"Aircraft recognition panels" Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Russian Civil War Message Board Back to the Early 20th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War One
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
artaxerxes | 31 Dec 2013 8:44 p.m. PST |
Am I correct in my assumption that aircraft recognition panels on vehicles are a Second World War innovation? I'm wondering whether White vehicles in the Russian Civil War might have had some simple symbols viewable from above to ward off friendly fire by their own or British aircraft (say, in South Russia)? I know that 47 Squadron certainly engaged in ground attack missions in support of Denikin's forces, so the risk must have been present. |
monk2002uk | 01 Jan 2014 2:35 p.m. PST |
German A7Vs often had black crosses on the upper surfaces, which were not visisble from the ground. I suspect that this may have been for aircraft recognition as purpose-built fighter bombers were a feature of the last year of the war. Robert |
Mark Plant | 07 Jan 2014 4:31 p.m. PST |
When you say "engaged in ground support attack missions" I think you might be confusing things a bit with later eras. Their use was largely information gathering and passing messages. In that they were magnificently useful. When they did attack, it was on the way to the battle, not during it. They might scatter the opposition by strafing, which was particularly effective against cavalry as the horses tended to panic. Telling friend from foe during a battle would have been impossible given the lack of set lines. I've read of them attacking trains, but not single vehicles. How would they hurt a vehicle? They could barely hit stationary ships, which are much larger. |
artaxerxes | 07 Jan 2014 10:25 p.m. PST |
With respect Mark, I think it's you who is a little wide of the mark. Ground attack techniques had evolved very significantly in the RFC/RAF in 1918 on the Western Front, and the CO of 47 Squadron, one Raymond Collishaw (better known as a leading Canadian ace), was one of the pioneers of the techniques involved. They certainly attacked trains (both bombing and strafing) but also convoys, formed bodies of troops, gun emplacements and pretty much anything that looked juicy enough for a run, both during the German offensives in the first half of the year and in support of the allied advance from August onwards. |
Mark Plant | 08 Jan 2014 5:57 p.m. PST |
On the Western front, yes, Artaxerxes. There they could plan the raids in advance, taking the right equipment and be sure of hitting the enemy. The men were well trained, and the planes well maintained with the proper equipment. If you base your assessment of what happened in the RCW based on the Western Front then you are almost always going to be wide of the mark. In the RCW the pilots generally had no idea where the enemy was. Indeed they frequently had no idea where they were -- getting lost was probably the highest cause of pilot death after airframe failure (death by enemy action was a trivial risk in comparison). Planes didn't generally have proper bomb racks. What do you reckon the chances of hitting a moving armoured car with a bomb chucked out the side of plane is? As I say, they struggled to hit stationary ships! Raymond Collishaw wrote extensively about his actions in the RCW. Unfortunately he lied extensively as well, and he didn't shoot down all those Reds, nor did he do very much to their ground forces. Likewise the accounts based on Marion Aten give a very "Biggles" view of the war. The Whites hugely valued their airforces. But it wasn't for their ground attack abilities, which were largely trivial. There are some books based on the real RCW in the air, but they are not very exciting if you want the "Biggles" view. "Gone to Russia to Fight" is the best regarding the RAF's role -- and they were easily the best airforce in the war (excepting, possibly, the Poles). |
artaxerxes | 09 Jan 2014 12:06 a.m. PST |
Yes, I have Smith's book. I'd like to know your authority for claiming that Collishaw 'lied' please. I agree with your stricture about 'Biggles' views of the air war btw. In North Russia, where ground attack missions were precluded by the terrain, especially the forests, the RAF was experimenting with chemical bombs of a decidedly 1918 phosgene etc variety, something I've not seen covered in the extant literature. My point being that the 'Biggles' version generally avoids the grubby realities (of which attacking unglamorous ground targets was one such, and gassing the enemy another) in favour of the 'Huns in the sun/silk scarves in the slipstream stuff, which we can both agree is largely rubbish. |
AWuuuu | 16 Feb 2014 6:20 p.m. PST |
Not delving into truth of Collishaw writings, I think mark is closer to how RCW looked in the air. Air forces involved were very crude and their basic aim was to find enemy not to destroy him. And Interventionist air force lacked well defined targets. Not due to forests, but due to fluid nature of the war. I believe only real targets were train stations and bridges. Best documented Polish air strafing actions, were against Budionny 1 Horse Army in 1920, when there were mases of horseman moving in quite small area of operation. But that is a proof it did happened. Answering your basic question – I doubt it was implemented in Russian army at the time, but Polish units had a crude system of air recognition that survived till 1939. It consisted of placing different shapes of cloth on the ground. Although Ive never meet any mention of actual use of them in the 18-20 period. |
tuscaloosa | 17 Feb 2014 2:48 p.m. PST |
Ground attack was significant, not just on the Western Front. The RAF destroyed several columns of retreating Bulgarian forces in the last weeks of the war in Macedonia, and provided instrumental close air support. |
AWuuuu | 17 Feb 2014 2:54 p.m. PST |
I am not convinced about destroyed. Don't know the exacts of RAF against Bulgarians, but Polish ground attacks against Budionny scattered units and disorganized rear echelons rather than destroyed a lot of personnel. |
|