Talk:Aviation in World War I/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2


Aircraft and Airplanes

Or aeroplanes, if you like. Pick one. But many places in the article use aircraft when airplanes should be used. Aircraft includes balloons and diridgibles which were also used in WWI. The intro, for instance, totally neglects the fact that balloons had been employed in warfare for over 100 years prior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRT24 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently WP uses "fixed-wing aircraft" formally and "planes" less formally. I haven't made any changes yet because the intro needs a total rewrite (I may try later), but still, "aircraft" is NOT an acceptable NVOE compromise for airplanes/aeroplanes. This is particularly important when refering to WWI since balloons and diridgibles, which also falls into the category of "aircraft" also played significant roles. LRT24 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Definitely NOT "Airplanes" or "Planes" both of which are informal, even in American. "Aeroplanes" is good (formal) (non-U.S.) English, but as it includes (as you remark) only fixed-winged aircraft it is definitely inappropriate in many contexts. What on earth can possibly be wrong with "aircraft"??? Very handy word as it is the same in both American and English - and while it doesn't actually exclude lighter-than-air devices its general use doesn't really include them either. As for whether to have this article in American or English - while it is not specifically a "British" article it is much less a specifically "American" one, the Americans got seriously involved in the war very late - on balance I think English is the more appropriate language to have it in. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't really trying to make a WP:ENGVAR arguement. Aeroplanes should probably be prefered for this article. The point is, using "aircraft" when "aeroplanes" is meant can lead to confusion and is especially bad in the [del]intro, which needs a full rewrite per WP:MOSINTRO anyway (I started to do a rewrite, but now I can't find it. Maybe I'll try later, but anyone else can certainly feel free as well)[/del][ins]"prewar developments" section, which I pasted fromthe old intro[/ins]. It had even introduced at least one factual error: "first operational use of aircraft in war took place on 23 October 1911" when balloons were used long before that (I've now changed this). In the context of WWI, "aircraft" definately includes lighter-than-air craft. The reason we don't use it this way anymore is because airplanes are so common, but in the early part of the war it certainly wasn't clear that they would become the dominant type of aircraft. Now, this doesn't mean the word "aircraft" shouldn't appear in the article, it just means we should be careful to use it correctly. LRT24 (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It does too include lighter-than-aircraft! According to Dictionary.com, an aircraft is "Any machine supported for flight in the air by buoyancy OR by the dynamic action of air on its surfaces". That mean that it absolutely includes the balloons and dirigibles that were also used during the war. Therefore, "aircraft" is most definitely the wrong word. Thank you, Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Both "airplane" and "aeroplane" are not to be used in text, other than in direct quotations, but "fixed-wing aircraft" is to be used where "aircraft" alone is insufficient. Btw, "airplane" is standard usage in US and Canadian English, and not considered informal, as SoM mistakenly stated. - BilCat (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the rule is that they can't be used in text (certainly they shouldn't appear in the same article), only that "fixed-wing aircraft" is an example of a compromise article title (which is very controversial BTW). I note that aviation history, for instance, uses "airplane" quite a bit. I've used "aeroplane" in some of my edits here, even though I'm American, on the basis of the fact that if anything, this article should probably have a British bias.LRT24 (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the WPAIR guideline is that we aren't to use either "aircraft" or "aeroplane" in general usage in aviation-related articles. And while it is also controvesial, it's the current consensus, and myriad attempts to go back to the ENGVAR standard have failed, depsite my attepts to have it changed on several occasions. It's even more controversial to get some users on either side of the Atlantic to be tolerant of the usage of other variants of English. As to aviation history, "airplane" should not be used there either, but both usages often creep in, and have to be removed later. - BilCat (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Where can I find this guideline? I did it the way I did after not finding anything on the subject in WP:AVIMOS, and I assumed ENGVAR was mostly talking about the article title. Personally, I don't care that much, though I think a total ban on airplane/aeroplane for the sake of a couple letters is a bit silly. LRT24 (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
"'airplane' should not be used" Where is this discussed? Because I honestly can't think of what other word to use. (Yes, "balloon" or "dirigible", let's not be silly.) Or have I misunderstood? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Evidently I have... 13:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm just making it up. Ha ha. Just like I made up the many discussions at WT:AIR's archives. Take up the issue there and see what happens. - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Lafayette Escadrille

