Dum-dum bullets

[David B]

I have been reading a new book in my 'spare' time called First Blitz, an account of German bombing of London.

In it, it states that pilots were allowed to use soft nose incendiary bullets for use against balloons.

Thats fair enough I suppose but what would a pilot do if he was subsequently attacked by a enemy aircraft?

I am sure he would not say 'hang on a bit whilst I change my ammo belt' it would be a case of boots and

all.

David

[truthergw]

I think the prohibition was against using dum dum or explosive bullets, which are not the same, against people. He would be able to use them against an aeroplane.

[centurion]

I think the prohibition was against using dum dum or explosive bullets, which are not the same, against people. He would be able to use them against an aeroplane.

Firstly explosive bullets and softnose are not the same thing. Almost all armies had discontinued the use of softnose bullets by WW1, I cannot see any advantage of using them against balloons. Incendiary and explosive bullets were used against balloons and airships but technically it was illegal under international agreements to use explosives in calibres less that 37mm. Using them against aircraft was thus illegal and some pilots demurred from carrying them for flights over enemy territory incase they were tried if shot down and captured. AFAIK they were not used in the forward firing Vickers and were restricted to use in Lewisis (for technical reasons). Those airships shot down were for the most part victims of incendaries fired from Lewises.

[David B]

Thanks Centurion. I should have put dum-dum in inverted commas as the book has done. They refer to soft nosed incendiary

which is probably a different kettle of fish. Having said that the book goes on to say that pilots were wary of using this type

of ammo as if you survived a crash your captors would have not been too happy to say the least. It makes sense that the

ammo would have only been used on a Lewis gun and not the forward firing Vickers. Thanks

david

[truthergw]

The question remains then. If an aircraft on its way to attack a balloon or zeppelin and armed with incendiary or explosive bullets was attacked by a defending aircraft, how did he retaliate or defend himself? Would he change drums on the Lewis?

[centurion]

Thanks Centurion. I should have put dum-dum in inverted commas as the book has done. They refer to soft nosed incendiary

which is probably a different kettle of fish. Having said that the book goes on to say that pilots were wary of using this type

of ammo as if you survived a crash your captors would have not been too happy to say the least. It makes sense that the

ammo would have only been used on a Lewis gun and not the forward firing Vickers. Thanks

david

No such thing as a softnosed incendiary. Dum dums are softnosed bullets, incendiaries are something completely diferent. The book is entirely incorrect in this case in using the term dum dum. Dum dums were not fired from aircraft.

[centurion]

The question remains then. If an aircraft on its way to attack a balloon or zeppelin and armed with incendiary or explosive bullets was attacked by a defending aircraft, how did he retaliate or defend himself? Would he change drums on the Lewis?

Question probably doesn't arise in respect of aiships (not all airships were Zeppelins) as usually intercepted over friendly territory and there is no evidence of escorting aircraft being used. Balloons were protected by aircraft but it was equally illegal to be using the incendiary/explosive rounds against the balloon so you would be in no worse trouble using them against aircraft. Technically the offence was being in pocession of the rounds in the first place!

[TonyE]

There was a world of difference between incendiary ammunition and explosive ammunition in WWI.

Initially the only incendiary type ammunition was the Buckingham which used phosphorous and was usually called a smoke tracer. This was because the bullet had a small hole in the side, filled with a fusible metal (solder) which melted as the bullet passed up the barrel, allowing the phosphorous to spin out, ignite on contract with the air and leave a thick white smoke trail. Photo shows Buckingham firing his bullets at Hythe.

These were allowed to be used in France for balloon busting. There was unlikely to be much problem with these as the Germans had an equivalent round, The 7.92mm S.Pr.

