Sopwith Triplane - heavy autumn casualties

Brom · 23 August 2016, 11:25 AM

I'm a new member, though have been reading many of the forum threads for years. I have always puzzled over one aspect of the history of the Sopwith Triplane, and would like your opinions.

When it arrived at the front, it was facing the twin-gun Albatross DII and DIII, plus the elderly Halberstadt DII, and by all accounts, it ran them ragged. It was (amazingly, for a Triplane), said to be much faster, climbed much better, was more manoeuvrable than the best the Germans had to offer.

Yet, by autumn 1917, it seems only No.1 Squadron RNAS had many Triplanes, and it is said they suffered heavy casualties. Norman Franks had a conversation with Raymond Collishaw, who said No.1 kept their Triplanes 'for far too long', hence the losses.

But why were they outclassed? From reading the forum, it doesn't seem the Sopwith and Foker Triplanes ever met in combat. Was the Albatross DV/D.Va that much better than the DIII - the books I've read seem to suggest not materially. The Pfalz DIII was deemed inferior to the Albatross. What else caused the Triplane to become outclassed?

Was it the low numbers (150 or so in total), which meant the airframes became knackered? Or was it that they were switched to ground attack?

Anyone any ideas?

It has always seemed a pity to me that the Triplane was never fitted with the 150bhp Bently BR1, plus twin guns. It would then have had a formidable performance and certainly wouldn't have killed so many of its pilots as the Camel!

MikeMeech · 23 August 2016, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brom

I'm a new member, though have been reading many of the forum threads for years. I have always puzzled over one aspect of the history of the Sopwith Triplane, and would like your opinions.

When it arrived at the front, it was facing the twin-gun Albatross DII and DIII, plus the elderly Halberstadt DII, and by all accounts, it ran them ragged. It was (amazingly, for a Triplane), said to be much faster, climbed much better, was more manoeuvrable than the best the Germans had to offer.

Yet, by autumn 1917, it seems only No.1 Squadron RNAS had many Triplanes, and it is said they suffered heavy casualties. Norman Franks had a conversation with Raymond Collishaw, who said No.1 kept their Triplanes 'for far too long', hence the losses.

But why were they outclassed? From reading the forum, it doesn't seem the Sopwith and Foker Triplanes ever met in combat. Was the Albatross DV/D.Va that much better than the DIII - the books I've read seem to suggest not materially. The Pfalz DIII was deemed inferior to the Albatross. What else caused the Triplane to become outclassed?

Was it the low numbers (150 or so in total), which meant the airframes became knackered? Or was it that they were switched to ground attack?

Anyone any ideas?

It has always seemed a pity to me that the Triplane was never fitted with the 150bhp Bently BR1, plus twin guns. It would then have had a formidable performance and certainly wouldn't have killed so many of its pilots as the Camel!

Hi

Basically by the Autumn of 1917 the Sopwith Triplane was an 'old' design and the Sopwith Camels and SE.5As coming into service were considered 'better' which why production ended.
As for 'heavy casualties', TSTB 2 , page 348, Appendix 4 has 'Known aircraft types associated with personnel losses due to enemy action on the Western Front 1914-1918', for the period the Sopwith Triplane was in service the losses were: April 1917 - 5, May - 10, June - 12, July - 14, Aug - 9, Sep - 11, Oct - 3.

Mike

Brom · 24 August 2016, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeMeech

Hi

Basically by the Autumn of 1917 the Sopwith Triplane was an 'old' design and the Sopwith Camels and SE.5As coming into service were considered 'better' which why production ended.
As for 'heavy casualties', TSTB 2 , page 348, Appendix 4 has 'Known aircraft types associated with personnel losses due to enemy action on the Western Front 1914-1918', for the period the Sopwith Triplane was in service the losses were: April 1917 - 5, May - 10, June - 12, July - 14, Aug - 9, Sep - 11, Oct - 3.

Mike

Thanks for that - so the books don't have it right, and what you say makes sense. What is 'TSTB 2' - it sounds a really useful resource.

