![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight. The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine. Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate The Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the trenches be a significant addition? Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. Keith |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... The Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the trenches be a significant addition? Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. And the Germans certainly had flamethrowers by the end of the war. -- Nik Simpson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight. The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine. Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate The Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the trenches be a significant addition? Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing would be a challenge. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing would be a challenge. The typical bomb used for anti personnel use was the 25lb cooper bomb which was a fragmentation weapon,essentially a large hand grenade. They also dropped flechettes. Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight. The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine. Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate The Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the trenches be a significant addition? Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing would be a challenge. Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a weapon without defense. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a weapon without defense. Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you could afect a short stretch They were equipped with deep dugouts and communication trenches which allowed troops to move into the front line without being exposed to attack. There were also more than one line of trenches. The answer to breaking the stalemate was a combination of new technology which included fighter bombers and tanks and new tactics. When perfected the Allies managed to roll back the Germans further in 3 weeks than the preceding 4 years. Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a weapon without defense. Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you could afect a short stretch They were equipped with deep dugouts and communication trenches which allowed troops to move into the front line without being exposed to attack. There were also more than one line of trenches. The answer to breaking the stalemate was a combination of new technology which included fighter bombers and tanks and new tactics. When perfected the Allies managed to roll back the Germans further in 3 weeks than the preceding 4 years. Napalm is a fluid, it flows into just those parts of trench-systems that you describe, it was used first against the Japanese dug into caves on Tinian, in addition to the burning--it sticks to your skin--it sucks the oxygen out of the air forcing men to leave the trenches or die. You don't fire napalm, although there were instances of pouring it into caves, you drop it from the air. You make the trench systems traps, the same way the proper use of tanks made them traps. http://eport2.cgc.maricopa.edu/publi...4/1/upload.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jack Linthicum" wrote
"Keith Willshaw" wrote Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you could afect a short stretch Napalm is a fluid, it flows into just those parts of trench-systems that you describe, it was used first against the Japanese dug into caves on Tinian, in addition to the burning--it sticks to your skin--it sucks the oxygen out of the air forcing men to leave the trenches or die. And lets not forget that those WWI trench systems used a lot of wood in their construction, which would burn fiercely once hit with a napalm bomb. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight. The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine. Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate The Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the trenches be a significant addition? Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing would be a challenge. Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a weapon without defense. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight. The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine. Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate The Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the trenches be a significant addition? Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing would be a challenge. Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a weapon without defense. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1988 "Aces High" (Military Airplanes) Hardcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 23rd 04 05:18 AM |
Ever heard of Nearly-New Airplanes, Inc.? | The Rainmaker | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 23rd 04 05:08 PM |
SMALLL airplanes.. | BllFs6 | Home Built | 12 | May 8th 04 12:48 PM |
FS: 1990 Cracker Jack "War Time Airplanes" Minis 6-Card (CJR-3) Set | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | April 12th 04 05:57 AM |
Sport Pilot Airplanes - Homebuilt? | Rich S. | Home Built | 8 | August 10th 03 11:41 PM |