# Fantasy air force SOP's



## SeverinR (May 22, 2012)

Current book gets more into multiple fliers in a military setting.

general questions:
No gauges, so rough estimate of heights--

fluffy clouds 2000-6000 feet, right? Didn't want them to be flying over clouds if it required oxygen. 
VFR-Can't fly through clouds without special ability.

Large heavy dragons; need to have room to dive for a burst of speed, and to increase reaction time from attackers-natural and man-made. good cruising altitude? roughly 1000-3000feet? Or higher? 
Low and slow is death.

Oxygen not needed until above 10,000ft?



Protocol;
Take off:
Strongest dragon-least encumbered takes off first, to check area, and monitor for potential attackers,while the rest take off.
The least strongest or most encumbered takes off last. Most likely to stall if attacked, and also makes for the shortest time in the air.  (Even a single missed wing beat at the wrong time could make a dragon stall.)

Landing: (landing is always guaranteed, how hard is important)
Safe area: fly over to ensure safe,
worst injured dragon lands first, then weakest or most encumbered, Strongest dragon lands last, dragons on the ground monitor sky for dangers, able to attack or distract an attacker while dragon lands.
Unknown: Strongest stays up, middle lands to attract 

The team: Dragon is the heavy weapon, rider is the tailgunner and bombadier. (Gnome(Greek) fire urns), current group has a Healer, a bard, a weapons master(all missle weapons, including hurling urns) flying over large enemy army, fly high and dump bag of rocks etc.

The Gnome fire bombers would be in the middle of the others, to protect the flammable cargo. (pot sealed, if crystal exposed to air,it ignites the fire.)

in flight-V formation like ducks? For best defense?

No radar so no need to fly low.

Air force enthusiasts, What else might I consider?


----------



## Devor (May 22, 2012)

*whistles*  Biting off a lot with this one.

V shape is not about defense or offense so much as conserving fuel and energy.  The lead vessel is catching the most friction against the wind, reducing drag on the planes behind it.  It's not really a good formation during combat.

Don't quote me on this, but it's my understanding that fighter jets break into teams of two - you and your "wingman" - to support each other in an aerial fight.

I'm also aware that attack helicopters pair off in teams of 2 and raid the ground while they circle around a wide, narrow loop.

Bombers tend to move in, drop their payload, and move out.


----------



## Ravana (May 24, 2012)

Devor is correct about aerial combat: the pair has proven the best group historically. From a military standpoint, formation flying is only really useful in assuring that you cover a target area reasonably evenly with dropped items–though it does have its uses in making sure friendlies don't collide, too, and so may be necessary for other large-scale operations. Otherwise, pretty much their only effect is to make it easier for attackers to hit it, since their targets have to remain in predictable paths in order to keep the formation. A V formation would be reasonable while traveling to the target if you wanted to get some energy savings out of it. 

Clouds can rise as high as 60,000 feet, not 6,000… well above where oxygen is required to sustain life (which is around 26k feet, depending on what you're used to: altitude sickness can set in at around 8k feet, though it is possible to acclimate to higher altitudes). And they can be as low as zero altitude: we tend to think of that as "fog," but that's very much a landlubber perspective, since fog and cloud arise from two different (if related) processes. The primary method of avoiding cloud cover throughout most of aviation history was to fly only in good weather. 

Don't underestimate the value of flying low. First of all, it may not be possible to fly above a certain altitude, entirely apart from oxygen considerations: the atmosphere might be too thin to support dragon flight. Remember, even propellers generate a lot more force than flapping wings, no matter how large those wings are. Second, while "low" may increase vulnerability to ground fire, it also reduces the amount of time a flying target is in view: if you are flying at literal treetop level, nothing on the ground–looking up between those trees–is going to spot you in time to get a shot off before you're over and past it. (You'd be a bit more visible in the absence of ground cover, of course… but you'll still be a lot more visible at 5,000 feet.) Third, in a pre-technological setting, very little will be able to hit anything flying at even 500 feet: only the heaviest bows would be able to loft an arrow that high, and its energy would be completely spent by the time it gets there. While higher flight will increase the force of gravity-driven projectiles (i.e. rocks), it won't make the least difference on the effect of fire-bombs… apart from making them harder to aim. And it only takes about four seconds for an aerodynamic falling object to approach terminal velocity in Earth's atmosphere and gravity… meaning that after about 300 feet, it isn't going to get any faster no matter how high you drop it from. 

