MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The History Page[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Message Boards  
  For New Members  
  On This Day....  
  General  
  American History  
  Ancient History  
  British History  
  Current Events  
  European History  
  The Civil War  
  War  
  World History  
  Pictures  
    
    
  Links  
  Militaria Board  
  Cars/Motorcycles  
  
  
  Tools  
 
Militaria Board : No allowance sighting
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameCurliestJimbert  (Original Message)Sent: 5/27/2008 11:30 AM
 
During the Second World War, the German nightfighters very successfully used upward-firing guns against British bombers. This form of armament, named Schräge Musik** armament was introduced by the Germans in late 1942. It allowed German nightfighters, approaching from below and behind, to fire their shots accurately and from a direction where the bombers had weak defenses and many vulnerable spots. Typically, they aimed for the wing fuel tanks.
The RAF seems to have remained ignorant of its existence for many months. As far as countermeasures were concerned that was probably of limited importance, because RAF officers knew very well that the preferred direction of attack for a nightfighter was from below, even with conventional armament. The great difficulty was in finding an effective defense: The available ventral turret designs were too ineffective to be worth carrying. The American Sperry ball turret could have been an effective solution, but would have required major redesign of the bombers. In any case, the nightfighter was difficult to spot against the dark background of the earth, while the bomber was often clearly silhouetted against the night sky.

Still, the failure to recognize the nature of this threat has puzzled many observers, who knew that between the two World Wars, the RAF itself experimented with fixed, upward-firing guns in a number of aircraft. This disconnect in thinking probably occurred because the RAF saw the upward-firing guns in a different context: That of no-allowance shooting.

**Remember this Flashman?

The idea behind no-allowance shooting was to balance the body lift of the projectile against the force of gravity, with the goal of giving the projectile, at least for some distance, a straight flight path instead of one that curved downwards. The diagram below makes this a little clearer.

No Allowance Diagram

The projectile, fired upwards from a fixed position, would leave the barrel with a muzzle velocity represented here by the red arrow: The length of this arrow corresponds to the speed of the projectile, and its orientation to the angle of firing. A projectile fired from a rifled barrel is spin-stabilized: It is a little gyroscope, that resists attempts to change its initial orientation. On firing, the axis of the projectile is parallel to the red arrow, and it will (if we ignore the finer details of projectile ballistics) remain so.

In the air, the aircraft flies at a speed corresponding to the blue arrow. This speed was, until well after WWII, always much smaller than that of the projectile; so for clarity, the length of the blue arrow has been exaggerated here. When the gun is fired from an aircraft, the projectile will move with a speed that is the combination of the speed of the aircraft (blue) and the muzzle velocity of the gun (red). The two motions have different directions, so the final path of the projectile (green) is at some intermediate angle.

The resulting direction of travel is along the green arrow. But the orientation of the projectile remains (at least initially) parallel to the orientation of the barrel, which is the direction of the red arrow. Relative to its flight path, the projectile thus has a small nose-up attitude. This gives it a certain amount of body lift. If the angle of the gun is chosen correctly for the speed of the aircraft and the muzzle velocity, this lift will compensate for gravity, and the projectile will travel in a straight line. This is the theory of no-allowance shooting. Of course drag will slow down the projectile, so the desired straight flight path can only be achieved for part of the trajectory.

This diagram has an important consequence. It is fairly obvious from it that for a faster aircraft (a longer blue arrow) the angle between the red and green arrows will become larger. But only a small angle between projectile and flight path is desirable to get the required lift, and it needs to be even smaller if the projectile flies faster. The logical way to reduce the nose-up attitude again is to make the angle in which the gun is installed in the aircraft smaller: In our diagram, tilting the red arrow towards the blue arrow. Therefore, the faster the aircraft flies, the shallower the angle at which the guns should be installed on the aircraft.

 



First  Previous  2-13 of 13  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameCurliestJimbertSent: 5/27/2008 12:01 PM
The COW gun
 

At the end of the first World War, the Coventry Ordnance Works were producing a 37-mm cannon for aircraft use, known as the 1½ pdr COW gun. This was a fairly large weapon, weighing 95 kg, and firing a 37 × 190 cartridge. It was relatively slow-firing at 100 to 120 rpm, and the muzzle velocity was 580 to 610 m/s. This was a modest performance, similar to that of the 37 mm M4 cannon which armed many P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra fighters during WWII.

