View Single Post
  #6  
Old June 8th 04, 12:11 PM
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article , "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...


Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight.


The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine.
Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate

The
Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
trenches be a significant addition?


Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
bombs as it was.


Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing
would be a challenge.


Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
weapon without defense.