Aerial combat itself would be extremely difficult in the absence of firearms. (It's actually pretty difficult even _with_ them.) Apart from magical attacks, I'd have to say that anything humans could do would only hit by sheer luck. It's hard enough for a stationary archer to hit a stationary target at distances of 100 yards; if both shooter and target are moving–and in three dimensions, not two, as with ground targets–it would take a minor miracle for an attack to connect. If you can't see someone hitting with a rifle under these conditions, you can pretty much rule out the possibility of hitting with a slower missile more subject to the effects of air resistance and gravity. Which, of course, is why aerial combat uses machine guns. Nor is it all that much easier for an airborne attacker to hit a ground target: during WWII, even quality mechanical bombsights only managed to put half the bombs dropped _within a quarter mile_ of their (stationary) targets, when dropped from altitudes of 15-20k feet. And that was the so-called "precision" bombing, conducted in daylight: nighttime bombing was lucky to put half its bomb load on the _city_ it was aiming at–in fact, the first British bombing raid of the war didn't even hit the right _country_. (Okay, Denmark was right next to what they were aiming at. Still.…) You are, of course, planning on using much lower altitudes: figures for dive-bombers would be closer to what you're looking at. But that gives you some notion of how difficult it can be.

About the only other possibility for aerial combat I could see is for the dragons themselves to engage in direct physical confrontations, tearing at one another with claws. And in such cases, I would definitely not want to be on board one… no matter how good the seat belt. 

Ground fire isn't going to be a whole lot better, for all that the shooter is firmly planted: in all likelihood, he would have little or no practice engaging aerial targets moving at any speed. Massed archers might be able to throw up a barrage, in the hopes that one of the arrows would hit; even then, the fire would probably have to be directed by someone familiar with calculating deflection (the distance a target will move from the time you shoot to the time your missile reaches it), in addition to the different effects wind and gravity will have on such fire. Which, of course, is why anti-aircraft fire uses machine guns. Also, firing at a steep angle will cause the missiles to travel a lot less far laterally, making them a serious friendly fire hazard.


----------



## SeverinR (May 24, 2012)

Good answer as always.

terminal velocity 300ft?  That is so low. Basically a 20 story building,  Golden gate bridge road level is 220 ft above the water.

Basically, I am working from an Ultra-light flying comparison, flying from 200-5000 ft, but with limited vertical range, what height would be the highest needed to fly? 1000? Allows for reaction time from aerial attackers flying out of trees, and out of range of all quick firing weapons. (I believe some heavy weapons could reach 1000k in distance, not sure about height, loading and aiming would take to much time to bring even one shot.)

Missle fire, air to ground wouldn't be a problem, ground targets would be hundreds of men in a small area.  The bombs would not be precise, but creating unrest in the ranks would be great when even one met a target.

Dragon to dragon attacks, only a few countries can afford to keep a dragon force. Each country could have a dragon militia for defense, but to actually have an attack force, that is costly. So this would be rare, and I have not needed it in any story ...yet.  Flying is faster then ground, but getting defensive dragons to the place of an attack at the right time is tough.

Even though dragons aren't common, there are other forces that could take to the sky. So military firing at a aerial target would be practiced to some extent. Have not explored the rest but some thoughts are:
Pegasus riders, carpet bombers(magic carpet riders), haven't reasonably considered any Nimbus 2000(brooms), Aside from the broom jockeys in HP, I can't imagine balancing an adult bottom on a wood stick. 
Have avoided zepplins, and flying machines as too modern.

