The group build to end all group builds - THE GREAT WAR

Closer and closer! The Mosquito should be moving off the bench tonight, so today I washed and air dried the Pup:

Also think I settled on building up this ship-based specimen. A bit more contrast and visual interest than the other Pups.

Question for those who know WAY more about WWI than I do.

I'm listening to an audiobook on the history of air warfare. Sadly ti's pretty general, and there's not much I didn't know before, but the WWI essays did include some interesting info re: the different approaches the different combatants took to air power. One claim struck me as very interesting, but since it's an audiobook I can't go dig through the footnotes, so I'm hoping someone here knows.

Anyway...it got to talking about dedicated, role-specific aircraft and the development of tactical strike and close air support aircraft, the development of the Junkers J.1, etc, then went on to mention that the Brits and the French wanted their pursuit pilots to play the tactical strike roll, which the fighter pilots hated. This led to uncoordinated and largely ineffective trench strafing and the like.

Whereas - and this is where I'm curious - the Germans trained infantrymen to pilot their close support aircraft, which much better effectiveness.

Really? Is that the case? 

I'm not much of an expert (interested hack would be a better description), but I have never heard that. It sounds unlikely to me since I've never heard one side was particularly more effective at ground attack than the other. Since aviation was new you can find pilots drawn from all branches of the army, mechanics, cavalry, infantry etc.

The French are generally credited as the first to use aircraft for ground attack as early as 1914, but the British and Germans were not far behind. This was more harrassment and attacks of opportunity though, real coordinated attacks for tactical support didn't really occur until 1917.

As far as organization the British considered it a job for fighters, but the French and Germans preferred 2 seaters and were fielding ground attack units in 1917-18. Germany and Britain both had dedicated armored ground attack aircraft by the end of the war with the Junkers J.1 (late 1917) and Sopwith Salamander (late 1918) 

It doesn't specifically deal with your question, but here are a couple of interesting threads from the aerodrome about air to ground combat in WW1. Some of these guys really can be considered experts, a few have even written books.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/other-wwi-aviation/41797-effectiveness-ground-attack-great-war.html

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/other-wwi-aviation/45878-effectiveness-ground-attack-great-war-part-2-a.html

I'm no expert either, but have read a few books on the subject and the points you picked out I don't recall ever coming across.  Just like Aaron replied, many combatants (and future aces) from both sides  were serving with the land forces at one time before becoming pilots.  Even the famous Red Baron was with the cavalry before he transferred in 1915.  Also the air forces of both sides were considered as part of the army.  
At the end of 1916 both sides were looking for new ideas on how to change the way the war was being fought.   The allies were still entertaining the idea of the tank being the key while the germans designed the tactic of infiltration.  Light and mobile,  Sturmtruppen would break through defensive lines and fight in the rear.  Ground attack aircraft would be used both at start and to help hold any gains made by these elite troops.
The battle of Cambrai, November 20 1917, was a major British offensive.  About 300 aircraft were assigned in the ground attack role.   Initially they were very effective,  but the toll of ground fire and german air reinforcements  became costly.  Sometimes as high as 30% so that in less than a week entire squadrons were wiped out.
The only reason I can think  that audiobook stated the germans were more effective was that the J.1 was the first true aircraft designed specifically for ground attack, plus they were given to units assigned for that role, named Schlachtstaffeln or Schlastas for short.  These units were assigned to armies or even divisions  for maximum effect and co-operation.   Cambrai was the first time they were used in large numbers and had an effective role during the german counter attacks.
So there you have it.  Like you said that presentation was pretty general, and in some points a bit too generalized.
regards,
Jack

This is likely a stupid question but if you were to ask my wife... that is my forte. Is all rigging bare cable that would have that kind of dull steel color?  I like the look of the black Ultra Wire but if it just never was that color I need to use something else.

Look at the fun things that were in my mailbox today.  Spark plugs for the engine

How you gonna gap those?

Seriously, those are too cool! Where'd you find those suckers?

I would guess it was the dull silvery color of cables, but cables do darken fairly quicky when exposed to the elements. It is also possible it received a protective coating of oil or similar since I don't think stainless would have been an option at the time.

I know a lot of guys that use monofiliment line use a black sharpie to color it, so black is probably ok if you like it.

