Who ruled the skies during WWI?
>>423520
At the start of the war France held the highest amount of military planes in service, at around 140.
UK was second with 120.
France already partially knew the advantages of air support because of their recent colonial conflicts.
But you really have to specify a period for me to give your a question a more specific answer.
>>423534
More specific: who used their infant air force most effectively to support the war effort as a whole and which nation won the most air battles
>>423520
No one
French, Brits, Germans sometimes met, but no one constantly dominated the sky
>>423560
This.
Air superiority ebbed and flowed throughout the war.
>>423556
The shift of air superiority switched often, Germany pulled alot of big offensives (See Fokker Scourge) but the balance was always the same.
On the Italo-Austrain front Italy totaly dominated the skies, which helped alot.
You have to count that alot of air mission were recon and spotting, which then resulted in skhirmishers and that baloons were alos often used.
Bombings wern't a big thing since planes could only carry small loads.
So i'd say it was balanced, no one really won the skies.
Pic related, funeral of the Red Baron, held by the Australian Army.
>>423520
Entirely depended on what time period you're talking about.
Nobody really controlled it in 1914 because critical things like interrupter gears were yet to be developed. You still had the odd aircraft going up with a gun on it, but generally nobody had air superiority.
In 1915, the Fokker monoplanes (with an interrupter gear) came into service, giving the Germans a huge edge over the Entente. For a while, they had complete air superiority, but only over their side of the front because they were too afraid of having the interrupter gear fall into enemy hands.
Things shifted back in favor of the Entente by 1916 when planes like the DH.2 and Neiuport 17 came along, but the Albatros D-series fighters would tip things slightly in favor of the Germans once again.
At the very end of the war, the Germans had arguably the best fighters of the war (Fokker D.VII and .VIII), which were so effective that the terms of Versailles actually called for them to be confiscated, but by then there wasn't really enough to give them an edge like the Eindekkers had given them in 1915.
As for their impact, it wasn't all that great. Air superiority in WW1 really only meant that you could scout the enemy lines at will and perform the occasional harassment bombing. While helpful, it wasn't decisive.
>>423575
I still can hardly believe they would actually send people up there with guns behind the propeller before figuring out how to not shoot it off on a regular basis.
>>423587
They also made aircraft who slow down enough to land without the engine conking out, so your best bet was to fly real low and then cut the engine and hope you survived the crash.
It was still better than being in the trenches.
>>423588
The average lifespan of a british recon pilot was 90 hours.
One thing you also have to remember is that air operations were nothing at all like we think of today, or even like they were in WW2. The pilots of the Fokker Scourge (Immelman and Boelcke being the most notable) were often flying out alone. Unit tactics didn't exist for some time, and with the only enemy aircraft being docile reconnaissance platforms it wasn't like you needed to sortie more than a single plane at a time. Jagdstaffeln had little organization and no specialization to them for some time, and only in 1917 was the first fighter wing - Jadgeschwader I - formed, composed of four pure-fighter Jagdstaffeln.
Problem was that there was only one of them. They were constantly moving around the front, and with the short endurance you have on WW1 fighters, you could never really ensure air superiority over any single area.
>>423587
Didnt it fire at a rate that was timed by the propeller itself?
>>423624
That was only with the synchronizer gear. There was a period where pilots did fly without it though.
>>423575
>Air superiority in WW1 really only meant that you could scout the enemy lines at will
The importance of this is often understated, especially when it comes to artillery spotting. Having an excellent picture of the enemy trench layout lets you know which of the rear trenches to hit with artillery beforehand, where the other side will likely to fall back to and where he'll likely to launch his inevitable counterattack from.
>>423587
there was a time when air to air combat consisted of handguns.
>>423703
somehow i feel as though that's still safer than playing russian roulette every time you wanted to fire your guns
>>423703
>>423752
>As Dickson had predicted, initially air combat was extremely rare, and definitely subordinate to reconnaissance. There are even stories of the crew of rival reconnaissance aircraft exchanging nothing more belligerent than smiles and waves.[8]
>This soon progressed to throwing grenades, and other objects - even grappling hooks.[10] The first aircraft brought down by another was an Austrian reconnaissance aircraft rammed on 8 September 1914 by Russian pilot Pyotr Nesterov in Galicia in the Eastern Front. Both planes crashed as the result of the attack killing all occupants.
