Talk:Sopwith 1½ Strutter

Map of operators

The map needs updating to reflect civil and military operators, and new countries that I've added to the list of operators. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin of name, in lede too.

The origin of the name is explained within the text but should really be summarised in the lede paragraphs as well.

-- EdJogg (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC) (Hit-and-run comment in passing...not watching for replies.)

French aircraft??

The considerable licence production and use of the Sopwith by the French (rightly) receives reasonable notice. The "Strutter" does NOT however belong in a category as a French aircraft - any more than we would categorise the French and British aircraft used by the Americans (such as the Nieuport 28, SPAD 13, or the D.H.4) as American aircraft. Nor is the Hanriot HD1 Belgian or Italian - nor the Nieuport 24 and 27 British - we could go on all day here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Battery" of tiny, mostly unnecessary changes

1. "one- or two-seat" = "one or two-seat" - a hyphen to join "one" to a "notional" seater? This is surely carrying pendandicism to new hights, and is to be firmly resisted!
2. "was" - "is". I have let this stand, although the original was perfectly correct, in fact strictly superior. The significance "is" historical - and this is the main point - although at the time there "was" also a tactical significance.
3. "replaced with" = "replaced by". This feels wrong - quite apart from the fact that the original "sounds" better and is more natural idiomatically it is also sounder grammar. "Replaced" here is passive.
4. "allow for" - "allow". The deletion of "for" here has been allowed to stand - although hardly worth the bother!
5. "mounts" - "aircraft". This replacement, also allowed to stand, it may even be worthwhile as slightly more "encyclopedic" (or down-to-earth, anyway). More seriously, this particular metaphor reminds me of a certain well known writer on this and similar subjects - I suspect someone consciously or unconsciously copied a whole phrase from a source here.
6. "front line" - "frontline". Allowed to stand - do we have (or do we need) a MOS ruling on this one? If so I actually prefer the original.
7. "post war" - "postwar". Allowed to stand. Debatable, but...
8. "served in" - "served with". ATS. A little more natural, perhaps?
9. . "4" - "four" "3" - "three" - Support this change - small numbers look better spelled out. Do we have an NOS for this? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• There seems to be an excessive number of hypens - they should only be used when two words together modify a third.
• "replaced with" does sound better to me but either works.
• I changed front line to operational so no arguments either way, not sure about post war - I think if used as an adjective or adverb it would by hyphenated but otherwise not sure - probably a US vs UK thing.
• As per WP:NUMERAL numbers 9 and lower should be written out while numbers up to 99 that use one or two words only are written out.
• I made some additional tweaks as well. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but - the service of the "Strutter" with the French was VERY undistinguished indeed. Verging on the disastrous in fact. Not the fault of the French air service or a reflection on French fighting prowess or piloting skills or anything like that. For various reasons the French started to get their Sopwiths after the British had already withdrawn most of theirs from front line service. Simple as that really. And the B.E.12, was never a "dedicated" fighter - in fact fighting was not part of its original brief at all. Whereas the Sopwith WAS a "fighter" - albeit one with a single seat bomber variant. The light single-seat bomber with no defensive armament WAS a type in its own right - and all three types mentioned were considered as examples by RFC high command - until they were dealt with so harshly in late 1916/early 1917. Finally (as an afterthought) the upward firing guns on the "strutter-comic" fired upwards Schräge Musik style rather than firing forward. Otherwise no objection to your changes - in fact some of them are well overdue. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Undistinguished based on British sources, which wouldn't know much about French bombing operations - indeed despite the bulk of their service being the late 1917 following the French Army Mutinies (when French offensives all but stopped) and the winter of 1917-1918, they distinguished themselves. The French never saw it as a fighter - the designations were for bombers (B) and artillery spotters (A) - neither of which would have received much press, regardless of how successful their operations were, hence my removal of the "very". From albindenis.free.fr/Site_escadrille:

