WWI Digest 2984 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) RE: Most Important? by "Gaston Graf" 2) RE: Site Update by Crawford Neil 3) PART set by Witold Kozakiewicz 4) Problem solved, was Re: have pics, no scanner by Ernest Thomas 5) Re: most important pilot by Crawford Neil 6) RE: most important pilot by "Gaston Graf" 7) RE: Problem solved, was Re: have pics, no scanner by "Gaston Graf" 8) RE: Most important? by "Graham Hunter" 9) Douhet's theories and terrorizing bombing by "cornali-trasporti" 10) Douhet's theories and terrorizing bombing by "cornali-trasporti" 11) RE: Douhet's theories and terrorizing bombing by Crawford Neil 12) Re: Site Update by "Richard Eaton" 13) New exciting updates by "Matt Bittner" 14) Re: Rumpler Internal Designations by "Lance Krieg" 15) Re: New exciting updates by "Brian Nicklas" 16) Re: P/E Scarff Rings by "Laskodi" 17) Re: Most Important? by "DAVID BURKE" 18) Re: Most Important? by Eli Geher 19) early shipborne aircraft by Friedrich Kappes 20) Re: Most Important? by "Michael Kendix" 21) Re: New exciting updates by "Matt Bittner" 22) Re: Most Important? by Mark Miller 23) Re: Most Important? by Allan Wright 24) Re: RE: Most important? by Steve Cox 25) Re: Most Important A/C by "Hans Trauner" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:17:38 +0100 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: RE: Most Important? Message-ID: Well, Shane, I sure know that *some* people here cannot be taken for serious sometimes but after my personal experiences with poeple in general I only can say that many of the French I met in my life do not share the humor of the people from this list. One can end up in trouble when joking about a historical merit of the Greatest of all Greatest Nations - La France! Speaking about humor, a joke comes to my mind which I once told a Frenchman at work long before my choochoo crivers career started. The effect was that he was throwing his hammer after me (but missed). He yelled and cursed and was very very angry with me... But fortunately not all Frenchman act in that way or I would have been already dead. Here's why that happened: Me: Can you tell me how the word "one jerk" translates into Chinese? Him: Uhhmmmm.... Non! Me: It translates as "Ta!" Me: Can you tell me how "two jerks" translates into Chinese? Him: Mais Non! Me: It translates as "Ta-Ta!" Me: Can you tell me how "three jerks" translates into Chinese? Him: Ta-Ta-Ta??? Me: Bingo! You got it! Now tell me how "A Great Nation of Jerks" translates into Chinese! Him: Uhhhmmmm..... I don't know! Me: TaTa-TaTaa Ta-Taa Ta-Taa TaTaaaaaa, Ta-Ta, Ta-Taa Taaa, Taaa Ta Taaaaa... (singing the French national anthem that way) Ooopsala-boom-bang... and a mighty hammer slammed against the railroad cars door I stood next to as I sung that song :o). Oh yes, humor is something not everybody takes in the same way. Gaston Graf (ggraf@vo.lu) Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: http://www.jastaboelcke.de disclamier: By no means the author of this e-mail is intending to offend any member of this mailing list. If you got a problem with my sense of humor, ask a psychologist for advice but abstain from stuffing my mailboy with messages telling me what jerk that I am. I know for myself who I am ;oP. > -----Original Message----- > From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of > Shane Weier > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 7:22 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: RE: Most Important? > > > Gaston, > > > apart of the historical facts which cannot be denied I made > > the experience > > on other lists that the answers to such questions are mainly > > influenced by > > nationalism and a personal point of view. Especially the > > French would never > > accept anything else than the Blériot, while the German > > mostly claims the > > Fokker for the most important aircraft. > > Nevertheless, the point I was jokingly making was that in my experience > university lecturers and Masters and Doctoral supervisors have > little sense > of humour about students who don't stick to the point. In the case > mentioned, DB proposed an aircraft not of WW1 as most influential aircraft > of WW1. Nationalism, in this case, has sod all to do with it > unless in you > country WW1 is considered to have begun when Bleriot crossed the Channel > > However, as DB said......whatever. > > Shane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is > intended only for the use of the addressee(s). > If you receive this e-mail in error, any use, distribution or > copying of this e-mail is not permitted. You are requested to > forward unwanted e-mail and address any problems to the > MIM Holdings Limited Support Centre. > > e-mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au > phone: Australia 1800500646 > ********************************************************************** > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:27:43 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Site Update Message-ID: Wonderful F.2.A , that must be one of the coolest a/c around. /Neil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:54:07 +0100 From: Witold Kozakiewicz To: WWI Subject: PART set Message-ID: <3A6587DF.59D90EB3@bg.am.lodz.pl> Hi, PART is going to release sets of controlhorns & turnbuckles and another with stitching in both scales. I let you know when it will be ready and I will scan them and show you. -- Witold Kozakiewicz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:29:18 -0600 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Problem solved, was Re: have pics, no scanner Message-ID: <3A659E2D.C8AF9007@bellsouth.net> DAVID BURKE wrote: > > I'd volunteer, but I'm moving. That's what I figgered, but thanks anyway. And to anyone else who was planning to offer, I've got it covvered. Thanks. E. