Worst weapons nominations are...

[Seany]

Not quite WW1 era but I recall reading somewhere that in the 1950's the US postal service worked up designs to send post around the country via ballistic missile - a somewhat larger version of the message shell and, of course, unpractical for soooo many reasons.

Still nothing to beat the "Message Shell"!

Norman

[DrB]

As mentioned, the US M1910 Long pack. That old gent was still around in WWII, twenty-five years later. My father was in the Kansas State Guard, kinda of a "Scrape the bottom of the barrel" outfit. He was obliged to attend meetings and was issued with a bar of inedible chocolate and an M 1910 long pack. I still have it in my collection of web gear. It certainly had the storage capacity, but was, as mentioned, rather difficult to wear in a practical manner. (Actually, it was a real pig!)

Doc B

[Tom W.]

The British Livens Semi-Portable Flame Projector. It was carried into action by two sappers who used poles to support it like a sedan chair. It was almost impossible to transport through the average trench, since it weighed 150 lb and the carrying poles were about seven feet long. When the flamethrower squad got to their destination, they used the carrying poles to brace the flamethrower from behind, as it would do a back flip when the oil-release valve was opened.

The curved rigid lance and nozzle were attached to the flamethrower--which was the size of a milk churn--by a Morris coupling that often came apart, spraying the squad with flaming oil.

The Austrians had a flamethrower of similar size and design, the 50-liter M.15 Flammenwerfer. Instead of carrying it on poles, the flamethrower squad carried it horizontally on a cross beam braced on their shoulders. Like the Livens flamethrower squads, they were sent into action with no infantry support and were sitting ducks as they struggled through the mud and snow with their burdens. Igniting the oil jet often caused 50-liter M.15 Flammenwerfer to explode, as the flame would race up the hose back into the tank. It was recommended that the flamethrower be buried in the trench floor or placed in an explosion-proof vault when used. The squads were issued asbestos helmets and overcoats which protected them from burns at the cost of mesothelioma later in life.

[Seadog]

Whilst I am convinced that I have the winner in the German Message Shell, here is another nomination in case of a disputed result.

The mechanised tunnel-boring machine which I understand is still lodged firmly underground somewhere on the Western Front, perhaps other members can fill in the details.

Regards

Norman

[centurion]

Whilst I am convinced that I have the winner in the German Message Shell, here is another nomination in case of a disputed result.

The mechanised tunnel-boring machine which I understand is still lodged firmly underground somewhere on the Western Front, perhaps other members can fill in the details.

The machine in question was one of the Stanley heading machines. These had a tendency to hunt or dive. This was because they were designed for harder coal bearing rock and the softer clay was a problem. Once in place there was no way of withdrawing them for adjustment or maintenance. When used in different ground less problem was had, as was the case with the hydraulic Wombat heading machines also used by miners. A case of the right equipment in the wrong place. As the one in question had been in part successful and had penetrated some way before hitting softer clay the only way to get it out was to dismantle it in place and carry all the parts back. This could have caused a roof fall in any case. It was simpler to just abandon it.

[centurion]

HMS Furious's 18 inch guns

The light battle cruisers HMS Furious and Glorious were of relatively shallow draught and Fisher had intended them for operations against the German coast in the Baltic (culminating an amphibious landing intended to strike inland to Berlin). These operations never materialised and Furious was rebuilt as the first true aircraft carrier.

Glorious saw little service and was assigned to the reserve fleet “because of design problems” (she too became an aircraft carrier in the 1920s). The design problems were in fact a reference to the fact that the 18 inch weapon was too much gun for a light battle cruiser. Every time that Glorious fired one of its big guns damage control parties had to go through the ship dealing with broken pipes (steam, water and oil), smashed gauges, sprung rivets, loose nuts, jammed water tight doors and loosened fittings on bulkheads and ceilings. Everything was covered in a layer of powdered cork and asbestos as insulation was shaken loose from decks and ceilings. There was fear of structural damage being sustained if too many firings were undertaken.

[centurion]

The SPAD A series and even more so the BE 9.

