there is the need, also, of housing the air-fleet.

The question of providing sheds for a fleet of machines is an important one. Aeroplanes must be well housed, or their depreciation is rapid. Whatever sheds are provided must, apart from being strong and weather-proof, be portable as well.

Under the same heading, also, should come the workshops—some of them portable—necessary to cope with repairs and renewals in connection with machines. This, too, is an important item, as first-class repair work is an essential feature in the organisation of any air service.

An estimate of the money that should be expended upon sheds and repair-shops—for a fleet of a hundred aeroplanes—places the amount at £20,000. Money should not be stinted in this direction; good sheds, and efficient repairs, should both tell their tale, when the aeroplane is used in a campaign.

Now it is necessary to touch upon the question of military flying grounds, and the expense incurred in keeping them in proper order; also the sum of money necessary to provide a sufficient number of motor transport lorries for the air-fleet. As has been explained, the plan generally adopted is for an aeroplane to be transported from point to point on a lorry, and followed by a repair-car.

In regard to the English trials of war aeroplanes, a point is made—in connection with the size of the packing-cases for machines—of the possibility of transporting aircraft by railway in time of war. Undoubtedly, under favourable circumstances, this would provide a rapid method of bringing up machines from a distance.

Under the headings of the expenditure upon flying grounds, and the provision of motor-lorries to follow aeroplanes, and act as transport waggons, a reasonable estimate of the sum to be expended—in connection with a fleet of a hundred machines—is £20,000.

The sum of £100,000 should be sufficient, not only to purchase a hundred war aeroplanes, but to equip the corps with sheds and repair-shops, and also to maintain flying grounds, and provide an adequate number of motor-lorries.

This amount allocated for machines and incidentals, a Government would find itself face to face with the question of providing officers and men for the air-corps. Pay for this corps should, it is considered, be represented by an annual sum of approximately £60,000.

III. Question of renewals—General cheapness of an air-corps, as compared with other forms of armament.

A point of considerable importance, in regard to an air-corps, concerns the money which should be put aside, each year, for the provision of new machines. One eminently practical authority, Colonel J. E. Capper, reckons that, in connection with a fleet of a hundred aeroplanes, an allowance should be made for the purchase of forty new machines each year.

Upon this question of renewals there is, however, diversity of opinion. The contention is made, for example, that a Government should be prepared, at the commencement of the flying season, to relegate all its previous year’s machines to the schools, for the use of pupils, and purchase a new fleet of up-to-date craft for use in war-time.

Such a drastic step, however, should not be necessary. It would be advisable, of course, to weed out a number of machines, from time to time, for the reason that they become obsolete; and such machines should, as suggested, find a place at the schools for the use of beginners.

The exact number of new aeroplanes which it should be advisable to buy, in any one year, must be governed, very largely, by the process of perfection which goes on. For the next year or so, it is probable that an allowance for renewals will need to be a heavy one. Afterwards, as the rate of improvement becomes slower, the purchase of new machines will represent a lighter item.

A good reconnoitring biplane, say of the flying season of 1911, is not likely to become obsolete in 1912. A new machine will probably fly farther and faster, and carry more weight; but the 1911 biplane will still be capable of useful work, and need not be relegated to the scrap-heap. It will behove a Government, of course, to equip itself with as many new-type machines as possible; and an estimate of forty new machines a year, in connection with a fleet of a hundred, is by no means unreasonable.

This, of course, presupposes a logical process of development, with an improved type of machine appearing from year to year. Should a revolutionary discovery be made, the plans of all nations would be altered. It might then become necessary, in the interests of national safety, to "scrap" a whole fleet of aeroplanes, in order to make way for the type which had made them obsolete.

But the unexpected production of an aeroplane, immeasurably superior to existing models, is not anticipated. Already, it is true, the way can be seen to make many improvements upon present-type aeroplanes; but, in regard to such a difficult problem as that of aviation, the testing and perfecting of any new device, however simple, cannot be hastily carried out.

One other consideration, in regard to the running costs of a fleet of machines, now presents itself. This concerns the allowance to be made for the general upkeep of the aeroplanes, and for such items as the provision of petrol and oil. Here an expert computation places the figure—for an air service of a hundred machines—at a sum of £16,000.

It is possible to arrive at a summary of the cost of the purchase and upkeep of a fleet of a hundred machines. First would come the expenditure of £100,000 upon the aeroplanes themselves, and incidentals; and then the Government would need to be ready to spend another £100,000 a year upon the upkeep of the corps.

