rhyme and reason

First off, Happy Birthday, USA! I have often wondered why the number of German machines on the British side of the lines seemed so small. Well, I stumbled onto something that explains it, at least in part. Actually, Colonel Trenchard explains it in a letter from August 1915. This, by the way, is from "The War In The Air Vol. 1."
The author, Walter Raleigh, writes that Trenchard was pleading for a good supply of anti-aircraft guns, and that his plea illustrates a difference between the British and the Germans that was true for the length of the war. British corps machines constantly worked over the enemy. The Germans did not; they carried out their observations obliquely from low altitutde over their own lines. As a result, they were protected by their guns and an attack was done at great risk. Here the author notes that German guns had hit British planes flying three miles inside British lines at an altitutde of 6,000 feet. Trenchard goes on to say that if the British had guns as good and, in sufficient numbers, they could aatck the German machines and protect the ones at work over the lines. He noted that it is easier to see aircraft from the ground and that bursts would serve as markers for enemy aircraft. A number of questions spring to mind. Did Trenchard get his guns? How did the German method of recon compare to the British method? These German guns were how big?
DD

it is true that the Germans, like in WW2 waited intill the Allied A/C came over in to hunland. this gave them an advantage, ground spotters could scramble the aircraft when Allied A/c crossed the lines, allowing the jastas to climb to their ceiling and wait fir the enemy to turn home. of course combat over ones own side allows you to pick when you engage, break off and so on, it also gives you the advantage of being able to force land in friendly country if needs be.
As regards to your Archie ( anti-aircraft fire slang-RFC) i am sure improved british archie was supplied although archie hardly ever got anything

[Vigilant]

How did the German method of recon compare to the British method?

Not as good. It cannot have been if you think about it. If you want clear photographs of trenchworks that can be transposed to a map or you want to register a ground target for artillery, you need to be flying over it. Not looking at it from a couple of miles away.

The reason the Germans used such indirect methods was that they did not (and never would) have the fighter strength to match the French and British and so could not adequately protect their 2-seaters over the other side of the line.

However, it is not true to say that German 2-seaters never crossed the lines. They did occassionally venture over when there was a pressing job to be done or conditions were favourable. Three methods of doing this spring to mind:

(1) Concentrate Jastas over a specific section of line to obtain very local air superiority for an hour or so. This was done for instance on 26 July 1917 in the Ypres sector and led to the famous dogfight over Polygon Wood as British patrols were attracted by the massed E.A. While the rest of the line was denuded two German recce aircraft slipped across to complete a photographic sortie prior to the Third Battle of Ypres.

(2)Cloudy days. When there was plenty of cloud cover available a 2-seater could hop from one cloud bank to another and come several miles over the line without too much risk. The quality of photographs might be iffy though.

(3) High altitude. The high altitude Rumplers could get up to 22,000 feet by early 1918 which put them out of reach of all but the most dedicated scout pilot (e.g. McCudden). These high altitude machines would perform strategic reconnaissance - regularly photographing railheads 20 or 30 miles behind the lines to look for signs of any impending 'big push'.

It would seem that such limited operations successfully did the job so long as the German Army stayed on the defencive. Whether it was adequate for the Spring Offensives of 1918 I don't know. Anybody?

Vigilant

[Vigilant]

In the early months of the war the British introduced a very handy AA gun, the 3in. (76mm) 20 hundredweight high-angle gun. This was usually mounted on a flatbed truck and fired a 12.5lb (5.7kg) shrapnell or HE shell. Ian Hogg in "Allied Artillery of World War One"* calls it a masterpiece and "without doubt the best anti-aircraft gun used by anybody in the war."

The other British early war AA gun was the smaller 13-pounder Mark III introduced in early 1915. Later in 1916 18-pounder guns were modified to fire 13-pounder shells with their 18-pounder cartridges, giving the resulting hybred a lot more 'kick'.

It would appear that by the end of 1915 British AA was fairly respectable. In 1917 research was started on a high-accuracy gun but the resulting finished article only saw service after the Armistace. The above three types of gun were therefore the mainstay of British Archie for the duration.



*1998 Crowood Publishing ISBN 1 86126 104 7 Essential bedtime reading.