Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Worst weapons nominations are...


PFF

Recommended Posts

So now that the photo's there .. the de Walden takes the biscuit ehh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I already have it of course - doesn't say any thing one way or another but I have found enough errors on other matters to treat it as a useful guide rather than an authority.

British Aircraft Armament states that "Relatively low velocity projectiles using ballistite as a propellant." The original infantry round was HE. Case would work as an anti airship weapon to rip open the gasbags even at the relatiely low velocities (not that low if you got in front ) just as the old Congreve rockets could and did have case versions. Vickers designed the inceniary round for airships, I can find no evidence it was ever seen as a balloon buster. I think you misunderstand how a sealed breech rocket projector works - which is why it is worth looking at later German and American use of the technique. The rocket fuel does not explode like a conventional gun charge but neither does it continue burning once the projectile leaves the barrel - the main burn is completed within the barrel. Part of the charge is propelled, burning, up the barrel with the war head and is burnt out by the time it exits apart from a trail of sparks. The job of the cartridge case is to contain the charge before ignition. Later developments dispensed with a case altogether just having a solid charge attached to the baseplug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I already have it of course - doesn't say any thing one way or another..."

Quote page 85: "This became popularly known as the Rocket Gun, after an earlier misunderstanding as to the nature of the weapom; in fact it was a conventional gun firing a 40 x 79R cartridge (a shortened version of the 40 x 158R naval AA round."

I do understand the nature of a sealed breech rocket. As you like to quote WW2 German examples I point to the 9mm pistol developments in this area, which were studied by the British, Americans and Spanish post war. However, I thank you for your explanation of how it works for the benefit of those not familiar with it.

A rocket shell, partially burning the charge as it travels the length of the barrel, obviously needs an orifice or nozzle at the base of the shell. Is there any evidence of this?

I think we will have to leave this in abeyance until I can get to photograph the examples I previously mentioned.

Regards

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cloth armor?

The "fish-scale" armor consisting of dozens of small plates wired together was even worse, as the squares of metal would be driven into the body when hit by bullets.

Instead of being drilled by a small projectile that might simply pass through you, now you had a 1.5" X 1.5" square of steel smash into you with the force of a bullet.

The cloth camouflage covers for the French Adrian helmet were also a terrible invention, as they soon became filthy in the trenches. Since the helmets were made of mild steel, shrapnel and bullet fragments would now carry dirty pieces of cloth into head wounds, causing horrible infections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rocket shell, partially burning the charge as it travels the length of the barrel, obviously needs an orifice or nozzle at the base of the shell. Is there any evidence of this?

No it doesn't if it merely acts as a holder for the solid (not powder) propellant which then travels up the barrel, with the projectile, as it burns. In a closed breech projector where the burn finishes before the end of the barrel a vent is superfluous. Incidentally on most open breech rocket projectors in later periods the burn also finishes before the end of the tube is reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't if it merely acts as a holder for the solid (not powder) propellant which then travels up the barrel, with the projectile, as it burns. In a closed breech projector where the burn finishes before the end of the barrel a vent is superfluous. Incidentally on most open breech rocket projectors in later periods the burn also finishes before the end of the tube is reached.

Let me put it more simply then. If the shell contains solid propellant that burns within the length of the barrel, then the base of the shell must be open and not closed. That is an orifice to me.

I repeat, I will photograph the base of the 1.59 inch shell in the next few days and post the pictures.

Regards

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me put it more simply then. If the shell contains solid propellant that burns within the length of the barrel, then the base of the shell must be open and not closed. That is an orifice to me.

I repeat, I will photograph the base of the 1.59 inch shell in the next few days and post the pictures.

Regards

TonyE

Even more simply no it doesn't - the shell case does not travel up the barrel but the propellant does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even more simply no it doesn't - the shell case does not travel up the barrel but the propellant does.

Please do not try to patronise people. I think after fifty years of studying ammunition I might have worked out that the shell case does not go up the barrel, especially a rimmed one!

Are you saying now that the "rocket" propellant is NOT enclosed within the shell, but is a solid piece of propellant that follows the shell up the barrel, burning as it goes? Perhaps you could explain exactly what you believe happens from the moment when the primer is ignited.

Regards

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nervous about dipping my toe in here in a subject I know nothing about, but what about the early British grenade, the Mark 1 used in 1914, seems to have been unpopular with soldiers for it's tendency to explode prematurely? Was it?

Caryl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not try to patronise people. I think after fifty years of studying ammunition I might have worked out that the shell case does not go up the barrel, especially a rimmed one!

Are you saying now that the "rocket" propellant is NOT enclosed within the shell, but is a solid piece of propellant that follows the shell up the barrel, burning as it goes? Perhaps you could explain exactly what you believe happens from the moment when the primer is ignited.

Regards

TonyE

And yourself please. I was merely replying to your previous post which did stating with. "Let me put it more simply then" I was not patronising and I did not take umbrage over your original post starting with "Poppycock" which one might have, lets keep this civilized.