I have dragon bows and dragon ballistas, these would be useful in a head on or head away attack. Target getting bigger as it approached the weapon, or getting smaller as it flew away. First used in ship to dragon warfare, when a dragon would focus on a smaller target and is predictable to where the dragon will attack. 
Dragon bows(basically a tough combo of english long bow and a recurve or horse bow) are good barely above tall treetop level for body hit, higher if just looking for wing damage. 
Our history didn't require a pre-firearm missle weapon for flying targets except for hunting, so we never invented one.  A typical flu-flu arrow would annoy a dragon.  I do agree hitting a flying target much higher and at an unknown speed would be near impossible except in a frontal or rear attack.
Looking over WWI encounters, they used pistols, rifles and shotguns with little affect. (shotgun to the rear of a pusuing plane might have done some damage if they flew into it, with the frail planes could have been a kill) One person even said they tried hurling darts and rope at planes. (rope to tangle the prop)

This is why I post these questions, to get information that would be very difficult to find, even if I thought of it.


----------



## Ravana (May 26, 2012)

SeverinR said:


> terminal velocity 300ft?  That is so low. Basically a 20 story building,  Golden gate bridge road level is 220 ft above the water.



Thereabouts, yep. For a relatively compact body with undifferentiated surfaces (a sphere) or an aerodynamic configuration (a bullet). Feathers reach terminal velocity a lot faster… though that's because they have a much lower terminal velocity. 



> what height would be the highest needed to fly?



Higher than the other guy. 

Which, frivolity aside, is pretty much the answer. A lot will depend on the surface altitude to begin with: remember that 1,000 feet above a 5,000 foot-high surface is still 6,000 feet up when it comes to air pressure. Flying over mountains of any great height can take you well into the oxygen-deprivation range; same for trying to fly over inclement weather. (You'll normally prefer going around, especially in the latter case.)



> Missle fire, air to ground wouldn't be a problem, ground targets would be hundreds of men in a small area.  The bombs would not be precise, but creating unrest in the ranks would be great when even one met a target.



You might be amazed. You're still dropping something from a moving platform; you still have to take into account wind direction–which, if dropped from high enough, may not be the same all the way down to the target; and "a small area" for an army might mean a line only a single person deep, and rarely more than three or four deep. Don't have to be off by much, in such circumstances. (Pike squares might be a bit easier.) When you consider the total number of attack platforms you have (few, it sounds like), the limited amount of munitions they can carry (based on weight and size thereof), and how long it takes to return to base, reload, and fly back to the target area, hitting just a few guys each sortie isn't going to be all that intimidating. 



> Flying is faster then ground



I was going to mention, previously, that air speed is also going to make a difference in just about every aspect; you don't mention what you have in mind. Assuming that dragons don't come anywhere close to the fastest birds–and assuming that they _are_ faster than anything their size has a right to be–then they will probably top out at no more than 45 mph in level flight (which is comparable to the top speed for a golden eagle… and that's one of the faster large birds). (Believe it or not, the top of the speed list is actually dominated by waterfowl, apart from a couple of the appropriately-named swifts. The peregrine falcon, which holds the overall speed record–its dive actually _exceeds_ its free-fall terminal velocity–doesn't even come close to breaking the top ten in level flight.)

Even 45 mph is nothing to laugh at, though. I don't know how much archery experience you have, but imagine trying to hit something the size of–oh, I don't know: a semi truck?–moving at that speed. Now imagine doing it when it isn't maintaining a constant distance from you, and when you don't know its exact height… especially if you're firing from the ground. And if an aerial target is stupid enough to maintain a constant distance and bearing from a potential firer, or even fly in a straight line relative to one (charging from the front, say–assuming you can convince the dragon to play chicken in the first place), it deserves what it gets. Any halfway competent pilot is going to maneuver in the face of potential fire, and even slight maneuvers will reduce archery fire to no better than chance. 

