Mistaken Recognition

[chip55]

Hello
I sometimes wonder how much credit was given to the Albatros and Fokker fighters that belong to The Pfalz and Roland fighters due to misrecognition of the Allied pilots, The tallies on the aces page don't mention much of the Pfalz and Rolands. *I am sure that the Pfalz DIII and Roland DVI may have been mistaken for an Albatros or the *Pfalz DXII mistaken for a Fokker DVII. The Pfalz e series look much like the Fokker E's. Regardless of the low speeds (compared to todays) *of the day, in the frenzy of a dogfight *I am sure this had to have happened especially early in the war where designs were widely copied.
I guess it must have been the theater of operation that would help to identify them. I understand that many German squadrons operated with different aircraft within itself.

Be Well all
chip55 *

[WFS]

I've read several accounts of allied pilots mistaking an Albatross for a Nieuport due to the sesquiplane wings and v struts and vice versa. I've also read about Dr1's and Sopwith tripes being mistaken for each other. (SURPRIZE!) There also seems to have been a lot of misidentification of downed planes. When researchers compare pilot claims to loss reports and squadron locations from the other side they often show that the downed plane couldn't have been what was claimed.

Wayne

[Rick]

One most always take into account that identification of enemy aircraft by opposing pilots, either German or Allied, was tenuous, to say the least. They might be able to recognize Cockades and/or Crosses, but that was about it. To positively identify an enemy aircraft as to a certain type was almost impossible to some of these guys. Heck, many couldn't differentiate between a single-seater and a two-seater, let alone between a biplane and a triplane. IMHO. R.

[Darryl]

All

Even in the circuit, positive identification of other aircraft is somewhat tenuous. The difference betwwen RV types is not obvious for example. A highwing IS a Cessna unless you happen to know who it is and that he flys a Cub..or perhaps that's just my eyesight?

The general concensus early in WWII was that the average pilot could not distinguish between a Spitfire, Hurricane and a Messerscmitt...as many embarrasing gun camera films show. The only saving grace being that the average pilot couldn't put rounds within 200 feet of what he WAS aiming at!!

The claims for WWI show an alarming rate of misidentification but this has not changed in any conflict since (to my knowledge). There is an overwhelming temptation for every enemy aircraft seen to become the current boggie man. Most Luftwaffe pilots reported being attacked by Spitfires...after all who would possibly admit to having trouble with the humble Hurricane

So don't be two hard on them.

regards

Darryl

[Dreamer]

* *Just thought I'd throw this into the pot; many Allied and German aircraft were brought down by "friendly" aircraft. This was something that no one liked to talk about. I have a book published by the U.S. military that discusses the problem in depth. The overall concensus is that "friendly fire" casualties were seriously under-reported in all modern conflicts. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VBR: Dreamer

By the time an aircraft was close enough to you that you had even a hope of identifying it with any degree of accuracy, it had already put holes in you if it was hostile. To me the surprise is that identification was accurate as often as it was. Based on my personal experience, I can't imagine the average pilot being able to do more than guess at an a/c's type.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Chip55:
This is precisely what about the elimination of the red or red-brown colors in the German camouflage schemes in April 1917 by Idflieg. German pilots were shooting down German aircraft, thinking if it was brown, it must be an Allied aircraft. There is one account, I forget who it was, but some Allied pilot had to shoot down an Allied aircraft, ah,I remember, it was Nungesser,and to prevent a further occurrence, that was why he painted the tri-color stripes on the wings and fuselage of his Nieuport 17 or 25, whatever. That was a pretty airplane.8)
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Craig]

In reference to the original post:

The Pfalz D.III figures prominently in Allied claims, so there can't have been too much of a problem mistaking it for an Albatros. The Roland D.VI had distinctly different wings and tail from either of the aforementioned - more likely to have been mistaken for a D.VII. Plus, there weren't a whole lot of them, and those used were in quieter sectors.

The Pfalz D.XII, on the other hand, could have been mistaken for a Fokker with the greatest of ease.

[PeterL]

It's my impression that enemy aircraft were routinely misidentified by allied airmen during the war. In French reports if it's a two seater it's an Aviatik well into 1917 when, we can assume, there weren't many of the breed around. And depending on which was in the ascendance at the time monoplanes were either "Taubes" or "Fokkers" and large twins "Gothas". I would suppose also that at least some "vee-strutters" must have been Pfalz.

[Billy_Bishop]

And to think, people have been criticizing me for supporting a man who couldn't tell the difference between an Albatros DII and an Albatros DIII whilst he was trying to shoot them and whilst people were shooting at HIM!!