The French company SPAD (Société Pour Aviation et ses Derives) was the successor to the Société Provisoire des Aeroplanes Deperdussin after the owner of the latter was convicted of massive fraud. It produced some of France’s most famous fighters of the First World War but before it created the hawks it first produced a real turkey. The SPAD A series (SA1, SA2, SA3 and SA4) introduced in 1915 were tractor biplanes powered by a rotary engine mounted slightly behind the wing leading edges (part of which were cut away to allow the propeller to rotate). Struts projected forwards from the undercarriage and the top wing to support a gun pulpit in front of the propeller. In the SA1 and SA2 a gunner occupied the pulpit and manned a Lewis gun on a rather complex mounting. The pulpit could create a problem for the air cooled rotary and scoops were fitted in its side to divert air back to the engine. The connection to the top wing could be disengaged and the pulpit swung down from the undercarriage to permit access to the engine for maintenance.

With the engine and propeller between the pilot and the gunner there was no way at all that they could communicate. Any form of crash landing was almost certain death for the gunner, if the engine was still running on impact he would be chopped and diced by the propeller, if it was off he would be merely crushed. If enemy fire hit the connection to the top wing the pulpit fell forward and the aircraft became uncontrollable and crashed killing both pilot and gunner.

The SPAD SA1 and SA2 were mainly distinguished from each other by the engine horsepower (the SA1 had 100 hp and the SA2 110 hp). About 100 were built and issued to French escadrilles where they immediately became extremely unpopular for the reasons described above. Their performance was in any case barely adequate and the Nieuport fighters fitted with an over wing gun were proving adequate to deal with the German Fokker Monoplanes. The French government applied what was a fairly consistent policy, for dealing with French warplanes that the French forces did not want, to the SPAD SA pulpit fighters and sold them to one of their allies, in this case the Russians. The Russian aircraft industry was incapable of supplying the needs of the Imperial Flying Corps for fighters and the Tsar’s government would accept almost anything with an engine, wings and a gun. The pilots and observers who had to fly them may have been less sanguine and the aircraft seem to have been no more popular than they had been with the French escadrilles. Nevertheless the Russian aircrew seem to have been more stoic and tried to make some use of the SPADs; a number were fitted with skis for operation from snow and ice.

The SPAD A4 was a version produced specifically for the Russians and incorporated some improvements to improve the flow of air over the engine; only 10 of these were built. However there is only one instance on record of a Russian SPAD SA shooting down an enemy aircraft. As soon as Russian licence production of Nieuport fighters reached a viable level the SPADs were retired.

The SPAD SA3 variant replaced the pilot’s position with another gunner’s position and provided duplicated controls in both gunners’ cockpits so that either could fly the plane when the other was using his gun. One has to assume that they agreed before take off who would actually act as pilot in the case of being attacked from the front and rear at the same time! Only one was built.

In 1915 the Royal Aircraft Factory in Britain built the BE 9. This was almost certainly inspired by the SPAD SA series and was basically a BE 2c two seater with the observer’s position deleted and the engine moved backwards to bring the propeller almost in line with the leading edge of the top wing. Struts from the undercarriage and the top wing supported a pulpit in front of the propeller; these were less elegant than those fitted to the SPAD SAs but appeared to be more robust. The gunner’s pulpit was shaped very much like a hipbath, the rising back presumably protecting him from the propeller. The risks to the gunner were exactly the same as those afflicting the SPAD SA gunners. A number of leading RFC officers voiced their discomfort at the concept but despite this the prototype BE 9 was sent to the front for evaluation. A number of flights were made over the lines and attempts made to engage German observation aircraft. Unfortunately the BE 2c had never been the most sprightly of aircraft even in its usual configuration and in the form of the BE 9 it was handicapped by the extra drag of the pulpit, as a consequence the German two seaters that it was attempting to attack were much faster and easily able to stay out of range. The pilot’s forward view on the BE 2c had never been good; on the BE 9 it must have been nearly non-existent. Had a Fokker Monoplane attacked the aircraft the result would have been without doubt the shooting down of the slow and unresponsive BE 9.

From Weapons of Self Destruction. R Robinson

[centurion]

Then again the DeBruyere C1

April 1917 saw the debut of the amazing French DeBruyere C1 a single seat canard style mid-engined aircraft. The propeller was mounted behind the tail and driven by an extension shaft. Armament consisted of a 37 mm Cannon in the nose.The fuselage was an aluminium shell. The pilot would have had almost unparalleled visibility but it seems likely that the engine would have had cooling problems. This was however an academic issue as when taking off on its first test flight the aircraft of its own volition assumed an upside down flying position before crashing at the side of the runway, the pilot being fortunate to survive. Further development was cancelled.

