Mistaking Biplanes for Triplanes, and so on...

[Gregvan]

Hello All,

I don’t wish to add fuel to that other very contentious thread elsewhere on this forum, and drag it even further off topic, but I felt a need to point out a few things - so thought I’d start a new thread. I’ll probably catch quite a bit of Flak and hate for this. I have no intention of offending anyone and hope my comments will be taken for the simple suggestions that they are.

A question raised in that thread, and in many others, is “How could somebody possibly mistake an SE5 (or other type) biplane for a (Sopwith) Triplane? They don’t look anything alike.” However, in my opinion (and that’s all it is), it was quite easy to mistake a biplane for a triplane, or vice-versa, under certain conditions and from certain angles and distances.

It’s all well and good for us latter-day historians to sit in our armchairs after over 100 years, and study our books with beautifully rendered scale plans and five-views, and hundreds of photos of WWI aircraft, in the comfort of our homes and speculate about such things: “Nobody could mistake a biplane for a Triplane.” However, it’s quite something else again to sit in the chilly open cockpit of a rattling, jinking and bone-jarring aircraft in the midst of a hectic dogfight at 12,000 feet , look at some small dots hundreds of meters away – through oil-spattered goggles - and try to identify exactly what kind of aircraft they are; especially during conditions of poor visibility and lighting. As the always astute John McKenzie pointed out, from some angles, at a distance, the blurry “dark masses” of the silhouettes of an SE5a and a Sopwith Triplane can look very much alike.

Now, I’m not a pilot and I’ve never engaged in an adrenalin-pumped life-threatening dogfight from an open cockpit; but examples of “blue on blue” mistakes by pilots on both sides are rife in the literature. Information on new enemy aircraft was scarce for airmen on both sides, and mis-identification of friendly and enemy aircraft was VERY, VERY common. It’s also my belief that, soon after the appearance of the new Sopwith Triplanes made a big impact on German pilots, it was sort of human nature to have “triplanes on the brain” in my opinion – which might result in German pilots seeing them where they weren’t, and mistaking biplanes for triplanes. This would be especially true if one had just encountered actual Sopwith Tripes in a fight – one might easily assume that those other dark shapes that one was encountering in the melee were also Tripes. The same sort of thing happened to British pilots soon after encounters with Voss and MvR in their new F.I Triplanes left a huge impression; even though there were only two Fokker Triplanes at the front…

On 11 September 1917, Sopwith Pups of No 45 Sqdn tangled with Werner Voss in Fokker F.I 103/17, along with a goodly number of Jasta 10 Albatros D.V’s (and probably Pfalz D.III’s, & possibly some other JG I biplanes). In the ensuing combat, Lt OL McMaking was shot down and killed by Voss east of St Julien. Norman MacMillan of No 45 Sqdn famously wrote in his book “Into the Blue.” …in misty weather, with a patrol of seven, I saw a concentration of enemy planes some twenty-one strong flying below us east of Langemarck. There were three of the new Fokker triplanes, while the remainder were Albatros scouts. “ Not only did MacMillan claim there were three Triplanes, he successfully claimed two of them as “out of control”! Yes, he probably encountered Voss’s Triplane more than once as the German pilot flew in and out of the fight, and as he tried to force Voss off of McMaking’s tail. And yes, there were two Fokker Triplanes at JG I at this time (102/17 and 103/17), but MvR was on leave and Kurt Wolff had only just returned to duty and taken command of Jasta 11 on that same day (and Wolff was the only one permitted to fly 102/17 besides MvR).. So, in my opinion, it was just one Triplane (F.I 103/17) amidst all of those Albatros biplanes. MacMillan may well have misidentified some of the Albatros as Triplanes.

On 15 September 1917, when F/S/Lt. McGregor of No. 10 Naval Squadron shot down Jasta 11’s Kurt Wolff in Fokker F.I 102/17, his report stated: “ We were attacked by above by five Albatros scouts and four triplanes. I got into a good position, very close to one triplane, within 25 yards, and fired a good burst.” Well, there could not have been four Fokker triplanes, as only two were at the Front, period. In my opinion, there was only one Triplane involved –Wolff in F.I 102/17, and the rest were Jasta 11 Albatros D.V’s; and McGregor probably mistook some of the Albatros for other triplanes.

