Why did the British continue to use just one synchronised machine gun?

[Tekko]

Dear fellows,

please enlighten one ignorant German. I wonder why the British did stick to the habit of installing just one Vickers machine gun for many years while the Germans hab TWO synchr. MGs??? I thought as their engines were more reliable and more powerful than the German´s , it might have be more evident if the Entente would start using two guns as soon as they had a good sync. system??

Thank you for any comment!

[Romani]

Tekko, that's a frequently asked question and the reasons are many, I will try to summarize them, I have numbered them but in fact they were interrelated.

1) Insufficient power of available engines: Up until the Hispano Suiza V-8 engine appeared, the Allies were stuck with light rotary engines , performance was severely affected when the 50 kilos of a second machine gun and ammo were added. The Albatros was the first fighter that could carry two machine guns without performance being severely affected.

2) Unreliability of early synchronizer gears: This led the British specially to continue relying to a great degree on the Lewis on an overwing mounting, wich also was lighter.

3) Lack of foresight: A single MG was deemed sufficient at the time the first allied fighters appeared (1916) and carried on the designs that were on the drawing board and entered service the next year, such as the SE5. No thought was given to the possibility of adding another gun later on, the SE5 did have enough horsepower to carry twin synch guns, but the way the nose was designed there was no room to add a second gun and ammo. At any rate, a Vickers plus Lewis was deemed good enough.

The engineering margin was narrow anyway. The SPAD VII might have had enough HP for twin MGs, but it would have needed likely a larger plane so you will have end up with something no better or worse even, than an Albatros.
The SPAD XIII was a larger airplane with a more powerful engine and even so the handling characteristics were worse than the VII.

4) Shortage of Vickers machine guns:

The only Allied machine gun suitable for synchronizing was the Vickers and the British had not only to supply their army and aviation, but also the French aviation. This was too another reason for the British preference for the Lewis, you could build 3 Lewis for the time and effort to make a single Vickers.

[Tekko]

Dear R.,

not only your English is much better, you are also able to summarize this topic in a most exemplary way!
Thanks a lot for this fast and profound answer and Greetings to Southern Germany!

[Romani]

Dear Tekko, you are welcome.

Forgot to add that from mid 1917 onwards only the SE5 was undergunned, and not really by that much. The Constantinesco synchronizing gear in use by the Allies allowed for a higher rate of fire than the German system, coupled with the higher RoF of the unsynchronized Lewis, all things considered I estimate that the SE5 could put as much lead in the air as a pair of Spandaus.

That being said, that's only true for about 100 rounds, then is time to reload the Lewis drum.

Of the factors mentioned, I would say 4) and 1) were the most important ones. The shortage of Vickers was still felt in 1918, or perhaps worsened because of the expansion of air forces. Some American SPAD XIIIs had to fly their first orientation flight unarmed because their machine guns hadn't arrived yet. It might have been a administrative screw up, but considering that the Americans later armed some of their SPADs with US-built Marlin machineguns, I guess it was indeed a case of demand exceeding supply.

On the same vein, it seems the Austro-Hungarians stuck to the ill suited Schwarzlose MG for aircraft use simply because the Germans couldn't afford to supply them with Spandaus.

Greetings to Southern Germany!

Sorry to confuse you, but Ruritania was never part of the Reich I just borrowed the Baden-Wurttemberg flag because it looks exotic enough, though now I am thinking of relocating to Syldavia.

My real world coordinates are in my signature

[Tekko]

Ahhh, I see...

So you´re living in the world of literature, resp. near Cuenca, I reckon...

Thanks for the added details about Österreich-Ungarn and the US.

[Romani]

Originally Posted by Tekko

Ahhh, I see...

So you´re living in the world of literature

Tintin? Nein I am living on the land of Hope (Anthony)
I like Syldavia, but Borduria has Messerchmidts, hmmm

resp. near Cuenca, I reckon...

Ooppps, my longitude was wrong by 8 minutes when I wrote it down years ago, now thanks to Google I can get the correct position fix and even see the hammock in my garden from orbit. Just corrected it.

Thanks for the added details about Österreich-Ungarn and the US.

