"British Bombers -- Photo Aircraft -- How did they do this?" Topic

I have been reading about the Independent Force Bombers -- specifically DH-4's and DH-9's.

These operated in small groups of 6 and generally there were two of these groups of 6 operating in close proximity.

In each group of six there was one aircraft (generally) that carried a camera. This aircraft was part of the formation -- and the defensive formation was a big deal. An aircraft out of formation was often good as dead if there were 6+ German aircraft in the area.

Anyway, there are reports of these aircraft taking 26 photos of the bomb site after the bombs hit the ground. I'm not sure how long it took to load these plates but even if it was 15 seconds between shots, that would be 8 minutes spent over the target taking photos. (While the formation pulls away at 80 to 100 mph).

Did the photo aircraft break formation and then catch up? Or . . . did the entire formation fly a circuit of the bomb site to allow the photos to be taken? Or am I missing something here entirely?

mjc

Plate manipulation was not a problem since most of the great powers had gone to roll film in late 1917. To the best of my knowlage only the Austrians were still using plate cameras, and they had an automatic plate changer so they could put a camera in a fighter to do photo recon.

"Plate manipulation was not a problem since most of the great powers had gone to roll film in late 1917."

I'd love to see your source for that statement.

I know for a fact that Americans used a plate camera. See 7th Bombardment Group/Wing, page 11-12.

I'm pretty sure the French used plate cameras.

And comments made by British Squadron No. 55 always refer to "plates exposed". See generally Independent Force by Rennles and specifically same source at page 113, 117, 131, 159, and many more -- BTW, some of these entries are as late as October 1918.

Somewhere in the same book IIRC, the automatic plate changers were so unreliable that the crews frequently disabled the device and exposed the plates by hand!

But this is all beyond my original question.

Did they stay in formation and fly around the objective (taking Archie the whole time)? or did they detach the photo machine and hope it could catch up?

mjc

I get the firm impression that they stayed in formation – while "Independent Force" isn't explicit on the point from a quick skim, comments like "both formations then proceded home" and suchlike in several of the reports indicate nobody being detached. If I had to guess, I'd say they probably started taking them while bombing, and the formation then executed its turn to pass back over the target and head home, giving more time for photos. As for camera type, I suspect they still had the L/B apparatus which was plate with an automatic changer – from the typical altitude of 14-15,000 feet this would have a "footprint" of well over a mile in the shot, so you'll get a number of overlapping shots.

Dom.

Ooh, found a handy link – pw20c.mcmaster.ca/node/37669

<Edit> Roll film was certainly around, and in limited aerial use, but most accounts certainly indicate plates being the usual. Another point to note is that standard practice was to photograph anything of potential interest – 27 plates exposed doesn't necessarily mean 27 plates exposed over the target; rather a significant portion of those could have been en route there or back.

Well… roll film dates back to 1889 and Kodak was selling roll film cameras before the war – as far back as the turn of the century, so there is no reason why roll film could not have been used in WWI.

Virtualscratchbuilder,

I suspect it had to do with optics of the time. If they could have used something smaller I'm sure they would have done it.

But fact is, they didn't.

mjc

Ooh, the internet is wonderful – "Airplane Photography" by Herbert E. Ives…. From about page 115 he goes into some detail on RFC photography, noting that the type L camera was more or less ubiquitous by 1917, with the LB appearing late in 1918, both semi-automatic plate cameras.

link

He also notes (around p.131 onwards) some of the problems inherent in using film cameras for aerial work, and that while the British did use a film camera (Type F) it was designed for mapping work in areas where no maps at all existed, suggesting that it wasn't up to high detail work, but was suited for taking a *lot* of photos, which obviously is a problem when using plates.

Dom.

It was never a problem for Biggles….. he just leant over the side and snapped away

(try Biggles flies East)

Ives' book is also availablein glorious PDF on Google Books :)

This one kinda falls under my favorite non-gaming hobby (if we can have such a thing) – silent movies. Initially, roll film was Orthochromatic which in a nut shell means it covers the green-blue spectrum. Later, the mid-20's, roll film switched over to Panchromatic covering the entire visual spectrum. Both films were used for black & white but what it meant was that the Orthochromatic film didn't pick up all the details that Panchromatic film did. These changes in films can be seen from the pre-mid20's movies. The higher detailed films really start coming into their own around 1926 with the ability to use much more subtle lighting. All this translates into the inability of the Orthochromatic film to be pick up the details that recon would be looking for and can tend to leave a washed out appearance in objects at great distances. In a nutshell anyway.