Another famous and controversial action took place on 2 October 1917 – after Fokker F.I 102/17 and 103/17 had both been destroyed. Here, I must agree to respectfully disagree with my friend and colleague Alex Revell. No. 56 Sqdn’s “C” and “B” Flights were up at 4:30 in the afternoon and became involved in scraps with many enemy scouts. Keith Muspratt reported he was involved in a fight with 3 enemy scouts, one of which was a Triplane, and was rescued by Rhys Davids. The latter pilot later reported having seen two Triplanes in the enemy formation. Now, there were NO Fokker Triplanes at the front on 2 October 1917; Fokker Company records of acceptance and delivery as well as AFP records are quite specific and clear on this. The first production Fokker Dr.I to be dispatched to the front was Dr.I 115/17, dispatched to Gontermann of Jasta 15 at La Neuville in the German 7. Armee, on 4 October. The Jasta 15 war diary recorded that 115/17 arrived on 11 October from the Fokker Works in Schwerin. On 10 and 11 October, two shipments totaling 17 aircraft were dispatched to Jasta 11 ( 104, 106-107, 109 – 114, 116, 118-119, 121-123, 125 and 132/17), and “would probably have arrived at Marckebeeke around 20 October” according to Alex Imrie. In HITEB, Alex Revell is quite adamant that from the reports of 56 Sqdn and other Squadrons, there must have been “Triplanes at the front from the beginning of October and possibly at the end of September.” Again, I very respectfully disagree and believe that the RFC pilots were simply mistaken in their identifications. Incidentally, these reported “Triplanes” were certainly not captured Sopwith Triplanes (a possibility someone might raise). Only two or three Sopwith Tripes were captured intact by the Germans, and while they may have been test-flown they certainly would NOT have been flown in combat; the risk of being attacked by one’s own Flak and airplanes was too great, and such stunts were strictly discouraged.

It wasn’t just Allied pilots. On 9 March 1918, Ltn Paul Strähle, the VERY experienced commander of Jasta 57 was leading a patrol of Albatros in the region of Ypres and Ploegsteert: “Over the lines we engaged several RE8s, then a flight of Triplanes got on our tails and a big dogfight ensued…Ltn Hafner was hit in the carburetor and radiator by a triplane causing him to force-land near Quesnoy…” Strähle obviously thought these were Sopwith Triplanes – but at this date, obviously they could not have been. He made no indication in his war diary that this might have been a case of “blue on blue” with Fokker Triplanes. I believe he was somehow mistaken, confusing some sort of enemy biplanes for Tripes.

In the thread I started about Allied combat reports involving the Fokker E.V, Russ Gannon raised this possibility: “The only other possibility I have relates to 21 Aug [1918] and a bombing raid by six DH9s from 107 Sqn. Again Roisel was the target. One DH9 lost (F6112), the patrol reportedly having met 8 triplanes. This has been discussed here in Forum on account that meeting 8 Fokker triplanes at this juncture was improbable. But I’m wondering if the reported Fokker Triplane was just a best guess for a Fokker EV in blur of some dive & zoom attacks??? The nose, fuselage, tail & landing gear very of EV much like the DR1…. Leaving me to wonder as to whether the reported eight triplanes were in fact eight Fokker EVs from Js 6 – certainly their patch.” So, If it’s possible that Fokker Parasol monoplanes might have been mistaken for Triplanes….why not biplanes for triplanes at other times?

In commenting on a report by Elliott White Springs that he encountered a monoplane on 5 September 1918, Russ again stated: “Agree the note by Springs of a monoplane has to be a mistaken impression, but what about a mistaken impression of a Pfalz DVIII, or more correctly Paul Baumer’s Pfalz DVIII? “ So again – if a Pfalz D.VIII biplane might have been mistaken for a monoplane…why couldn’t a biplane some time be taken for a Triplane?

As Rod Serling would say, "for your consideration". I shall now head to my bombproof dugout...

[randyz]

Greg, I think it's safe to come out of your bunker. Nothing to shoot at here. Anyone who has read first hand accounts and combat reports from Great War flyers has no doubt read things that couldn't possibly be true. Aircraft misidentification was very common...

[josquin]

Greg,

Excellent documentation, analysis and discussion of a topic of the first importance
that has never been addressed adequately. You post is a worthy beginning for the
consideration of a topic that has been the cause of much disagreement and confusion in prior threads as well as books and articles (first-person accounts and works by historians). I liked your emphasis on the uncertainty arising from the brevity of the time-frame that characterized many air combats.

Josquin

[Gregvan]

Thanks for the comments, RandyZ and Josquin,

Not to belabor the point, but here are some very crude silhouettes I drew up quickly (in the old fashioned way, not on a computer), showing Sopwith Triplanes and SE5a's. They were more similar than one initially might suspect - both were regular tractor aircraft, with dihedral in the wings, and the tail sections were somewhat similar. In combat, often, all one saw against the sky or a bright cloud was a silhouette; I don't think it was always that easy to tell a biplane from a triplane. Yes, I'm sure you can all identify each of these silhouettes for what they are; but we have the time to leisurely examine them and compare them with our extensive references. Plus, they aren't moving at speed, changing shape and attitude and distance from us - and nobody's shooting at us.







