Tracer rounds.

[chrislock]

Hi Guys.

As an ex machine gunner, I am well aware of the virtues of tracer rounds. My tank's 7.62 MG's used 1 x trace, 3 x ball. Our .50 cal RMG used all trace. For target illumination and on target confirmation, tracer is invaluable!

I know the RFC/RAF used them for Zeppelin engagements along with incendiary munitions however, it has dawned on me, that I have not read any articles on MG fire with tracer being used, in any of the Major battles such as "Somme 1916 " or " Paschandaele 1917" Has anybody any documentary evidence, of tracer being used and are there any famous paintings or photo's, showing MG fire revealing tracer splash.

If not, when did tracer rounds become a standard round for MG ammunition?

Best wishes.

Chris.

[TonyE]

As you say, the early tracers were used by the RFC/RNAS.

The earliest was the Royal Laboratory tracer round of 1915/16 which was largely ineffective and gave a white trace for about 100 yards. This was followed in 1916 by the Mark VIIT or "Sparklet" which was far better and traced to about 500 yards. Then came the Mark VIIG (SPG) tracer which remained in service as the GI until the WW2. At the same time, the Buckingham incendiaries were often referred to as smoke tracers, since the burning phosphorus that was thrown from the bullet left a distinct white smoke trail.

Most Mark VIIG rounds bear a full four digit date in the headstamp, indicating they were made to "Red Label" air service tolerances for synchronisation gear, but others with two digit dates were also made. These were used in either non-synchronised Lewis guns or for Land service.

By 1918 the use of tracers in Land Service machine guns was becoming a regular practice and there were demands for a new round with a 2,000 yard trace to be available for ranging in Land Service Vickers guns. However, the end of the war stopped any furtehr progress on this.

I do not know when the first use was made of tracer for ground guns, but I do not think much use was made before 1918 or perhaps late 1917.

regards

TonyE

[Gunner Bailey]

Tony

Would the next 'advance' have been the DeWilde tracer used by the RAF?

My father, in WW2, used to load his Bren with 1 tracer for every 5 ball, with three tracer at the end to show the mag emptying. His personal choice I think.

Gunner Bailey

[Chris Henschke]

Chris,

I'm with you - I'd like to know the answer as well. I have been delving in to this on and off for a few years now. I am yet to find anything of the period that proves the case that Tracer was used in Vickers or Lewis Guns during the war.

There have been a few writers in books written in the last few years that describe 'lines of tracer in the night' sort of thing, but nothing to use as proof.

I haven't tried to find out anything more lately, but one method I thought about was to look at ammunition consumption in reports on operations.

Chris Henschke

[chrislock]

Hi Chris.

Glad it's not only me that has been pondering over this one! I'm hoping somebody will come up with a photo or painting showing WW1 tracer ammunition in use. Maybe a close up of a MG ammo belt with ball and tracer shown together!

[woolly]

Chris,

Did you get an answer from that other site that I think we are both members of?

Woolly

[dman]

Definitive book on chemical warfare is "CHEMICALS IN WAR" by Lt Col (later general) A M Prentiss

Goes into detail about incendiary/tracer bullets/shells/bombs with composition of incendiary/tracer

materials. Can find the book in some large college libraries. Have copy in Rutgers University in NJ

where I live.

[Paul Reed]

I have found fired tracer .303 on the battlefields over the years, so they must have been used at some point! A dim memory is that 'Hutchie' mentions them in one of his memoirs, or the history of 33rd Bn MGC; sorry that's Graham Seton Hutchinson.

[chrislock]

Your answers and input is most welcome guys however, Pauls find shows it was used at some point but still no documentary or photographic evidence of MG usage of tracer for target confirmation. Pauls find of 1 x round confirms they were in evidence but our soldiers ( 1970's ) carried 1 x tracer round per man in NI for target confirmation with their self loading rifles. Could WW1 infantrymen have this option also?

Wooly, thank you for your in depth response and Tony, I will go there now!

Keep it coming please!

[Paul Reed]

Target ID using a tracer was unheard of in the Great War, Chris. The level of musketry skill generally wasn't up to it after the BEF of 1914 passed into oblivion. I suspect all and every tracer was used in MGs only. I wonder if camera kit in WW1 was able to capture tracer fire? That might explain the lack of photos.

[TonyE]

It is difficult to absolutely prove that tracer was used in ground guns, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that this was the case.

As I mentioned in my previous post, in 1918 there was a land service request to the Ordnance Board for a tracer to trace to 2000 yards for ground use. This meant that the tracer element must burn for 5 to 6 seconds and some work was in fact done on this request. Using French experience of having an igniter composition at the base of the trace (British SPG rounds did not have an igniter) a mixture was tried of:

Igniter - 4 grns mixture of 12% magnesium and 88% red lead.

