What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Unknown Airman

R

RSTORMVIEW

New Member
Rstormview is researching for a book on 'who actually killed The Red Baron von Richthofen, the deadliest fighter pilot of WW1' because there are many claimants, Vickers gunners, Lewis, Lee Enfield, and Captain Roy Brown in a Sopwith Camel.
The bullet that killed him was found still inside his flying suit but souvenired by an Aussie medical orderly and has not been seen since.
The interesting thing is a quote from another fighter ace with 40 victories, R. Coltishaw who went on to become an Air Marshall. Coltishaw said ' its a pity we couldn't see the bullet because the RFC used a different type of bullet to the ground troops'.
Does anybody know anything about this? Was it more streamlined because aircraft needed more range than was usual for the trenches.
Would appreciate your opinions.

Rstormview is an ex-Navy fighter pilot bringing a pilots eye assessment of who fired the shot because a lot of the claims are based on faulty logic. For example, could a Vickers fire vertically upwards at an aircraft? At a close range up 300 feet, would a wallet stop a bullet from going clean through a body and out the other side? (given that the aircraft was made of stretched canvas ver a wood frame and the bullet did not strike bone)
 
I thought this question had been done to death and finally resolved (there was a TV programme about it a year or three ago). Oh we, I suppose it's in the same category as "what killed Wittman's Tiger tank?" and "which shell sank HMS Hood?" - the arguments will go on forever, even after the facts have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Anyway, to the details: both ground and aircraft Vickers MGs normally fired the .303 Mk.VII ball, the only difference being that aircraft used ammo specially selected (Green Cross) or specially made (Red Cross) to achieve higher quality standards to minimise the risk of gun jams. The bullets were exactly the same.

There was some specialised explosive and/or incendiary aircraft ammo developed for attacking hygrogen-filled balloons and airships, but as far as I know this was not in general use (being mainly restricted to England for use against Zeppelin raids) and in any case was for safety reasons restricted to Lewis guns.

The flight of bullets is inherently unstable and easily disrupted by hitting any barrier, which may cause them to tumble. Depending on what it has passed through, a bullet could be stopped more easily than you might expect.
 
Thank you Tony for that.
P J Carisella did a most exhaustive research and concluded that the bullet was fired by a Sergeant Popkin firing a mounted Vickers. Because of the angle of the entry and exit wounds and because The Red Baron was in a vertical banked turn (confirmed by the radial distance between the start of the action and where he crashed - its the maths, at the speed he was going the radius of turn is governed by the angle of bank) so, is it likely that a mounted Vickers could fire vertically upwards? and at a range of 300 feet (aircraft altitude), given a neat entry wound, missing all bones and going straight through the heart, would it have been more likely that a bullet from a Vickers fired at such close range 300 feet) would have gone straight through and out the other side? and at 600? rounds/min, you would expect more than one hit?

Would appreciate your opinions. I am exploring the theory that, because the bullet was still inside his flying jacket, that it must have been at the absolute limit of its killing range which makes it a possibility that it was fired by Captain Roy Brown DFC and Bar and that it just happened to be a very lucky shot.
Luicky shots do happen. The Red Baron shot and killed Lanoe Hawker VC with a lucky shot at an extreme range as Hawker's faster machine, out of ammo, was bolting for home.
In my view Roy Brown was doing what a Squadron Leader should do, he was coming to the aide of a rookie wingman in trouble, he was where he should have been and he did fire hopeful shots at long range to try and put the Baron off. In my view it is a pity that a decorated pilot who was doing his job, should be denied the credit of a famous victory by speculation.
Okay I am a pilot and on his side, but only if the facts justify it.

That is why I am asking you guys.

Many thanks

R
 
A variety of high-angle mountings were improvised during WW1 to enable the Vickers to point upwards to fire at aircraft.

I wouldn't expect more than one hit, the aircraft was moving and the gunner would be swinging his weapon (unless the plane was heading straight for him). The spread of hits would therefore normally be quite dispersed.

I can't really add any more to the penetration issue than I've already said. If there was nothing at all between the gun and the pilot, then at short range the bullet should go straight through, but if anything at all got in the way, all bets are off. Also, even a wood and canvas plane had a lot of metal fittings and other parts.
 
Have you read "The many deaths of the Red Baron" by Frank McGuire
ISBN 1-894255-06-2

Quite an interesting read.
 
I was always told that he flew to low and slow over the trenches. They fired the fateful round(s) that brought him down. His wingman/friends were always told to NEVER fly above the trenches, for sure you will die. Now his other airplanes that were not engaged saw him do what he had told them never to do. He was flying over the trenches.

This is just what I heard and truthfully, I believe this is how he got hit and crashed.:tinysmile_hmm_t2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top