Talk:Aviation in World War I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

DH-2

Ok, actually, the DH-2, along with the Nieuport 11(and 16) was one of the first planes to be capable of defeating the Fokker E series. It was MORE maneuverable than the Fokker E-Types, not less. And is credited with being one of the planes to end the Fokker Scourage. Anyone disagree?The UNeducated

Sounds good to me. I'm actually ignorant about the subject matter here. I'm a WWI aviation buff, but I'm pretty much learning as I write the article. FranksValli 03:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, a thrown brick would have been more manoeuverable than a Fokker Eindekker! It was little more than a recce/training plane, still using wing warping for turns, and seriously overladen by the full Spandau, until the later fitting of more powerful engines.

Its huge success was due 100% to the ability of the pilot to aim the gun by aiming the plane.

The DH-2 WAS very manoeuverable - for a pusher. It couldn't perform a roll or a loop, for example.

Pushers were designed for stability, and to avoid any chance of a spin, and in two seater pushers (Be2c for example) the Observer was the senior officer and sat in the front, using the excellent stability as e.g. a camera platform) chrisboote 15:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, pushers were no more inherently stable than tractor designs - you just can't generalise. The main difference between a pusher and a tractor was the increased drag of the tail boom structure of the pusher. This had a bearing on their performance - but none whatsoever on their other characteristics. The DH.2, for instance, was very unstable and sensitive (terrifying many of its pilots) but was fully aerobatic. Some WWI aircraft had bother looping - this was due to insufficient horsepower, mostly. Others weren't very good at controlled rolling - this was due to overly flexible (monoplane) wings that precluded proper lateral control. Neither thing has anything to do with being a pusher!!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Targets of early planes?

This will sound stupidly obvious to those in the know but ... the article says that the Fokkers were devastatingly effective... against what targets?? Presumably against allied aircraft or did they also fire on ground and naval targets? -- Russell E 20:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As well as Allied planes, they fired at ground troops, supply centres, gun emplacements, barrage balloons, anything that could be considered a military target. However, the Germans split their aviation into two distinct categories, squadrons designed to 'do stuff' - all of the list above plus photo reconnaissance, artillery spotting and the like, and hunter squadrons, whose primary function was to eliminate enemy aircaft. chrisboote 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

They were mainly attacking Allied reconaissance & artillery spotting aircraft, as well as the escorts for these missions. Trekphiler 05:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was also disappointed by the article's lack of information about allied aircraft. It even says the Germans lagged behind, but then only discusses Fokker in any real detail. I hope this will be corrected, because I couldn't find the information I came to this page to find. DonPMitchell (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled. Do you mean the article as a whole, or just the section on 1915? The Fokker monplane tends to get a special write-up in a general article like this because it was (in a way) the first real fighter - but most other aircraft types (both from the Allies and theCentral powers) have their own articles - which are linked from this one, and there are also special articles on several of the battles. What were the questions you wanted answered that were not? How exactlty should we change the article to cover questions such as the ones you had? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed table

Hi WWI wikipedians! I have merged the list of aircraft on this page with this list:

• List of military aircraft of Entente Powers in WWI

Therefore I removed the list in this page to avoid duplication and edits in different places. I have naturally linked to the lists under Aviation in World War I#Notable_Aircraft.

The other list for the Central Powers is: List of military aircraft of Central Powers in WWI.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Weight?

The article said:

"With limited engine power, aircraft could only afford a certain amount of weight, and therefore were made of mostly canvas and wood. Therefore, planes flown improperly, such as not cutting off the engine in a dive, would suffer structural failure due to G-forces."

I'm less than convinced weight & engine power governed construction in wood & canvas, & I know this didn't affect structual strength. I've rewritten. Trekphiler 17:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody evidently believes engine power governs construction material & changed it back, so I fixed it again. Trekphiler 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit

The article said:

"that year by the Canadian Roy Brown,"

I've seen a TV doc that traces the trajectories to an Australian AA MG team; I've rewritten to that effect. I also deleted "former Indy race car driver Eddie Rickenbacker gaining fame as America's top scoring ace with 26 enemy planes shot down." He wasn't that important, & certainly doesn't merit mention in the same breath as von Richthoven.

