Tannenberg

[retread]

I have just finished the book "Tannenberg 1914" by John Sweetman and was surprised to discover that the author does not cater to the theory that aerial recon was decisive to the victorious Germans. Instead of Ludendorff's often attributed ,"No aerial intelligence,no Tannenberg" it is mentioned that both Hindenburg and Ludendorff found information so gleaned "vague :-/" and inadequate at the time of the battle. The book does not go into detail regarding airplanes, nor the organization of or usage of the aircraft of either the Russian or German forces (apprently a number of Frenchmen flew for the Russians).
So I open a number of questions to the forum- While the Germans flew the Taube, did they also fly other type aircraft during the East Prussia campaign? What sort of aircraft did the Russians fly? And finally what is your opinion regarding the effectiveness of aerial intelligence in this campaign. Was it decisive? Or is this a myth developed in hindsight? :-/

[Barrett]

* Here's an official USAF assessment which seems to accept the Hindenburg statement at face value.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...99/echevar.html

* It'd be interesting to learn what became of the Tannenberg aviators: how many survived the war?

[Soderbaum]

Hi

Despite I havent read Sweetman book, it is obvious to me that he have gotten the "whole" situation completely wrong...

Many of the German flyers who successfully participated in this battle was DIRECTLY mentioned in official(also some with names) sources...so whats the problem..?
Many of them also got decorations, promotions etc

One of the book in the series "Schlachten des Weltkriges" is about the battle of Tannenberg and probably gives another version than Sweetman...

As mentioned before, the official German history of their Air Force during WW1 were able to publish the first two volumes which contains the aerial operation during the Tannenberg, before allied bombing during WW2 prevented further publication...
I think they are called Sonderband 7 and 8..?

Most of the Taube a/c were unsuitable for aerial war when the War started because they were slow and hardly could reach 1000 meter...so they were rather easy targets also for ground mg..
However as most of them were quickly withdrawn from the Western front, I think they stayed a bit longer on eastern front were the concentration of troops was more outspread.
But the Taubes were probably useable for reconnaissance work

I dont knew what a/c the Russian and French used on the eastern front, but they likely had far more better a/c than the Germans...

As an answer Barretts question, far more early German flyers survived the War than generally expected, even those who continue to be active..

just some thoughts
Gunnar

[jempie]

Hello!
No idea what all different types the Russians used, but recently bought on ebay a postcard depicting the French aviator PEQUET Henri.
(Postcard = underway I hope!)
I figured out he was in service of the Morane-Saulnier firm and was sent to Russia 15th june1914 to receive, and test-flying the assembled Morane-Saulnier planes there before they were accepted by the Russian Army!
He seems to have been further filling his time
as observer on these Russian planes (with Russian pilot!) But there were also other French constructed planes there in service..Voisin's and others!

VBR
Jempie

[retread]

I just found this in "The First Air War" by Lee Kennett,"A French aviator named Alphonse Poiree, who happened to be in Russia when the war broke out, volunteered his Farman airplane and his services as a pilot. As early as August 2, he brought back "valuable" information to General Samsonov's army. Poiree may also have carried out the first aerial bombing of the war, for during his first flight he threw down a 42-millimeter projectile."
In spite of the fact Samsonov did not actually take command of the Second Army until August 12th we have the name of another Frenchmen flying for the Russians.

[Barrett]

Great Timing Dept: I'm reading/reviewing Dick Hallion's masterful "Taking Flight," a history of aeronautics thru 1918. He cites a variety of sources ref. Tannenberg including the original Ludendorff quote to his air ops officer, Maj. Siegert. Hallion also cites von Hoeppner: "The aviators had almost entirely replaced the cavalry as the means of long-range reconnaissance." That's a telling statement from ex-horseman vH.
The consensus seems to be that the victory was attributed jointly to air recon and SigInt, as the russians were chatty on the ol' Marconi.

[HistoryDude]

The consensus seems to be that the victory was attributed jointly to air recon and SigInt, as the russians were chatty on the ol' Marconi.

Excellent point about the "radio chatter." Most accounts I've seen on Tannenberg attributed the Germans' intelligence advantage to the ability of listening in on Russian communications. One book I remember off-hand is S.L.A. Marshall's exhaustive WW1 monograph, but I know I've seen it in other places.

I would think that Tannenberg presented a much different situation for recon purposes than the Western Front, because the battle was very fluid and dynamic as opposed to the static trench warfare in France/Belgium. Therefore, air recon might not have been enough just by itself, since it was at the beginning of the war when there were fewer planes and the air war was in its "learning stages"?

[retread]

Technological advances had changed the face of warfare in ways that those conducting the war had still yet to discover, yet alone to adapt to.It was a new game.
The Russians were sending wireless communications that were usually not even coded.This was a fountain of intelligence for the Germans. Add aerial observation and any sizeable body of forces on the move cannot be kept a secret. What if Hooker had such capabilities during the battle of Chancellorsville? Lee's most daring victory would probably have ended in his destruction.
What is interesting about Tannenberg is that the Russians who had (apparently) roughly equal numbers of planes and pilots available as their opponents failed entirely to (again apparently) produce convincing intelligence that would have so opened the eyes of Samsonov and Rennenkampf as we are traditionally led to believe German aerial observation opened the eyes of Hindenberg and Ludendorff.
If true how come? Was it logistics? Organizational differences? Perhaps personality differences of opposing commanders. More likely a combination of such factors.
So often the commanders of the combatant nations during WW1 are portrayed as befuddled fools. I myself do not buy this in large. I feel it was more a case of rapidly developing technological capabilities that fundementally so changed the face of warfare that those who trained and studied all their lives for armed conflict-be they American, English, German, French, Russian et al- were left without effective options.
Until they learned to employ their new weapons and tools and develop new modes of thought regarding warfare.
Is it inexcusable that this would take a number of years? Is it even surprising? Speaking for myself I feel it is niether.

[retread]

*For those who are interested, here is a site that deals with the subject at hand;
*http//www.rapidttp.co.za/milhist/vol083jm.html

[retread]

* *Try that again:
* http://www.rapidttp.co.za/milhist/vol083jm.html