They didn't really need to take photographs at all – no one seemed to realise they could have just looked at Google Earth.

You're being silly now – that's fine for mapping, but everyone knows Google earth wasn't updated often enough for things like bomb damage assessment….

Oppiedog-

Very interesting. I'm honestly curious, though--if plates were panchromatic and film was orthochromatic, why didn't they just coat film with the same chemicals as the plates?

Plate photography produces much sharper images – film was fine for quick snaps, but it was many years before the image quality was on a par with plates. (Indeed plates were still being used for astronomical surveys in the 1990s thanks to the image quality they produce….)

Dom.

<Edit – a quick Google shows panchromatic film as available pre-war, but not at all common – Eastman didn't actually add it to their catalogue (as opposed to special order) until 1922, and it was initially very expensive compared to orthochromatic film, while not offering the sharpness of plate photos. The latter is doubtless the key element as far as aerial usage is concerned, and the former more significant for snapshots.>

Hi

And yellow and read often come off as black. Even better it sees HOT as black, producing more problems.

Outside of the source, most missions consisted of one or two aircraft, sometimes with fighter escort, doing a quick pass and photo of targets of interest.

It is bomb assement only that does the above. Oddly, in practice it isn't from a gaming standpoint, much different that gaming the bombing mission.

r

My favourite example of orthochromatic photos is the Belgian air force – you can always tell a Belgian aircraft by its distinctive black, black and black roundels….

I have been having a think about this,and just from a basic photographic knowledge, Wouldnt the roll film would have been affected by the freezing temperatures at the altitudes they would have been photographing from, Plates from what I remember reading or seeing or listening to many years ago wasnt subject to temperature variations as much as roll film

As I say no sources or massive in depth research knowledge on the subject..Just a thought

George Eastman invented roll film in 1899 that retained the clarity of glass plates…….. or so it ses here….

link

also pidgeons carrying auto-cameras wieghing 70grms…
I suspect it has more to do with the quality of the optics rather then the size….

Cheers

I'll disagree on that one – if the early film really retained the clarity of glass plates, he'd have had his company selling it in 1899, not 1922 as was actually the case. Quality of optics should affect plates and film equally – if the optics aren't up to scratch, it won't matter which you use. Certainly British usage clearly points to film as producing inferior images at this stage, hence its relegation to large-scale mapping, and the retention of plates for any role requiring fine detail.

Wasnt the first roll films also made of nitrocellouse?, which I think can self combust..Apologies if I am wrong, but I remember reading that movies up to the thirties has to be stored in fire prrof boxes for this reason, so maybe this ia another reason they didnt use it

Dom,I dont dought what you say naturally logic dictates that the best processes and equipment would be used for the military but unfortunatly it was often the case and still is that the opposite is often true, there are many cases where personal preferences beliefs or doctrine overuled other considerations, because a technology/item was in normal use it doesnt mean it was better…just my thoughts on the subject…. your quite right Steve W early film was unstable one reason why so many old films have been lost although I think this is something more age related, but this could be a good reason not to use it, Nitrocellulose is also known as Guncotton a common explosive…..

Cheers

I agree that military inertia is always one to bear in mind, but the fact that *both* were used, for different jobs, hints very strongly at both having different strengths and weaknesses, recognised at the time. Additionally the air war 1914-18 was a period of massive technological progress across the board – there were a lot less "entrenched" views as they were pretty much constantly innovating, and most kit didn't stay in service long enough to become really established in the "we use this because we always have" kind of way.

As for nitrocellulose film – yep; safety film didn't come along until the 1920s, which coincided with film really starting to gain in popularity….

Dom.

Again agreed and some of these weaknesses and strengths are related in chapter on film camaras in the booklink you gave(excellent book)but not necesarily to do with quality of image, I found this interesting quote as well "The English Service holds that completely automatic exposing, in addition to plate changing, is apt to encourage the making of many more pictures than necessary"(and so more costly)….it kind of reminds one of the British parachute where pilots were not given them because they were thought likely to bailout from damaged aircraft rather then risk trying to land them hence more aircraft losses against pilot losses….. or is that a myth…..

Cheers

Hi

Actually, the parachute was a real story, not because they wouldn't land, but because it was thought they wouldn't FIGHT. Remember the first para experience for eveyone was in Balloons. In Balloons, the crew commonly jumped the moment they saw an enemy approaching instead of standing fast and doing their job!

In 17 on, it wasn't uncommon for a pilot to shoot down a german, land and steal his chute!

Rocky