Trace - 26 grns mixture of 66% barium peroxide, 27% magnesium powder and 7% linseed oil.

This worked well when fresh and a 2000 yard trace was achieved, but after a short period in storage the number of failures increased. No work had been done at this stage on matching the trajectory of the tracer with the Mark VII ball round and the war ended before anything was completed.

Also, in the History of the Ministry of Munitions, Volume XI, Part VI, pp25-26 the following is stated regarding the requirements and supply of tracer ammunition:

"For S.P.G. the more modest demand was 2,000,000 per month. This figure remained until the end of 1917, when the differentiation into Red Label and ordinary appears. In 1918 there was a considerable increase in requirements, the figure for Red label being 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 per month and for ordinary 2,000,000 to 2,300,000 per month"

Now I agree that this statement is ambiguous, as "ordinary" could refer to air use in non-synchronised guns, but I suspect that this large increase was due to the demand from land service. Perhaps the practice started for anti-aircraft fire initially?

Chrislock - there would be no way to tell looking at the rounds in the belt. They did not use tip colours.

Gunner Bailey - The WWI SPG tracer was re-titled Tracer G mark I in 1926 and this remained in service until at least 1940, being replaced in 1939 by the Tracer G.II.

The Buckingham incendiaries which were also known as Smoke Tracers because of the trail of white phosphorous smoke they left behind had progressed to the Mark III version by 1918 and a Mark IV type with the distinctice "step" in the bullet envlope was under development. This was designed to cut a larger hole in aircraft and balloon fabric to give a better chance of igniting the hydrogen. The war ended and it was not until 1929 that the B Mark IV entered service. This remained in service until about 1943 and gun camera film from the Battle of Britain often clearly shows the smoke trails. There was an experimental Mark V incendiary in 1937 that did not enter service and then the Mark VI was introduced in 1940.

This was frequently refered to as the "de Wilde", but in fact this was a deception. Both Britain and Germany had tested the incendiary explosive bullet invented by de Wilde before the war and it had not worked. The intention was that the Germans would believe the British had perfected the bullet and would continue to research down a dead end. The Mark VI had actually been developed in Britain by Major Dixon and only owed about 10% to the work of de Wilde. BTW, this was a true incendiary round, not a tracer and left no trail when fired.

The attached picture shows a Buckingham smoke tracer being fired from a Lewis gun by Mr.Buckingham at the School of Musketry, Hythe. Apologies for the poor quality of the scan (and the long winded post)

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

There was an initial reluctance to use tracer on the ground as there was a worry that if captured one could be accused of using explosive ammunition which was banned under various pre war conventions for ammunition under about 37 mm. This could get you shot.

[chrislock]

Quite often I am stunned by the sheer amount of quality information on this forum and Pauls's likewise! Tony, thank you for that last post and Paul, I will attempt to locate Graham Hutchinson's memoirs. I feel all this info, is leading to the fact, that streams of MG tracer were not seen during the Major land battles of post 1916. Then again, I'm sure someone will pop up with a late 1918 pic of tracer arching everwhere!

Thankyou all again, Chris.

[Rob Connolly]

There was an initial reluctance to use tracer on the ground as there was a worry that if captured one could be accused of using explosive ammunition which was banned under various pre war conventions for ammunition under about 37 mm. This could get you shot.

This is less than anecdotal, but in the WW1 "Biggles" short stories, WE Johns writes that characters flying with incendiary, a.k.a. "Buckingham" ammunition, needed to physically carry literal written permission from their CO to use that type of ammo, or they risked being shot out of hand if captured due to it's nature.

Very interesting thread!

[chrislock]

Many weapons and munitions were banned, such as Chemical weapons but they were still used openly, by all sides!

I feel the thread for all the right reasons, has wandered away to the use of incendiary munitions. I am still desparate for the confirmation of a classic WW2 night scene etc. There is this fantastic pic of Tumbledown in the Falklands showing huge streams of tracer up and down the battlefield. Today I will sit on top of the Passchandaele ridge and try to imagine streams of MG tracer everywhere during that awful assault into the village in 1917 however, it seems it just didn't happen!

[TonyE]

I am not sure you will ever find that photo Chris. It seems from the information available that the use of tracer was for ranging. I suspect that the tracers were used to get the gun on target and then they switched to normal ball for the barrage.

I have absolutely no proof of this, but remember that the Mark VIIG tracer did not have a dim ignition element in the trace so that the start of the trace told the enemy roughly where the gun was, especially at night, thus inviting counter fire.

