Bullet ID.

[Rob Heanley]

I found the left of these bullets just outside Albert on the path from Ovillers. I've included a 303 (fired) and a Lebel bullet (unfired) for scale.

But it's the first of these three I can't identify. Possibly Browning MG .5? Its certainly a heavier calibre than the 303. Its also longer, has a sharp taper over the bottam 2mm apprx and the rifling grooves run the opposite way. Any thoughts very welcome. It was just two hundred meters from the outskirts of Albert, so clearly well behind the Brit lines of the 1916 battles but of course the area was fought over twice in 1918 battles.

Many thanks,

Rob

[TonyE]

Since it is broadly the same diameter as the 8mm lebel and also shorter, it is far too small to be an American .50 BMG left over from WW2.

My first thought is that it is a British .303 inch Tracer Mark VIIG. These were longer than the Mark VII ball bullet and had the rounded base that yours shows. If so, the base of your bullet should be hollow, althogh it may be full of mud.

The reason the rifling is right hand twist is because it was fired in a Lewis gun, SMLEs and Vickers guns having a left hand twist. i will post some pictures later to show examples of what I mean.

Regards

TonyE

[Rob Heanley]

Thanks Tony,

Bad guess on the BMG sorry.

The one confusing issue is it does appear to have a significantly wider diameter than the 303 and I think even than the Lebel. We're there any heavier calibre snip rifles knocking around?

Base could be hollow but certainly very compacted mud, clay, chalk if so. I've left it soaking in Vinegar to give it a clean and hopefully reveal more of the base.

Interesting about the right/left variation on the SMLE/Lewis rifling. Didn't know that.

While I've got you; I've noticed that any Mauser bullets that turn up tended to be a lot more corroded and rusted over. So their composition must be very different. Can you tell me more?

Regards,

Rob.

[centurion]

Tracer was very rarely fired from ground guns in WW1, especially before 1918 except for AA use with guns specifically allocated for the task. When one sees references to stocks of tracer rounds in in divisional dumps the quantity is very low and I suspect intended for AA

[TonyE]

Centurion - I quite agree that tracer was little used in ground guns until late in the war, but millions were fired in the air and they had to come down somewhere!

Rob - From what you say, if it is indeed of greater diameter than the Lebel I would need more detailed dimensions and weight of the bullet. Are you sure it is not just deformed and so seems wider? The.303 Mark VIIG bullets varied quite widely depending on manufacturer but should be between 35-38mm long and weigh 158 - 168 grains (10.24 - 10.89 grams)

Picture shows (l. to r.) .50 BMG bullet, .303 VIIG tracer, .303 ball Mark VII and 8mm Lebel. You can see what I meant by the size of the .50!

Re. the German rounds, Britsh bullets had an envelope (jacket) of cupro-nickel which is fairly stable in the ground. German ammunition had an evelope of steel thinly coated with cupro-nickel which rusts quickly when in the ground.

Any further information you can provice would help in coming to a more conclusive identification.

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

Centurion - I quite agree that tracer was little used in ground guns until late in the war, but millions were fired in the air and they had to come down somewhere!

Not sure about millions being mainly either at night defending places like London against airships or in the day against balloons. Were there any German balloons in the vicinity of Albert (I thought the nearest were by Sausage Valley hence the name) ?

[TonyE]

Let us not argue semantics my friend, but there were over 72 million rounds of tracer produced, so if even only five percent was used on the Western Front it would still be "millions"

...and it was a lot more than 5%.

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

Let us not argue semantics my friend, but there were over 72 million rounds of tracer produced, so if even only five percent was used on the Western Front it would still be "millions"

...and it was a lot more than 5%.

Regards

TonyE

Sorry but can you support your more than 5% with evidence?

[centurion]

Sorry but can you support your more than 5% with evidence? Where and when was tracer fired from aircraft over the Western front? and why other than balloon strikes?

[Rob Heanley]

Thanks again Tony,

I see your point about measurements and will post some more details.

In the meantime whilst I agree the shape is similar to your tracer round the one I found has a canuler which your example doesn't. I wonder of that's a significant detail?

