|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2015 21:36:50 GMT
My point about the weapons using the same round was that there would be no visual indication as to if impacts (be they against people or just the ground) came from a rifle or one of the machine guns. I hadn't thought about impact - I was thinking only of having a definitely different sound (I.E. you don't mistake an M-2 (.50 cal) with a .38 cal pistol) |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 12, 2015 6:41:57 GMT
Did anyone back then have the nouse to compare the impacts....
(Is that a good name for a new website?..)
(That may only work to UK knowledge of adverts)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 12, 2015 7:06:12 GMT
Did anyone back then have the nouse to compare the impacts.... (Is that a good name for a new website?..) (That may only work to UK knowledge of adverts) when it is hitting a sandbag behind your head you're not going to be getting the calipers out to determine whether the follow up shot that is going to go through your helmet is coming from an Enfield or a Maxim. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 12, 2015 8:36:20 GMT
Thats what I thought.
And remember, in the words of a song,
There is nothing very funny 'Bout a plastic dummy gunny...
When its pointing at your head
Plastic bullets are lethal.
They will kill you just like lead.
Nw they were not using plastic rubber or bean bag rounds, they were shooting lead, designed to kill.
Perhaps we dont need to test that, but if its a shot in the trenches, anything like that, that goes past your head would have been lethal, wouldnt it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 16, 2015 19:59:10 GMT
Let's see if I can run a few numbers before the afternoon clerk comes in.
The Vickers machine gun used during WWI fired between 450 and 500 rounds per minute, the British .303 round. The Lee-Enfield rifle was also used during WWI, and also fired the British .303 round.
The references I've been able to find say that British soldiers of the time were expected to fire (and hit) fifteen times per minute. So if the Vickers is doing 450 rounds/minute, it would take 30 soldiers to fire the same number of rounds/minute. 500 rounds/minute gives us a fractional number, but if we drop it to 495 rounds/minute we get an even 33 soldiers.
No one is going to loan MythBusters a working WWI Vickers. The American M60 might be obtainable, since it's been replaced with other models, and the 7.62 mm round is fairly close in size to the WWI round. But for accuracy, we'd have to get a gunsmith to slow down the M60; it's rated as between 500 and 650 rounds/minute. I checked on the Thompson submachine gun (which should be obtainable), but it's even faster (600 rounds/minute is the slowest speed, some models hit 1500), and .45 ACP isn't used in rifles.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 17, 2015 1:03:17 GMT
the BAR fired 500 rounds per minute, and was either .30 cal or .30-06 depending on the variant.
the M249 (FN Minimi) is too fast at 800 RPM.
but the period correct Lewis gun fired 600, which would put the M-60 on target. for ROF, and the M-60 is available in 7.60 NATO chambering which is within the caliber range of modern bolt action rifles.
the bren is listed at 500-560 RPM also in the just over .30 caliber range.
my thinking is that the order of fire is still going to be as important if not more important than the rate of fire - and I'm not sure how long fire would need to be sustained - it might be that 15 men would be enough to fire a 15 round "burst"
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 17, 2015 2:19:56 GMT
I was thinking of trying to match a Vickers because that's what the British had at Mons, but a Lewis should be close enough if they can't find anything that copies a Vickers ROF.
Let's see, 600 rounds/minute divided by the 15 r/m the soldiers could do with their rifles would be 40 soldiers to match the number of rounds fired in one minute. I'd think one minute of firing would give a good audio sample. They might need to go with a shorter period of time depending on which machine gun is used -- a Vickers only had a 250 round belt, so unless feeding a second one in is really easy it will run out of rounds before the minute is up, and the largest magazine I can see for a Lewis was 97 rounds.
(Granted, that's assuming one machine gun. If they had two or three firing, any "gaps" in the sound as each one reloaded would be masked by the others. But to match the output, they'd have to keep increasing the number of people firing rifles -- a three Lewis gun test would require 120 people standing in for BEF soldiers, and unless J&A are teamed up with the US Army for this test that could be too many to get.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 17, 2015 2:45:30 GMT
Keep in mind that Machine Gunners, even those using water cooled MG's in 1914, fired short bursts unless the situation was dire. (Because even with water cooled MG's continuous fire will wear out the barrel rather quickly, and you'll also run out of ammunition before you know it).
The other factor to consider is the ammunition belts used, which only held 250 rounds. Meaning at best you'd only really be able to sustain maximum rate of fire for 30 seconds - so actual rate of fire would be around 415-440 rounds per minute (assuming five seconds to reload, which is probably somewhat higher than a decent crew could manage).
