Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Reporting Hostile (German) Air Activity


sjustice

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

When reporting enemy aircraft crossing British lines the different patrol or aircraft types were reported as "F.E.A.", "A.E.A." and "R.E.A.".

Although guesses can be advanced as to the interpretation of these acronyms does anyone have a definitive description?

Kind Regards,

SMJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*BUMP*

Apologies for the regurgitation.

Anyone?

Kind Regards,

SMJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Trevor and thanks very much for the reply. Yes, it's possible. Good guess.

Problem is, for example, how would one differentiate between Arty and Recon from the ground?

Maybe Fighter = single seater and others = dual...

I don't think that's it.

Another guess of mine, as it is in the context of crossing our lines is Advancing, Retiring and Fighting...

That would also appear to be useful information?

Anyone know the answer? One would think, although not gauranteed, that this is written up somewhere?

Kind Regards,

SMJ

Simon,

Guessing here, but maybe ..

F.E.A. Fighter..

A.E.A. Artillery..

R.E.A. Recon...

Wadya think?

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'lo Tom

Examples I have seen are present in documents at ARMY level Summary of Operations (Daily).

These would be prepared for GHQ who would then synthesise into BEF (and attached) level summaries.

An example (IV Army) of this report would include sections:

1) Army Operational narrative

2) Corps level summary

3) Flanking Army note (Left)

4) Flanking Army note (Right)

5) Aircraft Report

a. British

b. Hostile...

Actual example:

"Activity was below normal in view of the operations in progress. 22 F.E.A., 3 A.E.A. and 2 R.E.A. crossed the line"

6) Prisoners

7) Weather

8) Reliefs and Moves

9) Composition of (Fourth) Army

10) Ammunition Expenditure

Cheers,

SMJ

Perhaps a bit of context would be useful here. Who was reporting to whom? When? Do we know why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks SMJ. EA = Enemy Aircraft ? So what is F, R, A? Of interest to GHQ would be direction or purpose. ( I am thinking aloud here, I expect you can hear the whirring). I'll have a look but it doesn't ring any bells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon,

I think you are right Advancing, Retreating and Fighting. The ground observer of the day would not have been able to identify what most aircraft were actually doing (other than fighting/dog-fighting), however the aircraft track would have been important to Ib for what much later became counterintelligence analysis, the summary you describe would have also come from reporting which later became known as HOSTAIRREP, Hostile Air Report. To be able to overlay the enemy air activity over friendly activity (new ammo dumps etc), CI analysis, would have been exceptionally important.

Kindest,

Chris H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Tom/Chris,

Thanks for the extra input.

Any more for any more?

Kind Regards,

SMJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Simon,

Taking two of these suggestions, "Advancing Aircraft" or "Retiring Aircraft" - they just don't seem right to me. Aircraft don't retire or advance. That's what forces on the ground do. And even these - well I guess ground forces actually retired or advanced only about 5% of the time. In the air you patrol offensively, tactically etc. all the time . How does an aircraft "retire"? How does it cross the lines?

Returning to my earlier guesses of Fighter/Artillery/Recon (and they remain guesses) - you'd be surprised what sense could be made of what aircraft were doing in the air. I've just re-read Oliver Stewart's book on air tactics. Remember that German recon was very often done differently from the Allies - with single aircraft at great height. He points out that using a single aircraft was a very good approach because they were relatively hard to detect. But he also discusses how easy it was to detect enemy aircraft engaged on doing different things, simply by observing them with an experienced eye. The first rule of air fighting was to spot your enemy before he spotted you, but the second was to establish what he was doing as it told you how you should attack it, where it was likely to be by the time you engaged it etc. As you'll know, the RFC employed escorting fighters much more commonly.

The observers on the ground charged with recording enemy aircraft intrusion would be as knowledgeable as anyone about interpreting what they could see.

Regards,

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Trevor

...I guess ground forces actually retired or advanced only about 5% of the time. In the air you patrol offensively, tactically etc. all the time . How does an aircraft "retire"? How does it cross the lines?

I take your point entirely. Having said that, the air forces were probably the only formations that actually did advance and retire every day throughout the whole period of siege warfare? From the British perspective, 'advancing' = going generally west or from German to British held territory with 'retiring' being the opposite. I still don't like my own logic that much though :)

...Returning to my earlier guesses of Fighter/Artillery/Recon (and they remain guesses) - you'd be surprised what sense could be made of what aircraft were doing in the air. I've just re-read Oliver Stewart's book on air tactics...

Again, this holds an attraction to me as a good possibility, but...the differentiation between artillery and recon remains too difficult to be practical...unless, perhaps, an aircraft was going backwards and forwards over our batteries for 1/2 hour? It still doesn't feel right.

Somewhere (GHQ) this information was being collated into a bigger picture. I sense the final version of these figures needs to be found which should lead back to some form of explanation (yes, I know, like that always happens!)

I've tried this on an Air Vice Marshall with a special interest in WWI - NFI. I have recruited him to the cause, however!

Here's hoping.

Thanks for all the replies and interest. There is an answer out there...

Kind Regards,

SMJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trevor,

I don't dispute what you have commented on from Oliver Stewart's book and the development of German aerial tactics. But notwithstanding that a trained/experienced eye (an aerial observer or RFC officer on the ground) could make a reasonably accurate supposition on what an individual aircraft was doing, it was often more important, for the ground observer and the ground HQ's, to know where the enemy aircraft had flown and when, to determine what they may have observed, reported or photographed further back than the enemy balloon posts could see. We need to remember that aircraft of the day tended to have been developed as multi or dual purpose and therefore the function, when flying in company with other aircraft, or even alone, could be indistinguishable to the ground observer.

For the artillery and general area observation, yes an aircraft doing loops, racecourses or figure eights from "behind" their own lines, protected by ack-ack is obvious as such would be understood. Von Richtofen's Flying Circus in full swing flying over you is is not. Were they just out for a "scrap" and another Pour le Merite? Were they protecting bombers? Or were they protecting a photographic reconnainsance mission? Or is that aircraft heading towards enemy lines (retiring) a straggler? Ground observers often couldn't distinguish the difference and therefore the need for a basic form of "HostAirRep" and a simple report (pre voice) tapped out on a simple spark ciricuit code from a trench HQ advising that enemy aircraft, the time and the number had advanced over your trench, or retired towards enemy lines would seem far more plausible.

We also need to remember that up, down and across the trench system and unit "chain of command" everyone was reporting these sightings to Corps and Army, therefore accuracy, brevity and concise reporting, delivered in a consistent way, that was importantly unreliant on a trained observer was what was required.

To give you a small example from my past, if a Mirage IIIO flew over in the 70's from the ground you couldn't distinguish whether it was a camera fitted aircraft, or whether it was a fighter on an interdiction mission, later in the 80's the same could theoretically be said of the F111, but given every time I saw one, it was after it had flown over us at tree top level at near Mach it was academic!

Anyway the source for the proof will be in the SS pamphlets, I am told the list of SS pamphlets at the IWM, which is an incomplete set, extends to 113 pages!

cheers,

Chris H

cheers,

Chris H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...