Also, can somebody delete Osterkamp's 6 WW2 kills? This is an article on WW1 aviation. And include WAB's VC? And, can somebody clarify (or correct) why Oz pilots are listed as "under Britain" & Canadians aren't? Both would've been RFC/RNAS, N? Trekphiler 17:41 & Trekphiler 18:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Art

Anybody want to try on an article on nose/side art? I've seen (& del) ref to Baracca's cavallino (the Ferrari page), & it occured to me we could collect that stuff: the cavallino, the Fr AF stork of 12h Gp de Chasse, the Hat in the Ring (17h Aero Sqn?), & others. N just WW1, either: WW2 bits like Memphis Belle or Glamorous Glennis, the AVG sharkmouth, Vietnam/modern Bunnyhead, whatever. Takers? Trekphiler 18:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

First ship sunk

I recall hearing that a ship was sunk by planes early in the war. I do not know any more details. I think it should be included in this article once more information is found. It was the first ship to be sunk by planes.

Stability of Pushers

I've reworded the line about Pushers being unstable and unmanoeuverable.

They were famously stable - some simply could NOT spin, even deliberately. chrisboote 15:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The only WWI type not liable to spin, if handled inexpertly, was the DH.6 (a tractor design). The DH.2 (a pusher) was nicknamed "the spinning incinerator". Beware of generalisations! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable aces

I've put the table in score order, & tidied it up a little chrisboote 15:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Rudolph Berthold is missed in the list (44 victories) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.197.173.103 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add famous bomber pilots

In 1915 Marie Marvingt became the first woman in the world to fly combat missions when she became a volunteer pilot flying bombing missions over German-held territory. She subsequently received the Croix de Guerre 1914 -1918 avec palmes (French Military Cross) for her aerial bombing of a German military base in Metz. Random Passer-by 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A matter of no importance

The article says WW1 aviation had little influence. I've seen a documentary, with historical advice from Brerton Greenhous, that implied aircraft produced the trench war, by making secret movement impossible. "Little influence"? Trekphiler 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidently somebody isn't paying attention & restored the "little influence" remark. I changed it back again. Trekphiler 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The documentary is absolutely correct, observation aircraft were key to the Allied victory in the First Battle of the Marne which basically ended mobile warfare on the Western Front. Just because they weren't carrying major bomb loads doesn't mean aircraft weren't important. LRT24 (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut it out

I deleted, "On February 5th Stephen W. Thompson, a member of the 1st Aero Squadron, achieved the first aerial victory by the U.S. military." Unless editors intend to mention the first victory of all powers, drawing attention to the U.S. is inappropriate. Trekphiler 06:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I also deleted

"==Popular culture==

"The highest scoring flying ace, Manfred von Richthofen, the Red Baron, is the main subject of popular culture. He has had many references in popular culture.

"Red Baron and Red Baron 3D were popular flight simulators based on World War I Aviation."

as insufficiently notable, this

" By the end of World War I, four American aviators were awarded the Medal of Honor: Fighter pilots Eddie Rickenbacker and Frank Luke, along with recon pilot Harold Goettler and his observer, Erwin Beckley, a member of the Kansas Army National Guard who had volunteered for aviation duty. Beckley was the first of only three National Guard aviators to be awarded the Medal of Honor during the 20th century.[2]"

as too much emphasis on U.S. aviators, this

"It took World War II for the rest of the world to be convinced of this. Finally, in 1946, Mitchell was posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, "in recognition of his outstanding pioneer service and foresight in the field of American military aviation".

as irrelevant to WWI aviation (& too much emphasis on U.S. aviatiors), this

"Given the early state of development of aircraft at the time, aerial combat missions played a relatively small part in determining the outcome of the war, in particular in comparison with World War II, just two decades later, where they played a far more crucial role."