As for attacks from the air, even experienced dive-bomber pilots were doing well if they could place their bombs close enough to the target to be effective… and bombs explode, whereas rocks do not: a fifty-foot miss may still work with a bomb, but it's a county away when engaging a line of troops with dropped rocks. Consider the Battle of Midway: yes, American dive-bombers managed to disable three carriers in a matter of minutes (they got the fourth on a second strike); but that was a total of eight bomb hits out of roughly a hundred dive-bombers–not exactly a percentage to brag about–and while the targets were moving and maneuvering faster than land targets would be, they were also the size of… well, of aircraft carriers. (The _smallest_ was 70' wide and 728' long.) Stukas became notorious tank-killers on the Russian Front–but with guns, not bombs. 

Also keep in mind that if you are diving to increase accuracy–or spend less time exposed to ground fire–you have to give yourself enough room to _pull out of the dive_ afterward… and how high you have to be to do that will depend on several different aerodynamic factors, but will depend most importantly on how much stress the dragon's wings can take. For a Stuka, that was 1,500 feet. They dove much faster than a dragon would, of course–and at a steeper angle than any other dive-bomber ever made, if I remember correctly. They also experienced as many as 6 Gs pulling out of that dive… a lot more than anything sinew-and-bone wings are likely to be able to withstand. Never mind how bad it would be to have your mount black out in that situation: dive bombers had automatic controls to keep them going even if the pilot _did_ black out briefly… and many did. If you miscalculate the room needed, you will probably end up doing a lot more damage to the target… once.



> but getting defensive dragons to the place of an attack at the right time is tough.



Naah, that's easy: you just pre-position them wherever you expect to need them. Say, with the army you expect might fall under aerial attack. (Here, again, is a reason to fly low: the higher up you are, the sooner you'll be spotted, giving enemy fliers more opportunity and time to react.)



> Even though dragons aren't common, there are other forces that could take to the sky. So military firing at a aerial target would be practiced to some extent.



How? By having a flier tow a target behind it? Would have to be a pretty long rope, to convince the pilot to risk being hit by the vast majority of shots that won't be anywhere near the target. It can be done, of course; I just doubt it would receive much emphasis. (Using kites for target practice would be a good method, I imagine.) Trainers would rapidly come to realize, though, that for the most part the only way ground units could hope to hit would be through massed fire… and there will always be more important things to practice than that, since that's something they can do anyway. A few highly-talented sharpshooters might be encouraged to do as best they could, but I wouldn't want to wager money on them. 

All that is in the real world, of course. In fantasy, archers are better shots. 



> Looking over WWI encounters, they used pistols, rifles and shotguns with little affect.



Exactly. Air-to-air combat was essentially pointless until they started mounting machine guns. And it still wasn't easy… you could fling groups of thirty fighters at one another, and still only see around ten or twelve kills, combined, before everybody ran out of ammo. 



> This is why I post these questions, to get information that would be very difficult to find, even if I thought of it.



And that's why we provide answers.


----------



## SeverinR (May 30, 2012)

How high to fly:
Not much higher then a bird would fly except in special circumstances, would probably be my answer. Higher flying means more energy to get there, and more oxygen problems.

Air to ground:
I see military battles, such as the battle in Braveheart. Massed for the charge, rather then the Roman box formation. Hitting random people easier when in a group. Of course, like modern warfare, the tactics would change when they realized they needed too.  
Archers would send up a wall of arrows at an attacking air target, knowing that they would be the first target of the air attacker.  
The ground to air missles would be useless except when a direct attack. ie the dragon is attacking the ship, or wall on which the device is mounted. When the dragon even for a short time would fly towards the machine. More often on a small ship, rather then a large castle wall.

The line formation would be simpler to hit if flying parallel rather then perpendicular. A long line versus a short dash.

