Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Flaming Onions.


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#41 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 16 February 2011 - 21:35

It was called a 'Revolverkanone' (Revolving Cannon) and was known as a 'Lichtspucker' (Light Spitter) by the Germans and fired low velocity flares at set intervals that burnt out at the top of the arc - I think the frequency was and velocity was such that as an optical illusion they appeared to hang stationary in the air.

Image
  • 0

#42 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 4182
  • LocationQld, Australia

Posted 17 February 2011 - 00:52

But where do they put the onions :? :oops:
  • 0

#43 EclecticRazor

EclecticRazor
  • Posts: 631

Posted 17 February 2011 - 05:54

The idea about the different colored flak puffs wouldn't be too hard to incorporate. Processing power might make the rest feasible at some point down the road. I agree with the idea of a more varied battlefield and flaming onions.

Off-topic - Does anyone know how many planes had armored seats? I think maybe the Junkers J1 did, but know of none other.
  • 0

#44 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:58

All of the German ground attack J series (AEG JI and JII, Albatros JI and JII and Junkers JI) had armored cockpits. All but the Albatros JI (which had a very short service life) had armored engines as well. Some AEG JII and Albatros JI had downward firing Bofors 20mm cannon for tank busting: "Aircraft of World War I" by Herris and Pearson.
  • 0

#45 ParachuteProne

ParachuteProne
  • Posts: 498

Posted 17 February 2011 - 13:39

Wonder if there are any pics of them from the air ?
  • 0

#46 EclecticRazor

EclecticRazor
  • Posts: 631

Posted 17 February 2011 - 18:36

HotTom

Thanks for the answer. Does seem like the Germans cared most about their pilots, especially when considering parachutes.
  • 0

#47 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 17 February 2011 - 20:28

The parachute thing was a myth EcleticRazor it never was British policy- what happened was in the post-war fashion to bash generals and commanders in general for being cold-blooded and blood thirsty a passing comment in the Air Ministry during the minutes of a discussion on parachutes was taken as gospel policy by veterans and historians post war and persisted to this day.

The real reason was very much to do with reliability (static line chutes don't work very well from falling aircraft as often the line never pulls taut or snags- see Germans c1918) and weight/space issues - if you get a chance look inside a WWI scout's cockpit and see if you can imagine climbing in in a Sidcot suit and a parachute and still be able to move or control the plane.
  • 0

#48 EclecticRazor

EclecticRazor
  • Posts: 631

Posted 18 February 2011 - 05:48

Tom,

Thanks for the correction - seems like I have seen that little anecdote in a lot of places.

Reliability was a problem, and the Germans still went forward with it. Maybe it was just to make pilots more willing to fly against ever-increasing odds. Udet snagged on the tail of a DVII and barely came away with his life. Lowenhardt plummeted to his death because of chute malfunction.

If I were in the RAF and saw my enemy parachute to safety - I would be a little miffed, and not just at the German pilot.
  • 0

#49 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1508

Posted 18 February 2011 - 09:43

The parachute thing was a myth EcleticRazor it never was British policy- what happened was in the post-war fashion to bash generals and commanders in general for being cold-blooded and blood thirsty a passing comment in the Air Ministry during the minutes of a discussion on parachutes was taken as gospel policy by veterans and historians post war and persisted to this day.

The real reason was very much to do with reliability (static line chutes don't work very well from falling aircraft as often the line never pulls taut or snags- see Germans c1918) and weight/space issues - if you get a chance look inside a WWI scout's cockpit and see if you can imagine climbing in in a Sidcot suit and a parachute and still be able to move or control the plane.


Not so.

" … On the outbreak of the First World War, parachutes were issued to crews of airships and balloons. It was claimed at the time that parachutes were too bulky to be used by pilots of aircraft. R. E. Calthrop, a retired British engineer, had in fact developed the Guardian Angel, a parachute for aircraft pilots, before the war. He informed the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) of his invention and successful tests were carried out by Mervyn O'Gorman, Superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Factory at Farnborough.

