machine gun, lie in its want of portability and its unhandiness, difficulties which may, in course of time, be overcome.
All things considered, it would appear probable that attack on aeroplanes at high altitude from the ground will be found impracticable, or at least uncommercial. Not only have we to reckon with the various considerations above discussed, but also with the fact that, in our climate at least, not more than one day in four is sufficiently clear to render high-altitude shooting possible, and though it is true that an aeroplane, to make observation, cannot remain above or in the clouds, it presents but a poor mark under bad weather conditions.
An aeroplane operating at high altitude will probably need to be hunted and driven off or destroyed by armed machines of its own kind.
§ 12. Defence from Gun-Fire. It is manifestly not possible for an aeroplane to perform all the duties required of it, in connection with tactical operations at high altitude,[1] and whenever it descends below 5,000 ft., or thereabouts, it is liable to attack from beneath; in fact, at such moderate altitudes it must be considered as being under fire—mainly from machine-gun and rifle—the whole time it is over or within range of the enemy's lines. Protection from the rifle bullet may be obtained in either of two ways; the most vital portions of the machine, including the motor, the pilot, and gunner, can only be effectively protected by armour-plate; the remainder of the machine, including the wing members, the tail members, and portions of the fusilage not protected by armour, also the controls, struts, and the propellor, can be so constructed as to be transparent to rifle fire—that is to say, all these parts should be so
27
- ↑ For military purposes we may take the term "high altitude" as defined by effective vertical range of small-arm fire—in other words, as denoting an altitude of some 5000 ft, or 6000 ft, or more.