Centurion,

Thanks for joining in and for your view. I'm certainly no expect on these things and its the benefit of this forum that knowledge can be shared. I can't help feeling its a real pity when threads such as these descend in to bickering and argument. We are surely, as members, united by our shared interest and not divided by our various levels of knowledge or fact.

Such enormous happenings as that war and indeed any war should not be a forum for point scoring and competition. It's a little insulting to history and, I think, rather petty. Sorry if this causes any offence, it's just my view.

Were the guns on most planes Lewis guns then? What did the Germans use in their aircraft?

Regards,

Rob

[TonyE]

Centurion - No need to repeat your question, I read it the first time, but I was busy last evening!

Since the RFC/RAF ammunition demands do not state where the it was to be used, it is difficult to offer conclusive evidence of how it was split between home defence and the western front. I could just as easily ask you for evidence that 95% was used at home.

However, let me try to offer some empirical evidence that considerable quantities were used in France.

Prior to the introduction of the SPK (Mark VIIT) tracer in July 1916 there was no effective flame tracer available for air service. The early Royal Laboratory tracer was ineffective and little used, only tracing erratically for 50-100 yards and being inaccurate. By late 1916 demand was for 6 million rounds a month "of all types of tracer bullet" including Buckingham, tracer and Pomeroy. (History of the Ministry of Munitions, Volume XI, Part VI, p.25). After this date the types were differentiated and during 1917 demand was for SPG tracer was 2 million per month (ibid, p.26).

Although 1917 saw the last of the Zeppelin raids and the first Gotha daylight raid it was still a relatively quiet period for air defence and the returning Goithas were only fired on by aircraft based in Belgium. However, production in 1917 was 29 million rounds and even allowing for part of this to be put to reserve, where was it all being used?

In 1918 the monthly demand for tracer rose to 2.0-2.5 million rounds of "Red Label" (for synchronised Vickers) and 2.0-2.3 million rounds of ordinary (for non-synchronised guns). production in 1918 being over 37 million rounds (ibid, Appendix II, p.104) some of which was supplied to the French. Since the last Gotha raid on the UK was on 19th May 1918 tracer ammunition was not being used to by the Home Defence squadrons in the second half of the year.

Despite this the demand continued throughout 1918 at the same level and 22 million rounds were produced between June and November 1918. Again, where was this being used?

Finally, the history states of the SPG tracer "Although heavy demands were made in 1918, the quality remained excellent, and it was reported from the Headquarters od the Royal Air Force in France in August, 1918, that "Red Label SPG was giving the greatest satisfaction"." (ibid, p.48)

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

I didn't repeat my question - I edited it and a forum glitch duplicated it.

However you've only in effect echoed it "where was it being used"? was it being used? I know that after WW2 vast amounts of unused tracer rounds had to be disposed of by the RAF was some of this WW1 stock? Apart from some FE2b night time ground attack work (mainly against airfields and trains) I can find no definite account of tracer being used in the air over the Western front other than for balloon busting. I have no doubt that large amounts were manufactured - war is often profligate.

[TonyE]

Rob - your post arrived whilst I was typing my previous one.

The VIIG tracer bullet can be found both with and without a cannelure depending on the manufacturer. One school of thought was that rolling the cannelure could damage the heavily compressed tracer composition inside the bullet, but the counter to this was that without a cannelure bullet securement in the case was less positive and could lead to bullets becoming loose due to recoil.

Aircraft armament was mixed, with Vickers guns firing through the propeller using synchronisation gear and Lewis guns fitted over the upper wing to clear the propeller. In two seaters the observer's gun was a Lewis. The reason that Lewis guns were not used for synchronisation was because it fired form an open bolt and so the "lock time" could vary. Without getting too complicated this means that the bolt was held open after the previous round had been fired and when the trigger was pulled the bolt moved forward, picked up a round from the magazine, chambered it and then fired it. Things like drag from the magazine etc could affect the time this took such that the bullet might hit the propeller.