Why is there no mention of the Lafayette Escadrille in this article, and/or a link to its Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_Escadrille )? Their contribution in the war was quite significant and should be mentioned. Anyone else feel this way? Hawkrawkr (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For all the hype (at the time and since) they really weren't a particularly outstanding or important squadron in any way - basically just another Escadrille de chasse. On the other hand they were certainly colourful, and of interest - we don't have enough about L'aviation militaire in general here really - could a little mention of the mercenaries (basically that's what they were! - several of them joined the squadron from the Foreign Legion) of L'escadrille Lafayette be worked into improved coverage of the contribution of the French Air Service in general?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but perhaps there should be some reference to the Lafayette Flying Corps ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_Flying_Corps ), which is often confused with the Escadrille? They, undoubtedly, did more than the Escadrille, but due in part to misinformation in the movie Flyboys ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyboys_(film) ) they are not nearly as well known.Hawkrawkr (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability of notable aces

Just what standards of notability are used to choose the notable aces for this section?

BTW, at least two listings on this table are incorrect. There were no fractional victory scores during World War I, so William Lambert's listing is incorrect. I know of no reliable listing of 51 victories for Roderic Dallas, even though I am a major contributor to his bio; in fact, I compiled the most complete list of his victories that exists.

On the other hand, Adolphe Pégoud, history's first ace, isn't listed at all, nor is Kurt Wintgens, the first ace to down an enemy plane using a synchronized gun.

Might I suggest standards for this article's "quick and dirty" listing of notable aces?

1) List the leading ace for any national air service.

2) List any notable military aviation "first" by an ace.

PERIOD. Any reader interested in further info on aces can follow the link to List of World War I flying aces. Which, incidentally, is thoroughly sourced and disagrees with some of the "facts" listed in this article's "Notable aces" section.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Second thought:

Cross check those entries made in this table with List of World War I flying aces, etc. to avoid factual contradictions. Inaccuracy is the hobgoblin of encyclopedias.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a though George, I think the table is a bit much for an overview article and should just be a summary of what an ace is and a description of the top one or two, all the details are in the linked article and dont need repeating. Lists like this can soon become unstable as good faith editors just add to it without looking at the bigger picture. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than let the unknowing reinvent the wheel by trying to blunder into listing all 1800+ aces of the war, I dubbed in a new table listing the leading flying ace for each of the nine national flying services of World War I. Unlike the removed text, this is pretty well cited, and agrees with other articles in WP. Anyone interested in other aces or their services may follow the little blue links. There is no necessity for adding to this table.

I also inserted a new section on pioneering feats during WWI, with an eye towards showing the growth of tactics and techniques. That section could probably grow some.

Let's see if this helps keep the article from being overrun by repetitious unsourced maundering.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Verdun

I have radically rewritten a good faith attempt to "balance" this section between the Brits and the Germans, shoehorning in a mention of the early Fokker and Halberstadt types. But actually the main lack of balance here is our neglect of the French! The 1916 section of the article really needs a description of the "air" part of this battle - broadly the Germans started it with air superiority (due to the continuing ascendancy of the Eindeckers) but lost it during the course of the battle to the French fighter (chasseur) squadrons equipped with the Nieuport 11. At the moment, with the Somme Battle the only one mentioned, the impression is given that the major confrontation in the air was between the Brits and the Germans (which may have become largely true by 1918, but was certainly not the case in 1916). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Improper nouns

