#3896177 - 01/16/14 03:07 PM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,743
Hasse
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,743
|
The Germans were never able to really stop the Entente air forces on the Western Front from performing their duties. There's much talk about the heavy casualties suffered by the RFC in Bloody April, but in the end, even that was a defeat for the German air force. The RFC kept going, no matter the casualties.
The British and French air forces had a clear numerical superiority. By the war's end, the French had the biggest air force in the world. Germany simply couldn't produce as many aircraft as the Entente powers, with the effects of the blockade becoming worse the longer the war went on.
In many ways, it's not all that different from what happened in WW2. The Luftwaffe pilots did incredible things, but that wasn't enough when Germany was facing so many powerful enemies.
"Upon my word I've had as much excitement on a car as in the air, especially since the R.F.C. have had women drivers."
James McCudden, Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps
|
|
|
#3896193 - 01/16/14 03:34 PM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,586
kaa
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,586
France
|
Another topic here got me thinking. I am a serious WW1 aero-geek but mainly its with the planes, the men, and the squadrons. I sometimes feel I lack of a "big picture" view of the entire air war.
With the R.F.C. vs Germany the Germans always posted the bulk of their airpower (squadrons) against the British because they percieved them to be the bigger threat. This question is framed as "accomplishment of objectives" for the two forces and not as a kill ratio.
If you look at the air war as numbers of planes shot down the Germans would probably be declared the winner as (I am assuming) they downed more Britsh planes on a monthly basis than they lost - generally speaking.
But it would seem to me that if we look at the air war as "objectives completed" (what the air forces were supposed to be doing) that the British always got the job done - admittedly suffering huge losses at times - yet accomplishing eventually what they wanted; what the force mission was.
If the morning recon or bombing patrol was intercepted and mauled then they would try again in the afternoon or next day. Suffering huges losses yet alway accomplishing the mission and, ultimately, doing what they wanted and needed to in the air from 1915 to 1918 and wearing the Germans down at the same time.
Any "big picture" historians disagree with this thought? If you believe the( air)war was British forces vs German forces, yes, it is not a correct overall picture. By the way, consider the label "British frontline" as a generic, non historical term. Now, for the heavy losses inflicted by the Jastas to the Entente forces and particularly to the RFC in Flanders in april 1917,the reason is the RFC had to bring every support and reco plane over German held territory to support the operations on the ground.
Last edited by kaa; 01/16/14 03:44 PM.
"Anyone can shoot you down if you don't see him coming but it takes a wonderfully good Hun to bag a Camel if you're expecting him." Tom Cundall.
|
|
|
#3896197 - 01/16/14 03:39 PM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,739
Olham
Barmy Baron from Berlin
|
Barmy Baron from Berlin
Hotshot
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,739
|
Duke, there was no such simple measurement like "who is the winner by victories". The German Jastas were outnumbered from the beginning on by the Entente units, and they never had any real air superiority. They could only do their best in fending off the incoming reconaissance aircraft and their escorts. The enemy was coming to them, so they hardly ever had to cross the lines much. But even then their numbers were so small, that many Staffeln had to move quite often, to receive the enemy where their operations happened. In the other areas there were huge holes in the aerial defense.
Fighting over own territory gave the Germans the advantage, that they lost far less men through forced landings. A British or French pilot would become a PoW, if he had to land in German-held territory. Also, the British escorts had a harder roll to play cause they had to stay with the two-seaters, while their German opponents could attack them and withdraw like they needed.
Outnumbered already from the beginning on, the situation went even worse for the Germans with the progression of the war. The Entente could simply throw so many more planes and pilots into battle. When the Michael offensive failed to gain the upper hand and decide the war, the whole matter was lost for Germany. It was only a question of time.
Last edited by Olham; 01/16/14 03:41 PM.