The Vickers gun on the other hand fired from a closed bolt. The gun sat there cocked with a round in the chamber and when the synchroniser trigger motor fired the gun all that had to happen was for the firing pin to travel a very short distance to fire the round, giving a far more constant lock time.

Regards

TonyE

I don't intend to carry this on any further, but if it was being used for balloon busting it was being used in the air.

TonyE

[centurion]

I don't intend to carry this on any further, but if it was being used for balloon busting it was being used in the air.

But not in huge quantities - there weren't that number of balloons

[auchonvillerssomme]

Heres one I found on Hawthorn Ridge, I posted pics of this and the Buckingham a while back (4 years?). it is the same diameter as a .303.

Mick

[TonyE]

A nice Buckingham Mark I bullet (centre). These were used as smoke tracers and were more effective for balloon busting than the flame tracers.

The Buckingham Mark I was superceded by the Mark II which had a normal spitzer profile as the round nosed Mark I did not feed well. The problem with the Mark II was that it did not punch a large enough hole for the hydrogen to be dragged out and ignited by the phosphorous so the flat nosed Mark III was introduced. Whilst this was an improvement further work was done and although the Mark IV did not see service in WWI it was introduced post war and remained in service until about 1943.

This had a step in the envelope which was supposed to cut a wad out of the balloon fabric and so allow more hydrogen to escape and be ignited.

Attached picture shows Buckingham Marks I to IV.

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

Whilst there are certainly accounts of attacks on balloons from a 'horizontal' firing position these were usually made when the balloon was well into the process of being winched down (or relatively early in the war when two seaters were still used for balloon attacks). The recommended tactic for a balloon strike was in a near as possible vertical dive from above. This had the advantages that as the observers had no upward visibility (because of the balloon envelope) they might be taken by surprise, it was more difficult for the defending light AA to fire on the attacker for fear of hitting the balloon and the attacking aircraft built up speed for a rapid skedaddle at low altitude away from the concentrated fire of the defending guns (balloon attacks were recognised as hazardous). British, French, Belgian and American balloon busters all adopted this approach. The effect of this would be that rounds fired would tend to be heading downwards and would therefore be likely to be found relatively close to where the balloon was stationed. This leads me back to an early observation/question - were any German balloons stationed close to where the round was found?.

If it is from Lewis fired in the course of a balloon strike during the 1st Battle of the Somme then it is very likely to have been fired by a British or French operated Nieuport scout, if fired during the 2nd Battle of the Somme then from an SE5a.

[centurion]

This had a step in the envelope which was supposed to cut a wad out of the balloon fabric and so allow more hydrogen to escape and be ignited.

There seems to be a flaw here - it's the gas inside the balloon that needs to be ignited. Gas escaping from a hole would quickly dissipate in an upwards direction. As the gas in a balloon was at the same pressure as the external air not much would escape anyway. Surely the point of chewing up the envelope was to allow air (oxygen) in to mix with the hydrogen?

[centurion]

Centurion,

Thanks for joining in and for your view. I'm certainly no expect on these things and its the benefit of this forum that knowledge can be shared. I can't help feeling its a real pity when threads such as these descend in to bickering and argument. We are surely, as members, united by our shared interest and not divided by our various levels of knowledge or fact.

Such enormous happenings as that war and indeed any war should not be a forum for point scoring and competition. It's a little insulting to history and, I think, rather petty. Sorry if this causes any offence, it's just my view.

Well offence certainly taken - I was not attempting to score points but expressing reasonable doubt over a statement I did not feel was substantiated. If we don't question things how does one expect to arrive at as accurate a picture as possible?

[TonyE]

There seems to be a flaw here - it's the gas inside the balloon that needs to be ignited. Gas escaping from a hole would quickly dissipate in an upwards direction. As the gas in a balloon was at the same pressure as the external air not much would escape anyway. Surely the point of chewing up the envelope was to allow air (oxygen) in to mix with the hydrogen?

No, there is no flaw. Let me quote from the unpublished private papers of F.W.Jones.

