Aerial Recon on the Western Front

I believe it looked more like the second photo. I'm currently preparing to do a painting of the flight, for Darryl, who has supplied me with a wealth of detailed info, including copies of the recce photos, and some ground level shots of the villa and Wurzburg pit, plus present day photos.
As an aside, I 'jumped in' to the same DZ, on the 30th anniversary of the Bruneval raid.
And Chris, I love your new 'siggy' !!!

oh my......

Basic principles of Photo recon are set out in the US Field Manuals. (Major David Dengler US Army 2009)

Field Manual 1-20, Tactics and Technique of Air Reconnaissance and Observation, 1942; Field Manual 1-35, Aerial Photography, 1941; Field Manuals 30-10, Observation, 1940, and Field Manual 30-21, Military Intelligence - Role of Aerial Photography, 1940, provided the basics of observation and photographic reconnaissance that units and soldiers needed to employ this capability. These four manuals served as the best of nine primary manuals available, but each covered topics in varying degrees of detail and lacked a common organizational thread. Therefore, soldiers would have had a difficult time finding information on similar subjects. Field Manual 1-20 described the four basic missions that occurred throughout the war: visual and photographic reconnaissance, artillery adjustment, and liaison. Its authors acknowledged that missions would entail not only deep penetration for strategic targets, but also coverage of large areas close to the battlefront to secure information of the enemy rear and flanks. The manual fundamentally misunderstood the aircraft types best suited to perform these missions in the contemporary threat environment. It assumed that high performance fighters would satisfy the deep penetration missions while light, low performance aircraft would handle missions along the battlefront.19 Events in North Africa forced a reassessment of that concept due to heavy losses among light aircraft.
This manual also described support to different ground echelons of the field army, the corps and division. The two biggest differences between these levels concerned the scope of area covered and the degree of detail. While support to a field army and corps required the broadest coverage and description of enemy activity in general terms, divisions needed a continuous supply of as much information as aerial reconnaissance could provide, to include individual firing positions and points of resistance. Ideally, according to Field Manual 1-20, Tactics and Technique of Air Reconnaissance and Observation, reconnaissance units should remain physically close to the supported unit headquarters, be included within the communications networks, and have the capability to relocate quickly in support of rapid advances by mobile forces.20 Ground commanders believed that too much separation between ground and air command headquarters would create communication and coordination problems. This represented a differing philosophy that existed throughout the war on the degree of centralization needed to allow airmen the flexibility to meet the demands of many units across a wide area versus the decentralization required to effectively support individual ground commanders. In addition to the various echelons, Field Manual 1-20 described variations in support required by artillery, infantry, cavalry, and armor units. Artillery needed accurate target identification, registration and adjustment of artillery fire, with a focus on long-range artillery fire against defiladed positions. Once again, the Army focused on multi-seat light aircraft, ―The use of single-seater observation airplanes for artillery missions is limited. Pilots are not ordinarily trained in the principles of adjustment of artillery fire. Moreover, the pilot's concern with the handling of the airplane will interfere with an alternate role as observer.‖21 The distinctions between infantry, cavalry, and armor reflected thinking similar to the armies and divisions; mobile units needed area coverage like armies to identify routes and major hostile units, but also sufficient detail to identify weak points to attack. Only in support of armor forces did a realization exist that light aircraft might not suffice, ―The rapidity of armored force operations may frequently require that combat aircraft perform the dual role of reconnaissance and attack during a single flight in order to insure timely support in fast moving situations.

Terry, do show us the result of your painting and any reference photos you use.

Good to hear you're doing another painting, Terry!

Will do Grant, and thanks Chris. I just hope my hands and wrists can cope; the arthritis is getting worse, and my right shoulder, and both wrists are still aching from using the cameras at the Duxford air show a week ago!

Airframes said:

Will do Grant, and thanks Chris. I just hope my hands and wrists can cope; the arthritis is getting worse, and my right shoulder, and both wrists are still aching from using the cameras at the Duxford air show a week ago!