Such estimates as this go to reveal the inadequacy of the grant made by the British Government for the year 1911-12. As has been previously mentioned, the actual sum devoted to aeroplaning, dirigible ballooning, and the upkeep of the Air Battalion, has been £85,000. Owing to the costliness of airships, only a small portion of this sum has been devoted to aeroplanes. There is no chance—with such a grant as this—of mapping out an adequate programme for aeroplane work.

OUR AERIAL PROGRAMME FOR 1912-13

While the greater portion of this book was already in the Press, and too late for classification or detailed comment, the Government’s programme in regard to Naval and Military Airmanship, for 1912-13, was duly announced.

The appended summary of the official scheme is from the Memorandum, concerning the Army Estimates, issued by the Secretary of State for War:—

"Sufficient experience has now been gained in military aviation to warrant advance on less tentative lines; and after careful consideration by the Committee of Imperial Defence, it has been decided to establish at once a joint Army and Navy School of Aviation at which officers of both services shall be taught to fly, before proceeding to the separate Army and Navy establishments at which they will be exercised in the more specialised requirements of their respective services.

"A site for the school has been selected on Salisbury Plain, and the purchase of the necessary land will be completed at the beginning of April. Building, to plans which have been already prepared, will be pressed forward rapidly, and it is hoped at a very early date to have accommodation at the school for officers and men, instructors and mechanics, as well as the necessary sheds for aeroplanes and workshops for their repair and adjustment. Provision has also been made on an extended scale for purchase of aeroplanes and other necessary equipment for the school.

"Officers of both services will be employed on the staff of the school, and its expenses (other than cost of land) will be shared between Army and Navy votes.

"The Estimates further provide for continuing the experimental and other work of the Army aircraft factory, for further buildings required for airships, for an addition of personnel to Army establishments for aeroplane work, and for a considerable number of aeroplanes as a first instalment of the equipment of the Field Army.

"The total provision for the above services made in these estimates compares with that made in 1911-12 as follows:—

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
— 1912-13 1911-12
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Establishment of Army personnel for £25,000 £20,000
aeronautical work ... ...
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Premiums to officers gaining pilot’s £3,000 —
certificates
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Staff of new school £5,000 —
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Aeroplanes, stores, and materials for £161,000 £85,000
factory and school
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Buildings, including Army share of school £38,000 £26,000
buildings
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Land for school £90,000 —
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Less Admiralty contribution to general £322,000 £131,000
expenses of school
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
— £14,000 —
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Increased provision £308,000 £131,000
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
— £177,000
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

For a full statement of the Government’s aerial programme, it is not possible to do better than reproduce the speech (as printed in _The Times_) which was made by Colonel Seely, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for War.

Colonel Seely, explaining in the House of Commons the official scheme for the forthcoming year, said:—

"He now came to what was called aviation, though he hoped that
that detestable word would vanish from the English language.
With regard to the defence of the country, the Prime Minister
had appointed a committee, of which Lord Haldane was the
chairman. That committee settled broad principles and entrusted
the making-out of the complete scheme to a technical committee,
of which he acted as chairman. This committee was at work during
the whole of last recess, and prepared a scheme which the full
committee had accepted in all parts except the details as to
pay. The scheme had that morning been approved by the Prime
Minister, and would now be carried into effect.

"There was to be one flying corps, embracing soldiers, sailors,
and civilians—all who could fly and would take the obligation to
serve this country in time of war in any part of the world. No
man would hold executive rank in the flying corps unless he was
himself an expert flyer. The present Air Battalion would cease
to exist, and part of it would be absorbed in the new
organisation. The corps would be one corps, and as far as
possible all the officers would be paid and treated alike. In a
purely land war the whole flying corps would be available for
land warfare, and in a purely naval war for naval warfare. The
headquarters would be near Nether-Avon on Salisbury Plain, where
a large tract had been purchased at a cost of about £90,000. In
the first instance accommodation would be provided for sixty
officers at the school at any one time. There would be three
terms of four months each, and it was proposed to pass through a
hundred and eighty officers in each year. If an officer wished
to join the flying corps he had first to get the consent of the
military authorities, then to be passed by the doctor, and
afterwards obtain his Royal Aero Club certificate at a private
aerodrome. It was not proposed to use the central school for
teaching officers to fly. They would learn the elements of the
art elsewhere and go to the flying school for the more advanced
course. After receiving the Royal Aero Club certificate, and
before presenting themselves, they would receive £75 which it
was believed would cover the cost. This arrangement had already
been in force some little time; he believed between twenty and
thirty officers had received the £75. Afterwards officers would
be attached to the central air school, and would go through a
course of four months. They would learn progressive flying,
mechanics and construction, meteorology, observation from the
air, flying by compass, photography from the air, signalling,
and types of warships of all nations. After this course the
officer of the air-corps, whatever his origin, would either join
the military wing or the naval wing, or go straight to the
reserve. The military wing would consist of seven aeroplane
squadrons, each containing twelve aeroplanes and a suitable
number of officers for flying. There would be an eighth
squadron, consisting of balloons and kites. The naval wing would
have headquarters at Eastchurch. The numbers had not yet been
finally settled, but they would be considerable, and would be
increased. In the reserve there would be two classes—the first
reserve consisting of airmen who performed so many flights
across country in each quarter and received a retaining fee, and
the second reserve consisting of those who did not enter into
this undertaking, but would be available in time of war. Both
the Army and Navy wings of the air-crops would always be on a
war footing, and the peace and war establishments would be the
same. The Army aircraft factory would cease to be called by that
name, and would become the aircraft factory for the whole flying
corps. Its functions would include experiment and building
experimental machines, making repairs to machines where that was
thought desirable, sometimes building machines, though that
would not be its primary duty, and training in expert knowledge
the numerous mechanics who would be required for this new
service.

