A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Airplanes in WWI (ISOT)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 8th 04, 12:08 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old June 8th 04, 03:09 AM
Nik Simpson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 8th 04, 04:29 AM
Howard Berkowitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 8th 04, 09:35 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old June 8th 04, 12:11 PM
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 8th 04, 01:20 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old June 8th 04, 07:05 PM
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old June 8th 04, 09:29 PM
Ed Stasiak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old June 8th 04, 12:16 PM
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 8th 04, 12:16 PM
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.