Mannock's two-seaters

victory on 1 January 1918, DFW or Hannover?
victory on 26 July 1918, DFW or Junkers (J1?)

any thoughts please...

[Graeme]

Keith

Most people seem to agree that Mannock's claim on 1 January 1918 was over the Hannover Cl III flown by Vfw Fritz Korbacher and + Ltn d R Wilhelm Klein of FA 288(A)b. It is probably the same machine claimed by Compston and Cooper of 8 Sqn RNAS.

The jury is still out on the 26 July claim although the weight of opinion seems to be against it having been a Junkers JI monoplane, since Inglis would have remarked upon it in his combat report, it being an unusual type. The evidence suggests a DFW CV flown by Vfw Josef Hein and Ltn d R Ludwig Schopf of FA 292(A)b.

Graeme

i agree that most biographies say the 1 January claim was a Hannover but quite a number now change this to a DFW. So could we have several possibilities? The first is that the aircraft was a Hannover built DFW. The second is that the pilots could not distinguish the distinctive tail unit. My reading tends to the belief that the pilots were unaware of detail of the Hannover until the Spring of 1918 and that therefore they couldn't have identified it as such, so the identification must have been made by others. The question is who? Do we know what that Abteilung had on strength in January 1918? As for the 26 July claim. Most sources give this as a DFW I agree but at some point someone called it a Junkers (monoplane?). Again who? Could it have been claimed as Junkers JI or JII, rather than the Junkers CLI that again the pilots could not possibly have identified at that time? Do we know the Abteilungs aircraft complement at the time? More questions arise each time we study the evidence don't they? Thanks again, Graeme...by the way are you a Mannock buff too? If so I'd be intersted in exchanging info...

i agree that most biographies say the 1 January claim was a Hannover but quite a number now change this to a DFW. So could we have several possibilities? The first is that the aircraft was a Hannover built DFW. The second is that the pilots could not distinguish the distinctive tail unit. My reading tends to the belief that the pilots were unaware of detail of the Hannover until the Spring of 1918 and that therefore they couldn't have identified it as such, so the identification must have been made by others. The question is who? Do we know what that Abteilung had on strength in January 1918? As for the 26 July claim. Most sources give this as a DFW I agree but at some point someone called it a Junkers (monoplane?). Again who? Could it have been claimed as Junkers JI or JII, rather than the Junkers CLI that again the pilots could not possibly have identified at that time? Do we know the Abteilungs aircraft complement at the time? More questions arise each time we study the evidence don't they? Thanks again, Graeme...by the way are you a Mannock buff too? If so I'd be intersted in exchanging info...

i agree that most biographies say the 1 January claim was a Hannover but quite a number now change this to a DFW. So could we have several possibilities? The first is that the aircraft was a Hannover built DFW. The second is that the pilots could not distinguish the distinctive tail unit. My reading tends to the belief that the pilots were unaware of detail of the Hannover until the Spring of 1918 and that therefore they couldn't have identified it as such, so the identification must have been made by others. The question is who? Do we know what that Abteilung had on strength in January 1918? As for the 26 July claim. Most sources give this as a DFW I agree but at some point someone called it a Junkers (monoplane?). Again who? Could it have been claimed as Junkers JI or JII, rather than the Junkers CLI that again the pilots could not possibly have identified at that time? Do we know the Abteilungs aircraft complement at the time? More questions arise each time we study the evidence don't they? Thanks again, Graeme...by the way are you a Mannock buff too? If so I'd be intersted in exchanging info...

[Graeme]

Keith

As at 1 January 1918, Compston had seen action, on and off for over a year whereas Mannock had about 7 months' service at that time. The RNAS pilots identified the machine as a Hannover while Mannock claimed it as a DFW; RFC Communique No 121 implies it was a scout! Coincidentally, this was the 16th victory for both Compston and Mannock.

This is going to be resolved only by someone with knowledge of German units and their equipment.

I'm not sure I'd describe myself as a Mannock buff, but he's the pilot whose score I first investigated more years ago that I care to admit and "his" squadron's (40, 74 and 85) were the first for which I compiled lists of victory claims. I'd be only too happy to talk turkey.

Graeme