"The scheme involved the purchase of a hundred and thirty-one
aeroplanes. He was not sure they could all be bought this year,
though the obstacle was not expense. The first seventy-one had
been sanctioned already. The orders for a great many of them had
gone out, and the others were in process of negotiation. Not so
many had been ordered from British manufacturers as could be
wished, but that was because the technical members of his
committee realised, and in this they had the full approval of
the whole committee, that the first essential was efficiency and
safety. In many respects France had gone a long way ahead of us
in both those matters. The Government could not buy British
machines at the price of human life, but no doubt this
difficulty would soon be overcome, for a great many of the best
brains were undoubtedly at work making the aeroplane not only
more speedy and efficient, but safer.

"The risks the officers would run would be very great. The
insurance rates were very high. But it was some consideration to
know that in France they had enormously increased the safety of
learning to fly. One school had covered 160,000 kilometres
without accident. It was to be hoped the risks would be reduced,
but they would still be very great, and he trusted the House
would not grudge the expense involved in making adequate payment
to officers, and giving an adequate scale of pensions in the
event of their being seriously injured. (Cheers.) The military
wing required at once to fly these aeroplanes a hundred and
thirty-three officers, the Navy a number not yet fixed, but
thirty or forty at once, and the reserve a number which would
depend on the progress of our science in the near future. They
had not got the hundred and thirty-three military officers. No
doubt many officers would volunteer. It could only be hoped that
they would learn to fly with as little accident as possible. It
had been settled that the officers should learn to fly at
private flying schools, first, because it was desirable to
encourage private effort; and, secondly, because they thought
there was less risk of accident in the initial stages if this
method was adopted. It was a method which had been largely
followed in France, and it had obvious advantages. It was
greatly to the interest of the owner of an aerodrome to avoid
accident. When officers had learned the elementary art of flying
they would go to the central flying school."

This official announcement of policy, as revealed above, unfortunately comes too late for more than the briefest criticism in these pages.

All that can be said, indeed, is that the scheme prepared, while certainly representing a stride forward in comparison with the previous apathy of our authorities, is still inadequate when contrasted with the activities of either France or Germany.

In France close upon £100,000 has been subscribed, by an enthusiastic public, to augment the million which the Government will expend; Germany has increased an original vote to the tune of £100,000.

Our scheme can only be regarded as a beginning—and, in several respects, a disappointing one, seeing that, at the end of the present flying season, both France and Germany will, inevitably, have still further increased their already long lead.

Agitation for a more ambitious aerial programme in England must not, indeed, cease; this 1912-13 scheme is not sound enough to relieve public uneasiness. We are lamentably behind; and adequate steps have not, even now, been taken to bring us on anything like a level with foreign rivals, despite the fact that the aeroplane has been proved to be an absolutely revolutionary weapon of modern war.

_NOTE_

_Amplifying the official statement of policy previously quoted, the authorities issued, on 12th April, 1912, a fuller explanation of their aerial programme. But it throws no very clear light upon the immediate future; and, although it deals with plans which are ambitious, it is disquietingly vague concerning the all-important question of finance._

_The official design is, it is stated, to form seven aeroplane squadrons, each comprising twelve aeroplanes; and, to man this air-fleet, a force of 364 pilots and observers will be required. In addition, there will be forty airmen who will be trained, specifically, in the duties of naval airmanship._

_But the facilities actually provided—as apart from paper schemes—are still so meagre that it will only be possible, during this year, to train a very small proportion of the corps set forth above. Thus it is to be feared that, at the end of 1912, our position will continue to compare, most unfavourably, with that of either France or Germany._

_We are more than a year behind, and seem likely to remain so._

TWELFTH SECTION PROBLEM OF ARTILLERY FIRE AND THE AEROPLANE

I. Conflicting opinions as to an aeroplane’s vulnerability—Experiments which have been carried out.

So far, the military aeroplane has been described as a reconnoitring or dispatch-bearing craft, carrying out its important work, in time of war, without any interference save that brought about by adverse weather conditions.

