Balloon Busters

Opinion Question:

And I don't mean to offend anyone by downplaying the role of, or dogging on, someone's favorite pilot, but I would like to know the opinions of all Forumites on the idea of counting balloons in victory scores? There are some pilots who would not be an ace if you take away their balloon scores, two of the more famous being Frank Luke and Willy Copens. And many other aces padded their scores with a number of balloons.

Here are my reasons for questioning why a balloon should be counted...just my opinion, and I'm sure many of you will try to set me straight...of which I won't be offended...so do your worst! 8)

1)Its a stationary target, and goes down quickly as it is very vulnerable...in spite of the ring of AA fire and possibility of protecting scouts.

2)For some reason, I would tend to equate a balloon with a train or fuel depot or some other ground target, myself. Why wouldn't those types of targets be counted towards a flyer's score? None of them shoot back at you, altho most every ground target would have some AA protection, just like balloons. And balloons just don't seem the same because they're not powered aircraft...I mean they can't even move out of the way, for crying out loud! And the ground crew couldn't wench them down fast enough before they would be flamed! The observer would jump out at the first sighting of enemy planes. Is there any recorded instance (for all you who have done the exhaustive research in this air war) of AA successfully protecting their balloon and driving off enemy ships without the help of friendly fighters??

I'm not saying I could do it...just saying it seems a little easy of a task to be counting towards propelling someone to ace status!

[Barrett]

Balloons were an integral part of Great War artillery, and the Western Front was ALL about artillery. Aviation in most guises existed to support its own cannon cockers and deprive Brand X of same. I doubt that any of the combatant powers gave any thought to whether a balloon was a fair or easy target: it was an important target.
The one aspect I would change is crediting "balloonets," the small unmanned types sometimes staked out to protect observation balloons. No less a worthy than Barker scarfed up five of 'em in one mission, and he certainly didn't need any easy marks to bump his score!

[Rick]

Originally Posted by HistoryDude

Is there any recorded instance (for all you who have done the exhaustive research in this air war) of AA successfully protecting their balloon and driving off enemy ships without the help of friendly fighters??

Yes, indeed. Perhaps the most famous (or infamous), is the shooting down of Hans Heinrich Marwede by American anti-aircraft fire protecting their balloon. *There are many photos of this loss, and even a movie, shot by the American Signal Corps, showing him attacking the balloon and then being brought down.

R.

[tamerlane]

I think the reason balloons were counted is simple: they were observation aircraft, albeit LTA aircraft.

Ground targets didn't count toward a "kill" score, but a pilot who did significant damage to ground targets was still likely to be recognized for his contribution and highly decorated. There weren't many of these, however, because airplanes at that time weren't very effective against ground targets, and they were highly vulnerable to small arms fire. It wasn't until later wars that airplanes came to be thought of as effective weapons against ships, trains, tanks, factories, dictators' personal bunkers, etc. (In WW2 the only recipient of Germany's highest level of the Knight's Cross - the Golden Oakleaves, Swords and Diamonds - was a Stuka pilot who won it for blowing up tanks, not shooting down enemy aircraft).

The Germans established a numerical kill score that qualified one for the Pour le Merite, but that didn't mean that exceptions couldn't be made. If a Naval pilot attacked a submarine and a kill could be confirmed (which was very difficult to do), it is likely that would have counted for more than shooting down an enemy aircraft.

So why not count a balloon? It was dangerous work attacking them, and it served the war effort to blind the enemy's artillery.

Tim

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Historydude:

Any pilot who chased after balloons eventually got shot down going after them. *I knew Baron Willy Coppens as a personal friend. *He did not think they were "easy meat". The anti-aircraft protection around around balloon nest was more than adequate to take care of any intruders, a clutch 37mm Pom-Poms could give you a bad day. they were referred to as "flaming onions".