F.W.Jones was a "Chemist and Consulting Expert on Explosives" (from his letterhead) to the government and was heavily involved at the Ministry of Munitions with the development of special purpose ammunition. He was also a noted ballistician and shot and did much work with Kynoch in the inter-war years on the development of match ammunition.

Immediately after the war he wrote an unpublished manuscript entitled "Reports on Special Small Arms Ammunition Developed During 1915-1919", of which I have a copy. In the section on the development of the Buckingham bullet he writes of the stepped bullet under development at the end of the war:

It was not clear if this would increase the incendiary effect because it had not been established whether a clean or ragged edge to the hole in the balloon was better. There could be no doubt that the larger clean cut hole would increase gas leakage. The efficient incendiary action of the Buckingham appeared to follow from the leaking phosphorus adhearing to the sides of the perforation for sufficient time to ignite the escaping gas consequent on perforation. Experiments on gas balloons on the ground proved that usually one shot was sufficient to set it on fire.

Thus it is the escaping gas that ignites outside the balloon that does the trick.

Regards

TonyE

[auchonvillerssomme]

I think the location of fiinds of bullets would be a bit difficult to put into context given the ranges of travel when fired and subsequent ploughing and the moving of large amounts of earth to allow for farming.

Regarding the stepped round, personally i would have thought it would make more sense to have used this round on aircraft that may have had self sealing fuel tanks.

Edit, sorry I posted wrote that comment before I had seen your answer Tony.

In the back of my head there is a niggle, maybe from a German publication that says the aircraft had to get very close to a balloon, within 300 yards before the phosphorous burnt itself out which was why balloon busting, given the defences, wasn't the easy job many assumed it would be.

[centurion]

No, there is no flaw. Let me quote from the unpublished private papers of F.W.Jones.

F.W.Jones was a "Chemist and Consulting Expert on Explosives" (from his letterhead) to the government and was heavily involved at the Ministry of Munitions with the development of special purpose ammunition. He was also a noted ballistician and shot and did much work with Kynoch in the inter-war years on the development of match ammunition.

Immediately after the war he wrote an unpublished manuscript entitled "Reports on Special Small Arms Ammunition Developed During 1915-1919", of which I have a copy. In the section on the development of the Buckingham bullet he writes of the stepped bullet under development at the end of the war:

It was not clear if this would increase the incendiary effect because it had not been established whether a clean or ragged edge to the hole in the balloon was better. There could be no doubt that the larger clean cut hole would increase gas leakage. The efficient incendiary action of the Buckingham appeared to follow from the leaking phosphorus adhearing to the sides of the perforation for sufficient time to ignite the escaping gas consequent on perforation. Experiments on gas balloons on the ground proved that usually one shot was sufficient to set it on fire.

Thus it is the escaping gas that ignites outside the balloon that does the trick.

Regards

TonyE

Unfortunately it contradicts a lot of published material on airship fires.

[TonyE]

Sorry, but I am not wasting any more time on this. You questioned a statement I made and I gave you a contemporary primary source reference for it, but still you do not accept it..

If only you had been there at the time, we might have won the war by Christmas!

Regards

TonyE

[Rob Heanley]

Thanks Tony,

In returning to the original post I agree with your first assessment and it was my mistake in thinking the bullet was of higher calibre. I believe it is .303 inch and having cleaned the base it appears hollow. There is a deep graze on on side revealing a soft core.

Thanks Centurion,

I agree its important to be accurate and to question and check information. I completely agree with you there. It's perhaps a phrasing issue. I can't help feeling its possible to question things such as tracer use in ways which are perhaps a little less incendiary so I restate we are all brought together by our shared interest.

Thanks to all,

best,

Rob

[MikB]

Unfortunately it contradicts a lot of published material on airship fires.

In a rigid airship, it may be practical for the gas inside to be at nominal atmospheric pressure, but a balloon has to inflate and maintain its envelope shape, so it's reasonable to think there must be a positive pressure inside. In such situations it would appear very difficult to drive air into it, especially with bullets. If you ignite gas escaping from a pressurised envelope, presumably you'll burn or otherwise degrade the surrounding material so the hole progressively increase in size...

Regards,

MikB