[NigelS]

Although they didn't see action they were built during the GW, so how about the M class submarines which were built during the GW? mounting a 12" gun on a submarine hull might have looked clever at the time, but seems absurd & impractical when considered - with, of course, the advantage of hindsight - today.

NigelS

[MikB]

HMS Furious's 18 inch guns

The design problems were in fact a reference to the fact that the 18 inch weapon was too much gun for a light battle cruiser. Every time that Glorious fired one of its big guns damage control parties had to go through the ship dealing with broken pipes (steam, water and oil), smashed gauges, sprung rivets, loose nuts, jammed water tight doors and loosened fittings on bulkheads and ceilings. Everything was covered in a layer of powdered cork and asbestos as insulation was shaken loose from decks and ceilings. There was fear of structural damage being sustained if too many firings were undertaken.

...And to have only 2 of them, as on the original design, reduced the probability of hits against ships at sea or any other comparably-sized target to - should we say: 'inconsiderable' ? Then to be left with only one... well, yes it certainly ticks most of the boxes for a weapons system both breathtakingly expensive and entirely ineffective .

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

Although they didn't see action they were built during the GW, so how about the M class submarines which were built during the GW? mounting a 12" gun on a submarine hull might have looked clever at the time, but seems absurd & impractical when considered - with, of course, the advantage of hindsight - today.

NigelS

Actually the steam powered K class subs (on which hulls the M class were based , might have had an even better claim. The only vessels sunk by K class were other K class subs.

The French steam subs might also be contenders

There was an, avoidable, problem that affected both the Narval and subsequent French steam powered submarines. Steam power, especially when used in a submersible environment, required the use of many valves; few of these were automatic and so were controlled by levers. There was no standard for the way in which valve handles should be moved to open and close valves. With some the valve was closed if the lever had been pulled down, with others closure was made by pushing it up, yet others opened if the handle was moved away from a centralised position either up or down and still more used exactly the reverse and closed. There was no way of telling merely by looking at a valve’s lever if it were open or closed and in which direction to move the lever to obtain the opposite situation. It must have been extremely confusing and conducive to poor handling at best and dangerous accidents at worst.

The safety of oil burning steam submarines was inevitably compromised by the need for one or more funnels that passed through the pressure hull. In the winter of 1914 the French steam powered submarine Archimedes encountered very rough weather in the North Sea, off the German coast. A wave badly damaged the funnel so that this could not be retracted and the appropriate hatch sealed, this meant that vessel could not submerge to avoid the bad weather. The hole in the hull allowed water to wash in from the heavy seas whilst the damage to the funnel meant that the draft to the furnaces was greatly reduced thus limiting the engine power (including that necessary for pumping). The Archimedes and her crew only survived through the efforts of a continuous bucket chain organised by the RN liason officer on board that bailed for more than a day.

In mitigation it should be said that the Archimedes later achieved two sinking of Austro Hungarian transports in the Adriatic.

[geraint]

Damnation! Beaten by Grumpy! I'm 120% behind him with his nomination of the De Walden Cledd! Very, chick, suave and worthy of the New Tate's design award; but the 9th RWF joe soaps felt themselves to be most camp in wearing and carrying the things. They were the laughing stock to all their fellow squaddies. Ideal for a medieval battle, but hardly suitable for 20th century warfare. They were even causing unecessary casualties, as opposing German forces deliberately targeted the poor sods for the souvenir value that the cledd elicited. They were the most sought after trophy possible. It's sickening for us RWF aficionados that there are more Cledds in Germany today than in Wales!

It's the Cledd for certain, and I claim a % of Grumpy's deserved win.

[Seadog]

The British Livens Semi-Portable Flame Projector. It was carried into action by two sappers who used poles to support it like a sedan chair. It was almost impossible to transport through the average trench, since it weighed 150 lb and the carrying poles were about seven feet long. When the flamethrower squad got to their destination, they used the carrying poles to brace the flamethrower from behind, as it would do a back flip when the oil-release valve was opened.

The curved rigid lance and nozzle were attached to the flamethrower--which was the size of a milk churn--by a Morris coupling that often came apart, spraying the squad with flaming oil.

In my opinion the Livens flamethrower is an excellent contender for the title of "Worse Weapon Ever Invented" I do however put it in second place right now as it was not designed to cause harm to the users whereas the German Message Shell would have no effect on the enemy and was specifically intended to be fired at their own troops.

