It was a single shot, hand loaded weapon. They hollowed out the propeller shaft and put the gun there, with the loading mechanism extending back through the engine to appear in the cockpit.
As for why he did it? Propbably just because he could. Fonck is noted for his using a single burst from his machine gun of around 5 rounds to kill his opponent. He almost never got in dogfights, he would fly off alone and high above the battlefield, spot his target from “impossible distances” as his comrades put it, and then kill them. So honestly, he probably only used the 37mm because he could. Frances other leading ace, Georges Guynemer, whom everyone liked more than Fonck, was the first to use the 37mm in his place (The French army as a whole made massive use of portable, one shot 37mms, that famous picture of American troops prone in a burning forest during the offensive has them loading a French 37mm) and was able to down two German plans with it.
Hi Worsham. Caporetto is where Rommel earned his Pour le Merite. He is always pictured with it as his throat (very pretty medal). Of course, it must have been a bit insulting to the Italians with whom he later spent his better known years.
Thanks again DarthShizNit for the explanation.
@wittmann:
Caporetto is where Rommel earned his Pour le Merite. He is always pictured with it as his throat (very pretty medal).
It’s quite a coincidence you mentioned this because just last evening I was watching a documentary from which I learned that Rommel had served at Caporetto in WWI. It was an episode from the five-part series “Apocalypse: World War One”, which I picked up on DVD last weekend. It was co-produced in France (script, footage editing and digital colorization) and Quebec (music, sound effects and narration), and it was shown on TV earlier this year (http://natgeotv.com.au/tv/apocalypse-world-war-i/episodes.aspx?series=1). The DVD has both French and English versions of the narration. I also have the other two sets in the collection: “Apocalypse: Hitler” (mainly covering the inter-war years and “Apocalypse: World War Two”. The WWII series was actually produced first and the WWI set came out last, so one of these days I’ll sit down and watch the three series back-to-back in the proper order.
I can’t decide if the adopted German in me can override the native Italian. Have never looked much into Caporetto, as it was such a bad defeat and reverse for Italy.
WW2 is safer for me: both were on the sane side!
Not edited for the mistyped “sane”……Quite like it!
@wittmann:
I can’t decide if the adopted German in me can override the native Italian. Have never looked much into Caporetto, as it was such a bad defeat and reverse for Italy. WW2 is safer for me: both were on the sa[m]e side!
Only up until 1943, as illustrated by what happened to the battleship Roma. Anyway, if it makes you feel better, just think back to the early 19th century when France and Britain were mortal enemies and when, at one point, Britain teamed up with Prussia to fight Napoleon!
Infamy!
We only pretended to be allies in those two wars. Just wait until the next one!
I miss the Middle Ages and our glorious victories against the ignoble and cowardly French.
As for Prussia, no nobler nation ever existed.
Have just been to a castle over the border in Wales, so am definitely feeling medieval. And English. We gave Maddy a bow for her birthday last week. I only hope she will be a long-bowman(woman) one day. She pretended to fire an arrow at her mother through the guardroom slit at Goodrich on Sunday too.
Had Italy sided with the Central Powers could France survive a two front war?
There is no doubt had this happened, the Allies would have invaded Italian soil.
Would have been hard for France, but how long before AH broke the Alliance and walked in the back door? Surely Italy would have kept a large proportion of troops in the Veneto, thus prejudicing its chances in the West
Did someone say they both distrusted and hated each other? Not the best way to fight a war!
@wittmann:
Would have been hard for France, but how long before AH broke the Alliance and walked in the back door? Surely Italy would have kept a large proportion of troops in the Veneto, thus prejudicing its chances in the West
Did someone say they both distrusted and hated each other? Not the best way to fight a war!
With Russia opening the war with a deep push into Austria-Hungarian Empire, I don’t know if that would he happened.
Both countries would have needed German support.
Lucky for the Entente, Italy joined them then.
I really did not know it was the Russians who attacked first, so thank you Worsham.
@wittmann:
Would have been hard for France, but how long before AH broke the Alliance and walked in the back door? Surely Italy would have kept a large proportion of troops in the Veneto, thus prejudicing its chances in the West Did someone say they both distrusted and hated each other? Not the best way to fight a war!
The fact that Italy, even though it was part of the Triple Alliance with Germany and A-H, initially remained neutral and later joined the Allies suggests that Italy was ambivalent at best (if not outright distrustful) towards A-H. Though in fairness, WWII illustrates that the who’s-on-which-side dynamics in a war can change rapidly and that nominal enemies can sometimes end up as allies despite residual (or even ongoing) mutual distrust and antipathy.
Italy was openly hostile to Austria-Hungary. No way she was going to fight for Austria-Hungary in an offensive war.
That said, even if she did. Ask yourself, if the weak and ineffective Hapsburg army could curb stomp the Italians for 3 years, what makes you think the French would have any sort of difficulty? Not to mention the barely functioning Italian economy would have collapsed within a few weeks due to British naval blockade. Italy would have been not but another corpse for Germany to be shackled too.
