Insperation for the use of flare guns

**Horse4261** · 07-29-2013 18:55

Having just re-watched 'The Red Barron' again. Late in the film at around 1:14:10 a German pilot (sorry couldn't identify - but sure someone knows) uses a flare gun against a British balloon. My suggestion to recreate this would be very similar to making a 'bomb' run.

The attacking aircraft must fly parallel to the balloon length wise for its entire movement cycle.
The aircraft must remain within one half rulers distance for the entire attack run.
Only one attack is possible after the second movement card has been played and uses the D Damage Deck (reasoning is that aircraft must be in proper position and the flare will either penetrate or bounce off the balloon's fabric.
Maximum number of attacks possible in the course of the battle is six. (This being from limited research on the number of flares typical carried by the pilots.

So, any ideas or changes anyone would care to commit?

**Air Marshal** · 07-29-2013 19:25

Sounds worth trying. Thanks for the idea. I'm going Drachen hunting!

**Flying Officer Kyte** · 07-31-2013 12:43

Originally Posted by Air Marshal

Sounds worth trying. Thanks for the idea. I'm going Drachen hunting!

Interesting idea, but I'm going to stick with incendiary rounds myself because I'm just an old fuddy duddy.

Rob.

**MoonSylver** · 07-31-2013 14:48

Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte

Interesting idea, but I'm going to stick with incendiary rounds myself because I'm just an old fuddy duddy.

Rob.

I picked up a copy of "RB", but haven't had time to watch it yet, but I'm curious if anyone knows if there were any historical incidents of this having been done, or was it a pure film invention?

**Baldrick62** · 07-31-2013 14:51

Originally Posted by MoonSylver

... or was it a pure film invention?

The whole 106 minutes was 'pure film invention'!

From Wiki:

'Historical accuracy[edit]The film takes a number of liberties with factual accuracy. Richthofen himself is portrayed as a proto-pacificist and a gentleman, a man who instructs his men to aim for the machine, not the man flying it. In reality, the contrary was true. He circulated to his pilots the basic rule which he wanted them to fight by: "Aim for the man and don't miss him. If you are fighting a two-seater, get the observer first; until you have silenced the gun, don't bother about the pilot".[5]

'Also, at the beginning of the film, a young von Richthofen is shown admiring an airplane flying over him, allegedly in 1906. At that time, most Europeans didn't yet believe that any powered flight had been achieved beyond reasonable doubt (though that happened by the U.S. Wright Brothers in late 1903 in Kitty Hawk) and were finally convinced by the Wright Brothers' demonstration flights, starting in France in 1908.

'A major plot point involves Werner Voss installing a Bentley engine in his Fokker Dr.1 Triplane. Later Anthony Fokker complains about German pilots using Allied engines. In reality the Fokker Dr.1 was powered by the Oberursel Ur II 9-cylinder rotary engine, an unlicensed bolt-for-bolt copy of the Le Rhône 9J engine used by such Allied fighters as the Nieuport 17 and the Sopwith Camel, therefore Anthony Fokker had no grounds to complain about Allied engines powering his fighter. Historical truth is that the Bentley engine was an improved design, lighter in weight and giving more power than the Le Rhône original design, and even better compared to the marginally lower quality Oberursel copy. This allows one to understand why the real Werner Voss actually changed the engine of his Fokker triplane.[6]

'In addition, Captain Roy Brown is depicted as having been shot down by Richthofen in 1916 and subsequently escaping from a German POW camp. There is also a later scene in which Brown and Richthofen crash in no man's land and share a friendly drink. Neither of these events have any historical basis, for the two never met except in combat.

'A Handley Page bomber shot down in one scene has a Royal Mail logo painted on the fuselage. The Royal Mail didn't exist at this time, it would have been the GPO.

'Richthofen did not smoke.

'When Richthofen fought Lanoe Hawker, Hawker was flying an Airco DH.2 'pusher' style fighter, not an SE5. Also the "Grim Reaper" painted on the side of his aircraft in the movie was in real life painted on the aircraft of the French Escadrille N.94, not Hawker's. The death of Voss etc has no historical basis, he was killed while Richthofen was on leave, in one of the most famous dogfights of WW1 involving 6 SE5's led by James McCudden.'

**Carl_Brisgamer** · 07-31-2013 15:02

Originally Posted by Horse4261

Having just re-watched 'The Red Barron' again. Late in the film at around 1:14:10 a German pilot (sorry couldn't identify - but sure someone knows) uses a flare gun against a British balloon. My suggestion to recreate this would be very similar to making a 'bomb' run.

The attacking aircraft must fly parallel to the balloon length wise for its entire movement cycle.
The aircraft must remain within one half rulers distance for the entire attack run.
Only one attack is possible after the second movement card has been played and uses the D Damage Deck (reasoning is that aircraft must be in proper position and the flare will either penetrate or bounce off the balloon's fabric.
Maximum number of attacks possible in the course of the battle is six. (This being from limited research on the number of flares typical carried by the pilots.

So, any ideas or changes anyone would care to commit?

It would be a far less effective method of engagement than using incendiaries or Le Prieux rockets. I would limit it to half ruler and the only result that has any effect is the explosion card.

It is a desperation measure and should be treated as such.

**calm** · 07-31-2013 15:03

Well, there is a certain degree of "Historical Accuracy": There was a WW1 and there was airplanes in it

**Carl_Brisgamer** · 07-31-2013 15:09

Originally Posted by Baldrick62

The whole 106 minutes was 'pure film invention'!

I was really disappointed with Red Baron. All this has been hashed over in another thread, but in my opinion Von Richthofen's story was exciting enough without the artificial drama.