The two rounds that were best described as incendiary explosives were the Brock and the Pomeroy. Although different in design, they both essentially were similar with a small charge of nitro glycerine dynamite in the nose that detonated on striking aircraft or balloon fabric. The Brock was mainly used by the RNAS (perhaps because of Brock's service credentials) and the Pomeroy was favoured by the RFC. Both rounds were initially only allowed to be carried by Home Defence squadrons and were not to be used in France. They were always fired from the Lewis due to their liability to premature in the barrel.

Most of the Zeppelins brought down over the UK fell to either Brock or Pomeroy bullets. Picture to follow.

Once the Germans started using similar types of rounds on the Western Front the RFC and RNAS started using these in France.

By the latter part of the war aircraft structures were becoming much tougher and so a more destructive bullet was required. An explosive bullet invented by Sir Richard Threlfall was developed called the RTS (Richard Threlfall & Son) which had a flat copper warhead containing nitro glycerine and a charge of phophorous beneath that. Again these were only allowed to be used by Home Defence squadrons, but on 20th December 1917 a War cabinet decision allowed them to be used by the RFC in France. However, there is no evicednce that any actually were sent. A Mark II version was developed and at the end of the war a further type, The RTT was under development.

That is a very brief summary of the types in use, but it will surfice to show that the use of the term Dum Dum for the special purpose bullets used by the Air Service is nonsense.

Regards

TonyE

[TonyE]

Here are the various special purpose types.

Left to right are:

Brock, Pomeroy PSA Mark I, Experimental explosive, similar to the RTT, Buckingham Mark III, MG Blank Mark I.

TonyE

[truthergw]

Thanks Tony. I take it these are all .303?

[TonyE]

Sorry should have said that! Yes, they are all .303 inch.

All of these types were also tried in .45 inch, mainly in Maxims chambered for the Gardner Gatling round, but they did not enjoy much use or success.

Regards

TonyE

[per ardua per mare per terram]

what would a pilot do if he was subsequently attacked by a enemy aircraft?

As discussed the possibility was remote: few attacking aircraft had the endurence to fly with airships. In the unlikely sceanario I suppose it would depend how much time was available to change the drum.

[David B]

The book describes use of soft nosed 'dum-dum' type bullets. I think that the author was confusing the use of the word

with soft nose incendiary bullets as described in our resident authority Tony. Many thanks for converting the confusion into

reality.

However notwithstanding the book appears to be a good read and I will give a review summary in the books section when finished

Cheers David

[centurion]

The book describes use of soft nosed 'dum-dum' type bullets. I think that the author was confusing the use of the word

with soft nose incendiary bullets as described in our resident authority Tony. Many thanks for converting the confusion into

reality.

However notwithstanding the book appears to be a good read and I will give a review summary in the books section when finished

Cheers David

I don't think Tony described any of these as soft nosed. There was no such thing as a soft nosed incendiary or explosive bullet just incendiary and explosive bullets

[Dolphin]

rgartillery said:

However notwithstanding the book appears to be a good read and I will give a review summary in the books section when finished

David

You might be interested in:

Cheers

Gareth

[centurion]

Dolphin said:

David

You might be interested in:

Cheers

Gareth

In your review you say "The last chapters are most interesting, as they describe the German plan to raze London and Paris by use of massive numbers of incendiary bombs, a campaign cancelled at literally the last moment by Ludendorff himself" I think the decision was actually taken by the Kaiser himself.

[Adrian Roberts]

We still haven't completely answered the original question, at least in respect of attacks on Observation balloons on the Western Front. I have wondered about this myself.

Later in the war, these attacks were often carried out by Camels, Dophins, Spads, etc, using ammuntion usually described as Buckingham incendiary. These a/c did not normally carry Lewis guns, although they could. So did they in fact always carry a Lewis in addition to their standard Vickers for these missions? Most first hand accounts don't mention this; perhaps it was taken for granted? Or was it simply a matter of scarpering without a fight if attacked by enemy a/c? Or using whatever ammo they had and hoping to get away with it?

Are there any definite accounts of pilots being executed after capture for this offence (there are certainly rumours)?

technically it was illegal under international agreements to use explosives in calibres less that 37mm.

