Aerial Recon on the Western Front

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

stona said:
They are alive and thriving still. Many have discovered a new and profitable niche in health and safety.
Cheers
Steve
Click to expand...

Hate to disagree Steve (and no, I do not never have worked in H&S) but I think the real problem here is not H&S but insurance and the way people have become much more willing to sue, coupled with 'no win, no fee' legal support.
Schools almost every business going is terrified of being sued.
Silly - often mythical or half-truth - tabloid tales aside, H&S has grown along side this of course (as a set of 'rules' to try to safe-guard from financial ruin) but I think it has largely become a handy public scapegoat diversion from the activities of the legal insurance professions who are the real culprits.
 
Eric Brown flew one found in France, groundcrew claimed that it was used on recon flights over GB. It had DB 605A engines. While he things it had impressive max speed of 390mph at 20,000ft it had terrible harmony of controls, dangerous stalling characteristics incl. high-speed stallling, poor engine-out characteristics. Ending to note that that Ar 240 had outstanding performance for its class and era, but it could not capitalise on this because of inferior and indeed dangerous handling characteristics.

Ar 440 was in my understanding clearly better behaving a/c but it arrived too late, Me 210/410 was already chosen to be replacement of 110.

Juha
 
Gixxerman said:
Hate to disagree Steve (and no, I do not never have worked in H&S) but I think the real problem here is not H&S but insurance and the way people have become much more willing to sue, coupled with 'no win, no fee' legal support.
Click to expand...

Health and Safety at work has never been the problem. Keeping people safe and in some cases saving them from their own stupidity, can only be a good thing. It is the arbitrary and inconsistent application and interpretation of the rules by some H+S officers which is the problem. Many, even most, are very good. Some are blithering jobsworths who appear to have forgotten their training, if they ever had any, and certainly haven't any experience at the sharp end.
And yes, I have been dealing with them for years
Cheers
Steve
 
iirc, there was a Lockheed Electra modified shortly before WW2 which wandered over Europe clandestinely performing aerial reconnaissance. I think the aircraft was owned by an anglophile American and flown out of Britain.
 
2 Electra 12s were officially bought by British Airways Ltd but were actually bought by the British Govt intelligence MI6 and were modified by Sidney Cotton with cameras and flown all over Europe.
 

The USN, for observing its shoots, especially after Sicily used Spitfires, Wildcats, and Hellcats (Google "VOF-1" and "VCS-7"). The aircraft would typically operate in pairs, with one pilot observing the shoot and the second pilot escorting the first.
 
Correct, and they were used over the D day beaches too, in this case, RAF aircraft impressed into USN service. But again, this is AOP work, not recce.
 
While looking for 20 Nov 43 losses, came across losses of Aufklärungsgruppe 123, so here is more LR Recon Bf 109G-4/R3 losses in West in 1943 as an addenda to my earlier message. It would be nice to know the number of sorties flown by these 2 Staffeln and their targets. Number of losses alone doesn't tell too much.

4.(F)/Aufklärungsgruppe 123 got 6 new Bf 109G-4/R3 2.43, 3.43 7 new more, lost one without enemy action, 4.43 got 2 new more, lost 4, of which 3 by enemy action and 1 without, in 5.43 1 new more but lost 2 by enemy action, in 6.43 3 new more, lost one without enemy action, in 8.43 I new more, lost 1 by enemy action, 2 without and one to Überholung, in 9.43 1 new more, lost 1 by enemy action, in 10.43 lost 1 without enemy action, in 11.43 lost 1 without enemy action. Operating from Normandy. So 7 lost to enemy and 7 otherwise in 1943.

5.(F)/Aufklärungsgruppe 123 got 3 new Bf 109G-4/R3 in 2.43, in 3.43 got 6 new Bf 109G-4/R3, lost 1 by enemy action, in 4.43 got 5 new Bf 109G-4/R3, lost 1 without enemy action, in 6.43 1 new more, lost 2 by enemy action and one without. In 8.43 1 new more, lost 1 without enemy action, in 9.43 lost 1 by enemy action and 1 without, in 10.43 lost 1 by enemy action and 1 without, in 12.43 1 transferred to another unit. Was based in Northern France. So 5 lost to enemy and 5 otherwise in 1943.
 