But there is an aspect of the case, so far as actual service conditions are concerned, which will—according to many vehement critics of the aeroplane—nullify the utility of an air-scout, and make expenditure upon fleets of machines largely a waste of money.

They affirm, in a word, that well-directed artillery-fire will prove so deadly that no aeroplane will be able to live through it, and that any reconnoitring machine, which ventures over an enemy’s position, will be destroyed with the greatest ease.

On the other hand, there is an equally definite statement by staunch advocates of military flying. They declare, emphatically, that artillery-fire, when directed against aeroplanes, will prove a negligible quantity. No point, indeed, arouses more controversy than the problem of the vulnerability of the aeroplane to artillery or rifle-fire.

The question is a moot one, and it is bound to remain so until the coming of a war in which aeroplanes are employed in fair numbers; but nothing could be more ill-advised than a policy which stints aeroplane development, because it is _believed_ they will be destroyed by gun-fire.

As a matter of fact, tests which have been made up to the present time are in favour, not of the gunner, but of the aeroplane. This fact is, however, frequently ignored by the artillery experts. They adhere to their view, and the airmen to theirs. "Aeroplanes will be swept away when they come into the danger zone," declare the champions of artillery. "Nothing of the sort will happen," retort the advocates of the aeroplane.

It is probable that an unbiased reader will prefer to take a view rather midway between these two, and be willing to grant that, while some aeroplanes are likely to be "winged" by skilful gunners, the greater proportion of them will, on account of their height and speed, escape being hit.

Since the aeroplane has demonstrated its unquestionable value as a reconnoitring craft, special guns have been made in order to combat it. These have long range, and are designed to fire vertically into the air. Many tests have, also, been made with kites and balloons, to reveal the ease, or otherwise, of striking an aeroplane in flight.

As regards these experiments, the opinion among experts is again divided. Artillerymen do not hesitate to say that they prove their case—which is, of course, that the aeroplane is a vulnerable target. Aeroplane enthusiasts combat such suggestions; and so the controversy goes on.

One fact stands suggestively revealed; wise countries, despite assertions that artillery will blow aeroplanes to pieces, are buying more and more machines, instead of curtailing their orders.

France and Germany, for instance, which have carried out more tests than any other countries in regard to the vulnerability of aircraft, are determined to increase their fleets of aeroplanes.

This, surely, should tell its own story. It is unusually impressive, as a matter of fact, seeing that artillery experts, both in France and Germany, have been ready to declare that well-directed gun-fire will rob aeroplane scouting of its significance. But those who control constructive policy, both in France and Germany, have judged impartially; and, as a result, they have bought more aeroplanes.

The difficulty, in carrying out tests of gun-fire, as directed against aeroplanes, is to obtain artificial conditions which shall, even roughly, approximate to those which would prevail in actual war. So far, it has been clear that, in all tests which have been carried out, conditions have been in favour of the gunner. But, even so, the results obtained have been inconclusive—to say the least of it.

Let us take, for purpose of illustration, one of the experiments conducted in France. In this a large box-kite was employed. It was allowed to ascend, in a strong wind, until it flew at a height, in regard to its size, which represented, approximately, the target which would be represented by a scouting aeroplane.

Then it was towed past a battery of artillery. Twelve shots were fired at it; and, out of the dozen, one hit was recorded. This was not a good result, from the gunner’s point of view. In this test, too, conditions favoured the men at the guns.

To begin with, they expected their target, and knew from which direction it would appear. In the second place, the target was, in comparison with an aeroplane, moving much more slowly than the flying machine would have done; and, in the third place, the kite was towed in a perfectly-straight line, and was not pursuing an erratic course, as an aeroplane would certainly do—in the efforts of the pilot to escape being hit—were it under fire. And yet, even with these points in their favour, the gunners achieved but one hit in a dozen shots.

It is possible to cite another instance, in this connection—that of a series of tests carried out, in American waters, from a warship. Here, again, the target was a box-kite, and it was flown above the vessel at an altitude of about 800 feet. Ten blue-jackets were then formed up upon the deck; and they fired three volleys at this representation of an aeroplane. The bullets, in the first two volleys, all went wide of the mark. In the third, however, the box-kite was hit.

Here, again, although conditions favoured the riflemen, they failed to obtain satisfactory results. During the three volleys, the box-kite was flown at an unvarying height. This was a point very greatly in their favour.