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:59:04 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "WW1 list (E-mail)" Subject: Re: most important pilot Message-ID: You're all talking about Boelke, but what about Roland Garros, I've seen someone mention his Morane, but I've missed any mention of him in the pilot thread. Surely Garros was the real leader, by showing the rest (including Boelke) how to use their aircraft as a flying gun. /Neil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:16:20 +0100 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: RE: most important pilot Message-ID: Neil, you can read about Garros and the developement of airwar at my website if you like. I wrote once a story I called "Bricks, bottles and machineguns" which is accessible from the WORKBENCH section. Garros hat the idea to aim with his aircraft at enemy balloons but this was still far away from the flying machinegun which is something the Germans perfected after introduction of the interruptor gear. And, yes Garros was maybe the one who had the idea to shoot through the circle of a running propeller during the war, but he was not first with that idea in general because in 1912 a certain Schneider developed a system from where Fokkers engineer Lübbe derived his interruptor gear. Rumors even said that Lübbe had stolen the patent from Schneider, but due to the protection of the German Army leadership he was not sued for that. Second: Garros cannot have been a leader to Boelcke, showing him how to use his aircraft as a flying gun because Boelcke scored his very first aerial victory in a two-seater. It was only due to the outstanding flying skills of Boelcke that his observer was able to shoot down an enemy singelseater pinned at their six. btw: It was myself who mentionned Garros' Morane and you can see pictures of him included in the story I mentionned above. with kind regards Gaston Graf (ggraf@vo.lu) Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: http://www.jastaboelcke.de > -----Original Message----- > From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of > Crawford Neil > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 3:03 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: most important pilot > > > You're all talking about Boelke, but what about Roland Garros, I've > seen someone mention his Morane, but I've missed any mention of > him in the pilot thread. Surely Garros was the real leader, by showing > the rest (including Boelke) how to use their aircraft as a flying gun. > /Neil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:19:59 +0100 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: RE: Problem solved, was Re: have pics, no scanner Message-ID: Dear E. I can take that job for you if you don't mind about sending the pics to Luxembourg just in case nobody else in the whole big US will find some time to do you that favor. sincerely Gaston Graf (ggraf@vo.lu) Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: http://www.jastaboelcke.de > -----Original Message----- > From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of > Ernest Thomas > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 2:29 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Problem solved, was Re: have pics, no scanner > > > > > DAVID BURKE wrote: > > > > > I'd volunteer, but I'm moving. > > That's what I figgered, but thanks anyway. > And to anyone else who was planning to offer, I've got it > covvered. Thanks. > E. > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:27:10 -0600 From: "Graham Hunter" To: Subject: RE: Most important? Message-ID: <000001c08091$94d9f860$fa0101c0@grahamh> > I would have to agree. IMHO the D.VII was a refinement of the Nieuport > design. > > Graham H. <> Well it might be a bit of a stretch, but the D.VII is basically a sesiquin (sp?) or 1 and a half wing. Check out the comparative size of the lower wing to upper wing. Plus ailerons on upper wing only. When I say refinement I do mean major refinement! GH ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:35:49 +0100 From: "cornali-trasporti" To: Subject: Douhet's theories and terrorizing bombing Message-ID: <004701c08092$e72731e0$0e00145a@flora.areaweb> On the 16th Jan. 2001 TomTheAeronut@aol.com wrote: << "Strategic bombing" and Guilio Douhet's theory of terrorizing the population by so doing has accomplished