500 rounds per minute works out as 8 rounds per second, and while British troops might have been expected to be capable of firing 15 aimed shots per minute that was the minimum. Remember that the British army had a long tradition of fast and accurate gunnery, and I'd be astonished if the more experienced units were not more than capable of firing rates of one per second - The Enfield rifle is certainly capable of that rate of fire.
Taken together this would mean that 16 men could in theory match the weight of fire from a Vickers machine gun for short periods, roughly 8 seconds - which is when they'd have to stop and reload. As it is unlikely that the machine guns were firing bursts longer than that, and (off the top of my head) MG's were issued to groups far larger than 16 men even by 1918. It becomes evident that there is a decent chance that the riflemen could well have managed to equal or surpass the weight of fire from the MG's, at least for short periods.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 17, 2015 2:45:40 GMT
it would be cool to find someone who would loan them a vickers, a bren , OR a lewis. (and there might be such a person - a lot of gun collectors like to play with their toys)
but I don't think a full minute of sustained fire is a necessity.
in the in-depth analysis, I am wondering if the rate of fire is as important as the cadence of the fire. it would be great if they had something that was easy to adjust the rate of fire, to see if rate of fire made a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 17, 2015 2:49:02 GMT
Keep in mind that Machine Gunners, even those using water cooled MG's in 1914, fired short bursts unless the situation was dire. (Because even with water cooled MG's continuous fire will wear out the barrel rather quickly, and you'll also run out of ammunition before you know it). The other factor to consider is the ammunition belts used, which only held 250 rounds. Meaning at best you'd only really be able to sustain maximum rate of fire for 30 seconds - so actual rate of fire would be around 415-440 rounds per minute (assuming five seconds to reload, which is probably somewhat higher than a decent crew could manage). 500 rounds per minute works out as 8 rounds per second, and while British troops might have been expected to be capable of firing 15 aimed shots per minute that was the minimum. Remember that the British army had a long tradition of fast and accurate gunnery, and I'd be astonished if the more experienced units were not more than capable of firing rates of one per second - The Enfield rifle is certainly capable of that rate of fire. Taken together this would mean that 16 men could in theory match the weight of fire from a Vickers machine gun for short periods, roughly 8 seconds - which is when they'd have to stop and reload. As it is unlikely that the machine guns were firing bursts longer than that, and (off the top of my head) MG's were issued to groups far larger than 16 men even by 1918. It becomes evident that there is a decent chance that the riflemen could well have managed to equal or surpass the weight of fire from the MG's, at least for short periods. a british rifle platoon could certainly exceed the rate of fire for the first 15-30 rounds. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 17, 2015 3:05:25 GMT
That would be my thinking.
Assuming that not all of the MG's would be firing at the same time you'd end up with the sound of MG fire and a comparable weight of fire coming in. And since both the MG's and Rifles used the exact same round even the most perceptive person isn't going to be able to tell if the rounds hitting the ground or fellow troops come from a rifle or a MG. So it would be more than possible for even seasoned troops to badly misjudge the number of MG's actually firing at them.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 17, 2015 3:45:06 GMT
That would be my thinking. Assuming that not all of the MG's would be firing at the same time you'd end up with the sound of MG fire and a comparable weight of fire coming in. And since both the MG's and Rifles used the exact same round even the most perceptive person isn't going to be able to tell if the rounds hitting the ground or fellow troops come from a rifle or a MG. So it would be more than possible for even seasoned troops to badly misjudge the number of MG's actually firing at them. the key in my mind is that there is not going to be a lot of in-depth analysis going on in the heat of the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 17, 2015 9:40:31 GMT
Beaten to it?...
I was just about to ask, if it can fire 500/600/800/bazillion rounds per min, how long before they do the whole nine yards anyway.
Being many were loading their own belts as well...
So if you are sat the wrong side, how many identify a weapon by how many per min it fires, or how many experience themselves with the sound.
On Base, during the 80's, I could tell the aircraft going overhead by the sound alone, but, when you get "So many per day", a few months of that is a good learning tool.
What was the life expectancy of the front line troops.
I had years to learn the sound of all RAF and some allied aircraft, (and many commercial ones as well...) a few days is not enough to learn and memorise the sound of your enemy, and its the one you dont hear that is the worst.