as wrong & irrelevant to WWI aviation, & this

"Furthermore, two-seaters could dive at very high speeds due to their excessive weight, allowing them to put some distance between them and enemy fighters."

as flat wrong; 2-seaters would be reluctant to dive, because they were heavier, & thus more likely to suffer structural failure pulling out. Trekphiler (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Burn, baby, burn

I rewrote, "Attacks on balloons were so frequent that observers were given parachutes" to "Because balloons were so flammable, due to the hydrogen used to inflate them, observers were given parachutes". Due to their strong AA defences, a product of their importance, balloons were tough targets. Trekphiler 06:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The trick wasn't so much destroying the balloon - that was fairly easy - it was avoiding getting shot to ribbons in the process. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can't get close enough, it's a tough target. Trekphiler (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The worst moment seems to have been as you went past the point where the balloon used to be (either shot down or successfully winched down, if you missed it). Every machine gun and AA piece in sight with your precise range. OUCH. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is an understatement. Don't forget, the fighters were covered in dope, so they'd burn pretty nicely, too. And to think some guys specialized in balloons! Sheesh! Trekphiler (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Trekphiler, you seem to forget that anyone could have easily shot down a balloon from ABOVE. Balloons couldn't fire upwards, as doing so would shoot themselves down. That makes them VERY vulnerable if you come at them at a high enough altitude.Hawkrawkr (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And you're forgetting it's not the balloons doing the firing: it's guns on the ground, with a completely unobstructed view. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are probably right..... But one barrage of incendiary bullets from a Lewis gun would have taken a balloon down before they were likely to get shot down by AA guns. Also, a balloon is easily fitted with a machine gun or two. Not that they would have had much of a chance to use it considering how fast a battle would be. A battle like between balloons and airplanes would go something like this: 1: Airplanes arrive, commence firing 2: AA guns start shooting 3: Some airplanes get hit, balloon is either hit or winched down 4: AA guns not "removed of their crew", so to speak continues firing on retreating airplanes 5: Surviving airplanes return to airstrip. Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a talk page for improving the article. If you have a specific suggestion, state it and cite your sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was simply proving a point, and did not realize how old this discussion was when I first joined it. And trekphiler, one more thing. Look at the Balloon Busters page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_buster ); people inside the gondolas of balloons did too fire machine guns at enemy planes. I typically know what I'm talking about before I say something; The things I say are usually well-founded with evidence behind them, and I wish people would look into things before they try to shoot down my remarks. (Note, this is not a personal attack; I am frustrated with a number of other users, and I am more frustrated with most of them than I am with you. Thank you for understanding)Hawkrawkr (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Lloyd Hamilton (aviator) died after shooting down a balloon. It was very dangerous, almost a suicide mission. In the strict economics of wartime, an enemy balloon was not a very good trade for a friendly fighter aircraft, but tactically the task had to be completed from time to time. Even in WWII, there were still a few observation balloons and the job did not get any easier. Lilya Litvyak was one of the rare pilots to down one; she did it by flying far out over the enemy and coming in from the wrong side, surprising the defending ground forces. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I wasn't denying that they were tough to bring down; I was simply saying that there were ways to make it easier, like the method you just mentioned. Thank you, for the interesting input, Hawkrawkr (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Introduction - WPMILHIST Assessment

A beautiful start, with some interesting information and nice pictures. But the intro is a bit weak I feel. Though it is more or less common knowledge, the first few phrases of the article seem a bit awkward to me and do not sufficiently convey the point that it was not their use "for reconnaissance purposes and later as fighters and even bombers" that was revolutionary, but their use at all in war. This is a big deal, and should be represented as such. In addition, just stylistically, it might be nice to weasel in there somewhere a bold-fonted title for the piece. LordAmeth 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now written a new intro, not great but it does give an idea of what the article is about. The old one is now "prewar developments." LRT24 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

(Found this in the article, didn't want to outright remove it) Anynobody 05:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
To further discuss the airwar in World War I go to the "Jasta 76 forum." You can find it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jasta-76

Major rewrite

This article contained a lot of "howlers" - not to mention repetitious matter and poor organisation - and and was very badly in need of a rewrite - I have had a first big "swing" at the first half (up to the "Fokker scourge") - will finish the job soon.

