Talk:Albatros D.III

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Albatros D.III article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / European / German / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Schwarzlose guns[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Austrian version[edit]

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)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Albatros D.III/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Was assessed as A-class, but the stats are not in the proper format, there are no sources, no infobox, and the article hasn't been peer reviewed. B-class is generous. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 07:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)