The design of the COW gun (and the later M4) was compromised by the necessity to keep both the weight and the recoil forces down, to allow installation in aircraft. The COW gun was a long-recoil design, with the recoil spring wrapped around the barrel, and the recoil blow was only about 2000 lb (910 kg). Nevertheless, the weapon was too big and heavy for the conventional fighters of the period. More so because, unlike the Vickers machine guns used as standard fighter armament at the time, the cannon could not be synchronized to fire through the propeller.

In October 1918, the COW gun was installed in the rear cockpit of an Airco D.H.4, fixed and aimed up. The angle of the installation in at least one (A2168) was about 80 degrees. The gun fired through a hole in the upper wing. The idea was to use this weapon against the large German bombers and Zeppelins, and after some reinforcement to prevent blast damage, testing was successfull. Three D.H.4s with COW guns were put into service. They carried a crew of two; the gunner in the aft cockpit not only loaded the weapon �?the breech was inconveniently close to the cockpit floor �?but also fired it on a signal from the pilot, who aimed with a ring-and-bead sight. Though two were sent to France, they did not see any combat before the war ended. (A2168 is recorded as flying a sortie against German Gotha bombers in August 1917, but that was presumably still without the COW gun.)

Airco DH 4

 

Westland took advantage of the overlap between specifications F20/27 and F29/27. Its design for F20/27 was a fairly attractive low-wing, strut-braced monoplane, with fixed landing gear. Although it did not attract orders (the F20/27 competition was won by the Gloster Gauntlet), the aircraft was an advanced design for its time. The offering for F29/27 was an obvious derivative, with the COW gun installed in the right-hand side of the cockpit. Unfortunately, the Westland COW gun fighter failed to live up to its promise: The handling qualities were apalling, with a strong and at high speed uncontrollable tendency to roll, a “disquieting�?vibration of the tail surfaces, and sluggish aileron response.

Vickers' submission for F20/27 was even more advanced than Westland's offering. The Vickers 151 Jockey was a low-wing monoplane with a cantilever wing, although it still had fixed landing gear. Technically, it was well ahead of both the Westland F20/27 and the contemporary Boeing P-26. Yet the Vickers 161 offered for F29/27 was not only entirely different, it was a throwback to a completely outdated concept. The Vickers submission was a heavily strut-braced, pusher biplane; as in the Vickers F.B.5 “Gun Bus�?of the First World War, the engine was put behind the pilot, with a propeller caged between tail booms, to leave the front fuselage available for the weapon. There were some concessions to modernity: Light alloy was used for the construction, the numerous struts were broad-chord and nicely faired, and a curious conical fairing behind the pusher engine and propeller attempted to reduced drag.

The COW Mk.III gun was installed at an angle of 45 degrees, to the right of the pilot, whose cockpit was set off to the left to keep the nose short. Fifty rounds of ammunition would be carried (thirty on the prototype), all but six in horizontal racks at the sides of the cockpit from which they would have to be loaded manually. Concerns about the effect of that the recoil would have on the handling of the aircraft were addressed by Vickers, that showed them to be well within limits. Vibration was addressed by mounting the instrument panel on rubber sponges. The spent cases were collected in a box, for if they were dumped overboard they would hit and damage the propeller; maintenance crews disliked the lack of accessibility of the box and the gun. Barr & Stroud provided a periscopic gunsight, but test pilots were disatisfied by this because they had to peer down into the cockpit to use it. A gun trigger was provided on the control column, but it was so stiff that the force required to use it affected aiming.

The completion of the Vickers 161 was slow, leading to some irritation at the Air Ministry. After it made its first flight in December 1930 or January 1931, modifications to address structural and handling problems continued, and official trials were completed only in December 1932. They revealed the Vickers 161 to be a much more satisfactory aircraft than the Westland F29/27, but still one that suffered from a disappointing performance. As a combat type, it was a non-starter, and reportedly only 24 shells were fired by its gun. Ironically, the gun in the Westland F29/27 saw much more use, if only during ground trials

Westland

 

Vickers 151

 

Vickers 161

 


Reply
 Message 3 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/27/2008 5:44 PM
Just me cup of tea, jimbert
 
you're treading on
__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
Territory
He's a bit pompous: you posted him in your  
Go Back   WW2inColor Talk > World War II > German Military
 
which to this day I think is the best site I've read. thanks.
 

Reply
 Message 4 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameCurliestJimbertSent: 5/27/2008 11:58 PM
Got the info from here
 
and googled the reference to the airplanes involved.
Jim
PS Hope I get a DPM (Distinguished posting medal) from -sunday, for contributing to the increase in posts.

Reply
 Message 5 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/29/2008 12:48 AM
There are one or 2 who reckon the quality of this mag has been compromised.
 
Bugger them, still got the Silver bugle.

