The role of Aircraft in WW1?

Care to enlighten me?

The use of planes in WW1 must have been very, very different from the way they were used in WW2. After all, what is the use of air supeority when most planes could hardly touch ground troops, and where reconnaisance was not very useful in static trench warfare.

 

They were used mostly for reconnaisance of enemy troop movement behind the front, and even at the front. Because whoever stuck his head over the trench would be shot.
And of course, the planes were used for bombing, with bombs being thrown out of the plane by hand...

 

At the beginning of WWI, aircraft were used mainly as scouts. The first military adaption to an aircraft was to equip it with a wireless telegraphic transmitter, so it could be used as a spotter for the artillery. The next adaption was to equip it with guns. From there on the development of aircraft went at a rate where the most modern aircraft became obsolete whitin months of their service debut, sometimes aircraft became obsolete even before they reached the frontline. At the end of WWI aircraft had pretty much the same roles as in WWII. Bombers, ground attack aircraft, air superiority fighters etc.

In short, WWI not only saw the evolution of the military aircraft, but the evolution of the air war as well ( the teachings of Oswald Boelcke are still valid, even today ).

 

Certainly. In that respect the developments of WW1 were far more long-lasting than those of WW2. As with the tanks, the planes were first used in their future roles during WW1, but were only made bigger stronger faster during WW2.

 

What about night fighters in WWI ? I recall reading somewhere that the S.E.5 was allocated to Home Defence squadrons and used against Zeppelins and German bombers at night. I´ve also read that the Snipe was supplied to night fighter squadrons, but I can´t remember where or to what purpose.

 

"Certainly. In that respect the developments of WW1 were far more long-lasting than those of WW2. As with the tanks, the planes were first used in their future roles during WW1, but were only made bigger stronger faster during WW2."

Arguably some of the most crucial roles of WWII were absent from the Great War. There was for example no equivalent of an escort fighter, and certainly no bomber aircraft that was even remotely capable of acting as a strategic bomber, and the whole sphere of Carrier operations (Probably the single most revolutionary aspect of Naval warfare since the guy who designed the USS Monitor decided to mount just two guns in a turret) had to wait until the interwar years for even its embryonic stage.

Further the lessons of the Great War were seriously missapplied in a number of cases. Having developed a successful armoured ground attack plane Germany forgot all about it and over-concentrated on Divebombers to the point of disasterous obsession.

The momentary panic caused by the Zeppelin and Gotha bomber's raids on London was extrapolated beyond all proportion to assume that a nation could be defeated solely by terror attacks on the population.

"The Bomber will always get through" Myth was largely the result of the Great War and interwar years where bombers could easily carry enough guns to fend off attacking fighters and were not hugely slower, that misconception cost countless bomber crews of all sides their lives.

Finally from me at any rate, because the dogfights of the Great War were fought completely differently from the combats of the Second World War some nations, notably the Italians and the Japanese, clung to the conclusion that manouevrability was of the utmost importance, even to the expense of speed, firepower and pilot protection, ultimately to their airmen's costs.

Although they appear in some ways similar, and a number of the tactics were carried over, really the experiences of aerial combat in the Great War were largely as applicable to the Second World War as the Trenches were applicable to Blitzkreig.

 

I don´t think anyone have said that the role of the aircraft was anything near identical in the two world wars, it was certainly not my intention. What I meant was that many of the basic roles and tactics which we later find in WWII were established during WWI. I´m perfectly aware of my knowledge being only superficial in this matter ( and that we might just be arguing about whether the cup is half empty or half full ), but I can´t see how the difference between the airwar of WWI and the airwar of WWII can be so huge as between the trenches of WWI and the Blitzkrieg of WWII.

I know No.84 squadron, led by Major William Sholto Douglas, flew escort duties. Their S.E.5s were not equipped with drop tanks like the Mustang in WWII, if that is what you mean, but they performed the same role and encountered many of the same problems as their WWII counterparts. BTW, Douglas wrote : "... a bombing formation, if composed of machines with a good performance, of pilots who can fly in close formation and of observers who can shoot straight, can fight a very successful defensive action against even superiour numbers." Isn´t that the same tactics that the Bomber Command, and later the Eight Air Force used to begin with in WWII ?

 

"I don´t think anyone have said that the role of the aircraft was anything near identical in the two world wars, it was certainly not my intention."