Despite encouraging test results, Sir David Henderson, Commander of the RFC, was unwilling to give permission for them to be issued to his pilots. Pressure was also applied on Calthrop not to publicize his invention. With growing numbers of pilots dying as a result of their aircraft being hit by enemy fire, Calthorp rebelled and in 1917 advertised his Guardian Angel parachute in several aeronautical journals. Calthorp revealled details of the tests that had been carried out by the Royal Flying Corps and pointed out that British pilots were willing to buy their own parachutes but were being denied the right to use them.

{…]

The Air Board responded to Calthorp's adverts by setting up a committee to look into the possibility of allowing RFC pilots to use parachutes. Although some members of the committee favoured their use, the Air Board decided against the measure. Officially the reason given was that the Guardian Angel was not 100% safe, it was too bulky to be stored by the pilot and its weight would affect the performance of the aeroplane. Unofficially the reason was given in a report that was not published at the time: "It is the opinion of the board that the presence of such an apparatus might impair the fighting spirit of pilots and cause them to abandon machines which might otherwise be capable of returning to base for repair." However, the Royal Flying Corps did decide to use them to drop Allied spies behind enemy lines.

Pilots such as Major Mick Mannock became increasingly angry about the decision to deny British pilots the right to use parachutes. He pointed out that by 1917 they were being used by pilots in the German Airforce, French Army Air Service and the United States Air Service Instead of carrying parachutes, RFC pilots carried revolvers instead. As Mannock explained, unable to carry a parachute, he had a revolver "to finish myself as soon as I see the first signs of flames."

There are enough other sources, and this quote is not made up. There will be probably more, if the archives are being opened one hundred years after the end of the war, in 2018.

Greetings,
Catfish
  • 0

#50 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 18 February 2011 - 10:00

It has been misquoted - I was lucky enough to see micro-fiche of the minutes that were in question at the Ministry of Defence archive a few years ago and the archivist made a point of highlighting it. The actual minutes finished something like 'It is to be noted that not all members of the board are convinced that the issue of parachutes would not lead to pilots abandoning a potentially repairable aeroplane' the real reason and final conclusion was based on reliability and space it has been blown out of all proportion - so much so that the archivists take pleasure in pointing it out. It was never policy official or otherwise that they didn't trust the men who for the most part were officers remember and therefore held to a higher status by the standards of the time - especially by fellow officers - the mere suggestion of cowardice among the officer cadre was a large taboo - so as such even the notes to the minutes is significant. For further confirmation of this it is worth reading Peter Hart's book 'Aces Falling' - I know Peter has seen the same Microfiche that I have.

All of this isn't to say that RFC veterans were not angry about the decision not to issue them (they lost many friends who otherwise may have survived) indeed one pilot Arthur Lee was angry enough to title his memoir 'No Parachute'
  • 0

#51 Frankyboy

Frankyboy
  • Posts: 806

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:49

high staff officers, beeing as far away as possible from an enemy bullet, can sometimes realy be a pain…………….
  • 0

#52 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1508

Posted 18 February 2011 - 15:16

Hello,
life in the military has never been nice, but it was especially especially "uneasy" in the british army. In the 19th century the british military was known as the "army of fear", but it was the fear of the common soldiers towards their superiors. Prussian militarism was not nice either, but individuals had at least some rights.

Greetings,
Catfish
  • 0

#53 EclecticRazor

EclecticRazor
  • Posts: 631

Posted 18 February 2011 - 20:51

Either way, somehow the Germans did get to use chutes. My question is whether or not this reality can be reflected in an update. It could easily be an option at some point. I also wonder how much resistance to this idea has to do with a preference for flying as the RFC/RAF.
  • 0

#54 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 18 February 2011 - 21:14

I think people would like it to be implemented if it was easy but I bet people would moan if they modelled them failing or couldn't get out of a cockpit - 'arghh man I bailed out and the @*%$ game cheated me now my career/streak is over'

Also I think that as a whole they played such a small part in the great scheme of things that they are fairly low down on people's priority lists
  • 0

#55 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 18 February 2011 - 21:29

I think people would like it to be implemented if it was easy but I bet people would moan if they modelled them failing or couldn't get out of a cockpit - 'arghh man I bailed out and the @*%$ game cheated me now my career/streak is over'

From gameplay point of view most likely implementation would be that you would always get out of cockpit but parachute would only open x% of cases.