Generally, pilots would initially attempt to identify the type and nationality of the "specks" they saw at a distance based on the direction and altitude they were flying at, and their general location. Even at close range, aeroplanes might be identified more by their shape and silhouette than by national markings, etc.

[R Gannon]

Hi Greg

And taking refuge in a bombproof bunker is right.

11 Sep 17 – you are relying on a secondary source written years later in regards the three triplanes notion mooted by NM. Check out C&C US Vol 15 #3 p.289 quoting from 45 Sqn SRB – one triplane and 5-7 Albatros [from a larger gaggle of 21]. But agreed NM claimed two triplanes – one in an initial dive & zoom, then in a second attempt to save his mate, when an RE8 got in the way. Agree the two claims probably reflect wo cracks at Voss, but from whence the ‘assertion’ that only Wolff was allowed to fly F1 102/17????? Now I’ll throw the cat among the pigeons and that photo of F1 102/17 down at ‘Natchtaegel’ supposedly Wolff on a visit to troops (unjustifiable use of military equipment in my view, why not just drive or cycle?). Can you be sure it was not an FTL following a combat?????

15 Sep 17 – true his CR states that, but have you considered a training flight involving Wolff on 102/17 and three others on Fokker DV’s perhaps – machines used to prepare in line Albatros pilots for rotary machines?????? The DV looks a lot like an F1!!!! JG 1 KTB confirms a Fok DV in Oct.

2 Oct 17 – I rather thought I’d buried that shabby attempt to discredit Alex Revell. The CRs actually sate Fokker biplanes, and someone at wing amended in pencil ‘triplane’. Of course the RFC guys had no idea that the ‘EA triplanes’ being encountered were ‘Fokkers’, that revelation came out much later. No ‘Fokker Biplane’ was one of the best guesses being used by the 56 Sqn guys for the new Pfalz DIIIs at this juncture– indeed if you read the descriptions, then that is what RD & Muspratt were trying to describe – nothing about any third wings. Quite happy to e-mail copies of their CRs.

9 Mar 18 – Maybe Paul had a bender the night before. But yes that is what the translation of his diary says. Curiously the casualty blurb says, ‘nach Luftkamp mit Dolphin….’ But then again Dr B played around a lot with identifications in his transliterations. But he was right: Dolphins from 19 Sqn and Camels from 70 Sqn. Looks like there was a blue on blue – Quigley likely forced down Dolphin of Lt Irving – attacked by two Camels BUT 19 Sqn at this point went in for painting the whole fuselage behind the cockpit & tail in flight colours of red, white & blue. It was stopped almost immediately because the extravagant German like schemes invited blue on blues. Maybe here is the key; Strahle does not qualify ‘English’ triplanes, just triplanes. Maybe the red or blue fuselage & tails of the Dolphins fooled Strahle into believing he and his men had been accidentally attacked by tripes from either Js 11 or Js 36???? Just for the record; the claim of Capt P Huskinson most likely reflects Hafner.

Thanks for highlighting my other appraisals of 21 Aug & 5 Sep 18, but there are good mitigating reasons for both of those mis-identifications. These are rare exceptions and not the rule. Not so in regards the evening of 7 May 17; it is very much a singular one off at that period.

I hope you have a sense of humour, for as we used to say in the Australian army – "Good try – fail"

Russ

[dpolglaze]

Hey, Russ, a retort. Meant lightly, of course.

Many combat reports and log books and contemporary reports and books and the like only even attempt to identify enemy aircraft by type alone. So it's pretty evident that identification wasn't the exact science you seem to think it is. And you're using hindsight and other reports and speculation, only one of which is available at the time the reports are made. I see no "shabby attempt to discredit Alex Revell" in Greg's post, either.

And I wouldn't call it proof of any type your assertions that "Maybe Paul had a bender the night before" or maybe "a training flight involving Wolff".

Further, "there are good mitigating reasons for both of those mis-identifications" can hold true for many.

Not everyone has or had the ability to instantly identify planes, and you have admitted that. We pore over minute details because we can, but the heat of the moment is a vastly different arena. The speculations you make have no basis in fact, and in no way refute what Greg has to say.

I write this lightly as well, so let's not get into any sort of shouting match. But there's no need to disparage. Because we'll never know for sure on most of these things.