In actual warfare, had they been firing at an aeroplane, the machine would, probably, have been travelling at a speed of sixty miles an hour or more; and it would, therefore, have presented a different range, at each volley fired.

Another experiment, carried out from an American battleship, is also of interest. In this case, a plunging kite was sent up to a specified height, and 160 rounds were fired at it with rifles. Although the kite swung about a good deal, it did not vary its altitude. In connection with this test—in which picked shots were employed—40 hits, out of the 160 rounds, were recorded.

As a result of the tests recorded above, and of others less interesting, the Secretary of the United States Navy was led to make the pronouncement that no aeroplane could, with any degree of safety, approach nearer than 1000 yards of a position protected by rifle-fire.

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.

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.

An instance which Colonel Capper gives is this: if the range of a gun is 5000 yards, an aeroplane, moving across it at a speed of fifty miles an hour, would be in range for less than 3 1/2 minutes. During this period of 3 1/2 minutes, the gun would need to travel across an angle of 60 degrees, altering its range down to 4330 yards in the first 1 3/4 minutes, and increasing it again to 5000 yards in the next 1 3/4 minutes.

To do this would be an extremely difficult task, even if the aeroplane, while flying past, made itself the easiest possible target; that is to say, if it flew steadily at one level, all the time, and moved directly across in front of the guns. But an airman would, naturally, seek to make himself as difficult a target as possible. He would, therefore, constantly alter his altitude by movements of his elevating plane; and he would, in addition, steer erratically from side to side.

How confusing this would be for the gunner may easily be imagined. Apart from the speed of the aeroplane, which would, as shown, only permit him a brief opportunity of firing at it, he would be faced with the fact that range, elevation, and direction of the elusive target would constantly be altering. In addition, he would probably be called upon to make allowance for a wind, when aiming at the machine.

Apropos the rapidity with which a modern-type machine will come into the range of a gun, and disappear again, an incident in some minor manœuvres held in France is of interest. On this occasion, a special gun, designed to shoot at aircraft, and mounted upon a motor-car, was taken out with the troops. Suddenly, an aeroplane appeared in sight. It was flying straight towards the troops, which were on the march. The special gun was called for; but, before it could be brought into action, and trained upon the aeroplane, the latter had gone completely out of range. This illustration shows what an unsatisfactory and elusive target an aeroplane is bound to be.

II. Shrapnel shell—Question of hitting a vital part of the aeroplane—Difficulty of identifying friend or foe.

It is generally agreed, among artillery experts, that shrapnel shell should form a suitable projectile to be fired against an aeroplane. The shrapnel is, indeed, a particularly-deadly missile. This shell consists of a metal case, containing a sufficient amount of explosive to burst it, when the fuse explodes the charge. This fuse can, of course, be set so that the shell explodes at any given distance from the gun which fires it.

Inside the metal case, or shell, is a charge of bullets. When the shell bursts, these bullets fly out from it, ready to spread destruction over an appreciable area. Should a shell burst in close proximity to an aeroplane, for instance, the scattering charge would, it is anticipated, break struts and stays, and possibly hit the pilot, or some vital part of his machine.

But, granting the deadly nature of a well-aimed shrapnel shell, there are several points to be considered, before we can imagine it bringing an aeroplane to the ground. In the first place, there is the question of the timing of the fuse. This must be done, of course, with absolute accuracy; and the gunner must aim his weapon at a point in front of the aeroplane, as it flies across his view. This represents a matter for nice calculation, being determined by the speed of the aeroplane aimed at, the speed of the shell, and the distance of the aircraft from the gun.

Thus, when he is firing at a sixty-mile-an-hour monoplane, passing swiftly through the air, several thousand feet away, a gunner must obtain his range without delay, set his fuse accurately, and aim his gun with the greatest care. And, all the time, his target will be moving as fast as an express train, and perhaps making erratic twists and turns in the air.

It is not surprising, in view of such circumstances, that one of the greatest of military experts has declared that an aeroplane, flying at sixty miles an hour, and at an altitude of from 3000 to 4000 feet, will present an exceptionally-difficult mark, even to the most skilled of gunners, equipped with special weapons.

It does not follow, even should a shrapnel shell be exploded successfully in the vicinity of an aeroplane, that the machine will be brought to the ground. There is still the question as to striking a vital part of the aircraft. It should be remembered that the greater portion of the target which a machine exposes to gun-fire is represented by its planes; and these could be pierced by many bullets before their efficiency was affected.

Thus, a number of bullets from a shrapnel shell might strike an aeroplane without producing any result. What would be necessary, would be to hit the airman, or place a shot in some vital part of his machine. Damage to a working part of the engine would, for example, bring the machine down. So would injury to radiator, petrol tank, or propeller. A bullet might, also, break an important stay—or cut a controlling wire. In such a case, the machine might fall, and be wrecked.

