ss002d6252 Posted 16 January , 2018 Share Posted 16 January , 2018 Just seen this article about the 'Red Baron's fuel tank' being rediscovered in storage. The logic around this fuel tank being used to support the Australian claim to shooting him down in a bit of a stretch in itself though.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5272943/Mystery-famous-war-death-deepens-fuel-tank-found.html Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeppRaider Posted 16 January , 2018 Share Posted 16 January , 2018 The Age in Victoria carried the identical story a year ago! http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/red-baron-headline-here-20170106-gtn08i.htm l Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKC Posted 17 January , 2018 Share Posted 17 January , 2018 I agree the fuel tank as 'evidence' of Australian groundfire being the source of his demise is quite a leap. There are some good articles that analyse the battle in some detail. This is one of the better ones, I think: http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/richt.htm There is also an excellent analysis of the action in the AWM Journal article by Newton (1986) Spectre of the Red Baron Parts 1 and 2, in the AWM Journal no.8 (April 1986) and October (1986). I can't seem to locate it on line, unfortunately. I don't think there is any doubt that he was shot down by groundfire, and Popkin's Vickers seems to be the most likely source, but since just about every .303 LMG and MG in the vicinity were banging away at him, who can tell with absolute certainty which weapon fired the fatal .303?. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nils d Posted 19 January , 2018 Share Posted 19 January , 2018 (edited) The key word in the article is " BRASS " fuel tank. That alone tells you this story is tosh. The Germans couldn't afford to use this metal for an aircraft.It was too scarce [and too heavy]. Edited 19 January , 2018 by nils d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 19 January , 2018 Share Posted 19 January , 2018 26 minutes ago, nils d said: The key word in the article is " BRASS " fuel tank. That alone tells you this story is tosh. The Germans couldn't afford to use this metal for an aircraft.It was too scarce [and too heavy]. Brass (8.730 t/m3) is only about 8% denser than steel (8.050 t/m3) , so that in itself doesn't exclude it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 19 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2018 (edited) There's some interesting posts on the fuel tank here - http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16485&page=552 Craig Edited 19 January , 2018 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loader Posted 19 January , 2018 Share Posted 19 January , 2018 I saw a magazine illustration many yrs ago that depicted the triplane flying low over the ground & dozens of infantrymen firing at him with their rifles, also .303. As stated, the truth will never be known for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now