Yes, I actually like those better- it looks more like a Spitfire! Didn't the Brits call it an "Apache?"
Yes. Once they replaced the Allison engine with a Rolls Merlin, it went from being a mediocre plane to one of the most feared.
Kriegslokomotiven - As the Allies continue to destroy build more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCJC6mvRBYU
Wow, that's the most impressive target factory I've ever seen!
Seriously though, I can see why so many mush-headed individuals are taken in by old Nazi propaganda. Some of it was so well done it still works.
That was an impressive film- near the end I'm wondering about the differences in the tenders, there look to be two different types. I'm under the impression that the boilers are both welded and rivetted, but maybe the small holes were for staybolts. Also, if that plant is Meiningen, I've been there about 8 years ago. Their open house in September is something to see!
A restoration project. There are no apparent .50 cal. patches on this specimen's boiler. Portions of the Nazi propanganda film previously linked are shown in the last half of the restoration film.
A knowledge of German to understand the narrated voice over would probably be informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6PrixJd_io
I found a neat video on the YouTube of a preserved Kriegs-Lok in excursion service.
I was going to post it last night, and then the website crashed and burned! Oh, well...
Anyway, here it is. I'll tell you, that machine's got a lot of "get-up-and-go!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgEH5R7FCfU
A lot (~7000) of BR (build series) 52 locomotives were constructed in three years during the war. They were a simplified, war material shortage version of the heavily used BR50. Some still run in museum railfans excursion services.
Perhaps the most thermodynamically-sophisticated steam locomotive in Europe (8055) is a converted 52, if I still remember correctly.
Wasn't that the one converted in Switzerland to run on a light oil, with a one-man crew? I wonder what happened to that.
Still wagging its tail waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.
A useful feature is that it has about 35kW worth of water-heater elements plumbed into the boiler. With those connected via a pressure switch the boiler can happily be kept at 300psi pressure indefinitely in the coldest ambient temperatures -- the savings being far, far more than just the opportunity cost of the electricity represents.
Attacking U. S. Navy railroad artillery in WW1.
“Every night,” CDR Bunkley recalled,
“large enemy bombers could be heard overhead searching for the batteries and ammunition dumps and shortly afterwards explosions near by loudly indicated where the bombs had hit. The battery cars, with the exception of the ammunition cars, were always placed some distance from the firing position, and camouflaged as best they could be. On the first night the enemy bombers came over, although the men had been trained to lie flat on the ground or get into near-by trenches, many of them ran for the berthing cars, but fortunately there were no close hits. The night of September 23 was an interesting one. The Boche planes were over in force dropping bombs all around the guns. Direct hits were made on a large ammunition dump about a half mile from No. 1 train and during the remainder of the night there was a continuous bombardment from exploding shells of all calibers. Among others, some fifty thousand ’75’s’ were exploded and as a result, most of the trees within a large radius were stripped of limbs and leaves. The engines always kept a head of steam, so that, when the shells began to drop on all sides, the train was moved about a mile up the track where it remained until the next morning.”
https://www.navalhistory.org/2015/10/15/navy-on-the-western-front-the-14-railway-guns-in-wwi
The article makes no mention of fighter planes swooping down on moving trains. Machine guns on WW1 fighters were of roughly .30 cal. The aircraft weapons were modified versions of machine guns used by the infantry.
Would a .303 cal. Lee Enfield round, or a German 7.92 mm round fired from a WW1 fighter have the power to pierce a locomotive boiler?
A fascinating article but why would the crew require a bosun's mate?
The 7.92 S.m.K. Mauser cartridges were designed for armor piercing so theoretically possible to strafe a locomotive.
'54, your guess is as good as mine. Possibly the bosun's mate was the NCO in charge of the 23 seamen assigned, or other naval enlisted personnel not directly involved in gunhandling? I can't figure out why they would have needed a cox'sn either for that matter. Must have been some reason.
charlie hebdo The 7.92 S.m.K. Mauser cartridges were designed for armor piercing so theoretically possible to strafe a locomotive.
I'm not so sure about just when the Germans came up with an AP round. Maybe by the end of the war when armor began to show up in force on the battlefield, but also by that time the Germans had developed a 12mm anti-tank rifle. Also, the Germans had a 50mm small cannon that I'll call an assault gun for the sake of convenience that could deal with tanks. Anyway, once the Germans got over the shock of tanks on the battlefield they quickly came up with ways to deal with them.
I'm not sure the Brits had developed a .303 armor piercing round, or the Americans a .30 cal AP round for that matter. They would definately come post-war.
Whether any of those AP rounds found their way into aircraft is unknown to me. Since WW1 aircraft didn't have any armor plate (with one exception that I know of) there wouldn't be any need for it on aircraft, so I doubt it. Tracer rounds would have been more useful. I could be wrong though.
Most German 7.92 Mauser ammunition was produced with a mild steel jacket instead of the more common copper type because the Germans didn't have enough copper to go around, but that steel jacket wasn't intended to give the round armor piercing capability. German 7.92 ammunition during WW2 had steel jacketing as well, and for the same reason.
Purely speculation but the Germans used "C" aircraft for ground attack, especially as built by Halberstadt. So they might have used the armor piercing round. The USN railway artillery wasn't being used until late 1917 on through 1918.
Right, "C" aircraft were kind of "maids of all work," observation, bombing, and ground attack. There were a number of types but I'll have to hit the books I've got and get back to everyone.
