DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Wing Leader Rules Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 199--------------------------------------------------
Br 693
By: Ethan McKinney Date: September 24, 2018, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do we need a separate section for ADC discussions?
Protection: The Br 693 lacked self-sealing tanks and any forward
armor. I've been unable to find any evidence of an armored
windscreen (which seems somewhat superfluous with no other nose
armor. Protection 2 seems high ... Protection 2h maximum, need
to make sure that light flak firing from ahead tears it up.
Bombsight: No conventional bombsight at all. Level bombing, even
from as low at 1000m, was guesswork. Not that we're likely to
see any scenarios where it matters, but it should be reflected
for fan-made hypothetical scenarios.
Delayed-action fuses: Normal "razor flight" (hedge-hopping)
attacks used bombs with 8-11 second delays, so that the Breguets
had time to get clear of the blast and fragmentation zone.
Should be allowed to make ultra-low level laydown attacks. Must
have been scary on the ground when the bombs went bouncing an
screaming along at head height, smashing right through walls.
Then they came to a stop and nothing happened. For a moment ...
Vol rasant: The idea of vol rasant was that light flak wouldn't
have time to react and terrain would either block line of sight
to heavier flak, it wouldn't be able to track fast enough, or it
just wouldn't be set up to fire at targets at such low level.
Unfortunately, it didn't work out in the very flat terrain of
Flanders, especially because the Breguets generally navigated by
flying along roads. They were torn up by light flak. The concept
also required knowing precise target locations, which just
didn't happen during the blitzkrieg in Flanders. Vol rasant also
made high-side attacks by fighters somewhere between extremely
dangerous and impossible (this worked, even for TBDs, in the
Pacific). The problem for the Breguets was that they couldn't
tighten up to mass defensive fire, which is what worked for
naval strike aircraft.
Guns: One last note. Insanely, the nose guns on the Br 693 with
fixed at a small upward angle (about 2 degrees), a legacy from
its origins as a heavy fighter. Particularly in vol rasant, with
was repeatedly noted to make strafing extremely difficult.
I've been slowly working my way through various sources in
French, but it's very slow going. Support from French readers
appreciated.
#Post#: 203--------------------------------------------------
Re: Br 693
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 24, 2018, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know how many ADC discussions we’ll have, so put them
here for now. If we generate a pile of ‘em i’ll create a new
board.
Protection is based on a system, rather than being arbitrary. If
the Br 693 had no fuel tank protection or armour, it should be
rated 3-4 rather than 4-5.
No bomb sight means pretty much the same as a T-sight. IN other
words: the gunsight, with an element of guesswork involved.
I’ll have a think as to whether the gun mounting would convert
the aircraft into a U/1 Firepower.
What sources are you gleaning this stuff from?
#Post#: 207--------------------------------------------------
Re: Br 693
By: Ethan McKinney Date: September 24, 2018, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Aero Journal No. 26, "Voyage a Bout L'Enfer: Les Breguet au
combat," C-J. Ehrengardt. Extensive article on design and
operations.
La fana de l'aviation, Nos. 184-187, "Les Breguet 691, 693 & 695
Dans la Bataille de France," Pierre Riviere, series of six
articles on operations, technical characteristics, and markings.
A website on Pangeasystems, which includes a whole lot of scans
from manuals, including bomb danger zone graphs.
Generally poking around Google to find information about the
bombs carried by the Br 693 and other information.
A few modelling magazines with minimal information.
There's a book or two out there that I can't afford.
#Post#: 209--------------------------------------------------
Re: Br 693
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 24, 2018, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This online source suggests the guns were angled down 15 degrees
to aid strafing. (Though it probably did nothing for air
combat.)
HTML http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_breguet_693.html
#Post#: 210--------------------------------------------------
Re: Br 693
By: Ethan McKinney Date: September 24, 2018, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Definitely not. The technical drawings and photos make this
quite clear. There were experimental mountings, mostly flexible
mountings, but they were rejected as impractical.
See here for diagrams from the Br691's flight manual. No
significant changes in this area for the 693. You can see the
MGs in both diagrams and the cannon in the lower.
#Post#: 222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Br 693
By: pilotofficerprune Date: September 26, 2018, 1:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A link to the flight manual appears to be missing.
I've made the change to the Protection ratings but I'm still not
sure how to score the guns if, as you suggest, they are oriented
upwards. The question becomes whether any strafing was possible.
#Post#: 368--------------------------------------------------
Re: Br 693
By: Ethan McKinney Date: October 15, 2018, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Looking at more sources, the guns may have been angled down at
2.5 degree for strafing. Hard to tell.
Br.691s, or at least some prototypes, were able to depress the
MGs (maaaaybe the cannon) up to 15 degrees for strafing. (or
maybe only two positions) You can clearly see the "slot"
mountings in the nose for the MGs, while the 693 and other
models had clearly fixed installations.
There was also a fixed MG in the rear fuselage firing down and
to the rear. This may have been a scare gun for belly defense,
or some sources suggest that it was for strafing.
Interestingly, frames 4 and 8 were steel tubing. They were at
the front and rear of the bomb bay, obviously for strength.
However, they also seem to have functioned as rollbars for the
pilot and (to a lesser extent) the gunner. No idea if that was
intentional. In any case, photos burned-out 693s show those
frames still standing while the intermediate frames are gone. No
effect in game terms, but a bit of trivia.
There's a brief reference in Les Ailes de Gloire No. 1 to
"protected" fuel tanks in the wings. (2 tanks out of six, from
what I can determine. I haven't been able to find anything
showing the complete fuel layout.) No indication whether this
was some armor on the trailing and/or leading edges, or if there
was some self-sealing mechanism. Someone made a forum post
referring to primitive self-sealing tanks, but there's a lot of
bad information out there on the Br.69 series, so I take it with
a shaker of salt.
#Post#: 371--------------------------------------------------
Re: Br 693
By: pilotofficerprune Date: October 16, 2018, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It all sounds rather confusing. I'm happy to drop the protection
rating for now, but leave the rest the same. . .
*****************************************************