Grasshopper´s war

[Russell]

Stig

You are quite correct. There are a few levels to this issue of the Grasshoppers. They are often not mentioned in the air force level operation summaries. While the British operated as RAF Squadrons the existing ORBS are not very detailed as regards serials etc. They can be useful in noting things like and American Cub being shot down. We never tracked anything on the cub. It is very hard tracking the Americans as their aircraft operated at a battalion level with no known to me hierarchy of reporting that we found although the articles listed by Michael indicate one existed. How to track American casualties that were not missing is hard enough for Air Force units, let alone Liaison planes where I have rarely found MACRs for them. The finding of something new is part of the fun of doing history.

Cheers

Russell

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Russell

You basically confirm my suspicions.
The reason you have so few MACR for these crews/aircraft are most likely they were shot down in a sort of no man land and with a "constant" advance (well more or less) of the Allies both in Italy and Western Europe, even those individuals killed were most likely retrieved one way or the other.

I also have a feeling that the US Army more or less treated aircraft as they did with let's say artillery shells, they were there to be "disposed of". Some unit clercs were probably better than many others so some records exist but many others simply don't.

Hopefully I am wrong and in the future some "cache" will be found....but I don't keep my breath....

Cheers
Stig

[Frank Olynyk]

MACRs are a product of the USAAF. The L-4s and L-5s operated by the Army itself were never covered by MACRs. The problem with tracking down the Grasshopper losses is that the L-4 and L-5 aircraft are not assigned to actual squadrons, they are assigned in numbers of 2 to 4 at individual army unit levels. A few at Corps level, a few at Division level, at few at Artillery Regiment or Battalion level. To find the losses, or stories, one has to chew on each unit's records. For 5th Army there is a list of units in one of Wakefield's books (which I have), so I can hopefully pull each of those unit's records (assuming they are at NARA II; they might be at Carlisle). How long it will take me to read through that stuff looking for the rare gems, I have no idea.

Another source for material on L-4 and L-5 operations is the book Eye of Artillery, published by the Army, but it doesn't mention many losses either.

Enjoy!

Frank.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Aha Frank

I thought the USAAF and Army used the same system....
Certainly explains the lack of them then!

I have two books by Wakefield, but can only locate one of them right now. The one giving some losses is misplaced somewhere.....

Cheers
Stig

[Nick Beale]

The British Air Observation Post units were RAF Squadrons with (as far as I can tell from their ranks) Army aircrew, they have Operations Record Books in National Archives AIR 27 but also War Diaries in WO 170. In my very limited experience, neither version quite follows normal RAF practice on logging details of sorties, unfortunately.

[Martin Gleeson]

Frank,

To cut a long story short the Field Artillery unit histories/diaries seem to be still in Fort Sill Museum, Oklahoma. However they will probably not assist any enquiries due to staff shortages, and indeed may even deny the existence of such records, also for the same reason.

Regards,

Martin Gleeson.

[Stig Jarlevik]

There is another aspect to these Grasshopper aircraft (at least to me)

I have never considered them to be an actual part of the Air War itself. They were basically a way for the various Armies to extend their vision, especially the Artillery, where they must have been an invaluable tool. It must also have been a dream for any Army Commander to be able to get a bird eye view of the battlefield area. Understanding the terrain you are fighting in is one of the keys to win a battle (or at least not loosing it). Had it not been right in the middle of the war, I am certain that these aircraft had been in the end become 100% proper Army equipment. That this never happened during the war is probably what I use to call the "Göring syndrom", everything that flies belong to me....

So even if these aircraft were used to lot more than various spotting duties, they are basically Army history and should in fact be treated as that, even in such an important work as MAW series.

Should they be excluded? No!! An Air War does not happen in a vacuum, so I agree they should be mentioned and treated as good as possible with the present research in mind. I don't intend to require Frank (or anyone else) to go to Fort Sill and sit an extra year (or whatever) trying to extract details which, to me, has nothing to do with what the various authors are focusing on. If possible, walk an extra mile, but don't run a marathon!

Cheers
Stig

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

Should they be excluded? No!! An Air War does not happen in a vacuum, so I agree they should be mentioned and treated as good as possible with the present research in mind.
Cheers
Stig

I agree. When German fighters attacked them, they were certainly part of the air war.

P.S. in Britain we still have a situation where the Army has small helicopters but the RAF keeps the big ones … which are used to transport the Army.

[Monaco]

Thank you all gentlemen,
this seems to be and sorely will be a rather blind spot in the air war. Anyway this post enlighten it a little bit and I´m glad for your response. If time will permits I´ll post a list of all victory claims against the spotters/hoppers known to me hoping someone could add infos from the allied side.
So once more - mercy beaucoup to all the true "seniors" on this site!