Noticed just Tante Ju's message #133, he gladly compares apples to oranges, C.I.U = Central Interpretation Unit, so it interpretated aerial photos and of course the numbers incl only those sorties that sent to them photos to be interpretated. There were lot more recon flights flown by RAF, e.g. in mid July 40 CC flew c. 45 anti-invasion patrols daily, that alone makes some 1350 recon flights per month.

Juha
 
I think the aircraft was owned by an anglophile American and flown out of Britain.
Click to expand...

Like Mongrel said, the chap was Frederick Sidney Cotton, who was Australian. He is credited for the idea of using Spitfires for photo reconnaissance, but the idea was put forward by a serving RAF officer called Maurice "Shorty" Longbottom, in a paper he wrote before the outbreak of war about future photo recon, where he suggests the use of single-seat high speed aircraft, including Spitfires. Cotton's two Lockheeds, G-AFTL and 'AGTL still survive, the former in Canada and the latter in France.
 
Airframes said:
Correct, and they were used over the D day beaches too, in this case, RAF aircraft impressed into USN service. But again, this is AOP work, not recce.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree it's the same sort of work as done by AOPs, but observing battleship and cruiser gunfire was a role of units like VCS-7 from their establishment.
 
Best I can do right now for Mossie PR loss rates is the following, reflecting Mossie sorties undertaken for the PRU, before the unit was split into numerous other squadrons, including 540 Sqn for the Mosquitos, later to be joined by 544 Squadron as part of the PR wing, separate from other PR ops such as those for 2nd TAF or MEAF.



This reflects all sorties, whether photos were taken or not, (mainly when the targets were cloud-covered). Represents only around 300 sorties total, which is why the month-on-month loss rates jump around.

Many of the sorties reflect the PRU's roots in Coastal Command, and were to keep an eye on German naval units, but nota bene, these include flights to Kiel in November '41, and Gdynia, Danzig and Koenigsberg, the first two being visited as early as 15 January '42, the latter on 3 March '42. Other targets were Stettin and Swinemuende in March, Augsburg and Stuttgart in April, Dresden, Pilsen and Regensburg in May.

Just noted Juha's avatar is none other than Porco Rosso - great flick.
 
Last edited:
Many of the sorties reflect the PRU's roots in Coastal Command, and were to keep an eye on German naval units
Click to expand...

This again dates back to Cotton approaching the Air ministry with his ideas and initially being turned away, but not after he had done the same thing to the Admiralty, who took him up on his offer. He carried out a few over flights of German naval facilities in his Lockheeds, capturing superior photos than the oines the RAF had taken; he even stole the show at a meeting that he had turned up to on the invite of the Admiralty (I think) where the RAF were asked to get images of the German ships and they couldn't, this is after the shooting had started and Cotton walks in and produces these beautifully clear images of exactly what the Admiralty wanted. The navy made better use of the Photographic Development Unit in the very early days than the RAF. The Coastal Command stationing was as much a ruse - as was the name Photographic Development Unit - as it was because Fighter Command was less than interested in unarmed Spitfires in its ranks.
 
There was a fourth Ar 240 - this was the A-01 W.Nr 0011 GL-QA reallocated to Aufkl.Gr. Ob.d.l in October 1942 and used for operations over Southern England. It was also used by VfH in early 1944, then became T9-GL of 1./F.100.
Click to expand...

From reading about this aircraft, this machine in the image was built as Ar 240A-04, which was a hybrid fitted with DB603s, four bladed propellers and extended wing sections outboard of the engines to take a longer span wing. This aircraft and other similarly modified Ar 240, the Ar 240A-03 and 'V-9 and V-10 (according to the information I read), were variously referred to as Ar 440s as a revised variant of an existing troublesome airframe, much like Me 210 to Me 410. The profile Aozora provides captions the aircraft T9-GL as an Ar 240, but was a hybrid and is referred to as an Ar 440 with the modifications previously mentioned according to Arado drawings - I got this from reading another chap's research. Other differences include different cowls and tail fins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Hs-129 use on the Western Front/MTO?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Andrew Arthy
A
S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
10
Views
453
GregP
J
BF-109K-4 aerial victories
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
CHen10
F
Aerial mines
Replies
2
Views
750
BC1
Ta 152 Ha aerial victories
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Demopan78
Menu
Log in
Register