Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3186 Excellent


About unreasonable

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3377 profile views
  1. I think the the point about mixing them in the load is that the phosphorus starts to burn while the bullet is still in the barrel, leaving a very hot acidic residue, which will damage your barrel lining. With a pure incendiary load, this residue will build up. When you mix the load, the non-incendiaries blast out the residue. Did the 11mm Vickers in US service also get a mixed incendiary/ball loadout? WW2 era incendiaries that only ignite on contact did not have this kind of problem, so could be used in unmixed belts with no ill effects. (They also had better ballist
  2. I am glad we agree on the first part. Buckingham had not just "been tried" - by 1918 at the latest it was loaded as a standard part of the mix when available, including for Camel squadrons. I have not seen mention of Buckingham being particularly considered dangerous to use, let alone plenty of mentions, certainly by the time the design had matured and was in front line use in mixed loadouts. If someone has sources saying this, fine, let's see them. What was certainly dangerous, according to the Australian History, were the bullets with HE content, which
  3. I agree that the 11mm mod for the Vickers firing an incendiary round is a good gun for anti-balloon work: that is not in dispute. The issue is the suggestion that Buckingham incendiaries could not be, or were not, fired from .303 British Vickers, in which case the only RFC/RAF gun useful for anti-balloon work would be the overwing Lewis. This is pure supposition, for which no evidence whatever has been presented. In contrast, Oliver88 has just posted a diary extract giving details of the belting for Camels, including Buckingham and "sparklets" which was the contemporary jargon for
  4. Phosphorus rounds are not "just tracers". The Vickers chambered for 11mm were purely a French order: the French already produced an 11mm round for their older model Gras rifle, still in some use in WW1, so it was relatively easy for them to produce an incendiary round in this calibre. The US used them since they were using unwanted French equipment. Contra wikipedia, It was never used by the British AFAIK, who did not produce this ammunition. If there is a source that says otherwise I would be happy to change my mind on that. But certainly the bigger the better for incendiary or HE
  5. Thanks for the reminder... two excellent races this year. Perhaps they should stay on the Great Ouse every year!
  6. If you are going to use it - and it is not really necessary in the game - the best bet is to assign it to a button on the the joystick you can reach instantly. I use one of the buttons I can reach with my thumb, but I almost never use it. It is not really necessary since you can reduce power to land by reducing the mixture until the engine cuts briefly, or just turn the engine off altogether. In a fight, you are better off with the engine on and if you want to slow down: eg you do not want to pass an enemy in front of you, use the vertical to yo-yo instead. Trading speed for heigh
  7. The uncivilised behaviour in this case consisting of admitting, officially, to using the things against aircraft, rather than the fact of their use. Civilised peoples understand the necessity of hypocrisy. Tripadvisor is perhaps best placed to comment on Lord Dudley. "Without fear of contradiction the worst Yorkshire puddings I have seen on a plate (was it cooked the day before and reheated?, a potato clearly baked not roasted (and I use the singular), beans given a rather brief introduction to hot water.... and what was a red pepper slice doing on a roast dinner??!!!"
  8. My understanding is that they did, although there might well have been occasions when they did not, or even some squadrons where practise varied. Best source I have found supporting this is the official Australian history of WW1 as quoted in this Aerodrome thread, (I have been unable to get an original copy), which gives the the typical belt/drum mix, which differed by squadron. If the Australian units were using it as a matter of routine, you can be sure that many if not all RAF units were too, since they shared the same command and logistics chain. http://www.theaerodrome.com/
  9. I would not take those range estimates very seriously at all, especially if you are supposed to be aiming for the same points using two different guns in succession. Much more likely that the pilot would open up with both guns as soon as he thought he could hit the balloon. If you cannot hit a target the size of a balloon at 300m you need your eyes tested. Of course we should have incendiary bullets - everyone used them by late 1917. Their alleged illegality was questionable even at the time and made moot by practise, as international law follows common law principles. I am not su
  10. Not really. As you can see, the range of the speeds does not go far enough down: the manual gives a wider range at the low end, but not low enough. Even here, it is not clear that the extrapolation should be a straight line at high AoA. So it is hard to reconcile the stated IAS stall speeds with the PECs.
  11. That is an M23 test: M23 is not API. It is a pure incendiary shell filled with 5.83g of incendiary mixture and no penetrator, so it will go splat on a target surface. (And only used after WW2). M20 APIT has only 1.74g, of a different composition. The M23 hole is quoted as being 4inch by 6 inch: (102mm by 152mm) so 24 sq inches maximum, perhaps as little as half that, if the hole is diamond shaped. If you assume similar functioning (which might not be right), adjusting damage area by ratio to weight of incendiary mix, you could be looking at 1.74/5.83 =~30% of the are
  12. Try shooting him with your pistol.
  13. Good test. The last problem you mention probably does not matter much in practise, as almost always in a real fight you will get damage on other sections continuing to adding additional drag, or even loss of the wing section. I had not noticed a gradient inside the lower levels: is it possible that this reflects a gradual slow down of the aircraft to the new equilibrium dictated by the level, rather than additional drag for incremental damage? Depends on how long you wait between shots? The speed is continuing to drop with additional HE hits too.
  14. It is not the best study we have for this problem - for all the reasons you point out in your previous longer post, it is entirely useless for this debate, if anything harmful. If you assume a certain "power" for HE based on the proportion of weight, bundling all possible damage outcomes into one number, then of course you will end up with an output that reflects that assumption. That may not matter so much in the Williams index, that was designed to compare entire weapon systems including factors such as rate of fire and weight etc. But we have to understand individual hits for
  • Create New...