Comments and corrections (obviously) welcome. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Now down to 1918 in the "history" bit!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally did the 1918 "history" section (after more than four years procrastination) - at least it's improved! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Spelling??

Personally I think that if we standardise spelling in this article it should NOT be to US spelling, as American involvement in WWI aviation is pretty minor - due to America's very late entry into the war, and the fact that apart from the large Curtis flying boats there were no American designed combat aircraft. It's more of an "International" subject that an "American" one, anyway, and should, I feel, use British spelling. Any thoughts?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No argument from me, but I'm betting you'll get a lot of U.S.-based editors changing your Brit spelling for not knowing any better, just like they've done on Tank... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into which english variant this article should be using, the Manual of Style emphasizes commonality wherever possible. I notice that in Brit English "synchronize" is correct, but non-preferred. In American English, "synchronise" is incorrect. APL (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't make the change myself because I have no stake in this article, but this article was originally an -ize english variant. (Either US spelling or GB Oxford spelling, no way to know which was intended.) WP:ENGVAR says that international topics should be kept at their "original" dialect. APL (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Times is a major adherent of the "ise" endings but I like Oxford's explanation that words taken from ancient Greek language would have had a 'z' in them, and that English does not need to respond to the French use of 's' in that spelling. For best compatibility between American and English spellings in military articles, I think the use of Oxford spelling is called for. My two cents: pennies or pence. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Brieftauben Abteilung Ostende?

Can somebody include a translation? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was already in! (is now) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal. Is that "pigeon flight" official? I'd have said "carrier pigeon detachment". TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:09 & 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Could be right - my German verges on the non-existent!! - My source says "flight" I think. "Detachment" makes more sense I suppose. Translations don't really have to be literal, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen abteilung translated a bunch of diff ways, & to some extent, I think it depends on context. In an army, it seems to mean one thing, in a bureaucracy, another, so in a military bureaucracy, there's no telling. ;) I do think the closer we can get, the better, if only because it may be used as source material somewhere. (Also because I'm a bit fanatic about it, but lets not discuss that. :D ) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's have "detachment" then - although some keen German scholar is likely to come along and say it should really be "wing" again! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Baron's victories

An editor felt constrained to add "probably less" to a mention of von R's "80 victories". Submit that his credited victories are precisely 80 which is all we need say here. He may have shot down a few less, or even considerably more, but this is not the point, nor the place to nitpick over it. The question is in any case well discussed and referenced in the Manfred von Richthofen article, which is the place for it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd only chaged it because there are "disputed" tags on the Brit scores below it, & they're no more or less accurate than his. How good the "documentaton" is, I'm not sure, either, since AFAIK, the standards weren't as rigorous in WW1 as WW2, & even in WW2 some claims are at best dubious. Moreover, many of the "official" claims in wartime (all countries, all wars) don't stand scrutiny, as the article in question points out; that deserves a mention, IMO. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

He was officially credited with 80. The bulk of these kills correspond with British losses, which would indicate that German checking procedures in WW1 were pretty good. In WW2 Nazi figures sometimes have no relation whatever to British losses which indicates Nazi propaganda could be very shonky (so what's news), however strict the "official" line was. But this is NOT relevant anyway - especially in a fairly casual mention it is best to keep to verifiable fact and official numbers (even Nazi ones) and to leave out speculation altogether.

In WW1 no British pilot was officially credited with any total - the "ace" system had no official backing (combat reports were checked - but mainly for intelligence reasons rather than "keeping tally"). This is the main reason why different published sources have different totals for some British aces (it is in this sense that Mannock's and Bishop's scores are "disputed"). Published scores (preferably official ones) are all we can go on - how many disputed or unconfirmed kills might be subtracted or added is something we can't tell after all these years.