Regards

TonyE

[chrislock]

Thank you for your excellent replies Tony. It is much appreciated and will give me much ammunition for the future

Chris.

[jhill]

Here are a few wee contemporary references to the use of tracer ammunition.

This snippet from an operation order for the November 1917 Passchendaele operation shows the contents of an advanced Brigade dump. As we can see there are to be 500 rounds of tracer ammunition. The machine gun companies were supplied from these dumps.

The Diary of the Canadian Corps Machine Gun Officers includes instructions for their use. For example:

"2. Tracer and Armour Piercing Bullets.

Would suggest a larger issue of tracer bullets and an issue of

Armour piercing bullets.

It has been stated by pilots of our own Air Service that their

greatest danger from Machine Gun fire is when a mixture of tracer

and Armour piercing bullets is used."

From the small number of such bullets supplied it would seem unlikely they were much used.

Slim pickings, I know, but it is the best I can do.

[Paul Reed]

Nice find James - certainly proves that I haven't imagined finding tracer rounds!

[centurion]

The Canadian instructions suggest that tracer was primarily used for air use. The ammo dump record show incendiary in minute quantities for a battalion when compared to other ammunition. The Germans tended to use tracer for firing signals - I wonder if the same was the case on the Allied side of the line. The point about giving one's position away is well made, one machine gun expert at the time wrote "the muzzle cup is inefficient in design. The gun flash is so bad as to attract attention at night at great distances." This was replaced with a redesign post war. If there was worry about muzzle flash giving positions away what would be the attitude to tracer?

[Chris Henschke]

I don't think there is any dispute about tracer being used in AA work. I have seen similar orders as the ones jhill posted for about September-October 1917. It would be interesting to find any reference before that, to try and establish it's first use in the AA role.

Here is part of a suggestion put forward to use a delay in tracer ammunition for AA use.

1. It discloses definitely the position of the M.G. to a hostile ‘plane and therefore more or less approximately the position of camps, horeselines, etc.

2. The bullet “lighting up” at the muzzle of the gun causes a blinding action to a certain extent to the gunner, who after firing a few rounds has difficulty in again “picking up” his target.

But I have yet to find anything that indicates anything like 4B1T as typical in ground use during the Great War. The fact that there was no delay almost precludes it from use.

Chris Henschke

[Chris Henschke]

This is from a 1st Aust Div Special order in preparation for the attack on Broodseinde. Given the amount of enemy air activity during this time and the small amount, I have always assumed it was for AA use. The order is dated 29 September 1917.

[pugaree]

I don't think there is any dispute about tracer being used in AA work. I have seen similar orders as the ones jhill posted for about September-October 1917. It would be interesting to find any reference before that, to try and establish it's first use in the AA role.

Here is part of a suggestion put forward to use a delay in tracer ammunition.

1. It discloses definitely the position of the M.G. to a hostile 'plane and therefore more or less approximately the position of camps, horeselines, etc.

2. The bullet "lighting up" at the muzzle of the gun causes a blinding action to a certain extent to the gunner, who after firing a few rounds has difficulty in again "picking up" his target.

But I have yet to find anything that indicates anything like the 4B1T as typical in ground use during the Great War. The fact that there was no delay almost precludes it from use.

Chris Henschke

There is a reference in G D Mitchell's 'Backs to the Wall, of tracer being used in Lewis guns in late 1917. His account (working off memory) is that a gunner accidently engaged a target with a magazine full of tracer and that it immediately gave away their position, they were attacking a fixed position and in turn it attracted a lot of return fire, as it would. My impression was that they didn't like the tracer round, although they did have a full magazine loaded with tracer ready to go for some reason. Could it have been used to identify targets for artillery ranging?

I will go through the book tonight and get the exact reference.

[Pete1052]

There's a saying in the U.S. armed forces that tracer works both ways: one can see where one's rounds are going and the enemy can see where they are coming from. Some years back I saw something on the internet to the effect that U.S. tracer rounds used during World War II weren't always ballistically similar to ball, so where the tracer rounds went was not necessarily where the ball rounds also went. If I recall correctly the statement was in reference to ball and tracer ammunition in 5-to-1 ratio belts used on fighter aircraft. Like so much that is on the internet, I don't know how true that statement was or whether it was qualified or nuanced in some way.

As for flash suppressors, I don't believe any of them can attenuate the flash to be seen if one is downrange looking at the muzzle end of the weapon. They may help to mask the flash as seen from the side. One explanation I read is that flash suppressors are for preserving the night vision of soldiers fighting in the dark.

[chrislock]

I can't believe, I started one of the most sensible and fascinating posts that I have read in a long time! I must be slipping! What a super thread this has turned out to be and confirms my suspicions all along. Thanks guys!

Chris.