MikeMeech · 24 August 2016, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brom

Thanks for that - so the books don't have it right, and what you say makes sense. What is 'TSTB 2' - it sounds a really useful resource.

Hi

Its 'The Sky their Battlefield' 2nd Edition, by Trevor Henshaw, Fetubi Books, 2014. It contains the air fighting and air casualties of the British, Commonwealth and United States air services 1912-1919. It is one of the core books for any research into the air war. It has been quoted many times on the Aerodrome Forum.

Mike

ONEALM · 24 August 2016, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Its 'The Sky their Battlefield' 2nd Edition, by Trevor Henshaw, Fetubi Books, 2014. It contains the air fighting and air casualties of the British, Commonwealth and United States air services 1912-1919. It is one of the core books for any research into the air war. It has been quoted many times on the Aerodrome Forum.

Mike is being somewhat reserved in his assessment. It's a must have - go get a copy. I have the first edition which was superb... and the 2nd edition which is an expansion of the first, for which I have yet to find a superlative to describe adequately.

Gregvan · 24 August 2016, 12:23 PM

What Mike said!

HoHun · 24 August 2016, 01:58 PM

Hi Mike,

>April 1917 - 5, May - 10, June - 12, July - 14, Aug - 9, Sep - 11, Oct - 3.

64 losses might not seem much in the big picture of the war, but it raises the question, how many pilots were still flying the Triplane during these months? They might have considered their losses heavy, judging only by how many of their small group were lost.

From http://www.aviation-history.com/sopwith/triplane.html, the users seem to have been, per month (roughly):

MJJASOND Month
xxxxxxx- No. 1 (Naval)
xxx----- No. 8 (Naval)
xxx----- No. 9 (Naval)
xxxx---- No. 10 (Naval)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

R Gannon · 24 August 2016, 02:50 PM

Hi Henning

Naval 8 exchanged their Sopwith Tripes for Camels July-Aug 17, Naval 9 and Naval 10 in August, leaving 1 Naval to soldier on into Oct 17. Which means the 11 in Sep 17 were all 1 Naval. However it needs to be understood that 1 Naval along with quite a few other Nieuport, DH5, SPAD and indeed Camel squadrons were committed to a fair bit of low work (staffing & bombing) in support of the major drives of the Third Ypres push. Only the SE5's were spared this dangerous low work at this juncture. Needless to say several of 1 Naval's losses Sep-Oct were low work related - the dual dangers of ground fire and being bounced by enemy fighters indulging in dive & zoom attacks. I also rather feel too many WW1 air war enthusiasts overly obsess themselves comparing the firepower, horsepower and manoeuvrability of fighters, as if the air war was being fought in some neutral environment, but it wasn't; the British fighters were fighting the German fighters almost exclusively over the German side of the lines, which allowed the Jasta pilots considerable home ground advantages.

Cheers Russ

Pips · 24 August 2016, 04:29 PM

I too had often wondered why the Triplane saw such limited service. When reading the success stories of the aces eg Collishaw and the Black Flight, Bob Little, Richard Minifie and Stan Dallas; one gets the impression that the Luftstreitkräfte were being chased from the sky, able to do little to defeat the magical Triplane.

But those losses quoted above are indeed quite heavy. On several levels.

For example 64 losses (combat related?) out of just 147 built. That's extremely high. Anyone know how many of those 147 saw actual service with the RNAS Squadrons in France?

And as far as poor Naval 1 goes. 11 losses in a month is crippling, given that the Squadron strength was probably around 20 pilots.

HoHun · 25 August 2016, 12:49 AM

Hi Pips,

>For example 64 losses (combat related?) out of just 147 built.

As Mike quoted them as listed in the category 'Known aircraft types associated with personnel losses due to enemy action on the Western Front 1914-1918', I would certainly think they're all combat related.

Statistically, I would expect that some additional operational losses not due to enemy action on top of that.

I'm not sure what was included in the term "loss" ... shot-up Triplane returns from combat, overturns on landing, pilot hospitalized, aircraft sent back to depot for repairs ... would that be counted as loss under this category? Neither man nor machine would be available at squadron level for operations for a while ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)