Talk:Albatros D.III

Schwarzlose guns
The information added in a recent edit may well be a good addition to the article, but needs some work (preferably by the original editor). slotting new stuff in between old text and a cite, for instance, gives the impression that the cite is being "stolen" as it were. Unless the old citation really does cover the new information?? Also the strange notion than a brass cartridge rim gets "ripped off" by an extractor is very strange. By all means clean this up and put it back in. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What's "extremely strange" about it? This is a well known problem, not just with the Schwarzlose (which was infamous for it), when blowback actions are used on rifle cartridges. They have a very sudden action and this has a common failure of damaging the cartridge groove or rim. It's one reason why machine pistols were developed, with loads weak enough to survive blowback actions, before assault rifles that are broadly the same idea but with a full-power cartridge.
 * AIUI, the problem with aircraft guns that was specifically a problem for the Scwarzlose was because in infantry use it used a delayed blowback action (to stop the cartridge tearing problem). This didn't try to extract until chamber pressure had fallen, and the case walls were no longer pressed so hard against the chamber. However for aircraft, this increased the lock time of the weapon and made synchronisation with the propeller awkward. This remained an issue for all armies throughout the war, and only the British use of the fast-acting Constantinescu interrupter gear really offered a solution. So aircraft Schwarzloses were adjusted by their armourers so that the blowback delay was at a minimum (making synchronisation easier), but at the cost of extra risk of savage extractions and torn cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Austrian version
One does wonder why Austrian Albatros propeller spinners fell off while German ones didn't - also why the Austrian machines were strengthened and had thereafter no structural failures while German ones (after repeated attempts to strengthen the lower wing) went right on having them. Unfortunately, unless we can find a source that explains these anomalies we are stuck with them. Explanations, even casual comments that assume that (say) the Austrians did, or didn't do something the Germans could have copied, are speculation and/or original research.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)