Linen color for Voss F.I?

[Southside Bucky]

Hans.

I wouldn't speculate on the exact number of F.I's (or Dr.I's?) in operation at that time, or their serial numbers.

Personally, I just can't disregard the evidence of all those pilots who reported seeing Triplanes in larger numbers than official German documents say. They were young men at the top of their game, and they could tell the difference between a plane with two wings and one with three.

Have you read September Evening? It's worth getting for the "extra Triplanes" chapter alone, IMO. Then you can make up your own mind.

[Hans]

There are two rules for a historian:
1) History is what is documented in the records.
2) The biggest foe of the historian is the eye-witness.

This is meant without any irony or tongue-in-the-cheek.
Wrong identifications in an air-fight are legion, in all wars where aircraft fought. It has nothing to do that the pilots are acting cowardly. Perception does have its own (human) rules.

When there are no pics of F.104/17 and no records of F.104/17 - then there was no F.104/17.

H

[Taz]

Alex- Coward? Who said anybody was a coward? I flew 20 combat sorties in F-111Fs in Desert Storm and you will never hear me call anybody who flew combat in an aircraft a coward. I said in MacMillan's case he exaggerated the number of aircraft in the engagement, including Triplanes, exaggerated his victory claims, for which no corresponding losses occurred, and exaggerated his role in the engagement. You picked an example in which it is very easy to poke holes, so do not go huffy on me, Alex.

Do you honestly think there were 21 aircraft attacked, including three Triplanes, two of which were shot down? You are too good a historian to actually believe that, especially when the facts do not support it. Tell me you honestly believe all of MacMillan's story and we will end this on an amicable "we have the facts, but disagree on what they mean" basis. You do not believe the research results on the early triplanes and I do not believe your eyewitness reports on extra triplanes are credible. Otherwise we can continue on the same amicable basis and look at your eyewitness reports and my and others' research results on early triplanes and try and understand why they are at variance. Your choice.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[Gregvan]

Hi Everybody,

I must say I enter this heated debate with trepidation. However, I'm still firmly in agreement with Taz and Alex Imrie (and the late Peter Grosz) on the "extra triplanes" theory.

With no disrepect meant toward anyone, I would point out that it WAS possible (even likely)for experienced pilots on both sides to (a) over-estimate the number of enemy aircraft engaged, and (b) to misidentify the type of aircraft engaged. This even extends to mistaking a biplane for a triplane, and vice-versa. When seen at a distance (as nearly all enemy a/c were, in most cases) or when encountered in the heat of a desperate combat, impressions of two or three wings could get confused. There are several cases of German pilots claiming to have engaged Sopwith Triplanes (and even shot them down) long after those types were withdrawn from the front - simple cases of mis-identification, and perhaps "triplane on the brain" syndrome. In both the cases of Sopwith and Fokker Triplanes, these types made very strong impressions on the enemy airmen, who (I believe) sometimes claimed to have seen them when they were actually looking at something else.

That's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

Greg

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
There is a great amount of confusion in all battles, and air battles were not exempted. I am sure the participants stated in their reports what they believed they saw. The operative word is "believed".
In regard to the Fokker F.I there were a total of four ordered, Fok.F.I 100 /17 to Fok.F.I 103/17. Fok.F.I 101/17, w.n. 1697 was tested to destruction at Adlershof.
Fok. F.I 102/17, w.n. 1729 and Fok.F.I 103/17, w.n. 1730 were accepted and delivered to the Front at Armee Flugpark 4, assembled and delivered to Jage Nr.1 at Marckebeeke Airfield on 28 August 1917. Fok.F.I 102/17 was issued to MvR and Fok.F.I 103/17 was issued to Werner Voss, Jasta 10 Führer.
MvR went on leave 6 September 1917 and Fok.F.I 102/17 was taken over by Oblt. Kurt Wolff, Führer of Jasta 11. Kurt Wolff was shot down on over Nachtigall on 15 September 1917.
On 23 September 1917 Ltn. Voss was shot down and killed in the epic air battle involving No.56 and No 60 Squadrons. both of these pilotswere accomplished pilots and flew their Fokker Triplanes to the limits of their abilities, and probably seemed to their opponents as more than just one machine, especially with Ltn. Voss. After this date there were no triplanes on any front, anywhere, contrary to what may have been reported by Allied pilots.
Fok.F.I 100/17, w.n. 1830, this machine was not made until well into the production of the Fok.DR.I aircraft and was delivered in 1918 as a Fok. DR.I.
The next triplane to arrive on the front was Fok.DR.I 115/17 , w.n. 1783 accepted by the Luftstreitkräfte at Schwerin on 4 October 1917 delivered to Jasta 15 about 10 days or so later. This became Ltn. Heinrich Gontermann's machine.
I have all the serial and werke numbers of all the Fokker Triplanes, all 320 machines are accounted for. I feel quite sure Greg and Taz has the same information as does Alex Imrie and as did Peter Grosz. There were only two (2) Fokker Triplanes at the Front during the period in question, regardless of what was reported by Allied pilots.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[FOKKERJ]

