In previous sections, the reconnoitring capabilities of the war
aeroplane have been dealt with; but there is now another, and an
increasingly-significant aspect of its work. This lies in its power of
destruction.
In its early stages, the aeroplane could, only with difficulty, raise
its pilot from the ground; any weight-lifting was out of the question.
But, with the development of engines, and the efficiency of machines
generally, the carrying of appreciable burdens has come within the range
of practical politics.
A biplane can be constructed, at the present time, which is capable of
raising a pilot, an engineer, and a load of explosives, and of flying,
thus loaded, for several hours without descending.
Not long ago, it was predicted that a fleet of weight-carrying
aeroplanes might be able to leave foreign soil one day, fly over London,
drop a quantity of explosives on the city, and return—by way of the
air—whence they came.
When this prediction was first made, it was generally considered in the
nature of an impossible dream. But, nowadays, it has ceased to be a
wildly-improbable undertaking. With aeroplanes such as could be built at
the present time, an expedition of this character could, as a matter of
fact, be carried out.
But the aeroplane must first be perfected as a scouting machine.
Afterwards, may come its application as an offensive weapon. To ignore
the destructive aspect of military flying is, however, foolish.
Foreign countries realise such possibilities; already, tentative
experiments are being made. When reckoned singly, aeroplanes have an
insignificant value as engines of destruction; but, when bomb-dropping
machines are employed in large, well-organised squadrons, a different
situation arises. It is in regular fleets that attacking machines of the
future will, almost certainly, be employed.
It was in 1909, after his cross-Channel flight, that M. Louis Blériot
declared: "Before long, military and naval aeroplanes will be able to
carry explosives of the deadliest nature." This shrewd man saw what lay
in the future. At the time he spoke, a flight of an hour’s duration, by
a machine carrying only one man, was an achievement; but, nowadays, a
heavily-laden machine can remain aloft for a number of hours.
Bomb-dropping mechanism, to facilitate the discharge of a missile from
an aeroplane, has been devised. The bombs are contained in a chamber
beneath the aeroplane, and pass thence into a tube, which is pointed
towards the ground. By pressing a button, conveniently close to his
driving-seat, the airman is able to release a series of bombs over a
given point. Missiles in the form of carefully-weighted arrows have also
been employed—the explosive forming the head of the arrow, and the
projectile being released from a special form of sighting mechanism.
With this apparatus, fairly good practice has been made, from heights in
the neighbourhood of 500 feet.
The experiments so far made, in connection with dropping bombs, show
that considerable practice is necessary before accurate aim is possible.
In actual attacks in warfare, however, absolute precision would not
always be an essential. A detachment of machines would probably pass,
one after another, over a given position, raining down missiles as they
swept by. The aim would be made as accurate as possible, of course; but
the telling nature of the attack would be, not in the chance of
individual bombs reaching any precise mark, but in the fact that a large
percentage of the missiles would be calculated to do damage over a given
area.
Among experts in France and Germany, who are now paying keen attention
to this question of a destructive war aeroplane, it is considered that
an incendiary bomb would work great havoc in wartime. The possibility of
employing some such bomb as this was suggested by Lord Charles
Beresford, after he had witnessed the demonstration organised by the
Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee in May, 1911. He foresaw that
aeroplanes might be able to drop cylinders of some highly-inflammable
spirit, ignited by a sensitive fuse, and calculated to cause an instant
and violent conflagration.
As a matter of fact, it has already been realised that several types of
bomb are likely to be employed in aerial warfare, according to the
targets which are aimed at. In an attack upon supply stores, for
example, an incendiary bomb may be used, so that the contents may be set
on fire, and destroyed; and the same kind of missile will probably be
dropped upon dockyards, arsenals, and magazines.
For the destruction of bridges, for the attack upon troops on the march,
and for the bombarding of encampments, some special form of explosive
shell may be used. Definite choice of such a shell has not yet been
made; but here, again, experimental work has already been commenced
abroad.
In England, realising the importance of this question. Sir Hiram Maxim
has recently been engaging himself with the production of a 100-lb.
aerial projectile likely to create a maximum amount of damage when
striking the ground.
Aerial bombardment, if systematically carried out, will certainly add
another terror to modern war; and the question is sometimes asked
whether nations have a right, according to the agreements of the Hague
Convention, to employ such a means of attack. The position, so far as
the last convention was concerned, was that certain nations, notably
France and Germany, did not become signatories to a rule, proposing that
aerial bomb-dropping should be disallowed.
Such a practical airman as M. Vedrines is enthusiastic regarding the
offensive powers of a modern aeroplane, when skilfully handled. His view
is that a large and well-organised squadron of weight-carrying machines
should be able to render almost useless a fleet of ships.
Naval men would, no doubt, regard such a statement as being an
exaggeration. The aim of an aeroplanist, when directing his bomb against
a moving ship, would frequently be inaccurate, they claim; and they also
affirm that an aeroplane would not be able to carry bombs sufficiently
large and deadly to do much damage, even if one did, occasionally, reach
its mark.
But here the argument is based upon the possible use of one machine, and
not of a fleet. One aeroplane, dropping a few bombs on a fleet of ships,
would naturally produce an insignificant result. But what of the results
achieved by several hundred, and perhaps of a thousand? In such a case,
there would not be one bomb to contend against, but a volley of
missiles.
M. Vedrines, whose opinion was quoted above, is a believer in the speed
of the aeroplane, as aiding its powers of attack. In regard to a
possible war between France and Germany, he has declared that, within an
hour of the declaration of such a war, a corps of French airmen could be
over the frontier, attacking, with their bombs, all great railway
junctions and forts on German soil.
The rapidity with which an aeroplane onslaught can be made should,
indeed, prove one of the most important features of aerial warfare.
Destructive machines may fly from their Headquarters, deliver an attack
fifty or a hundred miles away, and—their ammunition exhausted—return
quickly to their base for more, and so be ready to renew the attack.