Stunning German Photo Album

[Stig Jarlevik]

Hi Clint

The main problem all of us face is that we have no dates listed anywhere.
We don't know if the Halberstadts are survivors into the 1917-18 period.
We don't know if the /18 is an indication of 1918 or not. Logic says they are, but we have no 100% proof of that.

As said earlier, I would say it is impossible to be certain of any year/date when it comes to aircraft used by schools. Even if school aircraft crashed often, they were most likely rebuilt just as fast and no doubt lasted quite a bit longer than frontline aircraft, so it is no use just saying "Oh Halberstadt B.I, it must be very early training days in the beginning of the war", because we don't know that.

I am pretty convinced the ex manufacturers schools were using C-models as well. The further on in time we get, the difference between a B-type compared to the C-type became more and more pronounced. The latter became heavier and heavier, more marginal when it came to control, and much more specialized.
BTW there were no civil schools during the war. As soon as the short transition period was over, they were all controlled by the Army and Navy.
In the present case, Kees (and I) are very convinced the C-types using the /18 numbers and seen here are used by a training unit.

Whatever is the truth here, we certainly can agree, it is a most interesting album and it has raised a number of interesting questions with a very healthy and interesting discussion in its footsteps.

Cheers
Stig

[musec04]

Hi Stig,


As you said an interesting album and an interesting discussion.Being now guest free let me address a few of your points from the last post.


The main problem all of us face is that we have no dates listed anywhere.
We don't know if the Halberstadts are survivors into the 1917-18 period.
We don't know if the /18 is an indication of 1918 or not. Logic says they are, but we have no 100% proof of that.


We do know that the Halberstadt B.I survived until at least 1917 as the CL.II underwent Typenprüfung in May 1917 and entered service in August of that year.


As said earlier, I would say it is impossible to be certain of any year/date when it comes to aircraft used by schools. Even if school aircraft crashed often, they were most likely rebuilt just as fast and no doubt lasted quite a bit longer than frontline aircraft, so it is no use just saying "Oh Halberstadt B.I, it must be very early training days in the beginning of the war", because we don't know that.


Nobody has said that these photos are definitely early war.Please don't create straw dolls.The bottom line is, that if we used only written information rather than information we can reasonably deduce from what we can see in the photos- for example the photo of the CL.II or the known date of the change to the Balkenkreuz-we couldn't say anything.Why bother posting photos if not for the evidence we can gain from them.Speculation can be supported by visual evidence.



I am pretty convinced the ex manufacturers schools were using C-models as well. The further on in time we get, the difference between a B-type compared to the C-type became more and more pronounced. The latter became heavier and heavier, more marginal when it came to control, and much more specialized.




If manufacturers schools were operating C type aircraft without regular army Bestellnummern it seems a little strange that we have seen no photographic examples of this. Bear in mind that in 1918 a number of C class machines were being ordered specifically as trainers and the Rumpler C.I was one of these.While absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence your ‘I’m pretty convinced’ appears to be without any basis. Yes C types were used as trainers, but we have plentiful evidence of this for military run schools, but none for manufacturer run schools.If you have any evidence that would support C types being operated by manufacturers schools I very much look forward to seeing it and I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.




BTW there were no civil schools during the war. As soon as the short transition period was over, they were all controlled by the Army and Navy.
As I have previously pointed out civilian managed flying schools operated until the war’s end.I’m not sure why you are having trouble accepting this. But once again see precisely for Halberstadt: frontflieger.de/2-fshalberstadt.html Note that this is a separate entity from the military FEA 5: frontflieger.de/2-fea05.html. Please take a look at the lower half of this page with the Werks Militär Fliegerschulen paying particular attention to the date the schools were established. No short transistion period and some founded in 1915.


In the present case, Kees (and I) are very convinced the C-types using the /18 numbers and seen here are used by a training unit.




Who was ever arguing anything different?


Whatever is the truth here, we certainly can agree, it is a most interesting album and it has raised a number of interesting questions with a very healthy and interesting discussion in its footsteps.


Totally agree.

Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

Clint

Good point about the CL.II, which does give us a time frame.

While the Frontflieger.de site is pretty good, it lacks enormously in detail.
The date listed for Halberstadt for instance cannot have anything to do with them opening up their own civil flying school. Neither am I at all convinced about the existance of many schools having the same FEA number.
Also if you look at the dates (or rather the non-existance of them) when the so called Werks Fliegerschulen were created, you will see he basically have no dates anywhere. Halberstadt is pretty much the only company where he actually states a date at all!

I have no idea what the date 19.9.1914 actually is, but there is no way a civil flying school would open up one month plus after WW 1 had begun in earnest and set almost all of Europe ablaze. Possibly the date may relate to when the German Army took control of it. Also if you check the site, there is basically no details about that school what-so-ever.