The point to be made, which is of importance, is this: it does not follow that, even if an aeroplane were hit, it would be brought to the ground. Many bullets from a shrapnel shell might, as has been shown, strike a machine in flight, without having any effect upon it at all. This is certainly a factor in favour of the aeroplane.

A fact to be considered, also, when the problem of aeroplanes and gun-fire is under review, is the distance at which aircraft are visible from the ground. In ordinary weather, and under normal conditions, it is generally estimated that a reconnoitring aeroplane should be sighted when it is about three miles away.

But, even in clear atmospheric conditions, the aircraft is an elusive object to locate. Even when one is expected to appear, from a certain direction, and all eyes are fixed upon the sky, awaiting its advent, it is frequently almost at its destination before anyone locates it.

More difficult, as can be imagined, is the task of sighting an aeroplane when it is not known from what point of the compass it is likely to appear. And yet this, of course, will be the position of the gunner in war-time. A hostile aircraft may loom up from anywhere—even from over his own troops. It will be possible for a reconnoitring machine to ascend to a great height, and conceal itself in low-lying clouds. From these it will be able to descend swiftly, effect a rapid reconnaissance, and then "climb" again until lost to sight.

In such circumstances, the artilleryman will need to be phenomenally handy with his gun if he is to note the approach of so cunning a scout, and "wing" him before he has slipped out of range.

A point which has been referred to before—but which artillery experts are prone to ignore—is the skill a military pilot will be able to exercise, in avoiding fire from below. In many cases, during a reconnaissance, the observer should be able to obtain all the information he seeks without once coming within range of the enemy’s guns.

Naturally, the aeroplanist will never fly intentionally over artillery, or court infantry-fire. Long-distance observations will often be possible, giving the gunner no chance of using a shell; or, if it is necessary to come fairly close to troops, for a detailed piece of reconnaissance, the airman will swoop down, and as speedily get clear again.

When he knows he is likely to be within range of any of the enemy’s guns, he will pursue an erratic course. Therefore, the gunner, when he does obtain a chance of firing at a machine, will find his target darting about in disconcerting fashion.

A point arises as to establishing the identity of an aircraft, when it is sighted during time of war. Machines will fly flags, indicating their nationality, but these flags are not likely to be seen at any great distance. Therefore, if an artilleryman detects an aeroplane, approaching at an appreciable altitude, it will frequently be impossible for him to determine whether it is friend or foe.

That it is, obviously, a machine of a particular type, or make, will not help the artilleryman, because aeroplanes of all forms of construction will be employed, in connection with the various armies. The fact that it may be flying over from behind him, as though it had risen from his own lines, will prove nothing, as a hostile scout might have made a wide detour, and so approached the enemy from the rear.

This difficulty as to identifying friend or foe is likely to prove a real one in time of war, particularly when a large number of machines are in the air; and, exactly how it will be met, is not easy to see.

Having reviewed the position, so far as the aeroplane and gun-fire are concerned, it is possible to form more or less definite conclusions concerning the subject. In the first place, one point is clear: extreme views are unwise in regard to such a problem as this. What tests so far carried out have proved, if they have proved anything, is that there are two points of view.

Artillery experts, who declare that every reconnoitring aeroplane will be blown to pieces before it can carry out its work, are obviously wrong; so, too, is the enthusiast who affirms that guns will be altogether useless when directed against airmen.

What it is possible to deduce, from the generally-inconclusive experiments recorded, is that the balance of testimony—so far as it can be estimated—is in favour of the aeroplane. As a matter of fact, the reasonable view to take is that, when a squadron of aeroplanes deliberately sets forth to reconnoitre an enemy’s position, a certain percentage of machines will be hit by gun-fire, and brought to the ground.

Exactly what that percentage will be is a moot point; experience alone can tell. But the tests already described suggest, very plainly, that the percentage should be low.

The skill of the pilot in avoiding fire will be an important factor in the question—as already mentioned. An over-daring airman may quickly find himself in danger; a careful, cautious man may do all the work required of him without giving hostile artillery a chance to get in a shot.

Level-headed officers, who have practical experience in military flying, do not anticipate, for a moment, that the aeroplanes which ascend in time of war will escape scot-free.

"Casualties there are bound to be." The words are those of an expert of international repute. "Risks will be taken knowingly, according to the value of the information which is required. War is not a kid-glove affair. Large squadrons of aeroplanes will be used; and, apart altogether from the question of the loss of life, the destruction of a small proportion of machines will not affect the utility of a corps. The position, in a nutshell, is this: the news that an aeroplane can obtain is so vitally important that the risk of men, and machines, will be considered amply justified."