Vice-President of the BOC (Barmy OFFers Club) Member of the 'Albatros Aviators Club' - "We know how to die with Style!"
|
|
|
#3896211 - 01/16/14 04:10 PM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: kaa]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
[quote=kaa If you believe the( air)war was British forces vs German forces, yes, it is not a correct overall picture. By the way, consider the label "British frontline" as a generic, non historical term. Now, for the heavy losses inflicted by the Jastas to the Entente forces and particularly to the RFC in Flanders in april 1917,the reason is the RFC had to bring every support and reco plane over German held territory to support the operations on the ground. [/quote]
I wasn't speaking poorly of the French Forces, or other Allied forces involved, kaa I just know very little of "Armee de la Air" (sure I spelled that wrong) vs the Germans.
|
|
|
#3896261 - 01/16/14 05:15 PM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,586
kaa
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,586
France
|
[quote=kaa If you believe the( air)war was British forces vs German forces, yes, it is not a correct overall picture. By the way, consider the label "British frontline" as a generic, non historical term. Now, for the heavy losses inflicted by the Jastas to the Entente forces and particularly to the RFC in Flanders in april 1917,the reason is the RFC had to bring every support and reco plane over German held territory to support the operations on the ground. I wasn't speaking poorly of the French Forces, or other Allied forces involved, kaa I just know very little of "Armee de la Air" (sure I spelled that wrong) vs the Germans. [/quote] Dunkel!I surely did not want to be rough or ironic, sorry ! it was maybe too straight as a sentence (and my English lacks some subtilities and that's an understatement!) I was just meaning what I've written, that to have a correct overall picture of WW1, one must take in consideration the French involvement on their own soil and it's true that is not well documented by English speaking authors.
Last edited by kaa; 01/16/14 05:23 PM.
"Anyone can shoot you down if you don't see him coming but it takes a wonderfully good Hun to bag a Camel if you're expecting him." Tom Cundall.
|
|
|
#3896412 - 01/16/14 08:38 PM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,739
Olham
Barmy Baron from Berlin
|
Barmy Baron from Berlin
Hotshot
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,739
|
I read several hints in German WW1 pilot reports, that they regarded the French flyers as "laurig" (lurky), but the British as "spirited".
They could not know back then, what we can read from the historians today: that the French flyers simply had quite different orders.
Vice-President of the BOC (Barmy OFFers Club) Member of the 'Albatros Aviators Club' - "We know how to die with Style!"
|
|
|
#3896440 - 01/16/14 09:28 PM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,743
Hasse
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,743
|
Going off topic, but the British army in 1940 didn't do any better against the Wehrmacht in the battle of France. Without the Channel, the Panzers would have rolled into London in no time. It was simply a question of really poor strategy and leadership by the Allied commanders. The German attack through the Ardennes caught the Allies completely by surprise and they were never able to recover from that disaster. The Allies were expecting a repeat of the Great War, but the Germans had other plans and tactics.
However, the ordinary Allied soldiers in France fought well in 1940 - the casualties they suffered are enough to confirm that. If everybody had simply surrendered like you often hear ignorant people claim, it wouldn't have been such a terribly bloody campaign.
Going back to topic. It's understandable that the English-speaking people know mostly about the actions of the British army in WW1. If you wish to learn more about the other forces, you need to study their languages and read their books. Unfortunately it seems that many historians (not only English-speaking ones!) that write about WW1 don't speak too many languages, so often they are using only sources written in their own language. Obviously that can create a rather one-sided view of the events.
One of the most important and often forgotten aspect of French efforts in the Great War is their massive aircraft industry. If the United States was the arsenal of democracy in WW2, France was the arsenal of all the Entente air forces in WW1. They made a huge amount of aircraft and engines (or others built them under license) that were used by all the other Entente nations. The Entente air forces would have been quite different without this production and research and development work by the French.
"Upon my word I've had as much excitement on a car as in the air, especially since the R.F.C. have had women drivers."
James McCudden, Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps
|
|
|
#3896555 - 01/17/14 01:15 AM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: Olham]
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 259
SimonC
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 259
North of England
|
Duke, there was no such simple measurement like "who is the winner by victories". The German Jastas were outnumbered from the beginning on by the Entente units, and they never had any real air superiority. They could only do their best in fending off the incoming reconaissance aircraft and their escorts. The enemy was coming to them, so they hardly ever had to cross the lines much. But even then their numbers were so small, that many Staffeln had to move quite often, to receive the enemy where their operations happened. In the other areas there were huge holes in the aerial defense.