I know that, however Roel did say that they were first used in their future roles, I was just trying to point out that I think there are some quite glaring gaps. Your point about using the existing fighters as escorts is quite well taken, and fighters from both sides did of course fly escort sorties for observation balloons as well, however I was not trying to single out the Mustang for comparisson, I guess just really (And this is not surprising considering how much the technology was in its infancy) that there was no real distinction between fighters, whereas by the outset of WWII there were at least on the drawing boards long range fighters, interceptors and Zerstoerer, all distinctly different in intended role and design.

Similarly by WWII you had divebombers, light, medium and heavy bombers, torpedo bombers, dedicated ground attack aircraft, many of which were just not available in 1914-18, and in any case the capabilities were hugely different.

"Douglas wrote : "... a bombing formation, if composed of machines with a good performance, of pilots who can fly in close formation and of observers who can shoot straight, can fight a very successful defensive action against even superiour numbers." Isn´t that the same tactics that the Bomber Command, and later the Eight Air Force used to begin with in WWII ?"

Really this illustrates my point quite well, this may have been true in the Great War but by WWII a relatively small formation of fighters could relatively easily decimate a formation of any type of bomber, even when the interceptors were vastly out-numbered, and because of a broad assumption that nothing had changed a lot of men died.

"I can´t see how the difference between the airwar of WWI and the airwar of WWII can be so huge as between the trenches of WWI and the Blitzkrieg of WWII."

You don't think the capabilities of carrier aircraft altered the whole concept of naval operations that much then? :-? What about Strategic bombing? I'm not talking terror bombing here, just that for the first time ever in the history of warfare you could hit and hurt the enemy's war machine without even having to set foot on their land. There is no way that the machines of WWI were even remotely capable of that.

In WWI aircraft were a useful novelty, but ultimately they changed little in terms of the actual conduct of the war. The battles that were fought for the air were largely fought because the air was there to be fought over.

Although I fully admit my knowledge of WWI is to say the least sketchy, I am not aware of a single ground or naval engagement where air power played a major part, WWII on the other hand..... Well, by then air superiority (Either local or general) could win or loose a land or naval battle before a shot was even fired.

Yes the general principles may have largely stayed the same, or at least similar, but the same can broadly be said of ground and naval battles ever since Sun-Tzu's time.

"...we might just be arguing about whether the cup is half empty or half full"

I think you're probably right.

 

I do of course agree with you in that the aircraft had nowhere near the impact on WWI that it had on WWII.

The aircraft themselves weren´t as specialized as their WWII counterparts, but they performed in most of the roles familiar from WWII. There were some distinctions though. The Trench Fighter ( Sopwith Salamander ), for example, saw service at the end of WWI. It had an armoured cockpit to protect the pilot when he carried out ground attacks. I believe the heavy fighter concept was conceived during WWI as well and saw a number of prototypes made.

Of course I do. I must admit that I didn´t have naval, or carrier borne, aircraft in mind when I wrote my earlier messages. But, it could be argued that the carrier was intoduced in WWI as well. HMS Argus, the worlds first flat-top carrier, was after all commisioned before the end of the war, in September 1918. Although I guess she still had a good amount of time with trials and training ahead of her before she could be turned into an effective weapon.

I´ve never heard about any WWI torpedo planes. But the RNAS was so ahead of their time in so many other departments, so who knows ? Weren´t these the guys who invented the tank ?

 

Sorry, Simonr1978, I guess I didn't think too much for myself when I made that post. There are a few obvious roles of aircraft in WW2 that extensively return in WW2 (like reconnaissance, bombing and air-to-air fighting), but some that, as you pointed out, are new to WW2. I should have thought outside of the box.

 

I think they were using floatplanes for torpedo attacks in WWI.
Wasn't Winston behind the "land ship" idea?

 

I don't think any of the WWI types had sufficiently powerful engines and structure to lift a torpedo and in any case they would have struggled to carry it any distance. Certainly none of the single engine planes I can think of.

From what I recall Churchill was not behind the Land-ship idea but was sufficiently impressed by it and lent considerable weight (Pardon the pun) including some personal financial backing to the scheme.

 

Well, I suppose you would discount the Friedrichshaften bombers (hope I spelled that right!) and the Zeppelins, both of which could & did bomb England from Germany.
How about the RNAS bombing the German Zeppelin sheds?

Nothing major, maybe, but the use of aircraft to spot and/or destroy submarines began in WW2. Either you had dirigibles spotting for DDs, or floatplanes patrolling & sinking subs themselves. Several British subs were sunk by German aeroplanes.

Overall, yes, i agree, different wars, different equipment, different emphasis. But do not throw the baby out with the bathwater...

 

I think it would be fair to say that WW1 military aircraft at least touched upon all of the roles that would later adopted.