When did this change? By WW2 20mm cannon were commonplace.

[alowe56]

The question remains then. If an aircraft on its way to attack a balloon or zeppelin and armed with incendiary or explosive bullets was attacked by a defending aircraft, how did he retaliate or defend himself? Would he change drums on the Lewis?

I recall reading somewhere (although at the moment, "where" eludes me.) that if an RFC pilot was taking off for balloon busting with Buckingham ammo, his Squadron CO gave him some sort of card attesting to the fact that this was his mission. And that for defensive purposes, it was supposedly legal for him to use this same ammo if he was attacked by enemy aircraft.

And I've never read of anyone being tried by an enemy tribunal/court for using this ammo. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just I've never come across any story of it happening.

[SiegeGunner]

Do any of our Pals who specialise in the German air force have reports/anecdotal evidence from German pilots who believed they had seen or been on the receiving end of an Allied aircraft using 'illegal' ammunition?

[TonyE]

We still haven't completely answered the original question, at least in respect of attacks on Observation balloons on the Western Front. I have wondered about this myself.

Later in the war, these attacks were often carried out by Camels, Dophins, Spads, etc, using ammuntion usually described as Buckingham incendiary. These a/c did not normally carry Lewis guns, although they could. So did they in fact always carry a Lewis in addition to their standard Vickers for these missions? Most first hand accounts don't mention this; perhaps it was taken for granted? Or was it simply a matter of scarpering without a fight if attacked by enemy a/c? Or using whatever ammo they had and hoping to get away with it?

Are there any definite accounts of pilots being executed after capture for this offence (there are certainly rumours)?

When did this change? By WW2 20mm cannon were commonplace.

As far as I know this still applies in the present treaties and conventions. However, the important criteria is that this applies to anti-personnel weapons. The argument for aircraft armament was that the explosive bullets/shells are for destroying the aircraft not the crew. A very fine line of course.

Adding to your point about 20mm cannon, it was the Germans at the end of the war that introduced the first 20mm cannon for aircraft.

This was the Becker which in the fullness of time and with considerable modification became the Oerlikon of WW2.

Regards

TonyE

[truthergw]

As discussed the possibility was remote: few attacking aircraft had the endurence to fly with airships. In the unlikely sceanario I suppose it would depend how much time was available to change the drum.

I was thinking more along the lines of attacking observation balloons, which I believe were defended.Were these .303 rounds ' illegal' then, by virtue of being under 37 mm?

[per ardua per mare per terram]

I take you point Tom, although; I didn't refer to your post and was discussing airship busting.

[centurion]

Perhaps a nod should be given in the direction of Vickers who, before Becker, produced a 25 mm aircraft cannon, belt fed 150 rpm. This was not adopted as it was deemed to heavy ( I believe it was about the same size and possibly weight as the much much later 25mm ADEN). I don't know if an explosive round was designed for it.

Incidently the original treaty banning explosive (and distorted) rounds was signed at St Petersberg in 1869. The ban was actually based on weight (450 gram or 15.9 oz) rather than calibre but this effectively translated into 37mm.

[Pete1052]

During 1861 and 1862 in the American Civil War rumors that the Confederates were using explosive bullets were widely believed to be true. Postwar writers have speculated that before the war few men had seen the types of gunshot wounds caused by rifles and therefore attributed them to nefarious types of ammunition. A few British officers in the 1850s had indeed been experimenting with explosive rounds in India for blowing up artillery caissons but they are not known to have been manufactured in significant quantities. Possibly a few of the explosive kind were included in the shipments of British ball ammunition imported into the Confederacy. The wartime rumor about explosive bullets probably was based on a small kernel of fact that was much exaggerated in the retelling of the story.

Although not germane to this thread, the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 quoted below raises the question of how small-caliber tracer ammunition was later accepted as being legally acceptable.