I look forward ro receiving the cheque shortly (made out to cash).

Best Wishes

Norman

[centurion]

Damnation! Beaten by Grumpy! I'm 120% behind him with his nomination of the De Walden Cledd! Very, chick, suave and worthy of the New Tate's design award; but the 9th RWF joe soaps felt themselves to be most camp in wearing and carrying the things. They were the laughing stock to all their fellow squaddies. Ideal for a medieval battle, but hardly suitable for 20th century warfare. They were even causing unecessary casualties, as opposing German forces deliberately targeted the poor sods for the souvenir value that the cledd elicited. They were the most sought after trophy possible. It's sickening for us RWF aficionados that there are more Cledds in Germany today than in Wales!

It's the Cledd for certain, and I claim a % of Grumpy's deserved win.

But what the ***** are you talking about? Grumpy's original post has the begining missing and nobody has posted anything that explains what he's talking about. Please do tell.

[geraint]

Ahh! The de Walden cledd or Welsh sword was based on a genuine Welsh medieval sword, and the CO of the 9th, de Walden, had ornate copies made and issued as regular kit to the men. I can't do the clickity click thingy, but if you search the forum - there are a couple of threads. Perhaps, Centurion, pretty please, you could do me the honour of posting a photo here?

(New Year's Resolution) Must sign on a Very Advanced IT GNVQ course to do the clickity click thing)

Geraint

[NigelS]

Don't know if this was generally the case, but the LRB doesn't seemed to have rated the Lewis gun carts issued to it very highly, particularly after a 14 mile trek with them to "Happy Valley" in August 1916:

The Lewis gun teams in the charge of 2nd Lieut. Poland had a particularly hard task in dragging some unserviceable two-wheeled carts, better suited for perambulators than their intended purpose, across country through soft and wet fields. A good many of the carts did not survive this, and the remainder were soon scrapped, to everyone's relief.

(From The History of the London Rifle Brigade 1859-1919)

NigelS

[centurion]

The Vickers Crawford rocket gun looked like a conventional breach loading gun, albeit with a very large recoil spring under the barrel, but it was in fact a rocket launcher. A rocket firing gun with a closed breach gives no advantage in terms of reduced recoil unless the rocket motor continues to fire after it has left the barrel (in which case the exhaust incinerates the gunner) but it can have a significant impact on the weight of the mechanism. The breach and barrel do not experience the same pressure as on a conventional gun and can be made much lighter (it was for this reason that the Germans produced a similarly based anti tank weapon towards the end of the Second World War). Unfortunately it shared a fault with the much later M81 tank gun as the solid rocket fuel used in the Vickers Crawford fragmented easily and often left pieces of smouldering fuel in the breach after firing, this would re-ignite when the breach was opened to load another round. This sprayed hot gas and burning fragments into the cockpit and created the danger that rounds waiting to be fired could be ignited prematurely. Crews involved in the development trials of this weapon could be easily distinguished by pained expressions and a complete lack of facial hair.

[centurion]

Ahh! The de Walden cledd or Welsh sword was based on a genuine Welsh medieval sword, and the CO of the 9th, de Walden, had ornate copies made and issued as regular kit to the men. I can't do the clickity click thingy, but if you search the forum - there are a couple of threads. Perhaps, Centurion, pretty please, you could do me the honour of posting a photo here?

(New Year's Resolution) Must sign on a Very Advanced IT GNVQ course to do the clickity click thing)

Geraint

Ah ha - know what you mean now. Thanks

[centurion]

...And to have only 2 of them, as on the original design, reduced the probability of hits against ships at sea or any other comparably-sized target to - should we say: 'inconsiderable' ? Then to be left with only one... well, yes it certainly ticks most of the boxes for a weapons system both breathtakingly expensive and entirely ineffective .

Regards,

MikB

And in addition causes damage to its own ship

[TonyE]

The Vickers Crawford rocket gun looked like a conventional breach loading gun, albeit with a very large recoil spring under the barrel, but it was in fact a rocket launcher. A rocket firing gun with a closed breach gives no advantage in terms of reduced recoil unless the rocket motor continues to fire after it has left the barrel (in which case the exhaust incinerates the gunner) but it can have a significant impact on the weight of the mechanism. The breach and barrel do not experience the same pressure as on a conventional gun and can be made much lighter (it was for this reason that the Germans produced a similarly based anti tank weapon towards the end of the Second World War). Unfortunately it shared a fault with the much later M81 tank gun as the solid rocket fuel used in the Vickers Crawford fragmented easily and often left pieces of smouldering fuel in the breach after firing, this would re-ignite when the breach was opened to load another round. This sprayed hot gas and burning fragments into the cockpit and created the danger that rounds waiting to be fired could be ignited prematurely. Crews involved in the development trials of this weapon could be easily distinguished by pained expressions and a complete lack of facial hair.