In some areas they were able to make a material difference, eg recon, others they were close, eg navy recon and strikes and others they were still miles away from being material eg strategic bombing.

 

I figure you mean Friedrichshafen?

 

The crucial difference though as I said earlier was that in WWI aircraft were largely really irrelevant. The sky was fought over more or less because it was there, whereas in WWII aircraft made a real difference.

I think I can see me arguing myself into a corner here, but anyway...

"Well, I suppose you would discount the Friedrichshaften bombers (hope I spelled that right!) and the Zeppelins, both of which could & did bomb England from Germany.
How about the RNAS bombing the German Zeppelin sheds?"

I wouldn't consider these as really relevant, exactly how much did any of these raids hurt the enemy war industry? Minimally to say the least, and this wasn't just due to the smaller numbers, the technology just wasn't there to even begin attempting to bomb accurately, the bombs too small to really hurt heavy industry and the aircraft too limited in their capabilities (particularly range) to make any significant impact.

As for the development of the first flat-top, I think it's also fair to say that the ability of any carrier air-group of this time would be again largely insigificant, no-dive bombers, no torpedo bombers, what are you going to do? Drop grenade sized bombs on battleships in the hope of a trillion to one fluke hit?!?

Going back to the original point, I still don't believe that the developments of WWI were anywhere near as important as those of WWII. It was not until WWII that aircraft as an offensive or defensive weapon really were taken seriously.

It wasn't just a case that they were faster and stronger, their capabilities were so much greater that they became a military pre-requisite rather than an interesting novelty, and although I accept that many roles of aircraft were first used in the Great War it is a gross oversimplification to say that this was anywhere near as revolutionary, especially as because the aircraft in the latter war were so superior to their first war counterparts that tactics and accepted dogma had to change.

"I think it would be fair to say that WW1 military aircraft at least touched upon all of the roles that would later adopted.

In some areas they were able to make a material difference, eg recon, others they were close, eg navy recon and strikes and others they were still miles away from being material eg strategic bombing."

To call the Zeppelin raids on Britain an example of Strategic Bombing is about as realistic a comparisson as saying "That Tank moved forward two metres! We'll call that a recconaissance mission!"

There were no torpedo bombers, dive bombers (Either land or Carrier based), strategic bombers, or useful air-transport available at all throughout the war, added to that the command and control systems in place for air-forces was so limited as to be practically none-existant, and all of these had to wait until WWII or just before to recieve their first serious operaional tests.

Just to reiterate, WWII really forced the world's military to take air-power seriously for the first time and at a time when many of the world's premier military forces simply did not.

 

To call WW1 aircraft of all types and roles largely irrelevant is wrong.

Recon: The oldest military role or any kind of aircraft (including balloons) is recon. This was an important development, since it allowed a general to know what was happening miles behind the enemy lines, it made the element of surprise very hard to obtain. By start of WW1 aircraft were a material factor to the course of the war in this area.

Fighters: Fighters originally came into being as a means of driving off enemy recon planes and protecting your own. A country without good fighters lost its recon 'eyes' therefore fighters were material.

Strategic bombing: The raids on Britain by Zeppelins and later bombers weren't in support of the tactical situation on the front therefore they were Strategic raids. However the numbers of aircraft were small and the bomb loads smaller so these have to be regarded as immaterial.



At sea aircraft had a material, but not overwhelming role. Again it was mostly recon but it could and did affect the way fleets worked.

You've said no dive or torpedo bombers. I know for a fact that at least one type of torpedo bomber was in service before the end of the war. Sopwith Cuckoo, to the best of my knowledge this type did sink one Turkish merchant man by air dropped torpedo.

 

No, there were successful aerial torpedo attacks mounted during the Gallipoli campaign. And the first true torpedo bomber was the Sopwith Cuckoo, which just missed service in WW1.

 

I did a search on the Cuckoo, and found this piece of information at Wikipedia :

The above mentioned plan is further compared to the later attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto. The war did, of course, end in November 1918, and the plan was cancelled, but it makes one wonder how close the plan was to be carried out and whether it would have been a success or not.

 

I might be getting my aircraft mixed up here. I know I read a reference to a successful torpedo bomber strike against a Turkish merchant ship. On further thought it might have been a a floatplane type, unfortunately I don't have access to the reference book I read it in.

Anyway we have estiablished that at least one torpedo bomber type was just coming into service as the war ended and there were plans to use it in a Taranto style attack.

Had such an attack been tried it probably would have achieve Taranto style results, ie one or two ships sunk (probably not permanently) with the rest of the fleet withdrawing to the Baltic.