The speed in flying is usually based on going over objects rather then going around them, plus some actual speed. 35-40 level flight versus 30mph on a galloping horse.(short distance)

Getting defensive dragons to the dance on time:
If planning a large scale attack, you're right not hard. But a quick strike aerial assault, near impossible. Even if stationed near a large city, getting word to the dragon in time would be tough. (Much like Hawaii, Dec 7) (Those few planes that got off the ground)
And the canisters of fire would be even more effective in a city, who cares which building it hits? They will all burn. Burn a city down with only a couple fire canisters. BUildings built so close together with a fire that is nearly impossible to extinguish.

I think the defenses might turn towards magic alot more for defense of dragons. 


I did like the idea of rope to entangle to prop of the other plane, but impossible to get into play, unless the pilot to the rear was trying to eat the rudder of the plane with the prop.


----------



## Ravana (Jun 2, 2012)

SeverinR said:


> Air to ground:
> I see military battles, such as the battle in Braveheart. Massed for the charge, rather then the Roman box formation. Hitting random people easier when in a group. Of course, like modern warfare, the tactics would change when they realized they needed too.



Definitely want to keep that last point in mind. 

Even so, with a dragon approaching at 35 MPH, there would probably be more than enough time to disperse any large group, unless other circumstances prevented this (terrain, trying to hold ranks because of imminent ground contact–here again you'd want pretty accurate bombardiers, to avoid friendly casualties–and suchlike). Or, for that matter, to raise shields over heads. Not great defense against fire bombs, but it would take a fairly sizable rock to do damage, and the larger the rock, the fewer that can be carried. Pointy objects (arrows) would be all but useless against such a defense. Even pike formations can provide fair defense against arrow-like objects–it's a lot like firing into a small forest: some will get through randomly, most will be deflected and lose part or most of their force.



> The ground to air missles would be useless except when a direct attack. ie the dragon is attacking the ship, or wall on which the device is mounted. When the dragon even for a short time would fly towards the machine. More often on a small ship, rather then a large castle wall.



Even then they'd be little more than harassment fire–though that still has its value: if nothing else, it forces the attacker to think about something other than _just_ lining up his target. (Keep in mind that firing from a ship is _harder_, because the ship's also moving… in three dimensions at once, most of the time, very often with more than a single motion in _each_ dimension: both roll and pitch alter height, for instance.) I'd expect most anti-air engines would fire masses of smaller projectiles than single large ones: possibly something in the size range of javelins.



> The line formation would be simpler to hit if flying parallel rather then perpendicular. A long line versus a short dash.



Quite true, and by far the best direction of approach… but just because you're flying along that line doesn't mean you're going to hit it. Like I said, for non-explosive ordnance, "close" doesn't count: a touch of breeze might be all it takes. Or a one-foot error on the part of the bombardier. 

Possibly the best method of attack would be a variation on "skip-bombing": in this case, you wouldn't be trying to "skip" the projectiles, but instead release them horizontally or at a slight upward angle after building speed in a dive. A cloud of arrows, darts, or even gravel could then be released with a much greater chance of striking targets–just as with a normal arrow barrage–than trying to aim them downward using gravity. Would resemble strafing. Probably the ideal projectile would more closely resemble lawn darts than arrows (whether you're dropping them or strafing); the greater weight would keep them closer to a true path and give greater force on impact. And fire bombs _could_ be "skipped," in the sense that upon impact much of the contents would continue to follow a horizontal path for a few yards or so… if you _really_ want a morale-breaker, soak the defenders in oil with the first few attackers to pass, and then let them worry which of the ones coming afterwards is carrying the spark to light them.  (If any. That could come from archers on the ground with fire arrows.)



> Getting defensive dragons to the dance on time:
> If planning a large scale attack, you're right not hard. But a quick strike aerial assault, near impossible.