Names of kinds of military units (say "fighter squadron" - or "jagdstaffel") are NOT proper nouns, and do not get capitalised (please). Quite different from (say) "No. 46 Squadron" or "Jagdstaffel 11" - which are, being the names of particular units. Get the difference? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Jagdstaffel is a German word, and therefore takes German spelling is my take on the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If this were German WP, I'd agree with GraemeLeggett; seeing the reasoning (which I didn't see clearly before :( ), & since it's (now) English usage, I'm with Soundofmusicals (despite being the one who started all this :( ). If we adopt GraemeLeggett's logic, every German noun would have to be properly capitalized per German usage, & getting English capitalization right here is hard enough. :) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest recasting the sentence to work around the issue but it's hard to imagine a better sentence form. What do reliable sources use for the general plural?
I don't see a better structure, either (except, I'd prefer "fighter squadrons (jagdstaffeln), fully a year"). The existing plurals look fine to me. (Here, I do prefer the correct German to the English "jagdstaffels.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Until or unless this becomes established wiki MOS (I've checked, and it isn't) I suggest we keep to common sense and English usage rather than German for capitalisation (although I prefer "jagdstaffeln" to "jagdstaffels"). In the meantime I've changed text back to the original, until we get a consensus for a change. Note that this would require an additional clause to the MOS and multiple changes in all articles containing German words. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a horrible feeling I may be aguing on the wrong side here. By the MOS there seems to be no justification for capitals for "casual" use of German words - but in fact it's very widely done (been reading some old books) and it is common in many Wiki articles - including some I've written or extensively edited! I went and made the Jagdstaffeln article "consistent" and it just doesn't "look right". But if we do go for Trekphiler's original position after all and capitalise German nouns used in English text, the MOS will have to be modified to make it clear that we are following this convention - and someone will have to go through a few articles to make our practice consistent (surely the main point after all). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't lose sleep over it if I were you. Go with what looks right in the article each time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Pulpits"

The B.E.9 and the SPAD A.2 explored the idea of installing the gunner in front of a tractor propeller. Assuming that this needs mentioning at all in this article (only one B.E.9 was ever built, and only a few of the French version of the idea, so it is not exactly notable) a copy and paste from a second rate little "sensation book" is not what is required - in the lights of 1915 it was actually quite a sensible idea - although of course doomed to failure. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt a lot of crackbrained schemes were tried. ;p Mention it at BE9 & SPAD, but not here; if it never even passed the trial stage... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The BE9 was not notable as the solution had been found before it flew but the SPAD A.1-5 was used operationally by both the French and the Russians - it just got overtaken by better ideas, like Nieuports firing over the prop or using a synchronizer or interupter. Quite a few other aircraft were built that used pods mounted on the wings above or beside the prop - all a part of finding a solution. The real problem was that these pods (pulpits included) diminished the performace of the "fighter" to the point it couldn't catch anything. No worse an idea otherwise than the DH.2 which had the same rollover risks. There is a Windsock mini-datafile book on the SPAD S.A-2/S.A-4 by J.M. Bruce - ISBN 9780948414824, and copies in pdf format are readily found online (no doubt to the consternation of Albatros publications, the publisher).NiD.29 (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The roll-over risk in pulpit type was very obviously far greater than in a pusher (have a look at a good picture of each and use your imagination)! A pusher engine was mounted directly behind the pilot, but in the same structure the pilot was sitting in. A D.H.2 pilot (for instance) would have been liable to be crushed by the engine in a severe crash, but most likely not in a simple roll-over. On the other hand, a "pulpit" observer had only the lightest screen between him and the propeller, in a fragile little box that would have been flattened in the lightest roll-over (ouch!!). Otherwise I think we are agreed. My main objection really was the crappy source. I mean giving a reasonable idea a go and having the sense to drop it when you see the snags is hardly a "major military blunder". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
We have an article here on the SPAD A.2 by the way - the Russians were the only ones to use it really - and then only because they were desperately short of aeroplanes! Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The source was a major problem but it should have been the SPAD and not the BE mentioned and the wording wasn't all that encyclopedic.NiD.29 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I suspect the wording was straight out of the source. If someone wants to write something about the "pulpit" types I wouldn't object - but their notability is really pretty marginal, and the source needs to be something other than yet another rehash of the Grey/Billing anti-Royal Aircraft Factory diatribes. I was really only concerned that people realised why I chopped it out. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Roland D.VIa misidentified as Albatros D.IV

This is NOT just a matter of changing the caption - picture (of a relatively obscure type that eventually went into limited production in its D.VIb form) is probably not IDEAL for a general article like this anyway - but if it was it would be placed with the text about other late-war German fighter types. Anyway. I have deleted it from this article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The language question

