New Airplanes in WWI (ISOT)

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.

On 8 Jun 2004 04:16:21 -0700, (Jack
Linthicum) wrote:

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.

Vietnam certainly demonstrated napalm could be effectively delivered
in bomb form though I question whether it was available in large
enough quantities to cause grief to miles and miles of trench lines.

The Horny Goat wrote:

Vietnam certainly demonstrated napalm could be effectively delivered
in bomb form though...

That was proved (again?) in Korea.


I question whether it was available in large
enough quantities to cause grief to miles
and miles of trench lines.

Napalm was available in sufficient quantities to turn targets such as trenches
into graves, once we found them. "Shake and bake" also worked on other related
targets

Napalm was a bit more expensive to apply than the targets and their defenses
were to construct, of course. But we solved that problem nicely by avoiding the
highest value targets. We became expert at killing trees and dirt in the South,
and avoiding ships, port facilities, and dams in the North.

Heaven forbid we should destroy the enemy's ability to resist when it is so much
more convenient to destroy the environs of our allies. But then war being
diplomacy by other means, the so-called "diplomats" had their way, just as they
are doing today.



Jack

The Horny Goat wrote in message . ..
On 8 Jun 2004 04:16:21 -0700, (Jack
Linthicum) wrote:

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.

Vietnam certainly demonstrated napalm could be effectively delivered
in bomb form though I question whether it was available in large
enough quantities to cause grief to miles and miles of trench lines.

You don't have to do miles and miles. Pick one juncture with a command
post nearby and hit it for two or three days. You will find Swedish or
Netherlands diplomats making telephone calls in Paris and London
asking if there isn't some way we could reach a mutual understanding.