Every pre-war German major aircraft manufacturer opened up a flying school (and so did everyone else in Europe). To attract customers, teach them how to fly, and after that hopefully sell their own product was basically their only way to survive, unless someone was willing to showel out money just for the fun of it. Halberstadt started up their business in 1912, and it would surprise me enormously if they did not open up some sort of school shortly after. All they had to do was to look and learn how everyone else did it. It is up to you if you accept the date 14.9.1914 as a date when Halberstadt opened up a "civil school", but I don't. I don't know in detail how these Werke schools operated, but I am totally convinced they were controlled by the militaries, even if nominally led by a civilian (owner).

Nothing strange that FEA 5 (which was based in Hannover) had nothing to do with the Halberstadt school (based in Halberstadt no doubt) since they must have been 30 - 40 miles apart. No idea why the site we refer to keeps saying that the Halberstadt school also was known as FEA 5. Makes no sense to me and I need far better proof than such a statement to believe that. Document please!

So far, you have not produced one convincing aspect to the odd Bestellnummer, visible on the Rumpler C.I and DFW C.V aircraft. They are actually my main interest in this album, since the aircraft without Bestellnummer can be readily explained, as we (you) already have done.
So for the time being I still believe these C-types were operated by some training unit outside the mainstream German Army ones. So not FEA 5 at Hannover! Which one, I have no idea, your guess is as good as mine, perhaps even better

Cheers
Stig

[musec04]

Hi Stig,


Truly, more information would be very desirable. Let me pass this by you, the date given reflects when pilots were trained by the flying school in question, specifically for the military. Prior to the date given, it’s just the flying school for the Manufacturer concerned founded at an earlier date.The key point is to my mind that you need to address is what is your evidence that they were controlled by the military and not by the civilian owners. We are in danger of getting into, to my mind a futile argument about semantics and I’m sure neither of us would wish that. So what evidence is there that these schools were run by the military? I’m not saying definitively that they were not – how to prove a negative after all, but the circumstantial evidence and not just in this thread but on others that have touched upon German training schools when we’ve discussed them in the past, is no Bestellnummer,yet some kind of serial system no military training school. Now I agree this is not enough evidence and a hostage to fortune beside, but you need to support your view that the schools were actually run by the military and not the manufacturers with evidence.I hope I'm open minded enough to say this is entirely possible, but faith is good, evidence is better.


I think we can both agree, that failing further evidence on the Rumplers and the DFW we are at present stuffed on the identity of the flying school shown. I think we can also agree it’s a training unit, but that’s about it. In fact your pointing to the fact that the aircraft shown belonged to a unit outside the mainstream army rather leads to the question – such as? The DFW C.V first flew May 1916, so if there were no civilian run schools as you contend, what remains? I’ve tried blowing up the symbol over the numbers but that doesn’t help. I fear we must await the emergence of further evidence on the unit shown. Start praying to the gods of ebay.



Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

Indeed Clint

Much more info would be very desirable.
When it comes to civil vs military during WW 1 I admit I have no good evidence except a gut feeling that everything which could remotely be connected to the war effort immediately became of prime interest to the "Generals".

Exactly how this finacially came about is unknown by me. I have not studied economy and finance (I have enough trouble with my own ) and never will.

What I can say with certainty is that every aircraft manufacturer became basically overnight very dependent on the Government aka military leadership and most likely followed whatever instructions were issued to the point.
Most likely the ownership remained unchanged in all/most companies, since there cannot have been any use to change anything unless pure incompetence/fraud was discovered.

Most likely there was a far better control than before from the authorities and it would surprise me a lot if there wasn't assigned liasion officers as a sort of go-between, since I would say it would have been very beneficial for both parties to do so.

As a means of recognition, all aircraft which were flyable were most likely impressed in one way or another (or at least grounded). They were also painted with military crosses and recognised as a military asset.

I cannot picture a situation where civil pilots, aircraft owners, aircraft manufacturers etc were left on their own accord and allowed to do whatever they pleased, especially not in Germany! All this lead up to the conclusion, that there must have been a general shifting of authority from pure civil in concept to at least a 50/50 civil/military control (Personally I believe even more in favour to the military side).

As long as the civil co-operation worked, I don't think anyone, regardless of position, felt any need for any changes. Big capital and Generals are usually on the same side both in war and peace....

No, it is the odd military markings which interests me. Did these manufacturers training facilities use aircraft outside the military Bestellnummer sequences or not? If they didn't, how do we explain these odd photos and numbers painted on them?
So far my theory is they did, but I will admit defeat as soon as someone can come up with a better one....

Cheers
Stig