Gap them I didn't think of that.  They are from RB Motion.  They make all kind of cool stuff for races cars.  Used a lot of their stuff on the Lotus 25 a while back.  They are 1/24... smallest they had... so i may not be able to use the full lend but they are sweet little guys aren't.  Check out the coil over shocks that work.  the extended ones are barely an inch long.

http://www.rbmotion.com/sparks.html

Aaron... cool... black it is

wing_nut

Gap them I didn't think of that.  They are from RB Motion.  They make all kind of cool stuff for races cars.  Used a lot of their stuff on the Lotus 25 a while back.  They are 1/24... smallest they had... so i may not be able to use the full lend but they are sweet little guys aren't.  Check out the coil over shocks that work.  the extended ones are barely an inch long.

http://www.rbmotion.com/sparks.html

 

Aaron... cool... black it is

Wow - that stuff is top class all the way!

These look like they'd make some awesome turnbuckle eyebolts maybe:

http://www.rbmotion.com/rod.html

Smallest size:

Ball dia.: .031"/.78mm

Eye bore: .0135"/.34mm

Stem: .011"/.28mm

Doogs, I think you're on to something there

Hmmm... only 4 eyes for 6.25.  I'd have to mortgage my house to buy enough.  They do look perfect though don't they.

Nachtflieger

 

 

Nate, you got a brand and size for these eyebolts?

Here you go Marc.

Nate

Thanks Nate.

If not too late I'd like to sign up. Have an old unidentified white metal 120mm WW1 US Army officer figure. Will convert to a Marine 1918.

Thanks

It's never too late Tonka.  I've added you the the list.

I went to the train shop ISO of the eyebolts.  They had all the Detail Associates products from 2201 to 2221.  Then 2223 to the end whatever it was.  As you can see from Nate pic I needed 2222.

The guy hands me these and says, "Use those. Same thing just plastic." And just 3 bucks for 80.  Probably needed 6 bags of the 22's at 4/75 each.

And I found gray Ultra Wire WOOHOO.

How big are they?

Hey Marc - can I add a second build? 

Just picked up the 1/32 Academy/Hobbycraft/whatever Nieuport 17. 

Wish I had more choices on the markings front...but the kit looks like a clean, easy build.

Sure doogs go for it.  I'll update the list.

The eyebolts are .05" across the eye and the is .024'

I made a spark plug connect with the Lion Roar tubing.  Flattened the end, drilled a #80 hole then cut it off leaving a little tube to glue onto the end of some .01 lead wire... also from the fly tying store

Good score on the plastic eyebolts Marc. I like your sparkplug wire too.

Nate

Doogs, nice pickup on the Nieuport. I did Eduard's 1/48 version in those same markings. These bipes can be somewhat addicting.

Marc, can't wait to see you incorporate all that into your build. Looks awesome!

ruddratt

 These bipes can be somewhat addicting.  

So that's the reason why I ordered so much of that Ultra Wire.

Hmmm...I might see some stuff show up from the fly-tying store today myself.

Freakin' sparkplugs? Being a biplane virgin I guess I'm not aware of how visible those probably are. We talking right out in the open?

The cylinders are straight up and with the cowl on the first few are right out there and the other should still be seen through the gap.  And each cylinder has 2 plugs, 1 on each side.

So that's 6 cylinders, 12 wries. That's 24 connectors to make for the plugs AND magnetos. I counted 22 cables, not including the controls surfaces, so 44 turnbuckles with 44 connectors.  Then the control surfaces.  Jeez! Let's see.  I'm 55 and the avg. life expectancy of a male in the US is about 75... yeah, I think I can do it.

Marc, but if you are 55 already, your avg life expectency increases to 79.  There you go, I got you another 4 years - time enough to detail a few more engines.

Cool, I may need them

wing_nut

The cylinders are straight up and with the cowl on the first few are right out there and the other should still be seen through the gap.  And each cylinder has 2 plugs, 1 on each side.

So that's 6 cylinders, 12 wries. That's 24 connectors to make for the plugs AND magnetos. I counted 22 cables, not including the controls surfaces, so 44 turnbuckles with 44 connectors.  Then the control surfaces.  Jeez! Let's see.  I'm 55 and the avg. life expectancy of a male in the US is about 75... yeah, I think I can do it.

That right there makes me rather happy that I'm building a radial!

You can do an in-line too.  Just don't let your insanity take over like I do.  If it ain't inch long Tigers... it's stupid amounts of wiring.

wing_nut

You can do an in-line too.  Just don't let your insanity take over like I do.  If it ain't inch long Tigers... it's stupid amounts of wiring.

Yeah...got my eye on a Junkers J.1 if the Pup and N17 prove as fun as I think they will: