Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

[Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Allan Goodall wrote:

> >Airspeeds of a WWI aircraft are well into the range of modern helicopters,
> >and the general consensus is that helicopters are easy pickings for modern
> >jets.
>
>And this all begs a question: what's the tactical or strategic reason
>for engaging the WWI aircraft in the first place?
>
>The biplane can't do a thing, essentially, to the Raptor.

Not to the Raptor *itself*, but that is only relevant if the Raptor is 
there all by itself - in which case it'll have severe difficulties winning 
the war. If, which is highly likely, the Raptor is there to support some 
form of ground forces the biplane can:

1) scout for its side's ground forces,

2) attack the Raptor's side's ground forces with machineguns and light bombs,

3) possibly disrupt the Raptor's side's aerial recon efforts by engaging 
low-flying tactical UAVs. (During the Kosovo war Serb transport helicopters 
were fairly successful in using door-mounted machineguns to shoot down NATO 
UAVs, until the NATO forces deployed manned jet fighters to protect the 
UAVs... :-/ )

Early in WW1, task 3) above was handled with pistol and rifle fire between 
otherwise essentially unarmed aircraft. That wasn't a very effective way to 
conduct air-to-air combat though, which led to the rapid development of 
specialized fighter craft - of which the Raptor is currently the latest 
version. As long as the biplane is capable of detecting and reporting the 
location of the Raptor's side's ground forces, and much more so if it is 
capable of actually harming them physically, the Raptor has every reason to 
engage the biplane.

Later,

Oerjan
orjan.ariander1@xxxxxxxxx

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry


_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l