diddly squat in every war it has ever been tried in, including the most recent ten years ago. The total accomplishment of Douhet's pipe dream was to make holes in a lot oif real estate, knock down buildings, and massively piss off populations (rather than terrorize them) so much so that the wars have probably been made longer rather than shortened by popular support for the regime - whether it was Churchill or Hitler - being bombed. [....] Frankly, the 20th Century would have been well-served by a certain Caproni bomber being blown out of the sky with the loss of all aboard before Douhet could set pen to paper. Tom Cleaver>> Tom: I am afraid you were not teached well about Giulio Douhet and his theories. Although he actually referred to bombing of cities in his books, his main objective was to show that *** strategic *** bombing of ***military*** targets (such as production plants, railroads, roads, military plants of all kinds and so on) could have a decisive impact on the enemy's war effort. Of course, this is much different than terrorizing bombing, as someone correctly pointed out... Bombing of cities was taken into consideration by Douhet just as an auxiliary measure of definitely less importance. Moreover, please remember that, on the Italian front, bombing of cities was started by Austria-Hungary as early as 5th May 1915 (the day after war was declared): their pilots did not fly Capronis and were certainly not influenced by Douhet's theories ! The same goes for German raids over English cities. As for WWI terrorizing bombing, they were more probably the result of German terrorizing WW1 and WW2 raids than of Douhet's books. Also, those actions were planned by USA and GB commanders, who certainly were not ipnotized by Douhets: they had brains and could put them to good use. As for your last sentence, please note that those theories were conceived by Douhet before the first Caproni prototype was built: infact, Douhet had much influence on Count Caproni's projects and it was also thanks to Magg. Douhet's thoughts that the Ca 3 was born. So, please think over all this once again and I am sure you will understand it better. All the very best, Alberto Casirati ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:41:17 +0100 From: "cornali-trasporti" To: Subject: Douhet's theories and terrorizing bombing Message-ID: <006001c08093$915ad1d0$0e00145a@flora.areaweb> On the 16th Jan. 2001 TomTheAeronut@aol.com wrote: << "Strategic bombing" and Guilio Douhet's theory of terrorizing the population by so doing has accomplished diddly squat in every war it has ever been tried in, including the most recent ten years ago. The total accomplishment of Douhet's pipe dream was to make holes in a lot oif real estate, knock down buildings, and massively piss off populations (rather than terrorize them) so much so that the wars have probably been made longer rather than shortened by popular support for the regime - whether it was Churchill or Hitler - being bombed. [....] Frankly, the 20th Century would have been well-served by a certain Caproni bomber being blown out of the sky with the loss of all aboard before Douhet could set pen to paper. Tom Cleaver>> Tom: I am afraid you were not teached well about Giulio Douhet and his theories. Although he actually referred to bombing of cities in his books, his main objective was to show that *** strategic *** bombing of ***military*** targets (such as production plants, railroads, roads, military plants of all kinds and so on) could have a decisive impact on the enemy's war effort. Of course, this is much different than terrorizing bombing, as someone correctly pointed out... Bombing of cities was taken into consideration by Douhet just as an auxiliary measure of definitely less importance. Moreover, please remember that, on the Italian front, bombing of cities was started by Austria-Hungary as early as 5th May 1915 (the day after war was declared): their pilots did not fly Capronis and were certainly not influenced by Douhet's theories ! The same goes for German raids over English cities. As for WWII terrorizing bombing, they were more probably the result of German terrorizing WW1 and WW2 raids than of Douhet's books. Also, those actions were planned by USA and GB commanders, who certainly were not ipnotized by Douhets: they had brains and could put them to good use. As for your last sentence, please note that those theories were conceived by Douhet before the first Caproni prototype was built: infact, Douhet had much influence on Count Caproni's projects and it was also thanks to Magg. Douhet's thoughts that the Ca 3 was born. So, please think over all this once again and I am sure you will understand it better. All the very best, Alberto Casirati ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:51:13 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Douhet's theories and terrorizing bombing Message-ID: Good answer Alberto, I plead guilty to having this mis-conception too, thanks for telling us how it really was. /Neil Alberto wrote: > Although he actually referred to bombing of cities in his > books, his