• Escadrille SOP 9: Replaced Caudron G 4 and G 6 with the "fast" Sopwith 1A.2s for long range reconnaissance missions on 1 July 1917. Late in 1917, SOP 9 took part in the Malmaison offensive while based at Mont-St-Martin and Ambrief.
• Escadrille SOP 29: Replaced Farman F.42s & 43s with Sopwith 1B.1s and 1B.2s in January 1917 and operated from Ochey, south of Nancy where they bombed strategic targets in occupied Alsace-Lorraine including blast furnaces. With GB 4 (Bombing Group 4 - their parent unit) they transfered to Luxeuil where they spent the remainder of 1917 bombing a wide variety of targets in Alsace and Germany, including depots, troop formations and airfields. 18 January 1918 the Sopwiths were replaced with Breguets XIVs.
• Escadrille SOP 43: Operated Sopwith 1A.2s from September 1917 to February 1918. Attached to the 68th Infantry Division but no specific operations mentioned.
• Escadrille SOP 66: Operated Sopwith 1B.2 and 2B.2s from March 1917 to October 1917 while attached to the 3rd, 8th, 4th and 2nd armies.
• Escadrille SOP 111: In March 1917 re-equipped with Sopwith 1B1 et 1B2 bombers with GB 1. On 8 April 1917 they took part in the Chemin des Dames offensive, bombing industrial targets at Woëvre and the Lorraine near Briey.
• Escadrille SOP 123: Used Sopwith 1B.1 and 1B.2 from December 1916 to 3 February 1918 from Ochey and Luxeuil-les-Bains - no history given (yet).
• Escadrille SOP 129: Formed July 20, 1917 with Sopwith 1B.2s with GB 4. While squadron was getting up to full strength it joined with other 4 GB Sopwith bomber squadrons on operations during which Adj Benoit Bellet (pilot) and Sol Paul Sauvaget (gunner) scored the units first (unconfirmed) victory. The squadron converted to the Breguet XIV in February 1918.
• Escadrille SOP 131: Formed June 2, 1917 with Sopwith 1B.2 with GB 4, Squadron members given the French equivalent of mentioned in dispatches twice. Converted to Breguet XIV on 1 March 1918.
• Escadrille SOP 132: Training squadron.
• Escadrille SOP 132: Formed 30 July 1917 but had no personnel until 21 August when they graduated from flight school. It then joined BG 4 at Luxeuil-St-Sauveur where it carried out bombing missions against Logelbach, Rouffach, the Mont Donon railway platform, Rimbach and Wittelssheim, and more than 20 attacks on the German lines as well as scoring a confirmed victory over a German aircraft. In February, they made 14 bombing attacks on strategic targets, including those on Rouffach, Provenchères Bourg-Bruch, Weim-Im-Thal, Logerbach, Ensisheim airfield, Rimbach, they bombed the Neuf-Brisach airfield at night, and made 18 attacks on the German lines. Converted to Breguet XIV on 20 March 1918.
• Escadrille SOP 134: Formed 15 December 1917 within BG 4 at Luxeuil with men from SOP 29 with Sopwith 1B.1 and 1B.2s. After training flights, its first missions included dropping leaflets on Ensisheim Rouffach and Logelbach in Alsace in February 1918. Converted to Breguet XIV B.2 on 1 April 1918.
• Escadrille SOP 287: No information.

This list is by no means complete as there are literally hundreds of them - from most of what I have seen they weren't as successful at shooting down other aircraft as they had been with previous bombing and reconnaissance aircraft, or as successful as with the later Breguets, and they did suffer significant losses (although never to the level of Bloody April) but that does not mean they were undistinguished, which implies almost no operational use at all. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The B.E.12 is a poor example because of its history initially as a uprated B.E.2c, then as a bomber and as a fighter is widely misunderstood, and examples should be as clear as possible. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The B.E.12 is not only an excellent example of precisely what we are talking about when we look at the single seat bomber version of the strutter - it is essential! Quite apart from anything else - whatever you could say about the B.E.12 in this context could also be said about the Martinsyde Elephant. But the story of the Sopwith in French service is indeed underdone - in fact It needs its own thread! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"French" Sopwith 1

I quite agree that we are light on the ground when it comes to the career of the French Sopwiths - but it does no good to grumble about "ancient British sources" without bringing up suitable alternative (French?) ones, extracting salient facts (as opposed to details) and citing our sources. Several British types "soldiered on" after they became obsolete - in the case of the Strutter the Brits were lucky enough to have the Bristol Fighter as a replacement two-seat fighter, and the D.H.4 as a light bomber - the only alternatives the French had were the Dorand AR types. (Incidemtally, don't they deserve a mention here?) Glad you split the "French" and "forein" sections - very keen to see you dig up some more encyclopedic material (well cited if at all possible!) to fill out the French bit a little. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Each of the links above is a source (albeit in French) although they don't do much more than pass on what is said in the primary sources so aren't useful for any broad statements - I will see what I can find though. Feel free to re-add the B.E.12. The French had the excellent Salmson 2A.2 and Breguet 14A.2 and B.2 and Caudron G.11 - they just had a gap from mid 1917 to early 1918 when the aircraft from the 1916 competition failed to live up to expectations which led them to awarding production contracts to multiple types for each of the competitions after that point. - NiD.29 (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I like "lackluster" instead of "rather undistinguished". It just wasn't an outstanding warplane by the time the French operational squadrons got hold of it - and this needs to be said somehow. All things considered they may well have done rather well with it - but this will need a good source or two for citation. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)