This much appears certain. No artillery-fire, however skilfully directed, is likely to nullify the effects of aeroplane reconnoitring. Machines will be hit; lives will be lost. But the value of the aeroplane’s work will lie in the number of machines employed. If fifty are sent out upon a reconnoitring flight, and if some of them fall victims to the enemy’s gun-fire, a sufficient number will return to impart, to a Commander-in-Chief, the information he seeks to obtain.

The only sensible policy, for any nation, is to do what France and Germany are doing. Both these countries are developing war aeroplanes; and they are also building, and experimenting with, special guns for the destruction of aircraft. While you cannot destroy an enemy’s air-fleet, the obvious policy is to cripple it as much as possible; and, recognising that no gun-fire can altogether prevent the aeroplane from doing its work, the equally obvious thing to do is to obtain an efficient fleet of machines, as well as batteries of guns.

THIRTEENTH SECTION DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIALITIES OF WEIGHT-CARRYING AEROPLANES

I. What a modern-type machine can raise—Load of two men, and explosives.

In previous sections, the reconnoitring capabilities of the war aeroplane have been dealt with; but there is now another, and an increasingly-significant aspect of its work. This lies in its power of destruction.

In its early stages, the aeroplane could, only with difficulty, raise its pilot from the ground; any weight-lifting was out of the question. But, with the development of engines, and the efficiency of machines generally, the carrying of appreciable burdens has come within the range of practical politics.

A biplane can be constructed, at the present time, which is capable of raising a pilot, an engineer, and a load of explosives, and of flying, thus loaded, for several hours without descending.

Not long ago, it was predicted that a fleet of weight-carrying aeroplanes might be able to leave foreign soil one day, fly over London, drop a quantity of explosives on the city, and return—by way of the air—whence they came.

When this prediction was first made, it was generally considered in the nature of an impossible dream. But, nowadays, it has ceased to be a wildly-improbable undertaking. With aeroplanes such as could be built at the present time, an expedition of this character could, as a matter of fact, be carried out.

But the aeroplane must first be perfected as a scouting machine. Afterwards, may come its application as an offensive weapon. To ignore the destructive aspect of military flying is, however, foolish.

Foreign countries realise such possibilities; already, tentative experiments are being made. When reckoned singly, aeroplanes have an insignificant value as engines of destruction; but, when bomb-dropping machines are employed in large, well-organised squadrons, a different situation arises. It is in regular fleets that attacking machines of the future will, almost certainly, be employed.

It was in 1909, after his cross-Channel flight, that M. Louis Blériot declared: "Before long, military and naval aeroplanes will be able to carry explosives of the deadliest nature." This shrewd man saw what lay in the future. At the time he spoke, a flight of an hour’s duration, by a machine carrying only one man, was an achievement; but, nowadays, a heavily-laden machine can remain aloft for a number of hours.

Bomb-dropping mechanism, to facilitate the discharge of a missile from an aeroplane, has been devised. The bombs are contained in a chamber beneath the aeroplane, and pass thence into a tube, which is pointed towards the ground. By pressing a button, conveniently close to his driving-seat, the airman is able to release a series of bombs over a given point. Missiles in the form of carefully-weighted arrows have also been employed—the explosive forming the head of the arrow, and the projectile being released from a special form of sighting mechanism. With this apparatus, fairly good practice has been made, from heights in the neighbourhood of 500 feet.

The experiments so far made, in connection with dropping bombs, show that considerable practice is necessary before accurate aim is possible. In actual attacks in warfare, however, absolute precision would not always be an essential. A detachment of machines would probably pass, one after another, over a given position, raining down missiles as they swept by. The aim would be made as accurate as possible, of course; but the telling nature of the attack would be, not in the chance of individual bombs reaching any precise mark, but in the fact that a large percentage of the missiles would be calculated to do damage over a given area.

Among experts in France and Germany, who are now paying keen attention to this question of a destructive war aeroplane, it is considered that an incendiary bomb would work great havoc in wartime. The possibility of employing some such bomb as this was suggested by Lord Charles Beresford, after he had witnessed the demonstration organised by the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee in May, 1911. He foresaw that aeroplanes might be able to drop cylinders of some highly-inflammable spirit, ignited by a sensitive fuse, and calculated to cause an instant and violent conflagration.

As a matter of fact, it has already been realised that several types of bomb are likely to be employed in aerial warfare, according to the targets which are aimed at. In an attack upon supply stores, for example, an incendiary bomb may be used, so that the contents may be set on fire, and destroyed; and the same kind of missile will probably be dropped upon dockyards, arsenals, and magazines.