Hello, all,

Somehow, this article has never settled on a standard version of the English language. However, given that American pilots only made it to the front in Spring 1918, and no American airplanes ever made it into action, it seems reasonable that American English does not suit. And although Canadians, South Africans, Scots, Irish, New Zealanders, and Australians all contributed mightily to the British air effort, numerically the Brits topped all. Therefore, I plump for a "British-English" tag at the top of this page.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a native American and I agree with your position that the British effort dominated the Allied air effort, making British English the default spelling variation here. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Canadian here (but very idiosyncratic spelling ;p), & I agree, too. It's a European subject; Brit English should govern. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the consensus here (by three North Americans yet!) is that Britspeak should prevail. I am posting the tag above.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Western Front Focus

This page, as presently written, is really the history of aviation on the western front of WW1. It would be great if someone could contribute something about other fronts, especially Russia but also Italy-Austria, Serbia, Dardanelles, etc.. Can we plunder articles on e.g. Russian Wikipedia? David Bofinger (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

By all means - sounds an excellent idea. So far as "plundering" other Wikipedias - Wiki is not in itself a very good source of course, so one would want to check sources etc very carefully, but one could certainly use another wiki as a starting point. A good source that has some bits about other fronts is ISBN 978-1906626662 (just search on isbn should find it, save me mucking around with a bibcite). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, all,

An excellent and overdue suggestion. I should think that for completeness of coverage there should be sections within the article for aviation operations in the other four theaters (okay, theatres) of World War I:

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Prewar Developments

I was just reading this and noticed the Prewar Developments section had a few typographical errors. For example, it said, "...after the Wright brothers have the ide to...," and there is a quote that lacks quotation marks. I changed the first error to "after the Wright brothers had the idea to..." but do not have time to fix every mistake. If you are an author of this article, I recommend revising this section.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.247 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Advance of German Flight Squadron 27 in the Ukraine

I work at a large research library. We are digitizing unique historical documents and making them available as primary resources (links to digitized items with information about those items) on the Internet. These items include a wide range of photographs, manuscripts, and imprints. I am following Wikipedia's policy "to encourage librarians and others in cultural heritage institutions to place links to their primary resources (WP:CURATOR)

We recently digitized and put online a portfolio of German photographs from the Eastern Front, World War I, titled Der Vormarsch der Flieger Abteilung 27 in der Ukraine (The Advance of Flight Squadron 27 in the Ukraine). The portfolio, comprising 263 photographs mounted on 48 pages, depicts German military advances through the southern Ukraine in the spring and summer of 1918. In addition to dozens of rare aerial reconnaissance views, the portfolio shows many instances of German airplanes, hangars, and other equipment, as well as the transportation of such equipment and aircraft by railroad. The portfolio also depicts squadron members and other German officers engaged in military maneuvers, including the take-over of Rostov-on Don in May 1918.

We plan to add a link to the photographs in the External Links section of this page. We welcome any feedback you may have. Digitaldomain (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC) comment added by Digitaldomain (talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

By all means, yes please, thank you very much and all other appropriate positive noises! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC) :)

Inappropriate Text

At the end of the first paragraph of the introduction, the sentence: Dion sucks every day. appears. However, if you EDIT the text, the sentence does not appear. Someone should remove this. 199.173.226.236 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC) allan.smith@ssa.gov

The vandalism was removed as soon as it appeared at 05:26 by an automatic bot, I suspect you are looking at a cached version which just happened to pick up the vandalism in the few seconds it existed, when you edit you see the live and updated version. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

1st ground-to-air kill

During a bombing raid over Kragujevac on 30 September 1915, private Radoje Ljutovac of the Serbian Army successfully shot down one of the three aircraft.

Some copy missing, I think. What nationality were the 'three aircraft'? Valetude (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Replacing references to theaerodrome.com

The section Pioneers of aerial warfare contains extensive citations to theaerodrome.com, which was determined as being "generally unreliable" by RfC on the WP:RSN (see archived discussion). Rather than spam the almost every row of the table with maintenance tags, I've marked the whole sections with {{Unreliable sources}}. I hope someone more knowledgeable than me can work through the section, either finding reliable sources for the data, or alternatively removing unsourceable entries. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service

They too played a role, and deserve some mention, I think.

In fact, they were bombing very early - 6/9/1914 ???

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aviation_in_World_War_I/Archive_2&oldid=1220045875"