I am glad to be of help, have you any more questions? Forum has been quiet for the last week and weather is rainy

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Quote from:
Romani
Ruritania Flieger

Forgot to add that from mid 1917 onwards only the SE5 was under gunned, and not really by that much. The Constantinesco synchronizing gear in use by the Allies allowed for a higher rate of fire than the German system, coupled with the higher RoF of the unsynchronized Lewis, all things considered I estimate that the SE5 could put as much lead in the air as a pair of Spandaus.

Question:
Since you have come up with the Constantinescu (Inventor) and Colley (Instigator) Gear I am wondering just how much this unit was actually used as there seems to be two types one that used oil for the transmission of the sound power and one that used a wire to provide the timing. I have the one with the oil transmission but have not been able to find anyway to find the one with the wire sound transmission. It is really fascinating to try to figure just how this mechanism worked and how he got that much power from the sound that he claimed.
One of the extremely fascinating things about the oil type is the seemingly lack of any type of sound (Generator) explanation! Just how did he get enough power through the oil/wire to actuate the timer?

The generator appears to be a layered series of something unexplained in the generator diagram and I guess that he expected everyone to understand the operation from the diagram!

It must have worked as I understand it was used even on a few American aircraft in WW-II.
Yours, M.L. Anderson

Did it work similiar to a sound power telephone for example?

[Willi Von Klugerman]

Totally unrelated but for those that wonder why there was a vickers on the left side of the Nieuport 28.It is because that the nose was so narrow that they had to put the second vickers on the left side.

[Romani]

Originally Posted by Willi Von Klugerman

Totally unrelated but for those that wonder why there was a vickers on the left side of the Nieuport 28.It is because that the nose was so narrow that they had to put the second vickers on the left side.

Actually is a very relevant and interesting question, I have wondered for a long time about that awkward arrangement. I checked the entrty for the Nieuport 28 in "The complete book of fighters" by William Green and Gordon Swanborough (p. 436), and it seems that the prototype carried only one MG, and then it was deemed inadequate and the other one was added as an afterthought on the portside because there was no room between the cabane struts for 2 MGs.
I wonder why the cabane struts were shortened, reducing the gap between the top wing and the nose, I think this was done to improve the pilot's view over the top wing

Being a rotary engine, there was room enough in the nose for adding the ammo box and feed chute for the second gun.

This in turn raises an interesting question about the Nieuport practice of placing the Vickers offset to the port side. In the Nieuport 28 there's the explanation I wrote above, but other previous Nieuports had it, and it appeared too in the Hanriot HD1. It made aiming more difficult and some pilots relocated them to a centerline position.

I have heard that this might have been done to help balance the torque of the rotary engine.


In the Nieuport 28 it seems all three factors are at play.

Also, on the shortage of Vickers machineguns, I checked "Fighters 1914-19" by Kenneth Munson and the entry on the Nieuport 28 said deliveries to the AEF began in March but
"the combat patrols did not take place until the following month, due to delay in receiving their guns. Some aircraft had 0.30 in Marlin guns instead of the Vickers weapons" (p.140)

For more details I will have to check the Windsock datafile but is late at night and I am going to sleep.

[Romani]

Originally Posted by m9a3r5i7o2n

Quote from:


Question:
Since you have come up with the Constantinescu (Inventor) and Colley (Instigator) Gear I am wondering just how much this unit was actually used as there seems to be two types one that used oil for the transmission of the sound power and one that used a wire to provide the timing. I have the one with the oil transmission but have not been able to find anyway to find the one with the wire sound transmission. It is really fascinating to try to figure just how this mechanism worked and how he got that much power from the sound that he claimed.

Mister Anderson,

I once studied a course on sounds physics at university and I actually tried to learn the equations involved because I was interested in that question and asdic (sonar for you) because I was interested in the U-boat war.

I have came to the conclusion that any sufficiently advanced technology is undistinguishable from withcraft!

It's something that evidently works but most people can't really explain why. From what I recall, the liquid in the hidrosonic version of the mechanism is behaving like a solid, and the sound is actually a vibration. Or maybe it has something to do with resonance frequencies? No idea

We should start a new thread to discuss the differences between the various Allied synch systems, Alkan, Sopwith-Kauper, and Constantinesco.