Dan

[R Gannon]

Originally Posted by dpolglaze

Hey, Russ, a retort. Meant lightly, of course.

Many combat reports and log books and contemporary reports and books and the like only even attempt to identify enemy aircraft by type alone. So it's pretty evident that identification wasn't the exact science you seem to think it is. And you're using hindsight and other reports and speculation, only one of which is available at the time the reports are made. I see no "shabby attempt to discredit Alex Revell" in Greg's post, either.

And I wouldn't call it proof of any type your assertions that "Maybe Paul had a bender the night before" or maybe "a training flight involving Wolff".

Further, "there are good mitigating reasons for both of those mis-identifications" can hold true for many.

Not everyone has or had the ability to instantly identify planes, and you have admitted that. We pore over minute details because we can, but the heat of the moment is a vastly different arena. The speculations you make have no basis in fact, and in no way refute what Greg has to say.

I write this lightly as well, so let's not get into any sort of shouting match. But there's no need to disparage. Because we'll never know for sure on most of these things.

Dan

Dan

I have led the way here in Forum on the mis-identification issue, I'm surprised people would suppose to lecture me on it.

That old issue with 2 Oct was shabby and I went out of my way to put that right at the time. I'm not accusing Greg (it was someone else), but I'm surprised it was dredged up again.

Agree no proof re the little issues of Strahle 9 Mar 18 (but that wasn't the main argument just a little bit of humour) & training flight 15 Sep 17, but because of the gaping holes in the German record one has to speculate from time to time - however I certainly don't hold to the notion of the 'Royal Lying Corps' and there must be a reason why the 10 Naval guys thought there were four tripes - but I always make it clear that I an speculating. I can't see the reason for so much fuss on the issue. It is a Forum, we can express views???

On the same score; I asked about the assertion that only Wolff was allowed to fly MvRs tripes - where has that come from? Hearsay?

From where I am sitting, one could be excused for thinking the latter part was an attempt to use my own posts against me, in regards my firm stance on the incongruous triplane identifications in the German literature pertaining to the fight late on 7 May 17. So excuse me if I got a little brusque.

While I'm at it; re those silhouettes, that fine if people were snapping shots in combat and handing them to an analyst afterwards to decide, but the planes were moving about and SE5/biplanes would have been seen as biplanes, not triplanes in that scrapping. It all rather looks like clutching at the straws of plausible denial.

All of this is meant lightly of course.

Russ

[Askania]

I know this is in broad daylight, and we know the type of airplane. And it is not really a deadly dogfight. Some maneuvers are done with security in mind.
And yet, it gives an idea hos difficult it is to keep another moving aircraft in sight. Then add adrenaline, fright, darkness and a hazy cloudy evening sky.

https://youtu.be/DqS0rUpBuhA

[dpolglaze]

Originally Posted by R Gannon

Dan

I have led the way here in Forum on the mis-identification issue, I'm surprised people would suppose to lecture me on it.

That old issue with 2 Oct was shabby and I went out of my way to put that right at the time. I'm not accusing Greg (it was someone else), but I'm surprised it was dredged up again.

Agree no proof re the little issues of Strahle 9 Mar 18 (but that wasn't the main argument just a little bit of humour) & training flight 15 Sep 17, but because of the gaping holes in the German record one has to speculate from time to time - however I certainly don't hold to the notion of the 'Royal Lying Corps' and there must be a reason why the 10 Naval guys thought there were four tripes - but I always make it clear that I an speculating. I can't see the reason for so much fuss on the issue. It is a Forum, we can express views???

On the same score; I asked about the assertion that only Wolff was allowed to fly MvRs tripes - where has that come from? Hearsay?

From where I am sitting, one could be excused for thinking the latter part was an attempt to use my own posts against me, in regards my firm stance on the incongruous triplane identifications in the German literature pertaining to the fight late on 7 May 17. So excuse me if I got a little brusque.

While I'm at it; re those silhouettes, that fine if people were snapping shots in combat and handing them to an analyst afterwards to decide, but the planes were moving about and SE5/biplanes would have been seen as biplanes, not triplanes in that scrapping. It all rather looks like clutching at the straws of plausible denial.

All of this is meant lightly of course.

Russ

No, not a lecture. Just saying that reasonable people can disagree.

Cheers,

Dan

[R Gannon]

Originally Posted by dpolglaze

No, not a lecture. Just saying that reasonable people can disagree.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan

Absolutely, and I am more than reasonable; I'm just not into being browbeaten, and I was simply disagreeing with elements of Greg's post.

Can't Greg speak for himself? I fight all my own battles.

Russ