Fighting over own territory gave the Germans the advantage, that they lost far less men through forced landings. A British or French pilot would become a PoW, if he had to land in German-held territory. Also, the British escorts had a harder roll to play cause they had to stay with the two-seaters, while their German opponents could attack them and withdraw like they needed.
Outnumbered already from the beginning on, the situation went even worse for the Germans with the progression of the war. The Entente could simply throw so many more planes and pilots into battle. When the Michael offensive failed to gain the upper hand and decide the war, the whole matter was lost for Germany. It was only a question of time. Possibly the best judgement that I've ever read about the war from the German POV. Like WWII, WWI was all about resources and the allies had more. This year, we should all start trying to educate our communities about this war. I live in Lancashire in north west England; Accrington and its Pals are just a stone's throw away. We can show people just how mad and brave these airmen were, and just how horrible it was for the infantry as the allied generals learned all the brand new tricks of trade at the cost of thousands of men. Of course, once they got it right, they defeated the axis forces, but it meant many a French or British village with a very (un)healthy roll call on the local cenotaph. As a local councillor, I'm proud to step out every year to acknowledge the people who died; I'm not happy with the apparent glorification (as I see it) of the war as a noble one for peace and democracy, when we all know it was anything but.
|
|
|
#3896722 - 01/17/14 08:58 AM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: Olham]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
Duke, there was no such simple measurement like "who is the winner by victories". The German Jastas were outnumbered from the beginning on by the Entente units, and they never had any real air superiority. They could only do their best in fending off the incoming reconaissance aircraft and their escorts. The enemy was coming to them, so they hardly ever had to cross the lines much. But even then their numbers were so small, that many Staffeln had to move quite often, to receive the enemy where their operations happened. In the other areas there were huge holes in the aerial defense.
Fighting over own territory gave the Germans the advantage, that they lost far less men through forced landings. A British or French pilot would become a PoW, if he had to land in German-held territory. Also, the British escorts had a harder roll to play cause they had to stay with the two-seaters, while their German opponents could attack them and withdraw like they needed.
Outnumbered already from the beginning on, the situation went even worse for the Germans with the progression of the war. The Entente could simply throw so many more planes and pilots into battle. When the Michael offensive failed to gain the upper hand and decide the war, the whole matter was lost for Germany. It was only a question of time. Sorry Olham...other posts made me realize that I kind of missed yours. Yes, all of your points are valid and your reasoning sound - I was just dealing with the final result.
|
|
|
#3896753 - 01/17/14 11:19 AM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,739
Olham
Barmy Baron from Berlin
|
Barmy Baron from Berlin
Hotshot
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,739
|
No problem - I often see much later, that I had received an answer to a post, which seemed not to have been there, when I first checked. Sometimes that worries me, so it does me good to see it happens to others too.
Last edited by Olham; 01/17/14 11:19 AM.
Vice-President of the BOC (Barmy OFFers Club) Member of the 'Albatros Aviators Club' - "We know how to die with Style!"
|
|
|
#3896799 - 01/17/14 01:30 PM
Re: The R.F.C. - consistent victors in the air war?
[Re: Hasse]
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,476
JFM
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,476
Naples, FL
|
Going off topic, but the British army in 1940 didn't do any better against the Wehrmacht in the battle of France. Without the Channel, the Panzers would have rolled into London in no time. It was simply a question of really poor strategy and leadership by the Allied commanders. The German attack through the Ardennes caught the Allies completely by surprise and they were never able to recover from that disaster. The Allies were expecting a repeat of the Great War, but the Germans had other plans and tactics. This. Nobody seems to know/remember/or mention that the Germans kicked the British right off the continent. At the water's edge the British said "see you" to France, left them to fend for themselves, spun the defeat as a "victory" ("The Miracle of Dunkirk"), and today the French are considered "cowards" for surrendering. I fault neither the French for surrendering nor the British for evacuating. No army was going to beat the Wermacht in May 1940. It took the combined efforts of a large portion of the entire world almost six years to defeat them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exodus
by RedOneAlpha. 04/18/24 05:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|