Demise of the Maltese cross

Shooter:
I believe that PBI during WWI shot at *any* low-flying aircraft, without reference to silhouettes, markings, attitude, time of day, phase of the moon, etc. etc. It's true that national markings were originally introduced in an effort to keep the ground-pounders from firing on their own, but on all the evidence this didn't work.

[mike_baram]

I'm not too sure that ground fire was a reason for introducing national markings on aircraft....it's been an accepted rule of warfare that ships must fly their nations flag when entering combat, so it was natural to extend that rule to aircraft as national markings.
I'm trying to imagine recognizing an insignia on an airplane 500 meters away...that's nearly 1/3 mile. I know my eyes ain't what they used to be, but I could never see a sign that small that clearly over that distance. Imagine what a soldier would see at a plane coming at an angle, 500 meters away at a fairly low altitude. All he'd see is an approaching plane. If it's a head on approach, even the silhouette doesn't matter, and the markings wouldn't be discernible until the aircraft were a lot closer, or directly overhead. Even at 90mph, there's only a small window of time for making an indentification and getting off an accurate shot. Of course, as the plane passed, you could be shooting at its tail for as long as he's in range.

[Vigilant]

Ground fire was, I think, the original motivation for applying national markings -- or *large* national markings anyway. In 1914 RFC aircraft had no markings (or small flags?) on their wings. 1st hand accounts of August/Sept.'14 from pilots frequently mention the indiscriminate fire from both sides. In response big Union Jacks were painted on, but the problem persisted since they could be confused with the German cross. As a result the more distinctive roundel was adopted in immitation of French practice. I agree though, that if you were getting shot up on the ground presumably all you would see initially would be the front of the plane in question. And after it's straffed you, you *know* it's hostile anyhow!

Maybe if you were fortunate enough not to be the intended target, but were nearby, you could make out markings and have a crack at him before he had a crack at your mates?

[Shooter]

Mike:

Barrett said in an earlier thread that NM's ARE required by international conventions. Not certain if these rules were in effect before 1918, but they certainly are today. The rules do not say how visable the markings need to be, hence we have the subdued makings currently in use by all US armed forces...they are there, but hard to pick up even at close range. A typical case of adhering to the letter of the law.

[mike_baram]

Shooter,
Considering the fact that modern air combat takes place over a space of miles, and instruments, rather than humans, do the detection, maneuvering, and firing, the identifying markings are only lip service to international law.
Mike

I can't speak to French or German practise, but the history of British national markings strongly supports the supposition that they were introduced as a means of identifying aircraft to troops on the ground.

When the RFC crossed to France in 1914, its machines bore no markings other than serial numbers. When the first markings were introduced (Union Jacks, as was mentioned earlier), these were painted first on the undersurfaces of the wings, then on the sides. As late as early 1915 there are photos of RFC machines (I'm thinking of a Bristol Scout D in particular) with no markings at all on the upper surfaces.

[rammjaeger]

It seems to be common in English language to call this kind of cross "Maltese Cross". The name "Iron Cross" for this German cross is more precise even if the shape looks like the famous "Maltese Cross". I think the designer Schinkel took over this shape during the creation of the Iron Cross in 1813 or so (Freedom Wars against Napoleon).