Since this is the season of pantomimes.....

OH NO IT WASN'T!

Sorry, but that is a load of old poppycock (and possibly mud and blood as well!)

The 1.59 inch Vickers Crayford (not Crawford) gun was a conventional single shot Q.F. gun firing a conventional fixed round of ammunition.

The name "Rocket gun" goes back to WWI and may have had two origins. It may have been simply a cover name, or it may have derived from the incendiary round the Crayford fired. Since it was designed as an airborne anti-balloon weapon, the incendiary shell was apparently a wonder to behold. The shell ignited on firing and left a trail of flames and smoke emerging from the holes in the shell body. It could also fire normal AP and HE shell. Note the compensator near the muzzle which deflected gas back to reduce the recoil.

Surviving records at the PRO/NA suggest there were about 150 in service, although I doubt if many of those actually saw use on aircraft.

Picture of gun and ammunition below. Sorry the ammo photo is so small.

The picture of the gun was taken either at RSAF Enfield or Vicker's Crayford factory in 1917. The tripod shown is not correct for the gun, but simply used to mount it for the picture.

Regards

TonyE

[SiegeGunner]

HMS Furious's 18 inch guns

The light battle cruisers HMS Furious and Glorious were of relatively shallow draught and Fisher had intended them for operations against the German coast in the Baltic (culminating an amphibious landing intended to strike inland to Berlin). These operations never materialised and Furious was rebuilt as the first true aircraft carrier.

Glorious saw little service and was assigned to the reserve fleet “because of design problems” (she too became an aircraft carrier in the 1920s). The design problems were in fact a reference to the fact that the 18 inch weapon was too much gun for a light battle cruiser. Every time that Glorious fired one of its big guns damage control parties had to go through the ship dealing with broken pipes (steam, water and oil), smashed gauges, sprung rivets, loose nuts, jammed water tight doors and loosened fittings on bulkheads and ceilings. Everything was covered in a layer of powdered cork and asbestos as insulation was shaken loose from decks and ceilings. There was fear of structural damage being sustained if too many firings were undertaken.

Two of the three 18" guns were adopted by that inveterate collector of heavy naval guns, Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon, commanding the Dover Patrol, whose first idea was to mount them inside the Palace Hotel at Westende to shell the German naval installations at Bruges and Zeebrugge. When the Passchendaele campaign failed to achieve its objectives, which included the capture of Westende, Bacon instead had the 12" monitors Lord Clive and General Wolfe adapted to accept the 18" turrets, and his successor Roger Keyes used them in the closing months of the war to bombard targets in the Belgian coastal sector from a distance beyond the range of the longest-ranging German coastal batteries.

The guns were not turkeys and, if they had not been prematurely scrapped in the mid-1930s and had been mounted at Dover in place of the smaller guns designated Winnie and Pooh, they might, inter alia, have made a lasting impression on Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and their accompanying flotillas.

[centurion]

Since this is the season of pantomimes.....

OH NO IT WASN'T!

Sorry, but that is a load of old poppycock (and possibly mud and blood as well!)

The 1.59 inch Vickers Crayford (not Crawford) gun was a conventional single shot Q.F. gun firing a conventional fixed round of ammunition.

The name "Rocket gun" goes back to WWI and may have had two origins. It may have been simply a cover name, or it may have derived from the incendiary round the Crayford fired. Since it was designed as an airborne anti-balloon weapon, the incendiary shell was apparently a wonder to behold. The shell ignited on firing and left a trail of flames and smoke emerging from the holes in the shell body. It could also fire normal AP and HE shell. Note the compensator near the muzzle which deflected gas back to reduce the recoil.

Surviving records at the PRO/NA suggest there were about 150 in service, although I doubt if many of those actually saw use on aircraft.

Picture of gun and ammunition below. Sorry the ammo photo is so small.

The picture of the gun was taken either at RSAF Enfield or Vicker's Crayford factory in 1917. The tripod shown is not correct for the gun, but simply used to mount it for the picture.