Originally Posted by Taz

The factory records show four early Triplanes, one went to Austria, one was destructively tested, and two went to JG I for operational testing. That is all there were.


If there is anybody I have not chapped off, please let me know. I could use one friendly voice.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Hi Taz,

If recent memory serves me correctly, I have not been "chapped off" by anyone! As of late!
I hope that's friendly enough!

Thanks to everyone for a very informative thread.

Regards, Jay Schwartz

I know that Dan-San said that Fok. FI 100/17 was delivered to the front as a Dr.I, "Fok.F.I 100/17, w.n. 1830, this machine was not made until well into the production of the Fok.DR.I aircraft and was delivered in 1918 as a Fok. DR.I.", but was not an F.I or Dr.I sent to Austria?

Did it not end up with M.A.G.?

Did M.A.G. build any versions of the Fokker triplane?

Thanks again, Jay

It is known that all the information we have about Jasta combats are mostely based on the excerpts of the KTB (Kriegstagebücher) done by Erich Tornuss in the thirties.

Most of them found their way to the Grub Street authors via the late Dr. Gustav Bock. But Bock interpretated the excerpts of Tornuss and got not full information from him. In the late sixties Bock had had only a quick look into the small booklets of Tornuss, when he was once visited by him.

This here is a typical example: in the original handwritten text we can read about the observation of a "quadruplane":

Jasta 33
8.7.17

9.30 h konnte Lt. Kucke einen Gegner bei Queant abschießen. 1. Sieg, 10. Staffelsieg. Lt. Vohsen schoß 21.05 einen Fesselballon bei Arras ab. 1. Sieg, 11. Jastasieg. Zeitweilig wird ein Vierdecker jenseits beobachtet.

ZAK

[alex_revell]

Originally Posted by Hans

There are two rules for a historian:
1) History is what is documented in the records.
2) The biggest foe of the historian is the eye-witness.

When there are no pics of F.104/17 and no records of F.104/17 - then there was no F.104/17.