>Eventually pilots began firing handheld firearms at enemy aircraft,[8] however pistols were too inaccurate and the single shot rifles too unlikely to score a hit. On October 5, 1914, French pilot Louis Quenault opened fire on a German aircraft with a machine gun for the first time and the era of air combat was under way as more and more aircraft were fitted with machine guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_in_World_War_I
>>423703
Did people manage to take down planes with handguns?
>>423777
You could kill the other pilot.
>>423782
Are there recordes kills of it?
The entire idea to just point a pistol/revolver in the middle of flight and shoot another plane in hopes of killing the enemy pilot sounds too crazy for me
>>423845
>Owen J. Baggett
On March 31, 1943, when they were stationed in British India, Baggett's squadron was ordered to destroy a bridge at Pyinmana, Burma.[4] But before reaching their target, the B-24 bombers were intercepted by Japanese fighter planes. Baggett's plane was badly hit, and the crew were ordered to bail out. The Japanese pilots then attacked U.S. airmen as they parachuted to earth. Two of Baggett's crew members were killed, and Baggett, though wounded, played dead, hoping the Japanese would ignore him. One Zero approaching within several feet of Baggett, then nose-up and in an almost-stall, the pilot opened his canopy. Baggett shot at the pilot with his .45 calibre pistol. The plane stalled and plunged to the earth,[7][8][9] with Baggett becoming legendary as the only person to down a Japanese airplane with a M1911 pistol.[1][4][10][11][12]
>STOPPING POWAH
>>423520
Scouting planes is hardly ruling the skies
>>423765
>Grappling hooks
>tfw modernization of machine guns robbed us of being skypirates
>tfw you will never fly your triplane and zipline onto and enemy zepplin for the glory of the American Empire
Why live
>>423520
Did aircraft have any practical effect on the ground war other than observation? Did bi-planes ever do gun runs on ground troops?
>>424213
>shoot grappling hook to enemy zepplin
>it pierces the baloon, causing it to loose altitude
>you zipline over to it
>your plane crashes but you manage to take control of the airship
>you are now in control of an airship that's about to crash
>>424513
no but they carried bombs
>>424577
>it pierces the baloon, causing it to loose altitude
Even commercial Zeppelins and their gas cells are segmented. In a presumably military zeppelin there'd probably be even more subdivisions in order to limit the chance of a catastrophic explosion or loss of buoyancy.
>>424577
>deploy wing suit
>do sick flips
>dive to the ground
>land with exploding wreckage behind you
>nothing personell...kid
>>424577
>Balloons instantly drop like a stone the moment they spring a leak
At the rate helium/hydrogen would leave a grappling-hook-sized hole, your airship would have long since gently floated down to the ground before there was any real danger of a crash.
>>423520
Pidgeons
>>424592
I don't know to much about zepplins but isn't the gas ratio pretty accurateley modeked to support the weigh of the airshi and not much more? So even if a cell gives up you'd loose buoyancy, not so much to drop like a stone but enough to have you turn around and abort your mission.
>>424624
>but isn't the gas ratio pretty accurateley modeked to support the weigh of the airshi and not much more?
It's modeled to support the weight of the airship at the intended height, but that doesn't mean it's not float-or-drop. If you lost a cell you'd definitely lose some height, but you could probably easily counterbalance that loss by letting in air at a lower height and you'd still be able to fly indefinitely assuming no more gas is lost.
>>424624
You'd lose maximum altitude, but you could stay flying without any difficulties. It's the same as if you leave a party balloon out after several days. It doesn't immediately drop to the ground the second day--it floats at a lower height each day until it's too heavy to get off the ground entirely. Assuming the amount of gas isn't too large, you're just going from a fresh party balloon to a day-old-party balloon in terms of maximum altitude.
>>424577
I...don't think you know how a Zeppelin works.
>>423894
Scouting planes bring down the artillery.
>>423878
what possible reason would the pilot open his canopy for
>>424921
To clear the fog-up in one's canopy. Common problem in older planes.
>>424921
Maybe he wanted to slash at him with his pot-metal katana
>>424921
Very common with slower planes, especially carrier aircraft.
>>423560
I think a case could easily be made for the Allies having air superiority in 1918, definitely in the last six months of the war anyway.
>>423520
>Who ruled the skies during WWI?
Thrust vectoring.