For the destruction of bridges, for the attack upon troops on the march, and for the bombarding of encampments, some special form of explosive shell may be used. Definite choice of such a shell has not yet been made; but here, again, experimental work has already been commenced abroad.

In England, realising the importance of this question. Sir Hiram Maxim has recently been engaging himself with the production of a 100-lb. aerial projectile likely to create a maximum amount of damage when striking the ground.

Aerial bombardment, if systematically carried out, will certainly add another terror to modern war; and the question is sometimes asked whether nations have a right, according to the agreements of the Hague Convention, to employ such a means of attack. The position, so far as the last convention was concerned, was that certain nations, notably France and Germany, did not become signatories to a rule, proposing that aerial bomb-dropping should be disallowed.

Such a practical airman as M. Vedrines is enthusiastic regarding the offensive powers of a modern aeroplane, when skilfully handled. His view is that a large and well-organised squadron of weight-carrying machines should be able to render almost useless a fleet of ships.

Naval men would, no doubt, regard such a statement as being an exaggeration. The aim of an aeroplanist, when directing his bomb against a moving ship, would frequently be inaccurate, they claim; and they also affirm that an aeroplane would not be able to carry bombs sufficiently large and deadly to do much damage, even if one did, occasionally, reach its mark.

But here the argument is based upon the possible use of one machine, and not of a fleet. One aeroplane, dropping a few bombs on a fleet of ships, would naturally produce an insignificant result. But what of the results achieved by several hundred, and perhaps of a thousand? In such a case, there would not be one bomb to contend against, but a volley of missiles.

M. Vedrines, whose opinion was quoted above, is a believer in the speed of the aeroplane, as aiding its powers of attack. In regard to a possible war between France and Germany, he has declared that, within an hour of the declaration of such a war, a corps of French airmen could be over the frontier, attacking, with their bombs, all great railway junctions and forts on German soil.

The rapidity with which an aeroplane onslaught can be made should, indeed, prove one of the most important features of aerial warfare. Destructive machines may fly from their Headquarters, deliver an attack fifty or a hundred miles away, and—their ammunition exhausted—return quickly to their base for more, and so be ready to renew the attack.

II. Effect of aerial bombardment upon cities and troops—German tests.

It was after a seven years’ study of military aviation, as Commandant of the British Government Balloon School, that Colonel J. E. Capper declared emphatically: "The necessity has arisen for every warlike nation to have a sufficient aerial fleet, armed and equipped for offensive warfare."

His advice, however, was not adopted—at any rate, not by the War Office. No steps have yet been taken to estimate the value of an aeroplane as a destructive instrument, despite the fact that France and Germany are keenly alive to the possibilities of a large number of weight-carrying machines.

In Germany, at the present time, secret tests and experiments are being made, and the construction of special machines undertaken. Meanwhile, we fumble along. If a war broke out to-morrow, it is true that destructive work by aeroplanes, on anything like a large scale, would not be undertaken.

But what about the day after to-morrow—or rather next year? Every day, the general efficiency of the aeroplane is being improved, and its radius of action increased. Practically every day, also, foreign nations are adding to their air-fleets. Already the art of employing aircraft in fairly large numbers has been learned. Machines for destructive work can now be built—and are being built; and yet we are content, as yet, to do nothing.

Sufficient warning has been given. Colonel Templer, an officer identified with the first Government aeronautical work undertaken in England, has declared: "It is conclusively proved that the aeroplane is a machine for carrying out attacks in warfare. We must, therefore, be prepared not only for defence against bomb-dropping aeroplanes; we must be prepared, if necessary, to use them."

Another military expert of high repute, speaking of the havoc that a hostile air-fleet might work, by an attack upon the Thames Valley between Hammersmith and Gravesend, has observed: "This whole fifty miles of concentrated essence of Empire lies at the absolute mercy of an aerial machine, which could plant a dozen incendiary missiles in certain pre-selected spots."

The point to be considered, in this connection, is this: such an aerial attack is no longer a vague possibility. It was only the other day, while discussing the destructive capabilities of modern-type aeroplanes, that a famous constructer showed how—if a large fleet of machines was marshalled together—it would be possible for an enemy to drop a couple of hundred tons of explosive matter upon London, suddenly appearing from across the Channel by air, and as flying quickly back again.

What such an aerial attack as this would mean has been pictured by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. Suppose London was thus assailed, from the air, at the beginning of a war, he says: What would the result be? Imagine the Stock Exchange, the chief banks, the great railway stations, and our means of communication destroyed. "Such a blow at the very heart of the Empire," declares Lord Montagu, "would be like paralysing the nerves of a strong man, with a soporific, before he had to fight for his life: the muscular force would remain, but the brains would be powerless to direct."