Click to expand...

Have you tried a monopod for the cameras. A friend who has problems with a frozen shoulder and a bad knee cant use anything more than a mobile phone without support but his monopod which also doubles as a walking stick has made a massive difference to him. I think its this one

Hama Alpenpod Walking Stick with Monopod for DSLR: Amazon.co.uk: Camera Photo

Thanks. I've considered a monopod, and tried my tripod, folded as a monopod. But I find both too restrictive, especially when panning, and certainly for high-angle shots.
I use a shoulder stock, with a pistol grip and remote on the Nikon, but 'modern' DSLR's, being so clumsily designed, and off balance (compared to film SLR's ), really pull on the wrists. Unfortunately, I contracted Rheumatoid Arthritis some years ago, which is getting progressively worse and, as it effects the nervous system and immune system, dexterity and articulation really suffer!

Sorry to hear that getting old is a bugger isnt it. Your right about DSLRs being badly balanced I still have my 32 year old Olympus OM10 and its a hefty beast but everything falls to hand and it seems so much easier to point and aquire for a shot than the DSLRs I have tried. Only problem is its film and its geting to be too much bother to get it processed these days. Now got a Leica D compact and loving it again no lightweight but it just feels right.

Yep, I recently sold my Olympus OM1's and lenses, after 30 years of use. Beautifully engineered and easy and quick to use. Even used them for oblique aerial shots, which is almost related to this thread!

Thanks Terry. There was a reason for the change.

Airframes said:

Yep, I recently sold my Olympus OM1's and lenses, after 30 years of use. Beautifully engineered and easy and quick to use. Even used them for oblique aerial shots, which is almost related to this thread!

Click to expand...

I am very confident that my DSLR will not be in use after 30 years. That progess for you

That's some pretty specialised camera equipment you sold there, Terry. One thing I don't understand is why film is still so expensive when only specialists use it; surely it should be cheaper for the public now than ever before with the rise of digital photography and almost everything with a camera on it.

There was a reason for the change.

Click to expand...

Is that an Fw 187C in your siggy, Chris?

You should know me better! Me 410 - recon!

nuuumannn said:

That's some pretty specialised camera equipment you sold there, Terry. One thing I don't understand is why film is still so expensive when only specialists use it; surely it should be cheaper for the public now than ever before with the rise of digital photography and almost everything with a camera on it.

Click to expand...

The problem is that film itself is a more specialised product and is being manufactured in far smaller quantities - note the comment "Please contact your stockhouse dealer regarding availability" KODAK PROFESSIONAL Films Most film being is now concentrated on the large format, professional end of the market while 35mm has a far smaller share.

Njaco said:

You should know me better! Me 410 - recon!

Click to expand...

I always thought that the Ar240 was interesting and was capable of becoming the successor to the Bf110.

It never really got past the prototype stage, but interestingly enough, several of the aircraft were used for high speed/high altitude recon over England.

You should know me better! Me 410 - recon!

Click to expand...

Sorry Chris, I was being facetious! I know its a '410; with that 'nose', it could only be!

Thanks Aozora, I do still have 35 mm film cameras, but the cost of film and developing is too high for me to continue using these.

Its not just price and availability of 35mm film its also getting it developed. I finally dropped film when the last place in my area that did developing in house stopped doing it. Apparently the machinery was costing more to maintain than the work justified. You can send film away to be developed but its eye wateringly expensive with the price of insured delivery.

Yep, all the '1 Hour', relatively cheap processing places have gone, although I think some branches of 'Bootes' still offer D&P, probably at a higher cost than it used to be. The alternative is a Professional processing lab, if there's one locally. But that will be even more expensive.

Sad, really. Part of the fun of going to a foreign country and visiting some obscure spot in the middle of nowhere and photographing the planes there was waiting with anticipation for the photos to come back of what it was you went to see, when you got back. Something has been lost in the digital age; the name Kodak for a start. When I was young, anyone wielding a camera and happily snapping away at everything was known as a "Kodak Warrior".