main > objective was to show that *** strategic *** bombing of > ***military*** > targets (such as production plants, railroads, roads, > military plants of all > kinds and so on) could have a decisive impact on the enemy's > war effort. Of > course, this is much different than terrorizing bombing, as someone > correctly pointed out... > > Bombing of cities was taken into consideration by Douhet just as an > auxiliary measure of definitely less importance. > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:12:38 -0600 From: "Richard Eaton" To: Subject: Re: Site Update Message-ID: <009301c08097$ef302220$b5441c18@austin.rr.com> Thanks for all the kind comments friends. It was a joy to see them all this morning. Regards, Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Crawford Neil" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 5:34 AM Subject: RE: Site Update > Wonderful F.2.A , that must be one of the coolest a/c around. > /Neil > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:46:36 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: New exciting updates Message-ID: <200101171604.HAA29621@swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Yes! The Master has returned! I have begun to modify Steve Hustad's area to the new format, and the first is his page on SSW fighters. He has sent me photos of not only his new two, but also his older ones for me to scan and electronically "tweak". Superb modeling by a Master Modeler. I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy! I also added E's stunning "zig zag" SPAD 13. Beautiful work, E! Matt Bittner WW1 Modeling Site Assistant Editor :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:11:36 -0600 From: "Lance Krieg" To: Subject: Re: Rumpler Internal Designations Message-ID: Grahham asks: "... how Rumpler's internal designation system worked?" I tried to figure this out last night, and could find no documentation in the Thetford and Gray tome on German planes. I also tried to make logical deductions from their various experimentals, but was pretty well baffled: the sytem used a numeral, a letter, and then (sometimes) another numeral, like so: 7A2. But the progression of a test airplane might be 7A, 7B, 7B1, 8B. I would guess that one designator was the airframe, and another the powerplant, but I'm damned if I know how it worked. I'll check my World War I Aero index, which is the only other place I can think of that might have some of this information. Sorry, Lance ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:41:09 -0500 From: "Brian Nicklas" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: New exciting updates Message-ID: Matt, Matt, Matt... Were you not instructed by many on this list to break Steve's fingers? Not in a painful way, but just so we would not feel so inferior... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:51:26 -0800 From: "Laskodi" To: "Post WW1 List" Subject: Re: P/E Scarff Rings Message-ID: <000d01c080a5$bbd91860$323819d0@laskodi> I just got an e-mail from Tom Harrison of Toms Modelworks letting me know that the 1/48 British Gun Set (#201) still has the Scarff Ring Set. I was wrong (thankfully), it's the larger scale sets that do not contain them. Yipppeeeee! -----------Bob > Does any one know a source for 1/48 P/E scarff ring sets? I believe the > Tom's Modelworks British Gun Set no longer includes them, hopefully I'm > wrong? > TIA > ---------Bob > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:02:21 -0600 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <002f01c080a7$a48be820$a9ec79a5@com> > > << I am a James Burke fan >> > > DB! > > I knew there was something thoroughly worthwhile and likeable about you!!!! > :-) > If you like *really* good mysteries, go get James Lee Burke's "Dave > Robicheaux" series. You will not regret it, I promise!!! Get 'em all!!!!! Are we talking about the same guy? I mean the guy who did the 'Connections' series on the Discovery channel - i.e. how beer led to ICBM's, etc. Neat, cloudy-thinking! DB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:59:29 -0600 From: Eli Geher To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <3A65DD81.EEAA1426@hiwaay.net> DAVID BURKE wrote: > The question of what A/C was (or were) most important during WWI is nearly > impossible to answer. Most of them represented developments that affected > the concept of what we now consider to be an airplane. ... > > What was the most important of them all? To me, I would have to go back > before Bleriot, back to the first Wright Military Flyer of 1904, which > ultimately started several nations and their militaries thinking about the > possible applications of flight. I couldn't agree more with your position. At the risk of offending the list, WW1 aviation in itself accomplished little strategically or tactically. The reconnaissance activity was important but the fighter activity was useful only in so far as it supported or suppressed recon flights. Bombing was handicapped by insufficient lift and inadequate speed. One thing that was fully successful was the publicity machinery. Some things never