In the early part of the war powered winches were not used to haul down German balloons. The means of achieving a fast descent was a block was anchored to the ground the cable went from the winch through block(pulley) and then up to the balloon. This method provided a means of very rapid descent, when the attack occurred the winch truck drove away from the block and operating the powered winch at the same time thus quickly hauling down the balloon. *Destroying a balloon on the ground did not count as a victory.

Blue skies,
Dan-San

It's always an interesting question about the Balloons .
As has been already said , the Commands awarded these as victory's to encourage pilots to destroy these valuable targets , and from everything I have read , it would indicate that it was a dangerous business to attack one .
I always remember back to that communique to MvR asking " but where is the balloon ? " ...and the reply " it is in the air "...For myself I feel that a balloon did not get the hunting lust fired up in MvR ...or was it partly because he didn't think the risk was worth the reward ??...Which would seem strange seeing he stated that he felt the ground troops pain .
I suppose most peoples favorite balloon buster would be Frank Luke , or Coppens ( I envy you Dan-San for having met such great men ) or maybe Gontermann ...But I have another I find interesting , even though being French he will never be a popular choice in todays general feelings . He is Leon Bourjade . He was training to be a missionary and priest before the war , and after service in the infantry he transfered to aviation . In his score of 28 ....only one claim was made for an enemy aircraft ...all the rest were balloons . I was told once by a friend that studied the French aces , that as he fired his guns at a target he would say a pray for his victims . For me it seems quite clear that this religious man was trying to attack the machine and not the man . He died in 1924 in British New Guinea being a missionary .
I suppose Leon hasn't the flare or romance of some of the balloon busters ...but for me he is a very intreguing man .
BlackSeptember

[Barrett]

* Dan-San: As I recall two of EVR's balloons were grounded. *(Maybe there's an advantage to being the CO who approves all squadron claims!) *
Frank O's USAS list shows at least nine balloons credited at "0 meter" altitude.
Hey Frank: that reminds me. Have you ever considered a list of ETO strafing credits? Bill Hess' Osprey volume is a good start but needs rounding out.

Just a few words to concur with what has already been said. In today's military parlance balloons were "high value" targets and were defended accordingly.

One common thread in reading the various accounts is that they didn't always explode like they were supposed to either. There were a number of unsuccessful attacks where the bullets must have gone in, but the thing just didn't ignite for some reason. In fact, if I remember "Fighter Pilot" correctly, there was a even a period where the British airmen weren't authorized the proper ammunition for the job.

Although not quite the same technically as an aeroplane, attacking a balloon had its challenges. Anyone who brought one down had certainly helped his side's cause at considerable personal risk, so my vote is for the credit.

[PatrickConnell]

Hello folks

Balloons easy targets? In terms of size and aiming a gun at them yes. In terms of risk to the attacking pilot, no way!!! Stationary or not, it was far more likely to result in injury or death to the attacking aviator, than success in destroying it. It's value as a military target also was much greater than an airplane.

Further, as was already mentioned, they were not easily destroyed just because they were hit repeatedly. There are numerous accounts of emptying all the available ammo into the balloon and it simply lost gas, or showed no visible signs of damage.

I think were it possible to interview all the Great War pilots who had attacked balloons, they would no doubt unanimously state it was no cake walk.

I personally think that Frank Luke went mad on captive balloons because they WERE such deadly targets and no one relished the idea of attacking them, in order to prove himself to his mates.

Given the level of risk, military value, I have no qualms about a captive ballon being credited as an aerial victory.

I wish you folks well and safe flying

Patrick

[Alan]

You know, a few months ago I might have agreed about balloons being easy prey.

Today, absolutely not.

After reading and digging into Frank Luke's life, I have found new meaning into what it was to go after one of these targets.

Consider the net effect that one balloon strategically placed could do: *their artillery spotting could result in hundreds of casualties. *If they were that easy of a target, then why didn't every ace have a couple dozen in their scores?

I think if any infantry soldier from any side had their say, then each balloon brought down would count for a dozen kills if it meant one less day of shelling.