Declaration of St. Petersburg, November 29 1868

On the proposition of the Imperial Cabinet of Russia, an International Military Commission having assembled at St. Petersburg in order to examine into the expediency of forbidding the use of certain in times of war between civilized nations, and that Commission, having by common agreement fixed the technical limits at which the necessities of war ought to yield to the requirements of humanity, the undersigned are authorized by the orders of their Governments to declare as follows:

Considering that the progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war:

That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forges of the enemy;

That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;

That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;

That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;

The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.

They will invite all the States which have not taken part in the deliberations of the International Military Commission assembled at St. Petersburg, by sending Delegates thereto, to accede to the present engagement.

This engagement is obligatory only upon the Contracting or Acceding Parties thereto, in case of war between two or more of themselves; it is not applicable with regard to Non-Contracting Parties, or Parties who shall not have acceded to it.

It will also cease to be obligatory from the moment when, in a war between Contracting or Acceding Parties, a Non-Contracting Party or a Non-Acceding Party shall join one of the belligerents.

The Contracting or Acceding Parties reserve to themselves to come hereafter to an understanding whenever a precise proposition shall be drawn up in view of future improvements which science may effect in the armament of troops, in order to maintain the principles which they have established, and to conciliate the necessities of war with the laws of humanity.

Source: Conventions and Declarations Between the Powers Concerning War, Arbitration and Neutrality, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1915.

[centurion]

During 1861 and 1862 in the American Civil War rumors that the Confederates were using explosive bullets were widely believed to be true. Postwar writers have speculated that before the war few men had seen the types of gunshot wounds caused by rifles and therefore attributed them to nefarious types of ammunition. Some British officers in the 1850s had indeed been experimenting with explosive rounds in India for blowing up artillery caissons but they are not known to have been manufactured in significant quantities. Possibly a few of the explosive type were included in the shipments of British ball ammunition imported into the Confederacy. The wartime rumor about explosive bullets probably was based on a small kernel of fact that was much exaggerated in the retelling of the story.

Although not germane to this thread, the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 quoted below raises the question of how small-caliber tracer ammunition was later accepted as being legally acceptable.

Declaration of St. Petersburg, November 29 1868

On the proposition of the Imperial Cabinet of Russia, an International Military Commission having assembled at St. Petersburg in order to examine into the expediency of forbidding the use of certain in times of war between civilized nations, and that Commission, having by common agreement fixed the technical limits at which the necessities of war ought to yield to the requirements of humanity, the undersigned are authorized by the orders of their Governments to declare as follows:

Considering that the progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war:

That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forges of the enemy;

That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;

That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;

That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;

The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.

They will invite all the States which have not taken part in the deliberations of the International Military Commission assembled at St. Petersburg, by sending Delegates thereto, to accede to the present engagement.

This engagement is obligatory only upon the Contracting or Acceding Parties thereto, in case of war between two or more of themselves; it is not applicable with regard to Non-Contracting Parties, or Parties who shall not have acceded to it.

It will also cease to be obligatory from the moment when, in a war between Contracting or Acceding Parties, a Non-Contracting Party or a Non-Acceding Party shall join one of the belligerents.

The Contracting or Acceding Parties reserve to themselves to come hereafter to an understanding whenever a precise proposition shall be drawn up in view of future improvements which science may effect in the armament of troops, in order to maintain the principles which they have established, and to conciliate the necessities of war with the laws of humanity.

Source: Conventions and Declarations Between the Powers Concerning War, Arbitration and Neutrality, The Hague : Martinus Nijhoff, 1915.

The declaration was followed up with a treaty (which made it legally enforcible) as I stated. It would be interesting to see the wording of this.

I have seen suggestions to the effect that wounds attributed to explosive rounds in the ACW may have been due to expanding rather than exploding bullets (ie a form of dum dum). This would have been easily achieved by putting a nick in the nose of the Miné round. Both Americans and British were accusing each other of similar tactics during the AWI