change. Although general performance and airworthiness improved through the war years there were few major state of the art improvements. Junkers metal airplanes were years ahead of their time and Fokker defined the structural technology of the next decade. Both of these designers pioneered the use of thick airfoil sections, which was arguably the most significant aerodynamic improvement of the period. However, the fear of monoplanes that arose early in the war unfortunately persisted far too long into peacetime. Engine technology through the war years was either tied to the automotive industry or to the dead end rotary engine. The big steps didn't occur didn't occur until later, i.e. radial engines, high octane fuel and superchargers. The least known accomplishment of the period was the transition from cut and test design to disciplined engineering of airplanes. Ludwig Prandtl in Germany virtually created theoretical aerodynamics. Barnes Wallace in England and Jerome Hunsicker in the US were true pioneers in this area. Wallace is mainly known for his role in the WW2 "Dam busters" operation and I'd be shocked if more than a handful ever heard of the other 2 but they and others were influential behind the scenes before and during WW1. (Full disclosure notice: Dr Ludloff at NYU studied aerodynamics under Prandtl and I studied aerodynamics under Dr Ludloff) Back to lurk mode. Eli Geher Perhaps the most sig ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 01 18:41:07 MET From: Friedrich Kappes To: , , Subject: early shipborne aircraft Message-ID: <20010117174107.7915.qmail@www0u.netaddress.usa.net> This time I ask about aircraft, that served aboard ships in the early stages of aviation. If somebody can help... CAMS 55: line drawing, armament (aboard Commandant Teste) CAMS 371: line drawing, armament (aboard Commandant Teste) Levasseur PL 14: line drawing, armament (aboard Commandant Teste) Macchi M.9: used aboard ships? Short 38: line drawing - 74: entry into service, line drawing, armament (p.e. aboard Ark Royal) - 135: entry into service, line drawing, armament (p.e. aboard Ark Royal) - Folder: line drawing, armament (p.e. aboard Hermes of 1913) Sopwith 807: line drawing, armament (p.e. aboard Ark Royal) Wright Pusher: line drawing, armament (p.e. aboard Ark Royal) Thank you in advance Friedrich The FriedrichFiles http://sites.netscape.net/friedkappes Lots of nice links, pictures (photos, drawings, ...), book reviews, literature aids, a dictionary,... ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home.netscape.com/webmail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:23:58 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: >From: Eli Geher >WW1 aviation in itself accomplished >little strategically or tactically. The reconnaissance >activity was important but the fighter activity was useful >only in so far as it supported or suppressed recon flights. Wasn't escort a large area of responsibility for fighters in the years that followed; e.g. WW2? True, I think the idea of bomber escort was either not thought of or not thought useful at that time. >Wallace is mainly known for his role in the WW2 "Dam busters" >operation Not to mention the swing wing aeroplane and scratchbuilding a working 1/1 space vehicle with the help of his pet dog. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:50:06 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: New exciting updates Message-ID: <200101171839.JAA03480@hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:45:09 -0500 (EST), Brian Nicklas wrote: > Were you not instructed by many on this list to break Steve's fingers? > Not in a painful way, but just so we would not feel so inferior... Well, as long as he and Alberto keep producing, I have something to aspire to. So, he has earned himself a reprieve - at least from me. ;-) Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 2001 11:02:20 -0800 From: Mark Miller To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <20010117190220.12526.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net> On Wed, 17 January 2001, "DAVID BURKE" wrote: > Are we talking about the same guy? I mean the guy who did the 'Connections' > series on the Discovery channel - i.e. how beer led to ICBM's, etc. Neat, > cloudy-thinking! > > DB I agree - the connections series is GREAT stuff, Makes you look at history from a fresh perspective - always worthhile I was a little dissapointed with the couple of segments of perspective 2 that I saw seemed a little contrived. I must admit that I also didn't realize that James Burke was an author Mystery books? not exactly my favorite genre but might be worth a try For some reason the author Daniel J. Boorstein also comes to my mind when thinking about interesting slants on history. His work is sometimes a little slow-going but always interesting. Mark Miller Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.altavista.