Also I think that as a whole they played such a small part in the great scheme of things that they are fairly low down on people's priority lists

And with this I agree completelly.
  • 0

#56 EclecticRazor

EclecticRazor
  • Posts: 631

Posted 18 February 2011 - 22:05

MIG-77,

I agree, it isn't a priority for most - including myself. Nevertheless, when it can be done - at whatever point it isn't delaying something else more pressing - it would be a welcome enhancement.

It would be interesting to see the wish list that has been generated on this forum and which of those 777 sees as worth considering down the road. Also, which are simply beyond the scope of the engine.
  • 0

#57 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 18 February 2011 - 23:31

It would also be odd to have chutes since we don't have pilots bodies except in 3rd person view so you'd bail out and look up and down and just see a parachute with nothing attached to it.
  • 0

#58 EclecticRazor

EclecticRazor
  • Posts: 631

Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:08

Tom - very true!

I hope the Ghost pilot from 1st person view goes the way of the dodo eventually. I know, I know, list of priorities. Would make for much better videos and that is certain.
  • 0

#59 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 4182
  • LocationQld, Australia

Posted 19 February 2011 - 02:43

We've gone from flaming onions (good) to parachutes and now visible bodies in 1st person (bad). I should think 777 has enough on their plate. Personally I don't think parachutes are required and I very much dislike cockpit bodies cluttering up the VC view. Raise my arm here so I can check the rpm (would it even do that … yet another flippin command) or perform trackir gymnastics to see under the arm. No thanks. There's a thing called imagination. Some of you may be aware of it ;)
  • 0

#60 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 19 February 2011 - 18:55

It's what keeps me happy on long cold winter nights Catchov. ;)
  • 0

#61 SYN_Bandy

SYN_Bandy
  • Posts: 2599
  • LocationWishing I was in the La Cloche

Posted 20 February 2011 - 18:33

Flaming onions - am I the only one that when I'm near a Central base or balloon would like to be attacked by the legendary Flaming Onions - anti aircraft guns. It would be amazing to see them fire at dawn or dusk - allied pilots were convinced it was balls of fire on long strings.

I'm with you Tom, if it hasn't been linked earlier, see this thread regarding flaming onions… simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3139331/1.html

Image
  • 0

#62 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 20 February 2011 - 18:35

Posted this else where think it's relevant though:

I don't see why flak and ground fire can't just trigger and 'appear' without objects on the ground so if you fly too low near the front say 2-3 miles either side or around an enemy air field/station/town/balloon the flak becomes deadly and randomly spawns between 0 and 50m of your plane in varying degrees of thickness and accuracy. Why you need an object to actually 'fire' the archie/ground machine gun fire is beyond me.

  • 0

#63 =AH=_Sid

=AH=_Sid
  • Posts: 1229

Posted 24 October 2011 - 16:21

I keep reading about these "Flaming Onions" in "Aces Falling: War Above The Trenches, 1918", but I still can't picture them in my head.
I wish we had them in ROF just so I knew what they looked like. :)
  • 0

#64 Zoring

Zoring
  • Posts: 850

Posted 24 October 2011 - 16:26

Just imagine 5 flares floating towards you all close together like.
  • 0

#65 JimmyBlonde

JimmyBlonde
  • Posts: 2346

Posted 24 October 2011 - 23:46

From what I've read it was believed that they were 37mm projectiles linked together by some kind of chain and would tumble end-over end through the air fired from some kind of multi-barrel, pre-war siege weapon. They were also reported to be woefully inaccurate but very frightening to be in the air with and pilots took great pleasure in destroying an onion battery. There was a great article somewhere which I may have in PDF format if anybody wants it.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users