Troll wrote:

I can see both sides of this. Believe it or not, I do have a running list of things to be done and will add this to the list. Fog of War, is one of those things!

Could a WW I, fighter still fire it's machine guns when gliding, or did the loss of motor prevent that?
That’s a really good question — and the answer depends on how the guns were powered and synchronized on WWI fighters.

Most WWI fighter aircraft mounted one or two belt- or drum-fed machine guns (commonly the German Spandau or British Vickers). The guns themselves were self-contained, recoil- or gas-operated weapons. That means they did not need the engine to run in order to fire — pulling the trigger would cycle the mechanism as long as ammunition and cooling held out.

The complication was the synchronizer/interrupter gear, which allowed the guns to fire through the spinning propeller without shooting it off. This gear was mechanically linked to the engine’s crankshaft or camshaft.

If the engine was still windmilling in a glide (propeller spinning from airflow), then the synchronizer gear was still rotating, and the guns could be fired safely.

If the engine completely stopped and the propeller was not turning, then the synchronizer gear stopped as well. In that state, pulling the trigger could result in a jam (since the firing cam wasn’t moving) or, in some installations, the gun simply wouldn’t fire because the trigger linkage depended on that motion.

On some aircraft with unsynchronized guns (for example, mounted above the wing on a Foster mount like on the Sopwith Camel’s Lewis gun), the pilot could still fire in a dead-engine glide because those weapons weren’t dependent on engine timing.

So:
✅ Yes, a WWI fighter could still fire its guns while gliding — as long as the propeller was turning (windmilling) to keep the synchronization gear working, or if the gun was mounted independently of it.
❌ If the prop was stopped, synchronized guns wouldn’t function properly.