One thing is certain, ground attack was never popular with the fighter pilots. With no armor plate on the planes and everyone and his brother on the ground shooting at you we can understand why. The Red Baron was brought down by ground fire, so was the British ace Edward Mannock.
Back to naval guns, about 20 years ago there was a 12" naval rifle on a railroad mount on display at the old Marine museum at mainside Quantico. Built by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, no less! I'm not sure where it is now, I didn't see it at the new Museum of the Marine Corps when I was there.
Flintlock76 '54, your guess is as good as mine. Possibly the bosun's mate was the NCO in charge of the 23 seamen assigned, or other naval enlisted personnel not directly involved in gunhandling? I can't figure out why they would have needed a cox'sn either for that matter. Must have been some reason.
Johnny
I'm thinking that the cox'n would have been in charge of handling the gun in transit and setting it up at it's firing point. Firing the gun would have been by the gunner's mates under the instructions from the gun captain. Flintlock- am I on the right track here?
I think so 54. Most likely handling the gun would have followed the same procedures they followed on shipboard. Never have served any of the big guns I can only guess what they were.
And your guess on the cox'n is probably right. To my knowledge a cox'n is a specialist in small boat handling, that's why I can't figure out what he's doing around one of the big guns.
In naval practice, the coxswain (ALWAYS abbreviated coxs'n if you must abbreviate it, or just 'cox') is the person in charge of a small boat or similar crewed 'unit'. The analogy with respect to a dedicated railroad-gun crew appears obvious to me.
Targeting would probably be done in coordination with spotters (perhaps at that range including men in wireless/radio contact from aircraft), as common in regular long-range artillery; the gun would be aimed and served by appropriate members of the gun crew.
If the battery had automobiles assigned to it for the use of the (landlocked) officers, would coxswains be assigned as drivers?
Anyone interested in the care and feeding of a 16" naval rifle? I found a neat video about the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OmOQs0ziSU
Aside from obvious changes in procedure from a turret mount to a railroad mount, loading those 14" guns during WW1 probably wasn't all that different.
ORNHOOIf the battery had automobiles assigned to it for the use of the (landlocked) officers, would coxswains be assigned as drivers?
Probably not; they'd have chauffeurs assigned based on knowledge of operation of a motor vehicle. Probably little different from the drivers assigned to motor trucks carrying supplies to the gun crew.
The question might come up if the 'automobiles' available for officers' use were armored cars built to be autonomous 'raiding' units (as were used, if I remember correctly, by Lawrence of Arabia) -- but this doesn't seem like something the contemporary Navy would make much use of.
Back then, they might have used motorcycles for advance spotting. I don't think there was air-to-ground wireless communication in 1917. Balloons used for artillery spotting had telephones with wires to the ground receiver. I've always spelled it cox'n. Cox is a sailboat term, isn't it? There were no sailboats in the Nav when I was in except that one in Boston.
Am I the only one who finds it curious that the Navy is the only military service where you are known by your qualification and not your rank? You're a Machinist Mate, Yeoman, Coxwain, etc, and not a Seaman, Petty Officer, etc. In the Army, Air Force and Marines, it doesn't matter what your job is, you're known by your rank.
I believe the British had wireless air-to-ground communication on some aircraft by 1918, however it was far from universal. Wireless sets were still bulky and heavy, and with photography and gunnery you'd need an observer who could send and recieve Morse code in addition to the other two skills. I don't know if the French or the Americans (or the Germans for that matter) ever tried airborne wireless.
Balloons would have been a lot more useful for spotting targets, they could be connected to the ground by telephone. In fact, WW1 is when observation balloons really came into their own. They'd been tried in earlier wars like the American Civil War but in wars of movement they were more trouble than they were worth, they had a hard time keeping up with the armies. The static Western Front of WW1 eliminated that problem.
Anyway, the procedure for observation aircraft would have been to spot nice big juicy targets for the railroad guns, and then forward the information after landing through the proper channels to the fire control center.
54light15Cox is a sailboat term, isn't it?
No, it's worse, it's crew. I don't think I've ever seen the Navy use an abbreviation other than coxs'n in any 'official' form, but 'cox' is the common term for the same word in the slightly different crew sense. I don't think the Navy used galleys in combat, even at Tripoli, although there are some great advantages in maneuverability in some instances, and of course the Hunley was a galley with slightly different 'rowing' technique...
Backshop, 54light15 could probably explain it better than I can, he's the old Navy vet, but sailors work hard for those ratings, so they prefer to (or used to) be referred to as, for example, Machinist Mate First Class, Bosun's Mate Second Class, and so forth. It's also correct to call them "Petty Officer" if you're not sure of the specialty (there's lots of 'em!) or "Seaman" if he or she hasn't reached petty officer status yet.
No mistaking a Chief Petty Officer, he or she is always called "Chief!"
I've heard Army enlisted personnel refer to themselves by "E" status, say "E4" or "E5" but I don't know how common a practice that is. "E" status is enlisted grade status, and it's an administrative classification for a rank, not the rank.
I've never heard enlisted Marines refer to themselves by anything other than the traditional rank designations, i.e. corporal, sergeant, staff sergeant, and so on.
Overmod mentioned galleys. They caught on and hung on in the Mediterranean because of the Med's fluky and unreliable winds. French and Spanish frigates built for Mediterranean service kept rowing ports right up to the 19th Century.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.