Regards

TonyE

Rubbish I'm afraid

It did not fire a conventional incendiary round, but one in which the propellant was ballistite ¹ which is a ROCKET FUEL see definition below

"Ballistite is a double-base powder used as a rocket propellant. It is composed of two explosive substances, nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin, blended together with diphenylamine, which acts as a stabilizer. It burns with a considerable amount of flash and smoke, and generates a great volume of gas. Ballistite burns progressively, but at a rate dependent upon the composition and physical characteristics of the powder grain, the temperature of the powder grain before ignition, and the pressure during reaction. It is produced in various shapes to fit the rocket motor housing.

Basically, solid propellant charges, such as Ballistite, may be grouped under one of two types- restricted-burning and unrestricted burning.

A restricted-burning charge has some of its exposed surfaces covered with an inhibitor to control burning. By this procedure, burning can be restricted to take place only on the desired surface or surfaces. Controlling the burning area in this manner lengthens burning duration and determines the combustion chamber pressure for a given charge. A burning cigarette is a good example of restricted-burning, if you consider the paper-covered portion as representing the inhibited area.

Unrestricted-burning charges are permitted to burn on all surfaces simultaneously. Relatively speaking, the unrestricted type of grain delivers a large amount of thrust for a short period of time, and the restricted type of grain yields a smaller amount of thrust for a longer period of time."

The gun was not initially designed as a balloon buster but as an infantry gun² and only when the army turned it down was airborne use considered.

The use of a rocket fuel propelled round in a closed breech "gun" is, as I said, a technique aimed at reducing the pressure in the chamber and therefore allowing a lighter gun. It was subsequently taken up by the Germans in WW2 with high low pressure gun systems and used in the Pupchen anti tank gun. It was further developed by the Americans for the M81 tank gun and used in Vietnam. It has the disadvantages that I mentioned of emiting still burning rocket fuel when the breech is opened for reloading, photos of the gun mounted in aircraft (some 6 were so fitted) show that the gunner had a special face shield, a problem never resolved with ballistite propelled munitions (and indeed internal tank turret fires were caused in Vietnam) and has never been regarded as successful - it has been an attraction for designers as it allows much lighter (and cheaper) material to be used in the construction of the "gun" which as Harry Woodman says is really a rocket projector³

¹ British Aircraft Armament vol2

² British Aircraft Armament vol2

³ Early Aircraft Armament

Edit It was the Ballistite that produced the sparks. Not all rounds were incendiary.

[TonyE]

We will obviously have to agree to differ on this.

However, may I make a few points. Ballistite CAN be used as a rocket fuel, but not exclusively so. It is frequently used for other purposes in small arms ammunition, notably in grenade discharging cartridges. However, I question the use of ballistite as the propellant anyway, but I will check that. Have you ever actually seen or handled a 1.59 inch round? I have frequently and will take some close up pictures of the round in the near future to show its conventional nature. I do not own an example myself (too big for my collection) but a friend has several examples.

I quite agree that the gun was initially rejected by the army, but the incendiary round was designed specifically for airborne balloon busting.

What the Germans or Americans subsequently did with rocket guns may be interesting, but irrelevent to this discussion. With regard to your references, I believe that it is unfortunately a case of an error being repeated, as often happens. Harry Woodman is without doubt an aviation authority, but his book on aircraft armament is essentially one about construction and mounting details rather than one about the guns per se. When I spoke with him about some of the statements in his book he agreed that he was no weapons expert and had used external references.

The 1.59 inch round (Metric 40 x 79R) was actually a shortened version of the common 40 x 158R naval AA round, the 2 Pdr., and I think you will agree that was not a rocket round. The initial order was for 25 guns and 3,000 rounds of incendiary ammunition and 2,000 rounds of case shot. I would be interested to know how a rocket propelled case (shotgun) cartridge works!

The order was increased to 100 guns and 250,000 rounds of ammunition in Novemeber 1916 for Home Defence and the higher velocity AP shell added to the order in February 1917. The guns were tested on night operations on F.E.2Bs of 100 and 102 Squadron and had a mixed reception, with complaints of poor ignition and hang-fires.

If I can offer a counter reference, may I suggest "Flying Guns, World War I", by Tony Williams and Emmanuel Gustin.

Regards

TonyE

[geraint]

Centurion

[Seadog]

TonyE