Yes. It burns from the bottom and pushes itself and the projectile up the barrel just as in many later closed breech projectors. Thats what I've been trying to say all along. The device combines rocket and gun characteristics hence the designation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shovelly thing with the hole in it might yet come in handy should anyone wish to extract himself from a hole.

:lol::thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gun was the "Ordnance Q.F. 1.59 inch Mark I" (and II), it was never designated as a rocket gun, that was only its popular name. One would think that if it worked as you say it would have included "rocket" or perhaps "projector" in the nomenclature.

We are obviously never going to agree about this, so let us agree to differ.

However, may I ask you to have a look at the attached drawing and pictures. This is the official Woolwich drawing so is a primary source.

Consider first the right hand drawing of the armour piercing projectile. That shows it is a perfectly conventional base fuzed AP round, complete with a strengthening base plate for the shell. The propellant is indeed balllistite as you said, but loose and contained in a cambric bag. I fail to see how a cambric bag of loose propellant pushes the shell up the barrel, especially as ballistite is a very fast burning propellant.

Now look at the construction of the incendiary shell on the left. This shows the two large angled holes in the base. When the shell is fired the flash from the propellant ignites the incendiary mix which burns from these holes, leaving a trail of flames and smoke. This is what gave the gun its popular but erroneous name of the "rocket gun", the purpose of the flames being to ignite the hydrogen of the target and nothing to do with rocket propulsion. There was also a version of the incendiary round which had a brass base section. (last picture)

There was also an H.E. shell fitted with the No.131 Anti Zeppelin fuze, but I do not have drawings for that. However, thanks to a kind friend I now have photographs of his round. They show that the base of the HE shell has a screw threaded recess for a tracer capsule to be fitted if required.

Can I ask you to produce a single example of a primary source - not secondary from a book or the internet - but a primary source that supports your assertion that rocket propulsion of any sort played any part in the 1.59 inch gun.

Regards

TonyE

post-8515-020838000 1293546123.jpg

post-8515-033636500 1293546486.jpg

post-8515-075707300 1293546566.jpg

post-8515-034858600 1293546611.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It stole it whilst bickering regarding the Vindaloo gun was in its 4th iteration.

Bickering, dear boy? Merely trying to correct a misconception!

Regards

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I am rather fond of a chicken phall, the vindaloo being for woofters!

Now, be serious! Keep this on topic!

Cheers

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...especially as ballistite is a very fast burning propellant.

...

TonyE

That it is. .22 Long blanks sold for the Webley tin can launcher in the 1960s used ballistite. In my youth I once loaded one of these behind an airgun pellet in a .22 garden gun to see what would happen. What happened was that it blew a hole through the pellet and turned it into a lead sleeve in the bore. It ruptured the rimfire case and left me picking tiny brass splinters out of my eyebrows. I was probably lucky not to be much hurt, and that I spotted the constriction remaining in the bore before trying to fire anything else.

I can't see any logical difference between an alleged 'closed-breech rocket' where all propellant is burnt before the projectile exits from muzzle, and a conventional firearm where the case acts as a closed-breech obturator and all the propellant is burnt before exit. How the burning propellant is disposed within the swept volume whilst the projectile is in the bore is immaterial and effectively unknowable. Most conventional load designs will burn the charge in about 2/3 of the barrel length to avoid grossly excessive muzzle flash. Burning particles exiting is really a fault condition.

These cases show a small propellant charge which would rapidly develop a high pressure and reach the all-burnt condition very early in the projectile's travel. Does this suggest an early - and partial - attempt at what later became the 'high-low' pressure technique? Without separate pressure chambers it could never be as consistent, but it could keep the highest-pressure pulse very close to the breech end and gain some weight advantage that way..

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nervous about dipping my toe in here in a subject I know nothing about, but what about the early British grenade, the Mark 1 used in 1914, seems to have been unpopular with soldiers for it's tendency to explode prematurely? Was it?

Caryl

Grenades are not my area, but as there were no takers for your question I shall endeavour to answer.

The No.1 grenade had a simple plunger type detonator at the top of the grenade. When being used in the open this was probably just about acceptable, but when thrown from within a trench there was a tendency for the user to hit the grenade on the rear trench wall as he swung his arm back. This of course set off the detonator with unfortunate results.

I will leave it up to the grenade experts to give a more detailed answer.

Regards

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given his earlier enthusiasm for the subject, I'm surprised that Centurion hasn't responded to post #64. Perhaps he has missed it amid the flurry of curry posts that followed ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remaining on topic - the thread asked for "worse"; perhaps the jam tin grenade could be a close nomination to the de Walden sword. 'Worse' in the meaning that it was a cobbled together, add hoc weapon, of vulgar constituents and makeshift workmanship.

The de Walden would be classed as "worse" in that it was presumably the only piece of official weapon issued which probably never caused a single casualty.

Things shot through cannon, rifled barrels or launched projectiles etc presumably inflicted casualty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...