Reply
 Message 6 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/30/2008 11:32 PM
Hotchkiss 47mm
 
Here you are Jimbert 47 mm in a Tellier flying boat

Reply
 Message 7 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/30/2008 11:39 PM
 
 
Not much Tellier to carry that gun (and moustaches) in.

Reply
 Message 8 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/31/2008 11:39 PM
</TABLE>

U.S. Air Service




AIRCRAFT


OF THE


A E F



Tellier T-3



Development and Operation

The Tellier T.3 was a biplane flying boat with unequal span wings. The upper wing had no dihedral while the lower wing had a pronounced dihedral for the wings to clear the water. Ailerons were on the top wing only.

The wings had two bays of struts mounted at oblique angles. The wings had wooden spars and metal ribs and were supported by intertwined metal cables. The struts were made of extruded metal with metal attachment points. The 200 hp Hispano-Suiza 8Ac engine was used. The pilot sat directly ahead of the engine while the gunner sat in the extreme nose. A third seat for a passenger was next to the pilot. Flight testing of the aircraft was begun on 13 September 1916. Initial production orders were placed on 21 March 1917.

The U.S. Navy purchased 33 T.3's for use at NAS Le Croisic as anti-submarine patrol aircraft {S/N's 10, 11, 21, 24, 25, 40, 56, 69, 70-74, 86-89, 93, 105, 106, 111, 114, 139, 140, 143-146, and 151-153}. The first mission using a T.3 was flown on 18 November 1917 At the time the aircraft had long since been replaced in French Aviation Maritime service. It is therefore assumed that the aircraft brought by the Navy were already service veterans. As time passed aircraft experienced more and more breakdowns

 

Aircraft and Flight Characteristics

Teller T.3 Three-seat Patrol Flying Boat
with a 200 hp Hispano-Suez 8Ac engine

Span

15.6 m

Length

11.83 m

Height

3.6 m

Maximum Speed

130-135 km/hr.

Weight

 

Empty

1150kg

Loaded

1796 kg

Payload

560 kg

Climb

 

To 500 m

2 minutes 45 seconds

To 1000 m

6 minutes 30 seconds

To 1500 m

11 minutes 30 seconds

To 2000 m

15 minutes 30 seconds

To 2500 m

24 minutes

Endurance

4 hrs. 30 minutes

Armament

One machine gun and two 35 kg bombs


References:


  1. Davilla, J. and Art Soltan, French Aircraft of the First World War
  2. Photo courtesy of the author


To find other Doughboy Features visit our

Directory Page

For Great War Society
Membership Information


Click on Icon

For further information on the events of 1914-1918 visit the homepage of

The Great War Society



Additions and comments on these pages may be directed to:
Michael E. Hanlon ([email protected]) regarding content,
or toMike Iavarone ([email protected]) regarding form and function.
Original artwork & copy; © 1998-2000, The Great War Society



Reply
 Message 9 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/31/2008 11:42 PM
Hello Jim
Thought to get a bit more on that Tellier. And practice notepad.
 
Big engine. (200 HP) for its time, so I can now understand how it could carry that crew and gun

Reply
 Message 10 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/31/2008 11:45 PM
Your "No allowance" sighting graph.
 
I learned that in Physics (unclassified 'O' Level marking) as "The Parallogram of Forces". the diagonal being the direction of correction.
 
Rediscovered it with 3 LI, Bn Sailing Offr course. All survived.

Reply
 Message 11 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 6/13/2008 12:13 AM
 
 
The evidence at last. Note PBA sliding further to the rear of the camel while pointing gun towards its head.

Reply
 Message 12 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamevicbc6Sent: 6/13/2008 10:27 PM
When "schrage musik" was 1st encountered by RAF bomber crews they didn't understand that is was an aircraft shooting at them. They thought it was some new type of AAA . The Luftwaffe pilots that used it used to aim between the engines of the 4 engines, Lancasters or Halifaxs that lit off the fuel tanks, it also gave the crews time to escape .At least in theory. See Martin Middlebrooks " the Nrurenburg Raid" , i think thats the title. He give s extensive discussion to this topic.

Reply
 Message 13 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 6/14/2008 12:23 AM
 
Here you are Vic, twin 30,, MK108 schrage Musik in an ME 110.
The MK 108 was a very low MV weapon about 1500fps  but used a straight forward blow-back action which gave a good ROF.
 
It used minen geschoss (to you or me mine-shells) which had a hydrostatic fise enabling partial penetration into fuel tanks then detonation.
 
Pic courtesy of JimBert, War in colour Luftwaffe MGs and Cannon.

First  Previous  2-13 of 13  Next  Last 
Return to Militaria Board