










|
| 2001 Closed threads from 2001 (read only) |
Welcome to The Aerodrome Forum, an online community where you can discuss WWI aviation with thousands of other members from around the world. To gain full access to the Forum you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
- Post messages and search the Forum
- Privately communicate with other members
- Participate in live chat sessions other members
- View images by talented aviation artists in our Gallery
- Buy, sell or trade items in our Classified Ads
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
|
8 June 2001, 06:35 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Guest
|
Hello All,
I have been reading the combat diary of one of the leading German aces, spanning a period from 1916 thru 1918.
Contrary to what we might think, the everyday lives of these men were far from the heroic deeds conjured up in popular lore.
While there was much excitement and danger present at all times, much of it came from forces beyond their control (or that of the enemy's). Things such as weather, illness, mechanical and structural malfunctions, poor fuel, etc.
Then there are the crashes (especially on takeoff and landing), the shot-up aircraft, enemy attacks on the airfields, etc.
However none of these are mentioned nearly as often as machine gun failures at inopportune times. Apparently all sides had similar problems.
Was it the design of the guns, quality of the ammo, mixed-type ammo, altitude temperature, the belt-feed design, engine/airframe vibrations, or a combination of all these. Any other factors which might apply here?
Your comments are most welcome.
Best Wishes,
Gary
|
|
|
|
8 June 2001, 12:27 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Forum Ace of Aces
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The American West
Posts: 4,809
|
The two most widely used fighter aircraft guns were both Maxim designs, the German 7.92mm "Spandau" and the British .303 cal. Vickers, which also came in other calibers, most notably the 11mm "balloon gun" variety. The Lewis was of course used in aircraft but because it fired from an open bolt it did not lend itself to synchronizing.
Ammunition quality varied considerably, but many of the more professional aviators either inspected or actually loaded their own belts or drums to reduce risk of malfunctions (clearance of which was nearly identical for Maxim & Vickers.)
Ammo types also varied from "ball" to tracer to phosphorous for balloon shooters.
Temperature could effect weapon performance--it took awhile to learn that the usual lubrication used at ground level could lead to malfunctions at altitude, when oil tended to congeal at inopportune times.
But then whoever heard of a weapon malfunction at an OPPORTUNE time??? Folks who tend to get shot at want their guns to be (1) reliable, (2) accurate, (3) big enough to kill whatever is trying to kill them.
__________________
You will not rise to the occasion: You will default to your level of training.
|
|
|
9 June 2001, 09:58 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Guest
|
Well-said Barrett! Thanks for your reply...
Best Wishes,
Gary
|
|
|
|
9 June 2001, 01:35 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Guest
|
Some ways to jam up a gun were: the smallest amount of grit on a shell case could embed itself into both chamber and case wall and prevent extraction, and the extractor would break off the rim if the case. A tweaked or twisted belt, a case broken off short in the chamber, too much lubrication would congeal, (whale oil seemed to work best)....
|
|
|
|
12 June 2001, 05:41 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
Guest
|
Hello Fred,
Thanks for your reply. It looks like Murphy's Law has always been present... At least as far back as WW1.
Whale oil, huh? It goes to show, we do learn something new everyday.
Best Wishes,
Gary
|
|
|
|
12 June 2001, 06:05 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Shot Down
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,435
|
The pilots used to smear it on the exposed parts of their faces to keep the cold out as well.
|
|
|
12 June 2001, 06:22 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
Guest
|
Barrett, while it is true the guns had problems in the air, you can't say the same on the ground. Both the Vickers and the German Maxim did splendidly in the roles they were originally designed to perform.
I would assume that the vibrations of the flying plane helped a little in the jamming department as well as the planes banking and diving while firing.
Also and this is pure speculation, the interupter gears would "interupt" the natural rhythm of the firing. Could this also lead to problems?
Considering the infancy of the fighter plane and the urgency of the war, most fighter planes were probably launched with as many bugs as the latest microsoft OS.
Tobias
|
|
|
|
12 June 2001, 09:07 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
Shot Down
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,435
|
The chapter in "High In The Empty Blue" when they first take the SE5 into combat proves that point perfectly.
|
|
|
12 June 2001, 01:18 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
Forum Ace
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kent, England
Posts: 2,474
|
The Camel too came in for a lot of early criticism when it was plagued with guns jamming at inopportune moments. Greater attention to tolerances in the manufacture of cartridge cases undoubtedly helped overcome some problems, as did greater diligence in checking individual rounds as practised by some pilots.
I have seen it mentioned, that due of the danger of the lubricant freezing at altitude, 48 Sqn's first patrol came unstuck because Leefe Robinson VC ordered the lubricant to be removed and the guns jammed when they got hot.
Graeme
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 PM.
|