Ah: but a quick aerial assault on _what_? Not massed troops, surely–you ought to know where your own army is supposed to be, right? If you have defensive dragonpower available to begin with, you should have at least one airborne observer over your forces at all times (at least all times it's possible to fly–which also means that effective attack might be a question of being able to fly under conditions the other side considers "impossible")… and the observer should be able to spot an attacking flight in plenty of time for a response to be mounted. Keep in mind that, at the outset, observation was what military aviation _did_, and that guns were initially added to shoot down enemy observers. The ideas that any form of effective attack could be mounted from the air came later. Much later, really: bombing had very little impact during WWI. 

Pearl Harbor is in many ways a perfect example–because if there had been _any_ CAP (combat air patrol) _at all_, the attackers would have been sighted a dozen miles or more miles away… away from the _patrol_, not the airfields, which would be that much farther back. And those planes flew several times faster than your dragons do–and were far smaller and flew higher, so would be that much harder to spot. At 35 mph, it would take attackers a bit over 8.5 minutes to cover 5 miles: could your defenders get airborne by then? (They still have to be based close enough, of course, but this shouldn't be too hard, unless the logistics of dragon basing is prohibitive. Considering that WWI airplanes operated from any flat piece of ground they could find–usually grassy fields–dragons shouldn't have it _too_ rough, I'd think.) But yet another reason for attackers to come in at treetop level, and only climb when beginning their attack run: even airborne observers will find it harder to spot attackers near the ground than as massive shapes in the open sky.)

This also means that signaling from the air should be fairly well developed… but parachute flares are comparatively simple, smoke pots even more so (they're also less likely to burn the 'chute, and leave a nice long plume to be noticed). Start involving magic in the equation, and it gets easier still.

A variation on this could allow aerial attackers to drop smoke screens to mask ground maneuvers. Even a couple minutes' worth could allow critical units to shift their direction of attack to where defenders couldn't counter in time. Or try to smoke the defenders themselves: here, a miss can still be effective, as long as the wind's in the right direction. (Look up a description of the Battle of the Horns of Hattin for one example of this being done historically, without the aid of airborne attack.)



> And the canisters of fire would be even more effective in a city, who cares which building it hits? They will all burn. Burn a city down with only a couple fire canisters. BUildings built so close together with a fire that is nearly impossible to extinguish.



Depends on the city, its style and materials of construction, building codes, and fire preparations. Stone walls and tile or metal-sheet roofs could pretty much ignore these… and probably wouldn't be considered luxuries in conditions where aerial bombardment is considered a realistic possibility. Important structures might be plumbed with pipes to carry water to their roofs, activated by hand- or wheel-driven pumps… possibly with the addition of something that would break up oily substances rather than merely spread them. (Soap works surprisingly well… though simply getting the building materials wet will tend to prevent them from catching fire, even if the oil does get spread, and _it_ will burn out rapidly.) As with tactics, such things would adapt over time in the face of threat.



> I think the defenses might turn towards magic alot more for defense of dragons.



I'd agree. Depends on what it can do, of course, but just about anything would be more effective than what can be done with purely mechanical weaponry. 



> I did like the idea of rope to entangle to prop of the other plane, but impossible to get into play, unless the pilot to the rear was trying to eat the rudder of the plane with the prop.



Not impossible, just extremely difficult. A single craft trying to foul another isn't too likely; on the other hand, this is exactly how barrage balloons worked: the cables tethering the balloons made it all but impossible to fly at low levels. If you had enough balloons, at least. (In one of Glen Cook's _Black Company_ novels, he uses barbed strings held aloft by kites to foul flying carpets. The location they were used at had a reliable wind, however, and they were really only effective the first time, when they were a surprise.) For aerial combat, you could consider such possibilities as wire or chain nets buoyed by magical rapid-inflation balloons; they wouldn't need to stay aloft more than a minute to entangle an attacker, given the distances most likely to be relevant. Anti-air engines could throw javelins trailing a few dozen feet of wire with a small weight at the end, which would create a similar hazard, and would be more likely to have some effect since you'd only need to fire it somewhere near but ahead of the attacker. Toss a volley of, say, a dozen of those in front of a dragon, and see what its wings look like when it lands.…


----------