Staying alive was more important.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 17, 2015 13:26:04 GMT
Beaten to it?... I was just about to ask, if it can fire 500/600/800/bazillion rounds per min, how long before they do the whole nine yards anyway. Being many were loading their own belts as well... So if you are sat the wrong side, how many identify a weapon by how many per min it fires, or how many experience themselves with the sound. On Base, during the 80's, I could tell the aircraft going overhead by the sound alone, but, when you get "So many per day", a few months of that is a good learning tool. What was the life expectancy of the front line troops. I had years to learn the sound of all RAF and some allied aircraft, (and many commercial ones as well...) a few days is not enough to learn and memorise the sound of your enemy, and its the one you dont hear that is the worst. Staying alive was more important. measure that lifespan in number of times being shot at... remember that World War 1 was marked by being a testbed for finding new and more efficient ways to kill the enemy. I have not researched to confirm, but I think much of the development of the machine gun happened during the war. here is an interesting article on the history of the critter - and it points out the original Maxim only fired at 300RPM. and British command estimated the value of a machine gun at 60-100 rifles. www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/machineguns.htm |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 18, 2015 10:56:20 GMT
From what I know, Machine gun had problem cooling, it was common to hear the phrase "Pass the Pi$$", as they had tanks of fluid on some to water cool the thing.
Not all used urine cooling....
Some stuck to water, as it was a good way to get hot water for a Brew.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 18, 2015 11:30:52 GMT
Beaten to it?... I was just about to ask, if it can fire 500/600/800/bazillion rounds per min, how long before they do the whole nine yards anyway. Being many were loading their own belts as well... So if you are sat the wrong side, how many identify a weapon by how many per min it fires, or how many experience themselves with the sound. On Base, during the 80's, I could tell the aircraft going overhead by the sound alone, but, when you get "So many per day", a few months of that is a good learning tool. What was the life expectancy of the front line troops. I had years to learn the sound of all RAF and some allied aircraft, (and many commercial ones as well...) a few days is not enough to learn and memorise the sound of your enemy, and its the one you dont hear that is the worst. Staying alive was more important. measure that lifespan in number of times being shot at... remember that World War 1 was marked by being a testbed for finding new and more efficient ways to kill the enemy. I have not researched to confirm, but I think much of the development of the machine gun happened during the war. here is an interesting article on the history of the critter - and it points out the original Maxim only fired at 300RPM. and British command estimated the value of a machine gun at 60-100 rifles. www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/machineguns.htmThe battle of Mons was in the early days of WW1, before the trenches had been constructed, it was in the earlier more mobile phase of the Schllieffen Plan. I belive the German forces attacked the Brtiish lines in open file across fields that were not heavily fortified. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 18, 2015 11:51:08 GMT
Quick WW1 myth that is MUCH busted, the film War Horse got it VERY wrong, when they filmed a scene with the horse running along very straight trenches.....
Now we all know the trenches ran in zig-zags.
Myth, was it just to stop one person being able to attack and wipe out everything they can see, was it as already demonstrated to stop one explosion spreading, or was it to do with the landscape.
As in they went around objects on the ground, like BIG trees and small buildings etc?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2015 15:21:54 GMT
Quick WW1 myth that is MUCH busted, the film War Horse got it VERY wrong, when they filmed a scene with the horse running along very straight trenches..... Now we all know the trenches ran in zig-zags. Myth, was it just to stop one person being able to attack and wipe out everything they can see, was it as already demonstrated to stop one explosion spreading, or was it to do with the landscape. As in they went around objects on the ground, like BIG trees and small buildings etc?... I am guessing it was a little of everything but started out with starting a trench in two different places, and not quite meeting - then discovering the zigs and zags had all sorts of useful benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 18, 2015 15:51:16 GMT
I get that feeling as well.
They didnt exactly have the experience at the start of the war, so, trenches almost evolved by "What works" engineering?...
They say that wars have given us huge advances in technology....
Not sure what we going to use them for, most of the time, but if you want your daffodils dug down deep, we sure know how to dig a trench?...
Maybe drainage ditches got a lot better.
But as for running a horse down them?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2015 15:55:05 GMT
I get that feeling as well. They didnt exactly have the experience at the start of the war, so, trenches almost evolved by "What works" engineering?... They say that wars have given us huge advances in technology.... Not sure what we going to use them for, most of the time, but if you want your daffodils dug down deep, we sure know how to dig a trench?... Maybe drainage ditches got a lot better. But as for running a horse down them?... I have a feeling they didn't station cavalry units in the trenches often. |
|