Hans, I agree with your two points but with a proviso for each. Records are not always accurate and they do not always tell the whole story. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but if you have a preponderence of people agreeing about something, then that has to be taken into account. It's up to an historian to collect everything he can. He then puts forward, as an opinion, what seems to him to be the truth. What he must not be is dogmatic in stating as a fact his own conclusions about something which is not provable and of which there exists conflicting evidence. What he - or anyone for that matter who is involved in a discussion - must do is to avoid non sequiter. Your statement re no photos of 104/17 is a prime example. It does not follow that because there are no photos of 104/17 that proves that it did not exist. All it proves is that there are no photos of it, and even that should be qualified with 'to our knowledge there are no photos of it'.
Dan, I thought we had agreed a long time ago now that it is very dangerous to make dogmatic statements as being fact. There is an example in your post, which is repeated.
'There were only two (2) Fokker Triplanes at the Front during the period in question, regardless of what was reported by Allied pilots'.
'There were only two (2) Fokker Triplanes at the Front during the period in question, regardless of what was reported by Allied pilots.'
I remember very well when you took Alex Imrie to task over points in his triplane book, which you stated as a 'fact' were wrong and how your arguments were - not to put too strong a word on it - demolished by Alex, who had primary evidence to support his case.
Taz, To quote you.
'I said in MacMillan's case he exaggerated the number of aircraft in the engagement, including Triplanes, exaggerated his victory claims, for which no corresponding losses occurred, and exaggerated his role in the engagement.
Do you honestly think there were 21 aircraft attacked, including three Triplanes, two of which were shot down? You are too good a historian to actually believe that, especially when the facts do not support it.'
Let me take these two points first. What evidence have you that M exaggerated the number of EA in the engagement, his own part in it, or the number of claims he made. This is only your opinion. What evidence have you? I have not seen the combat reports of 45 Sqdn from this fight and it would interesting to see what numbers of EA the other pilots reported.
M's claims. They may well have been invalid, but this is an example of a non sequiter which I talked about with Hans. The invalidity of M's claims ( more on them in a minute) does not prove that he was mistaken, or exaggerating the number of EA present. It merely proves that his claims where invalid, nothing else. But did he in fact personally claim two triplanes out of control. As I've said, I have not seen his/the 45 Sqdn combat reports of the fight and the only reference I can see to his 'claims' is in Above the Trenches, which is not error free, what book is? If you read M's account of the action he only says that the first triplane he attacked went down below the enemy formation. He gives no indication that he thought it was out of control. Even more so in the second triplane he attacked. He never mentions that his bursts went anywhere near Voss, in fact he says what a skilful pilot Voss was in evading them. So he certainly would not have claimed the second triplane.
Yes, until I see other evidence to the contrary why should I not accept that there were twenty one EA involved. I have seen no other conflicting evidence to suggest otherwise.
'You do not believe the research results on the early triplanes.'
I do not disbelieve the 'research results' on the early triplanes, I merely put forward, as devil's advocate, other evidence that there were possibly, repeat possibly, more. You have never even addressed the evidence of Rudenberg and Bodenschatz's statement to Whetton that there was a third triplane at the front at the time. Why?
We could play games like this for ever. How do you know that the three triplanes that M reported were not von B (or some other pilot) Wolff and Voss. How would you disprove that, even though it's unlikely. The generally understrength Jasta often combined forces, which is well documented, so 21 EA was not unlikely. How do you prove that M's first triplane did not crash land, was wrecked, but the pilot walked away unhurt or slightly wounded. We have no official records of German aeroplanes which crash landed, with the pilot only wounded or not injured at all.
Taz, I am not 'going huffy' on you but I don't see the point in going round in circles, with you ignoring some evidence and attempting to explain away other, with suppositions and opinions stated as facts. That does not prove your case. It reminds me of the research I once did for Collishaw regarding who got Voss. As soon as I had checked out one theory in the PRO and proved it incorrect - date, time, place etc not fitting - he would come up with another. After another couple of months and checking out other theories, he would return to the original one, and all his theories were put forward again, in turn, after having found no evidence to support them. He studiously ignored all evidence which did not support his claim. All the pilots who took part in the Voss fight, including those who were only watching, were either lying, blind or idiots on an ego trip.
I'm not saying that pilots of both sides were never mistaken, of course they were, but I do not believe that pilots falsified reports to boast their ego and to make them appear braver than they were. Also, don't forget that the combat reports were officially studied from the point of view of gaining intelligence.
It's important to understand the mind set of the majority of the people involved and the era in which they lived, their whole approach to moral behaviour. I was fortunate enough to know and have as friends many WW 1 pilots. You would be hard put to find other people so modest and self effacing about their achievments or the part they played in the war. The whole schooling and way of life of the people of that era and that social class would make it - with a few exceptions - impossible for them to deliberately lie about events in which they took part, let alone boast or exaggerate their own part in them. They weren't called officers and gentlemen for nothing. The concepts by which they lived their lives - truth and honesty were ingrained from early childhood - is hard to believe and understand in this day and age.

Hans-

all what is "documented in the records" is based on eye-witness. Even if you transfer a figure from one document to another one it is "eye-witness."


Alex-

"..., but I do not believe that pilots falsified reports to boast their ego and to make them appear braver than they are were."

I call this a romantic view, like the Voss shot-down we once disagreed.

ZAK

[alex_revell]

Zak
I don't see how that statement is romantic, but please feel free to believe what you will.