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:11:55 -0500 (EST) From: Allan Wright To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <200101171911.OAA18238@pease1.sr.unh.edu> Gentlemen....I think this thread has drifted far enough off topic that we can move on.....or at least move off list. Thanks, Allan > > On Wed, 17 January 2001, "DAVID BURKE" wrote: > > > Are we talking about the same guy? I mean the guy who did the 'Connections' > > series on the Discovery channel - i.e. how beer led to ICBM's, etc. Neat, > > cloudy-thinking! > > > > DB > > I agree - the connections series is GREAT stuff, > Makes you look at history from a fresh perspective - always worthhile > I was a little dissapointed with the couple of segments of perspective 2 that I saw > seemed a little contrived. > > I must admit that I also didn't realize that James Burke was an author > Mystery books? > not exactly my favorite genre but might be worth a try > > For some reason the author Daniel J. Boorstein also comes to my mind when thinking about interesting slants on history. His work is sometimes a little slow-going but always interesting. > > Mark Miller > > > Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! > http://www.shopping.altavista.com > =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | "I Played the Fool" - Southside Johnny University of New Hampshire +-------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:16:19 +0000 From: Steve Cox To: Subject: Re: RE: Most important? Message-ID: Surely the most important aircraft was the BE 2c (and all its kith and kin) that performed the dangerous drudgery of spotting for the guns and collecting recce photos FWIW Steve =========================================== steve@oldglebe.freeserve.co.uk http://www.oldglebe.freeserve.co.uk/steveshome.html If I didn't spend so much time on line ‹‹ I'd get some models finished ================ > From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu > Reply-To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:43:21 -0500 (EST) > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: WWI digest 2978 > > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:38:04 -0600 > From: "Matt Bittner" > To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: Most important? > Message-ID: <200101160138.RAA12858@albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net> > > On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:34:49 -0500 (EST), Shane Weier wrote: > >> Here I disagree. In fact, the Albatros was merely a development - more >> engine power, more firepower - of earlier aircraft which themselves were >> developments of the same sort starting at unpowered gliders and continuing >> today. > > Against what Tom thinks, the Albatros was a direct result of the > Nieuport. The Nieuport was in existence before the Albatros. > >> Can't agree with Matt either. The Nie-11 wasn't so much a revolution as a >> response to the revelation that guns aimed along an aircrafts axis were >> simpler to point at the target because it required doing no more than simply >> flying the plane vis a vis the separate actions of flying and pointing. > > Makes sense. > >> That being so my vote is balanced between a single aircraft - Roland Garos' >> Morane - and a type, the Fokker Eindekker. From that point on the >> improvement in fighters was mainly of the "more of" type of development - >> more speed, more climb, more stregth, more firepower, more manouverability, >> more visibility, and these all being of an incremental rather than >> revolutionary degree. > > I see your point on this. > > I'll then assert that the Nieuports were *one* important development, > then, and not *the most* important. However, I still say that in terms > of what the Nieuports "spawned" (e.g. the Albatros bipes, etc.) it was > important for that fact. > > > Matt Bittner > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:25:04 +0100 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: Most Important A/C Message-ID: <006a01c080cb$f56187e0$7ca072d4@custom-pc> > >My vote would be the early Allied recce planes (BE2s, Farmans, Bleriots) = >that detected Kluck's First Army shift in objective to the east of Paris = >in September 1914. All recce planes and artillery spotters are a little be misjudged, by the kit producers, by WWI propaganda, by this 'important a/c' discussion.. I don't know the exact facts, but I think that flying hours done by two-seaters in those roles are definitely higher than those done by one-seaters. I consider this category more 'important' than the fighters. I can't say which type exactly was the type with the most hours in the air, but what's about an RE8 or and DFW C. V just as 'pars pro toto'? Had the Allies not been able to stop the Germans in = >the First Battle of the Marne, the race to the sea would not have = >happened and World War One may have ended with a German victory in 1914. > >Ken I can't resist ( and don't beat me for my thoughts): If WWI really would have ended in this way, an untalended post card copier from Austria may have started a career as an Opera paint shop professional and there would have been no need to free an russian agitator from his swiss exile. Hans ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2984 **********************