Having watched the film numerous times it is almost as if the film maker was making a statement about WW2 in a WW1 film, pushing modern day liberal mores on the characters, von Richthofen in particular.

**Carl_Brisgamer** · 07-31-2013 15:15

Originally Posted by calm

Well, there is a certain degree of "Historical Accuracy": There was a WW1 and there was airplanes in it

The problem with CGI is that the director is not limited to the actual performance limitations of the aircraft involved, like the climbing turns performed by the Albatros fighters at the start of the film. I thought I was watching a WW1 film, not 'Top Gun'.

If you want to see CGI done right - http://youtu.be/g_m1M7vAz60

**MoonSylver** · 07-31-2013 15:16

Originally Posted by Baldrick62

The whole 120 minutes was 'pure film invention'!

From Wiki:

'Historical accuracy[edit]The film takes a number of liberties with factual accuracy. Richthofen himself is portrayed as a proto-pacificist and a gentleman, a man who instructs his men to aim for the machine, not the man flying it. In reality, the contrary was true. He circulated to his pilots the basic rule which he wanted them to fight by: "Aim for the man and don't miss him. If you are fighting a two-seater, get the observer first; until you have silenced the gun, don't bother about the pilot".[5]

'Also, at the beginning of the film, a young von Richthofen is shown admiring an airplane flying over him, allegedly in 1906. At that time, most Europeans didn't yet believe that any powered flight had been achieved beyond reasonable doubt (though that happened by the U.S. Wright Brothers in late 1903 in Kitty Hawk) and were finally convinced by the Wright Brothers' demonstration flights, starting in France in 1908.

'A major plot point involves Werner Voss installing a Bentley engine in his Fokker Dr.1 Triplane. Later Anthony Fokker complains about German pilots using Allied engines. In reality the Fokker Dr.1 was powered by the Oberursel Ur II 9-cylinder rotary engine, an unlicensed bolt-for-bolt copy of the Le Rhône 9J engine used by such Allied fighters as the Nieuport 17 and the Sopwith Camel, therefore Anthony Fokker had no grounds to complain about Allied engines powering his fighter. Historical truth is that the Bentley engine was an improved design, lighter in weight and giving more power than the Le Rhône original design, and even better compared to the marginally lower quality Oberursel copy. This allows one to understand why the real Werner Voss actually changed the engine of his Fokker triplane.[6]

'In addition, Captain Roy Brown is depicted as having been shot down by Richthofen in 1916 and subsequently escaping from a German POW camp. There is also a later scene in which Brown and Richthofen crash in no man's land and share a friendly drink. Neither of these events have any historical basis, for the two never met except in combat.

'A Handley Page bomber shot down in one scene has a Royal Mail logo painted on the fuselage. The Royal Mail didn't exist at this time, it would have been the GPO.

'Richthofen did not smoke.

'When Richthofen fought Lanoe Hawker, Hawker was flying an Airco DH.2 'pusher' style fighter, not an SE5. Also the "Grim Reaper" painted on the side of his aircraft in the movie was in real life painted on the aircraft of the French Escadrille N.94, not Hawker's. The death of Voss etc has no historical basis, he was killed while Richthofen was on leave, in one of the most famous dogfights of WW1 involving 6 SE5's led by James McCudden.'

I'm aware of the horrible inaccuracies compaired to MvR's real life, which is part of the reason I haven't watched it yet. I want to at least finish the Kilduff bio I'm reading first.

I'm just curious if that particular item has any historical basis.

**wargamer** · 07-31-2013 15:26

Actually, the idea really sounds silly. A flare has no real penetration ability, and is likely to bounce or roll off. It isn't like the Hindenburg where the skin of the balloon is a very flammable material. It would not get inside like the rocket or bullets where it can get to the flammable gas. Really if you are going to use hand held, you would do better with a pistol or grenade to get the crew.

**Horse4261** · 08-01-2013 11:49

Originally Posted by Carl_Brisgamer

It would be a far less effective method of engagement than using incendiaries or Le Prieux rockets. I would limit it to half ruler and the only result that has any effect is the explosion card.

It is a desperation measure and should be treated as such.

Great suggestion, I like that idea much better. Which is why I threw out the commit about any changes. So, using the D Damage deck where only the bang card has any effect.

**flash** · 08-01-2013 23:57

As Al suggests there is no penetration value to the flare perhaps you will have to have already perforated the envelope with your MG on a previous attack to release gas to ignite with a flare ?! Just a thought

**Пилот** · 08-02-2013 00:29

What are historical accounts on flaring the baloon? How wide (if at all) it was spread and used?

**Baldrick62** · 08-02-2013 01:10

Originally Posted by MoonSylver

I'm aware of the horrible inaccuracies compaired to MvR's real life, which is part of the reason I haven't watched it yet. I want to at least finish the Kilduff bio I'm reading first.

I'm just curious if that particular item has any historical basis.

Rob,
The point I was trying to make was that I'd not take anything from that particular movie as having any historical basis! It's a wonder it didn't come with a 'The persons and event depicted in this movie are fictional, etc' disclaimer! At least with 'Flyboys', you knew it was fiction and could get on and enjoy it for what it was.
BofB

**MoonSylver** · 08-02-2013 05:57

Originally Posted by Baldrick62

Rob,
The point I was trying to make was that I'd not take anything from that particular movie as having any historical basis! It's a wonder it didn't come with a 'The persons and event depicted in this movie are fictional, etc' disclaimer! At least with 'Flyboys', you knew it was fiction and could get on and enjoy it for what it was.
BofB

Understood, and agreed. Just trying to narrow the scope to that one particular. I'd never heard of such a feat, so I'm assuming it's a cinema moment only. Makes for exciting viewing, but I wouldn't want to integrate it into my games if such a thing never happened in real life, hence the line of questioning.