I suppose the real reason I would rather NOT get into these questions here is that we do already have specialist articles on the subjects - and these are bedevilled with enthusiasts determined to muddy the waters with endless pointless speculation, descending at times to partisan nonsense more suitable to supporters of football teams than students of military history. Let's keep this one "clean" at least. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue against keeping out partisan nonsense, by any means. Do you object fo a fn of the Flight article saying many scores are disputed? Offhand, I don't recall if it called von Richthoven into question, & I don't have it in front of me. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If an individual fighter pilot's score is to be "disputed" in the sense of calling him a liar (and it has been done!) then I think that this is simply not the place - an individual's score being "disputed" in the sense that air historians who have seriously researched the records differ (like with Mannock and Bishop) is after all pretty frivolous, and merits no more than a bare mention. On the other hand a general statement that air aces' figures tend to be inflated due to the nature of air combat certainly belongs in the article on air aces - but probably not here. Among other reasons - this applies to air warfare in general - and less, rather than more to WW1 than later conflicts where air combat was much MORE fleeting. For the record, there is no serious dispute (in any of the three senses) about Richthofen's "score" - and if there were I don't think it would have much notability in this article. After all - we don't say he "shot down 80 E.A." but that he was "credited with 80 victories". Which would remain true even if there were all kinds of "dispute" involved. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it isn't von R's record I question (IIRC, he had a habit of recovering pieces of his vics, unless that's movie propaganda); I just have a bit of trouble with tagging two top Allied aces as seeming liars & letting go others. That said, you make a good enough argument for me to let it go. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The movie has very little relationship with fact - but yes, like a lot of people at the time R. WAS obsessed with souvenirs. I don't think that the "(disputed)" notes against Mannock and Bishop were meant to insinuate that either ace knowingly over-claimed. In Mannock's case the reverse is the case, in fact. Is there a better word than "disputed"?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's not the word I have trouble with in itself, its having it attached only to them, when the totality of claims is open to question. And, as noted (I hope...), it's not a strong objection in any case. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Richthofen has his own article

Please give the mention of Richthofen in the article a rest. The following facts may be confirmed at his article:

Richthofen was shot down at least twice - once by the F.E.2d ace Cunnell in July 1917, and again (fatally), probably by ground fire, in April 1918. He was CREDITED with 80 air victories at the time of his death. Consensus is that this "score" is most probably a not unrealistic estimate of the true number of allied aircraft he shot down - but thus borders on "not-notable" in this article, at least. The number of credited victories is a confirmable statistic, any supposed "real" figure must be speculation (this goes for any fighter pilot, of course). Guess which one belongs here???

Somebody appears to be confusing him with Roy Brown (!!) & the Oz MG team deserving credit. Unless it's just stupidity... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was assuming the confusion you mention, obviously.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, but this way, if it's somebody not knowing better, maybe they'll notice before "correcting" it again. (Or not...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Formation of Jastas

The point of the paragraph about the formation of the Jastas is that they re-established German air superiority after they got Albatroses - the early Focker and Halberstatdt "D" types they started out with don't need to get emphasis in this context. There is a full article on the Jastas for this sort of thing.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Air Aces

Thrashing about getting all stupid and emotional about "victory scores" is immature and totally inappropriate in a reference encyclopedia. Trying to determine just how close the "real" number of victories was to the "officially credited" is every bit as pointless and infinitely more difficult than would be the "exercise" of reassessing the results of a sixty year old sporting event (say, a test match, based on umpires' decisions that may or may not have been questionable). First World War victory scores are in in fact likely to be closer to reality than later wars - where air combat moved much faster and was far more fleeting, and where the hysterical propaganda of certain totalitarian regimes casts a distorting pall over everything - with the far-right (and far-left) sympathies of some commentators further muddying the waters. In any case, this sort of thing belongs in the flying aces article (if anywhere). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)